HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-02-26 e-packet
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, Council Chambers, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco,
California.
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.
KARYL MATSUMOTO
Mayor
RICHARD A. GARBARINO
Vice Mayor
MARK ADDIEGO
Councilman
PRADEEP GUPTA
Councilman
LIZA NORMANDY
Councilwoman
FRANK RISSO
City Treasurer
KRISTA MARTINELLI
City Clerk
STEVEN T. MATTAS
Interim City Manager
JASON ROSENBERG
Interim City Attorney
PLEASE SILENCE CELL PHONES AND PAGERS
HEARING ASSISTANCE EQUIPMENT AVAILABLE FOR USE BY THE HEARING IMPAIRED AT CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS
In accordance with California Government Code Section 54957.5, any writing or document that is a public record, relates to an open
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.
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
REGULAR MEETING
MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
33 ARROYO DRIVE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2014
7:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
AGENDA REVIEW
PRESENTATIONS
• Introduction of New Employees and Newly Promoted Employees.
• Certificates of Recognition for past Board members and Commissioners.
• Certificate of Recognition from Council for Jan Rao, Executive Director of Willows in
the Wind.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
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 not on 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.
COUNCIL COMMENTS/REQUESTS
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Motion to approve City Council minutes for the meeting of February 12, 2014.
2. Motion confirming payment registers for February 26, 2014.
3. Resolution awarding the construction contract to GECO, Inc. of Novato, California, for
the City Hall Annex Renovation Project (Project No. 131407) in an amount not to exceed
$61,720; amending the 2013-2014 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to include the
Project, and appropriating a project budget in the amount of $80,320 from the General
Fund Reserves.
4. Waive reading and adopt an Ordinance making revisions and clarifications to chapter
20.210 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, related to the Bay West Cove
specific plan district; and an Ordinance adopting a development agreement for the
Development of a 20.1 acre site for the Britannia Cove at Oyster Point project in the Bay
West Cove specific plan district.
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 26, 2014
AGENDA PAGE 2
5. Resolution updating the list of designated positions and applicable disclosure categories
for the City of South San Francisco's Conflict of Interest Code.
LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS
6. Ordinance amending Chapter 8.54 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code regarding
the total amount of penalties administratively imposed for municipal code violations.
PUBLIC HEARING
7. “Centennial Village” Safeway Shopping Center
Shamain Partnership /Owner
WT Mitchell Group, Inc/Applicant
180 El Camino Real (APN 014-183-110)
P11-0065: UP11-0006, DR11-0019, ND12-0004, DA13-0002 & TDM13-0001
Consideration of Planning Commission recommendation to approve a Use Permit,
Design Review, Transportation Demand Management Plan, Development Agreement and
Mitigated Negative Declaration to construct a mixed-use project including approximately
222,000 square feet of commercial space and 285 residential units on a 14.5 acre site
located at 180 El Camino Real in the El Camino Real Mixed Use (ECRMX) Zoning
District, in accordance with SSFMC Titles 19 and 20.
ITEMS FROM COUNCIL – COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 26, 2014
AGENDA PAGE 3
Staff Report
DATE: February 26, 2014
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Patrick O’Keeffe, Economic and Community Development Consultant
SUBJECT: CENTENNIAL VILLAGE – USE PERMIT, DESIGN REVIEW,
TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A
PHASED DEVELOPMENT TO CONSTRUCT A MIXED-USE PROJECT
INCLUDING APPROXIMATELY 222,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL
SPACE AND 284 RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON A 14.5 ACRE SITE LOCATED AT
180 EL CAMINO REAL IN THE EL CAMINO REAL MIXED USE (ECRMX)
ZONING DISTRICT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SSFMC CHAPTERS 19.60,
20.090, 20.300, 20.330, 20.350, 20.400, 20.440, 20.450, 20.460, 20.480 & 20.490.
Address: 180 El Camino Real (APN 014-183-110)
Owner: Shamain Partnership
Applicant: El Camino and Spruce LLC
Case No.: P11-0065: UP11-0006, DR11-0019, TDM13-0001, DA13-0002 &
ND12-0004
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council take one of the following actions:
1. Adopt a resolution making findings and adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration;
adopt a resolution approving a use permit, design review and transportation demand
management plan; and waive reading and introduce an Ordinance approving a
Development Agreement; or,
2. Adopt a resolution making findings and denying the Project.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The City Council has previously held public hearings on the application for the Centennial Village
Project at 180 El Camino Real (“Project”) at their regularly scheduled meetings of September 11,
2013, September 25, 2013 and October 23, 2013. As background, the proposed Project consists of
the demolition of the existing 145,000 square foot shopping center and replacing it with a mixed-
use shopping center containing 220,000 square feet of commercial area, including 284 residential
units on upper levels. The development would be constructed in up to three phases; following is a
breakdown of each specific phase:
Staff Report
Subject: 180 El Camino Real – Mixed Use Development
Date: February 26, 2014
Page 3 of 3
1. Attachments Supporting Project Approval
a. Draft CEQA Resolution
Exhibit A: Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (available online at
http://www.ssf.net/media/council.aspx under “Upcoming Events - Agenda”)
Exhibit B: Final Mitigated Negative Declaration /Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program (available online at http://www.ssf.net/media/council.aspx under “Upcoming
Events - Agenda”)
b. Draft Entitlements Resolution
Exhibit A: Conditions of Approval
Exhibit B: Preliminary Transportation Demand Management Plan (available online at
http://www.ssf.net/media/council.aspx under “Upcoming Events - Agenda”)
Exhibit C: Project Plans
c. Draft Ordinance
Exhibit A: Development Agreement
2. Attachments Supporting Project Denial
a. Draft Resolution of Denial
3. Miscellaneous Attachments
a. City Council Staff Reports – September 11, 2013, September 25, 2013 and October 23,
2013 (without attachments)
STM/PO/JR/SK/bg
2241445.1
Attachment 1a
Draft CEQA Resolution
Exhibit A: Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (available online at
http://www.ssf.net/media/council.aspx under “Upcoming Events - Agenda”)
Exhibit B: Final Mitigated Negative Declaration / Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program (available online at http://www.ssf.net/media/council.aspx under
“Upcoming Events - Agenda”)
1
RESOLUTION NO._________
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS AND ADOPTING
THE INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 14.5
ACRE SITE FOR THE CENTENNIAL VILLAGE AT 180
EL CAMINO REAL PROJECT IN THE EL CAMINO
REAL MIXED USE ZONING DISTRICT
WHEREAS, El Camino and Spruce LLC, a Nevada limited liability company
(“Applicant”), has submitted an application for a mixed-use project on an approximately 14.5
acre site located at 180 El Camino Real, which consists of approximately 220,000 square feet of
commercial/retail space and up to 284 residential rental units (“Project”); and,
WHEREAS, approval of Applicant’s proposal is considered a “Project” as that term is
defined under the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000,
et seq. (“CEQA”); and,
WHEREAS, in accordance with CEQA, an initial study was performed, the result of
which was preparation and circulation of a mitigated negative declaration (“IS/MND”) analyzing
the proposed Project and concluding that approval of the Project could not have a significant
effect on the environment because the impacts of the Project could all be mitigated to levels
below established CEQA thresholds of significance with the adoption of mitigation measures and
enforcement of such measures through a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
(“MMRP”); and,
WHEREAS, the IS/MND was provided to the State Clearinghouse and circulated for a
30-day public review period, beginning on April 12, 2013, during which time members of the
public were invited to comment on the environmental analysis and conclusions for the proposed
Project; and,
WHEREAS, six comment letters were submitted on the IS/MND, from the San Mateo
County Health System, San Francisco International Airport, County of San Mateo Department of
Public Works, C/CAG, the California Department of Transportation and the City of San Bruno;
and,
WHEREAS, the City prepared written responses to comments received on the IS/MND
and prepared a Final MND for circulation, which consists of the IS/MND (incorporated by
reference), all comments received on the IS/MND, written responses to comments received on
the IS/MND, revisions to the IS/MND where appropriate, and a Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program (“MMRP”); and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on August 15,
2
2013, to consider the IS/MND, the proposed Use Permit, Design Review, Transportation
Demand Management Plan and Development Agreement for the Project and take public
testimony, at the conclusion of which, the Planning Commission recommended that the City
Council adopt the IS/MND and approve the Project; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on September 11, 2013
which was continued to September 25, 2013 and to October 23, 2013 and to November 13, 2013,
and another duly noticed public hearing on February 12, 2014, which was continued to February
26, 2014, to consider the IS/MND, the Use Permit, Design Review, Transportation Demand
Management Plan and Development Agreement and take public testimony; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and carefully considered the information in
the IS/MND, including all comment letters submitted, and makes the findings contained in this
Resolution, and adopts the IS/MND, as an objective and accurate document that reflects the
independent judgment and analysis of the City in the discussion of the Project’s environmental
impacts.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the record before
it, which includes without limitation, the California Environmental Quality Act, Public
Resources Code §21000, et seq. (“CEQA”) and the CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of
Regulations §15000, et seq.; the South San Francisco General Plan, General Plan EIR and South
El Camino Real General Plan Amendment EIR; the South San Francisco Municipal Code; the
Project application; the Centennial Village Project Plans, as prepared by Johnson Lyman
Architects, dated August 1, 2013; the Preliminary Transportation Demand Management Plan, as
prepared by TJKM Transportation Consultants, dated July 9, 2013; the 180 El Camino Real
IS/MND, including the Draft and Final IS/MND, the MMRP and all appendices thereto; all site
plans, and all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning
Commission’s meeting held on August 15, 2013, and Planning Commission deliberations; all
reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the City Council’s duly noticed
public hearing on September 11, 2013, which was continued to September 25, 2013 and to
October 23, 2013 and to November 13, 2013, and duly noticed public hearing on February 12,
2014, which was continued to February 26, 2014, and City Council deliberations; and any other
evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e) and §21082.2), the City
Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby finds as follows:
1. The foregoing Recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution.
2. The exhibits and attachments, including the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
(attached as Exhibit A) and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, included with the
Final IS/MND (attached as Exhibit B) are each incorporated by reference and made a part of this
Resolution, as if set forth fully herein.
3. The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are
located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco, 315 Maple Avenue, South
San Francisco, CA 94080, and in the custody of Chief Planner, Susy Kalkin.
4. The proposed Project is consistent with the City of South San Francisco General Plan
3
because the land use, development standards, densities and intensities, buildings and structures
proposed are compatible with the goals, policies, and land use designations established in the
General Plan (see Gov’t Code, § 65860), and none of the land uses, development standards,
densities and intensities, buildings and structures will operate to conflict with or impede
achievement of the any of the goals, policies, or land use designations established in the General
Plan.
5. In accordance with CEQA, the City Council has considered the Initial Study and
Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project, and based on the entirety of the record, as
described above, the City Council, exercising its independent judgment and analysis, makes the
following findings regarding the environmental analysis of the Project:
a. In October 1999, the City Council certified an Environmental Impact Report for
the General Plan; in 2001 the City Council certified a Supplemental Environmental Impact
Report for updates to the General Plan. In 2010, the City Council certified an Environmental
Impact Report for the South El Camino Real General Plan and Zoning Amendments. CEQA
allows for streamlined approval of actions that are consistent with adopted General Plans for
which an EIR was certified. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21083; CEQA Guidelines, §§
15152, 15183.) An initial study was prepared for the proposed Project and a mitigated negative
declaration analyzed the potential for impacts that were peculiar to the Project or not analyzed as
significant impacts in the General Plan EIR, Supplemental EIR, or South El Camino Real EIR.
The IS/MND, which expressly considers the City’s previous EIRs, concludes that approval of the
Project will not result in any significant environmental impacts.
b. Design features of the Project, as well as the mitigation measures proposed in the
IS/MND and included in the MMRP, will operate to ensure the impacts of the proposed Project
will not exceed established CEQA thresholds of significance. Therefore, and as further
documented in the IS/MND for the Project, additional mitigation measures beyond those
established in the MMRP are not required for the Project.
c. For the reasons stated in this Resolution, the City Council finds that there is no
substantial evidence in the record supporting a fair argument that approval of the Project will
result in a significant environmental effect.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco
hereby makes the findings contained in this Resolution, and adopts the IS/MND (ND12-0004)
for this Project, attached as Exhibit A, and adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program, attached as Exhibit B.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Resolution shall become effective immediately
upon its passage and adoption.
* * * * * * *
I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the City Council of the City of
South San Francisco at a regular meeting held on the 26th day of February, 2014 by the following
vote:
4
AYES:________________________________________________________________
NOES:________________________________________________________________
ABSTENTIONS:________________________________________________________
ABSENT:______________________________________________________________
Attest:__________________________________
City Clerk
Exhibits:
Exhibit A: Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Exhibit B: Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/ Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
2134233.1
5
Attachment 1b
Draft Entitlements Resolution
Exhibit A: Conditions of Approval
Exhibit B: Preliminary Transportation Demand Management Plan (available online at
http://www.ssf.net/media/council.aspx under “Upcoming Events - Agenda”)
Exhibit C: Project Plans
6
RESOLUTION NO._________
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A USE PERMIT,
DESIGN REVIEW AND TRANSPORTATION DEMAND
MANAGEMENT PLAN, FOR THE DEVELOPMENT
OF A 14.5 ACRE SITE FOR THE CENTENNIAL
VILLAGE AT 180 EL CAMINO REAL PROJECT IN
THE EL CAMINO REAL MIXED USE ZONING
DISTRICT
WHEREAS, El Camino and Spruce LLC, a Nevada limited liability company
(“Applicant”), has submitted an application for a mixed-use project on an approximately 14.5
acre site located at 180 El Camino Real, which consists of approximately 220,000 square feet of
commercial/retail space and up to 284 residential rental units (“Project”); and,
WHEREAS, Applicant seeks approval of a Use Permit, Design Review, Transportation
Demand Management Plan, and Development Agreement; and,
WHEREAS, approval of the Applicant’s proposal is considered a “project” for purposes
of the California Environmental Quality Act, Pub. Resources Code § 21000, et seq. (“CEQA”);
and,
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed and carefully considered the information in the
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”), and by separate resolution, adopts the
IS/MND, as an objective and accurate document that reflects the independent judgment and
analysis of the City in the discussion of the Project’s environmental impacts; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission for the City of South San Francisco held a
lawfully noticed public hearing on August 15, 2013 to solicit public comment and consider the
IS/MND and the proposed entitlements and take public testimony, at the conclusion of which,
the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt the IS/MND and approve
the Project; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on September 11, 2013,
which was continued to September 25, 2013 and to October 23, 2013 and to November 13, 2013,
and another duly noticed public hearing on February 12, 2014, which was continued to February
26, 2014, to consider the IS/MND, the Use Permit, Design Review, Transportation Demand
Management Plan, and Development Agreement and take public testimony.
7
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the record before
it, which includes without limitation, the California Environmental Quality Act, Public
Resources Code §21000, et seq. (“CEQA”) and the CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of
Regulations §15000, et seq.; the South San Francisco General Plan, General Plan EIR and South
El Camino Real General Plan Amendment EIR; the South San Francisco Municipal Code; the
Project applications; the Centennial Village Project Plans, as prepared by Johnson Lyman
Architects, dated August 1, 2013; the Preliminary Transportation Demand Management Plan, as
prepared by TJKM Transportation Consultants, dated July 9, 2013; the 180 El Camino Real
IS/MND, including the Draft and Final MND and all appendices thereto; all site plans, and all
reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission’s meeting
held on August 15, 2013, and Planning Commission deliberations; all reports, minutes, and
public testimony submitted as part of the City Council’s duly noticed public hearing on
September 11, 2013, which was continued to September 25, 2013 and to October 23, 2013 and to
November 13, 2013, and duly noticed public hearing on February 12, 2014, which was continued
to February 26, 2014, and City Council deliberations; and any other evidence (within the
meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e) and §21082.2), the City Council of the City of
South San Francisco hereby finds as follows:
A. General Findings
1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution.
2. The Exhibits attached to this Resolution, including the Conditions of Project
Approval (Exhibit A), the Preliminary Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan
(attached as Exhibit B), and the Centennial Village Project Plans (attached as Exhibit C) are each
incorporated by reference and made a part of this Resolution, as if set forth fully herein.
3. The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings
are located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco, 315 Maple Avenue,
South San Francisco, CA 94080, and in the custody of Chief Planner, Susy Kalkin.
4. By Resolution No. ________, the City Council, exercising its independent
judgment and analysis, finds that an IS/MND was prepared for the Project in accordance with
CEQA, which IS/MND adequately discloses and analyzes the proposed Project’s potentially
significant environmental impacts. For those impacts that could potentially exceed CEQA
thresholds of significance, the City has identified and imposed mitigation measures that avoid or
reduce the impact to a level of less-than-significant.
B. Use Permit
8
1. The proposed Project is consistent with the standards and requirements of the
City’s Zoning Ordinance and with the provisions of the El Camino Real Mixed Use Zone
District. The Project meets or exceeds all of the general development standards of the El
Camino Real Mixed Use Zone District, with the exception of the minimum El Camino Real
setback, building length and separation, required commercial frontage, depth of required
commercial frontage, and the maximum length of street frontage walls without an opening. The
stated exceptions are permissible and warranted by the City’s Zoning Ordinance.
2. The proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan by creating a mixed-use
environment that emphasizes pedestrian-activity with buildings built up to the sidewalk along El
Camino Real and South Spruce Ave, provides a well-articulated and visually engaging
development that implements the goals of the Grand Boulevard Initiative and the El Camino
Real Master Plan and locates parking in a way that is not visually dominant, is consistent with
the City’s Design Guidelines as they relate to building design, form and articulation and provides
commercial uses along both El Camino Real and South Spruce Avenue.
3. The proposed use will not be adverse to the public health, safety, or general
welfare of the community, nor detrimental to surrounding properties or improvements, because
the proposed use is consistent with the existing uses in the vicinity of the site, including the
commercial and residential. The project proposes mixed-use Commercial and Residential uses
on a site located in the City’s El Camino Real corridor, which is intended for this type of use.
The General Plan has analyzed this type of use in the South El Camino Real corridor, and
concluded that mixed-use commercial and residential uses are not adverse to the public health,
safety, or welfare. As the proposed Project is consistent with surrounding land uses, approval of
the Project will not be detrimental to the nearby properties.
4. The proposed Project complies with applicable standards and requirements of the
City’s Zoning Ordinance, with the exception of the minimum El Camino Real setback, building
length and separation, required commercial frontage, depth of required commercial frontage, and
the maximum length of street frontage walls without an opening. The stated exceptions are
permissible and warranted by the City’s Zoning Ordinance. The proposed Project is located in
the El Camino Real Mixed Use District and, subject to the exceptions discussed above in Section
B.1, which are permissible and warranted by the City’s Zoning Ordinance, meets the minimum
standards and requirements for that district.
5. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed Project
are compatible with the existing and reasonably foreseeable future land uses in the vicinity
because the Project proposes commercial and residential uses in the El Camino Real corridor,
which is specifically intended for such uses.
9
6. The site is physically suitable for the type of development and density proposed,
as the mixed-use commercial and residential uses will benefit from being located in the El
Camino Real corridor, and the size and development is appropriate for the location and meets the
City’s land use and zoning standards.
7. The Project is consistent with CEQA for the reasons stated in Finding A.4 above.
C. Design Review
1. The Project, including Design Review, is consistent with Title 20 of the South
San Francisco Municipal Code because the Project has been designed as a mixed-use
commercial and residential campus which will provide a pedestrian-friendly environment with
extensive landscaping and sustainability elements incorporated.
2. The Project, including Design Review, is consistent with the General Plan
because the proposed mixed-use development is consistent with the policies and design direction
provided in the South San Francisco General Plan for the El Camino Real Mixed Use land use
designation by encouraging the development of a mixed-use environment that emphasizes
pedestrian-activity in the El Camino Real corridor.
3. The Project, including Design Review, is consistent with the applicable design
guidelines adopted by the City Council in that the proposed Project is consistent with the El
Camino Real Mixed Use District Standards included in Chapter 20.090.
4. The Project is consistent with the Use Permit, as proposed for modification, for
the reasons stated in Section B, above.
5. The Project is consistent with the applicable design review criteria in Section
20.480.006 (“Design Review Criteria”) because the project has been evaluated by the Design
Review Board on April 7, 2012, February 19, 2013, March 9, 2013 and August 1, 2013, and
found to be consistent with each of the eight design review criteria included in the “Design
Review Criteria” section of the Ordinance, and the Design Review Board.
D. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan
1. The proposed trip reduction measures contained in the TDM (attached hereto as
Exhibit B) are feasible and appropriate for the Project, considering the proposed use or mix of
uses and the project’s location, size, and hours of operation. Appropriate and feasible measures
have been included in the TDM plan to achieve a projected 28% alternative mode usage, as
required. The TDM provides incentives for employees to use modes of transportation other than
single-occupancy vehicle trips, such as secure bicycle storage, shower facilities, preferential
10
parking for carpools and vanpools, and an employee TDM contact, among others. Further,
pedestrian walkways linking the Project to adjacent BART and bus stops will help encourage
alternative forms of transportation.
2. The proposed performance guarantees will ensure that the target 28% alternative
mode use established for the Project by Chapter 20.400 will be achieved and maintained.
Conditions of approval have been included to require that the Final TDM Plan, which must be
submitted for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit, shall outline the
required process for on-going monitoring including annual surveys.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that subject to the Conditions of
Approval, attached as Exhibit A to this Resolution, the City Council of the City of South San
Francisco hereby makes the findings contained in this Resolution and approves a Use Permit
(UP11-0006), Design Review (DR11-0019) and Transportation Demand Management Plan
(TDM13-0001) for the Project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the conditional approvals herein are conditioned
upon the approval and execution of the Development Agreement for the Centennial Village at
180 El Camino Real Project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall become effective immediately
upon its passage and adoption.
* * * * * * *
I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the City Council of the City of
South San Francisco at the regular meeting held on the 26th day of February, 2014 by the
following vote:
AYES:________________________________________________________________
NOES:________________________________________________________________
ABSTENTIONS:________________________________________________________
ABSENT:______________________________________________________________
11
Attest:__________________________________
City Clerk
Exhibits:
Exhibit A: Conditions of Approval
Exhibit B: Preliminary Transportation Demand Management Plan
Exhibit C: Centennial Village Project Plans
2134234.1
12
Draft Entitlements Resolution - Exhibit A
Conditions of Approval
13
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
P11-0065: UP11-0006, DR11-0019, TDM13-0001, DA13-0002 & ND12-0004
180 EL CAMINO REAL
(As recommended by Planning Commission on August 15, 2013)
A) Planning Division requirements shall be as follows:
1. The applicant shall comply with the Planning Divisions standard Conditions and
Limitations for Commercial, Industrial, Mixed-Use and Multi-Family Residential
Projects.
2. The project shall be constructed and operated substantially as indicated on the plan
set prepared by Johnson Lyman Architects, dated August 1, 2013.
3. The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures outlined in the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the 180 El Camino Real Project.
4. All equipment (either roof, building, or ground-mounted) shall be screened from view
through the use of integral architectural elements, such as enclosures or roof screens,
and landscape screening or shall be incorporated inside the exterior building wall.
Equipment enclosures and/or roof screens shall be painted to match the building.
Prior to issuance of a building permit the applicant shall submit plans showing utility
locations, stand-pipes, equipment enclosures, landscape screens, and/or roof screens
for review and approval by the Chief Planner or designee.
5. No signs are included in this permit application. Prior to installation of any signage,
the applicant shall submit a comprehensive Master Sign Program for appropriate
review and approval by the Chief Planner or designee.
6. Prior to issuance of any building or construction permits, the applicant shall submit
interim and final phasing plans and minor modifications to interim and final phasing
plans for review and approval by the Chief Planner, City Engineer and Chief Building
Official.
7. Prior to issuance of any building or construction permits for the construction of public
improvements, the final design for all public improvements shall be reviewed and
approved by the City Engineer and Chief Planner.
8. Prior to issuance of any building or construction permits for grading improvements,
the applicant shall submit final grading plans for review and approval by the City
Engineer and Chief Planner.
9. Prior to issuance of any building or construction permits for landscaping
improvements, the applicant shall submit final landscaping and irrigation plans for
review and approval by the Chief Planner. The plans shall include documentation of
compliance with SSFMC § 20.300.007 “Landscaping”, including Water Efficient
14
Landscaping and Irrigation calculations and shall be consistent with the intent of the
El Camino Real Master Plan.
10. Prior to issuance of any building or construction permits, the applicant shall submit a
“Parking and Loading Management Plan”, a “Trash Management Plan” and a
”Shopping Cart Management Plan” for review and approval by the Chief Planner or
designee.
11. All parking areas are to be maintained free and clear of litter and storage and shall
remain clear for parking at all times. No outdoor storage of materials is allowed.
12. Prior to issuance of any building or construction permits, the developer shall revise
the development plans to address the following Design Review Board comments
related to Phase 1, subject to review and approval by the Chief Planner or designee:
a) Revise the roof treatment to be more prominent over the primary Safeway and
Major 2 entrances on the north elevation. The higher mansard roofs should be
integrated with the lower mansard roofs at the building setback ends.
b) Include additional patterns and textures on the ground floor facades to provide
more interest at the pedestrian scale.
c) Provide landscaping (trellis structures, planter boxes, etc.), lighting, and
material/color texturing on the 2nd
d) Provide additional architectural and/or landscape treatment along the south
elevation of the Safeway/Major 2 building to provide more visual interest.
floor parking levels/ roof area of
Safeway/Major 2 and the Health Club.
13. Prior to issuance of any building or construction permits, the developer shall revise
the development plans to address the following design related comments, subject to
review and approval by the Chief Planner or designee:
a) Revise the west CVS building wall so that the maximum length of blank wall is
no greater than forty (40) feet and provide enhanced landscaping within the
setback from El Camino Real adjacent to the southern portion of the west CVS
building wall.
b) Landscape the surface parking lot proposed in the future location of Building E
and the Parking Structure to match the remainder of the surface parking lot as
approved in the project plans.
c) Provide enhanced landscaping adjacent to the Safeway parking ramp, including
a mixture of shrubs, trees and growing vines, to properly screen the ramp wall.
15
14. Prior to issuance of any building or construction permit for commercial uses and prior
to occupancy for residential uses, the applicant shall pay any applicable childcare fees
in accordance with South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 20.115. This fee is
subject to annual adjustment, and presently is assessed at $1,851.00 per high density
residential unit and $.68. per gross square foot for commercial/retail.
15. The applicant has prepared and submitted a draft Preliminary TDM Plan. In
accordance with South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 20.400, prior to
issuance of a building permit the applicant shall submit a Final TDM Plan for review
and approval by the Chief Planner. The Final TDM shall comply with SSFMC
Chapter 20.400.
a) The Final TDM Plan shall include all mandatory elements included in the
Ordinance and shall substantially reflect the Preliminary TDM Plan prepared by
TJKM. The Plan shall be designed to ultimately achieve a goal of 28%
alternative mode usage by employees within the Project.
b) The Final TDM Plan shall outline the required process for on-going monitoring,
including annual surveys. The initial annual survey will be submitted one (1)
year after the granting of a certificate of occupancy. The initial annual survey
shall either: (1) state that the applicable property has achieved 28% alternative
mode usage, providing supporting statistics and analysis to establish attainment
of the goal; or (2) state that the applicable property has not achieved the 28%
alternative mode usage, providing an explanation of how and why the goal has
not been reached, and a description of additional measures that will be adopted
in the coming year to attain the TDM goal of 28% alternative mode usage.
c) The applicant shall be required to reimburse the City for program costs
associated with monitoring and enforcing the TDM Program.
Planning Division contact: Billy Gross, Associate Planner (650) 877-8535
B) Fire Department requirements shall be as follows:
1. Prior to issuance of a building permit the applicant shall submit plans showing the
following improvements for review and approval by the Fire Marshal or designee:
a) Install fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13/SSFFD requirements under separate
fire plan check and permit for overhead and underground.
b) Fire sprinkler system shall be central station monitored per California Fire Code
section 1003.3.
c) Install a standpipe system per NFPA 14/SSFFD requirements under separate
fire plan check and permit.
16
d) Install exterior listed horn/strobe alarm device, not a bell.
e) Elevator shall not contain shunt-trips.
f) At least one elevator per building shall be sized for a gurney the minimum size
shall be in accordance with the CFC.
g) Fire alarm plans shall be provided per NFPA 72 and the City of South San
Francisco Municipal Code.
h) Buildings 4 stories or more will require a modified smoke control system. A
rational analysis is required before building plans are approved.
i) Plans are to conform to Building codes and the City of South San Francisco
Municipal Code. Section 15.24.130.
j) Provide fire extinguishers throughout the building.
k) All Non parking space curbs to be painted red to local Fire Code Specifications.
l) Access road shall have all weather driving capabilities and support the imposed
load of 75,000 pounds.
m) Road gradient and vehicle turning radius shall not exceed maximum allowed.
n) Provide fire flow in accordance with California Fire Code Appendix III-A.
o) Provide fire hydrants with an average spacing of 400 feet between hydrants;
location and number to be determined.
p) All buildings shall provide premise identification in accordance with SSF
municipal code section 15.24.100.
q) Provide Knox key box for each building with access keys to entry doors,
electrical/mechanical rooms, elevators, and others to be determined.
r) The minimum road width is 20 feet per the California Fire Code.
s) All buildings shall have Emergency Responder Radio Coverage throughout in
compliance with Section 510 of the California Fire Code.
Fire Prevention contact: Luis DaSilva, Fire Marshal (650) 829-6645
C) Engineering Division requirements shall be as follows:
17
1. The development shall comply with the “Standard Development Conditions for
Commercial and Industrial Developments”, copies of which are available from the
Engineering Division.
2. The building permit application plans shall conform to the standards of the
Engineering Division’s “Building Permit Typical Plan Check Submittals”
requirements, copies of which are available from the City Engineer’s Office.
3. The owner shall hire a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer authorized to practice
land surveying to certify that the new foundation forms conform with all setbacks
from confirmed property lines and that all easements are verified and in conformance
with the plans. A letter certifying the foundation forms shall be submitted to the
Engineering Division for approval.
4. The developer shall submit a geotechnical report along with a cash deposit of $5,000
for peer review. The geotechnical report shall also include, but not limited to, design
criteria for the subterranean parking area, footing/foundations of the future structures,
etc.
5. The developer shall coordinate the signal light timing along Spruce Avenue and the
El Camino Real signal light, which may include installation of conduit and upgrades
to the existing signal lights. Any improvements constructed on El Camino Real shall
be approved by Caltrans. All improvements shall be designed by a registered civil
engineer and approved by the Engineering Division.
6. Any grading over 50 cubic yards shall require a grading permit. The grading plan
should clearly state the amount of cut and fill required to grade the project. The
developer shall apply for the grading permit with the Engineering Division and shall
submit an application, all documentation, fees, deposits, bonds and all necessary
paperwork needed for the application. The developer shall place an initial $30,000
cash deposit with the City for environmental compliance inspection personnel time,
which includes, but not limited to, air quality, grading and storm water pollution
inspections.
7. The developer shall, at his/her expense, design and construct a drainage system that
will route storm water run-off from all areas towards the public storm drainage
system. The storm drainage plan shall be designed by a licensed civil engineer.
In addition to the drainage plan, the developer shall submit all drainage calculations
and pre- and post-construction run-off calculations. The storm drainage pipes shall
be sized for a 10-year, 5 -min storm. Any off-site improvements shall be designed by
a licensed civil engineer, be at no cost to the City and shall be reviewed and approved
by the Engineering Division.
8. The existing 10” sewer main is a major trunk for the City. It shall be relocated to
South Spruce Avenue. In addition, only one service connection to the city’s sewer
18
main per parcel is allowed. The plans currently showing two connections.
9. The developer, at his/her own expenses, shall provide flow study for both storm water
and sewer system to justify if the existing city facilities will be sufficient to support
the development.
10. The bio-detention along the back of sidewalk on South Spruce Avenue is shown to be
constructed on top of the 60-inches storm main with the City’s easement. Shall the
city need to access the storm main, the owner shall be responsible for restoring the
bio-detention.
11. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall revise Sheet C4.1to
show Section B-B in the correct location. In addition, retaining wall on top of the 60-
inches storm main is not allowed.
12. The developer shall remove and replace all sidewalk and broken curb and gutter at
his/her own expense. The developer shall install all required standard accessible
ramps and appurtenances related to pedestrian use. Driveways shall not be greater
than a 12% grade.
13. Developer shall coordinate with the California Water Service for all water-related
issues. They can be contacted at (650) 558-7800.
14. Any work performed in the City’s right-of-way shall require an encroachment from
the Engineering Division. The owner shall apply and pay all fees and deposits for
the encroachment permit.
Engineering Division contact: Andy Tan, Senior Engineer (650) 829-6652
D) Police Department requirements shall be as follows:
1. Municipal Code Compliance. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of
Chapter 15.48 of the Municipal Code, "Minimum Building Security Standards"
Ordinance revised May 1995. The Police Department reserves the right to make
additional security and safety conditions, if necessary, upon receipt of detailed /
revised building plans.
Police Department contact: Sergeant Scott Campbell (650) 877-8927
E) Water Quality Control Plant requirements shall be as follows:
1. A plan showing the location of all storm drains and sanitary sewers must be submitted.
19
2. Encourage the use of pervious pavement where possible.
3. The onsite catch basins are to be stenciled with the approved San Mateo Countywide
Stormwater Logo (No Dumping! Flows to Bay).
4. Any food service establishments must install a grease removal device. The grease
removal device must be connected to all wash sinks, mop sinks, and floor sinks and
must be upstream of the domestic waste stream. Sizing of the grease removal device
must be in accordance with the uniform plumbing code. The minimum size shall be no
less than 750 gallons. This must be shown on the plans prior to the issuance of a permit.
5. A signed maintenance agreement for the grease removal device must be submitted prior
to the issuance of a permit.
6. Source Control Requirements. The project must implement source control measures
onsite that at a minimum shall include the following:
a) Minimization of stormwater pollutants of concern in urban runoff through
measures that may include plumbing of the following discharges to the sanitary
sewer, subject to the local sanitary sewer agency’s authority and standards:
i. Discharges from indoor floor mat/equipment/hood filter wash racks or
covered outdoor wash racks for restaurants;
ii. Dumpster drips from covered trash, food waste and compactor enclosures;
iii. Discharges from covered outdoor wash areas for vehicles, equipment, and
accessories;
iv. Fire sprinkler test water, if discharge to onsite vegetated areas is not a
feasible option;
b) Properly designed covers, drains, and storage precautions for outdoor material
storage areas, loading docks, repair/maintenance bays, and fueling areas;
c) Properly designed trash storage areas;
d) Landscaping that minimizes irrigation and runoff, promotes surface infiltration,
minimizes the use of pesticides and fertilizers, and incorporates other appropriate
sustainable landscaping practices and programs such as Bay-Friendly
Landscaping;
e) Efficient irrigation systems; and
f) Storm drain system stenciling or signage.
7. Implement Site Design and Stormwater Treatment Requirements
The project must implement at least the following design strategies onsite:
20
a) Limit disturbance of natural water bodies and drainage systems; minimize
compaction of highly permeable soils; protect slopes and channels; and minimize
impacts from stormwater and urban runoff on the biological integrity of natural
drainage systems and water bodies;
b) Conserve natural areas, including existing trees, other vegetation, and soils;
c) Minimize impervious surfaces;
d) Minimize disturbances to natural drainages; and
e) Minimize stormwater runoff by implementing one or more of the following site
design measures:
i. Direct roof runoff into cisterns or rain barrels for reuse.
ii. Direct roof runoff onto vegetated areas.
iii. Direct runoff from sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios onto vegetated areas.
iv. Direct runoff from driveways and/or uncovered parking lots onto vegetated
areas.
v. Construct sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios with permeable surfaces.
vi. Construct driveways, bike lanes, and/or uncovered parking lots with
permeable surfaces.
8. Stormwater from the entire project must be included in the treatment system design.
(Stormwater treatment systems must be designed to treat stormwater runoff from the
entire project.)
The project is required to treat 100% of the amount of runoff identified in provision
C.3.d for the Regulated Project’s drainage area with LID treatment measures onsite or
with LID treatment measures at a joint stormwater treatment facility.
a) LID treatment measures are harvesting and re-use, infiltration, evapotranspiration,
or biotreatment.
b) A properly engineered and maintained biotreatment system may be considered
only if it is infeasible to implement harvesting and re-use, infiltration, or
evapotranspiration at a project site.
c) Infeasibility to implement harvesting and re-use, infiltration, or evapotranspiration
at a project site may result from conditions including the following:
i. Locations where seasonal high groundwater would be within 10 feet of the
base of the LID treatment measure.
ii. Locations within 100 feet of a groundwater well used for drinking water.
21
Treatment devices must be sized according to the WEF Method or the Start at the
Source Design.
Please state what method is used to calculate sizing.
The applicant must submit a signed Operation and Maintenance Information for
Stormwater Treatment Measures
form for the stormwater pollution prevention devices
installed.
9. The applicant must submit a signed maintenance agreement for the stormwater pollution
prevention devices installed. Each maintenance agreement will require the inclusion of
the following exhibits:
a) A letter-sized reduced-scale site plan that shows the locations of the treatment
measures that will be subject to the agreement.
b) A legal description of the property.
c) A maintenance plan, including specific long-term maintenance tasks and a schedule.
It is recommended that each property owner be required to develop its own
maintenance plan, subject to the municipality’s approval. Resources that may assist
property owners in developing their maintenance plans include:
i. The operation manual for any proprietary system purchased by the property
owner.
10. The owner or his representative must file this agreement with the County of San Mateo
and documentation that the County received it must be sent to the Technical Services
Supervisor.
11. Applicant must complete the Project Applicant Checklist and C3 and C6 Data
Worksheet prior to issuance of a permit and return to the Technical Services Supervisor
at the WQCP.
12. Condensate and/or blowdown from rooftop equipment must be routed to the sanitary
sewer.
13. If there is underground parking, water from the groundwater infiltration/foundation
drain must be plumbed to the sanitary sewer.
14. Landscaping shall meet the following conditions related to reduction of pesticide use on
the project site:
a) Where feasible, landscaping shall be designed and operated to treat stormwater
runoff by incorporating elements that collect, detain, and infiltrate runoff. In areas
that provide detention of water, plants that are tolerant of saturated soil conditions
and prolonged exposure to water shall be specified.
22
b) Plant materials selected shall be appropriate to site specific characteristics such as
soil type, topography, climate, amount and timing of sunlight, prevailing winds,
rainfall, air movement, patterns of land use, ecological consistency and plant
interactions to ensure successful establishment.
c) Existing native trees, shrubs, and ground cover shall be retained and incorporated
into the landscape plan to the maximum extent practicable.
d) Proper maintenance of landscaping, with minimal pesticide use, shall be the
responsibility of the property owner.
e) Integrated pest management (IPM) principles and techniques shall be encouraged as
part of the landscaping design to the maximum extent practicable. Examples of IPM
principles and techniques include:
i. Select plants that are well adapted to soil conditions at the site.
ii. Select plants that are well adapted to sun and shade conditions at the site. In
making these selections, consider future conditions when plants reach
maturity, as well as seasonal changes.
iii. Provide irrigation appropriate to the water requirements of the selected
plants.
iv. Select pest-resistant and disease-resistant plants.
v. Plant a diversity of species to prevent a potential pest infestation from
affecting the entire landscaping plan.
vi. Use “insectary” plants in the landscaping to attract and keep beneficial
insects.
15. No decorative bark shall be used in landscaping.
16. Trash handling area must be covered, enclosed and must drain to sanitary sewer. This
must be shown on the plans prior to issuance of a permit.
17. Install a separate water meter for each commercial unit.
18. Install a separate water meter for landscaping.
19. A construction Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan must be submitted and approved
prior to the issuance of a permit.
20. Plans must include location of concrete wash out area and location of entrance/outlet of
tire wash.
21. A grading and drainage plan must be submitted.
22. An erosion and sediment control plan must be submitted.
23
23. Applicant must pay sewer connection fee at a later time based on anticipated flow, BOD
and TSS calculations.
24. Must file a Notice of Termination with the WQCP when the project is completed
Water Quality contact: Rob Lecel (650) 877-8555
24
Draft Entitlements Resolution - Exhibit C
Project Plans
25
Attachment 1c
Draft Development Agreement Ordinance
Exhibit A: Development Agreement
26
ORDINANCE NO. ________
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING A DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 14.5 ACRE
SITE FOR THE CENTENNIAL VILLAGE AT 180 EL
CAMINO REAL PROJECT IN THE EL CAMINO REAL
MIXED USE (ECRMX) ZONING DISTRICT
WHEREAS, El Camino and Spruce LLC (“Applicant”) has submitted an application for
a mixed-use project on an approximately 14.5 acre site located at 180 El Camino Real, which
consists of approximately 220,000 square feet of commercial/retail space and up to 284
residential rental units (“Project”); and,
WHEREAS, Applicant seeks approval of a Use Permit, Design Review, Transportation
Demand Management Plan, and Development Agreement; and,
WHEREAS, as part of its application, the Applicant has sought approval of a
Development Agreement, which would clarify and obligate several project features and
mitigation measures, including payment of existing fees (such as the Sewer Capacity Fee,
General Plan Maintenance Fee, Childcare Impact Fee, and Public Safety Impact Fee), and certain
future fees (including a Park-in-Lieu Fee); and
WHEREAS, approval of the Applicant’s proposal is considered a “project” for purposes
of the California Environmental Quality Act, Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21000, et seq. (“CEQA”);
and,
WHEREAS, by separate Resolution, the City Council adopted an Initial Study/Mitigated
Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) on February 26, 2014 in accordance with the provisions of
CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, which analyzed the potential environmental impacts of the
Project; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission for the City of South San Francisco held a
lawfully noticed public hearing on August 15, 2013 to solicit public comment and consider the
IS/MND and the proposed entitlements and take public testimony, at the conclusion of which,
the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt the IS/MND, approve
the entitlements and recommended that the City Council approve the Development Agreement;
and,
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on September 11, 2013,
which was continued to September 25, 2013 and to October 23, 2013 and to November 13, 2013,
and another duly noticed public hearing on February 12, 2014, which was continued to February
26, 2014, to consider the Project entitlements and Development Agreement, and take public
testimony.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby
ordain as follows:
27
SECTION 1. Findings.
That based on the entirety of the record before it, which includes without limitation, the
California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code §21000, et seq. (“CEQA”) and the
CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of Regulations §15000, et seq.; the South San Francisco
General Plan, General Plan EIR and South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment EIR; the
South San Francisco Municipal Code; the Project applications; the Centennial Village Project
Plans, as prepared by Johnson Lyman Architects, dated August 1, 2013; the Preliminary
Transportation Demand Management Plan, as prepared by TJKM Transportation Consultants,
dated July 9, 2013; the 180 El Camino Real IS/MND, including the Draft and Final MND and all
appendices thereto; all site plans, and all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part
of the Planning Commission’s meeting held on August 15, 2013; all reports, minutes, and public
testimony submitted as part of the City Council’s duly noticed public hearing on September 11,
2013, which was continued to September 25, 2013 and to October 23, 2013 and to November 13,
2013, and duly noticed public hearing on February 12, 2014, which was continued to February
26, 2014; and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e) and
§21082.2), the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby finds as follows:
A. The foregoing Recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Ordinance.
B. The proposed Development Agreement (attached as Exhibit A), is incorporated
by reference and made a part of this Ordinance, as if set forth fully herein.
C. The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings
are located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco, 315 Maple Avenue,
South San Francisco, CA 94080, and in the custody of Chief Planner, Susy Kalkin.
D. The proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan by creating a mixed-use
environment that emphasizes pedestrian-activity with buildings built up to the sidewalk along El
Camino Real and South Spruce Avenue. Further, the Project provides a well-articulated and
visually engaging development that implements the goals of the Grand Boulevard Initiative and
El Camino Real Master Plan and locates parking in a way that is not visually dominant, is
consistent with the City’s Design Guidelines as they relate to building design, form and
articulation and provides commercial uses along both El Camino Real and South Spruce Avenue.
Further, the land uses, development standards, densities and intensities, buildings and structures
proposed are compatible with the goals, policies, and land use designations established in the
General Plan (see Gov’t Code, § 65860), and none of the land uses, development standards,
densities and intensities, buildings and structures will operate to conflict with or impede
achievement of the any of the goals, policies, or land use designations established in the General
Plan.
Specifically, the General Plan includes policies and programs that are designed to
redevelop low-intensity commercial uses to pedestrian-oriented high intensity mixed use
development, encourage concentrated higher-intensity activity on highly visible locations,
promote visually intricate development, and provide space for enhanced pedestrian connections,
require development to be oriented to El Camino Real.
E. The City Council has independently reviewed the proposed Development
Agreement, the General Plan, the South San Francisco Municipal Code, and applicable state and
28
federal law, including Government Code section 65864, et seq., and has determined that the
proposed Development Agreement complies with all applicable zoning, subdivision, and
building regulations and with the General Plan. This finding is based upon all evidence in the
Record as a whole, including, but not limited to: the City Council’s independent review of these
documents, oral and written evidence submitted at the public hearings on the Project, including
advice and recommendations from City staff.
F. The proposed Development Agreement for the Project states its specific duration.
This finding is based upon all evidence in the Record as a whole, including, but not limited to:
the City Council’s independent review of the proposed Development Agreement and its
determination that Section 2 of the Development Agreement states that the Development
Agreement shall expire twenty (20) years from the effective date of this Ordinance.
G. The proposed Development Agreement incorporates the permitted uses, density
and intensity of use for the property subject thereto, as reflected in the proposed Project (P11-
0065), Use Permit (UP11-0006), Design Review (DR11-0019), Transportation Demand
Management Plan (TDM13-0001) and Development Agreement (DA13-0002). This finding is
based upon all evidence in the Record as a whole, including, but not limited to, the City
Council’s independent review of the proposed Development Agreement and its determination
that the Development Agreement sets forth the Project approvals, development standards, and
the documents constituting the Project.
H. The proposed Development Agreement states the maximum permitted height and
size of proposed buildings on the property subject thereto. This finding is based upon all
evidence in the Record as a whole, including, but not limited to, the City Council’s independent
review of the proposed Development Agreement and its determination that the Development
Agreement sets forth the documents which state the maximum permitted height and size of
buildings.
I. The proposed Development Agreement states specific provisions for reservation
or dedication of land for public purposes. This finding is based on all evidence in the Record as a
whole, including, but not limited to the City Council’s independent review of the Development
Agreement.
SECTION 2. Approval of Development Agreement.
A. The City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby approves the
Development Agreement with El Camino and Spruce, LLC, attached hereto as Exhibit A and
incorporated herein by reference.
B. The City Council further authorizes the City Manager to execute the Development
Agreement, on behalf of the City, in substantially the form attached as Exhibit A, and to make
revisions to such Agreement, subject to the approval of the City Attorney, which do not
materially or substantially increase the City’s obligations thereunder.
SECTION 3. Severability.
If any provision of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or
circumstance is held invalid or unconstitutional, the remainder of this Ordinance, including the
application of such part or provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected
29
thereby and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, provisions of this Ordinance are
severable. The City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby declares that it would
have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase hereof
irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs,
sentences, clauses, or phrases be held unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable.
SECTION 4. Publication and Effective Date.
Pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 36933, a summary of this
Ordinance shall be prepared by the City Attorney. At least five (5) days prior to the Council
meeting at which this Ordinance is scheduled to be adopted, the City Clerk shall (1) publish the
Summary, and (2) post in the City Clerk’s Office a certified copy of this Ordinance. Within
fifteen (15) days after the adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall (1) publish the
summary, and (2) post in the City Clerk’s Office a certified copy of the full text of this
Ordinance along with the names of those City Council members voting for and against this
Ordinance or otherwise voting. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days from and
after its adoption.
* * * * * *
Introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of South San Francisco, held the
26th day of February, 2014.
Adopted as an Ordinance of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting of the City
Council held the _____ day of _________, 2014, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
As Mayor of the City of South San Francisco, I do hereby approve the foregoing Ordinance this
_____ day of ____________, 2014.
Mayor
30
Draft Development Agreement Ordinance - Exhibit A
Development Agreement
31
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
City Clerk
City of South San Francisco
P.O. Box 711
South San Francisco, CA 94083
______________________________________________________________________________
(Space Above This Line Reserved For Recorder’s Use)
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
BY AND BETWEEN
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
AND
EL CAMINO AND SPRUCE LLC
CENTENNIAL VILLAGE
180 EL CAMINO REAL
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
32
1
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (this “Agreement”) is entered into as of
________, 2013 by and between El Camino and Spruce LLC, a Nevada limited liability
company (“Developer”), and the City of South San Francisco (“City”), pursuant to
California Government Code § 65864 et seq.
A. To strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation
in comprehensive planning and reduce the economic risk of development, the Legislature
of the State of California enacted California Government Code § 65864 et seq. (the
“Development Agreement Statute”), which authorizes City to enter into an agreement
with any person having a legal or equitable interest in real property regarding the
development of such property.
B. Pursuant to California Government Code § 65865, City has adopted
procedures and requirements for the consideration of development agreements (South
San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC) Chapter 19.60). This Development Agreement
has been processed, considered and executed in accordance with such procedures and
requirements.
C. Developer has a legal and/or equitable interest in certain real property
located at the southern boundary of the City of South San Francisco, west of US 101 at
180 El Camino Real and in the southern part of the South El Camino Real GPA planning
area, consisting of a 14.5-acre corner lot with frontages on El Camino Real and South
Spruce Avenue and as more particularly described and depicted in Exhibit A (the
“Project Site”) .
D. The proposed Project (the “Project”) consists of removal of existing
buildings and construction at full buildout of six new ones: Buildings A, B, C, D, and
Major Tenant 3 (CVS), and a mixed-use building containing ground-floor commercial
with parking and residential uses above. Buildings A, B, C, D, and Major Tenant 3
(CVS) consist of two stories (up to 40 feet in height) and the mixed-use buildings consist
of five stories (up to approximately 70 feet in height with one tower component at 90 feet
in height above Safeway). The proposed commercial component is approximately
222,500 square feet. The proposed residential component comprises a mix of one and two
bedroom units totaling 284 units. A total of 1,392 parking spaces will provide parking
for the retail and residential components of the project. Ground level parking will provide
580 spaces and a parking structure will provide 812 spaces. The residential parking ratio
is 1.5 spaces per 1-bedroom units and 1.8 spaces per 2-bedroom units while the
commercial parking ratio is four spaces per 1,000 square feet. Additionally, 128 bicycle
parking spaces will be provided throughout the project area.
E. Development of the Project requires that the Developer obtain from the
City the following land use entitlements: Use Permit; Development Agreement; Design
Standard Exceptions; Design Review; Transportation Demand Management Plan. Each
of these has been approved. It also requires that Caltrans approve the proposed left turn
on WB El Camino Real onto the south driveway. The approvals and development
33
2
policies described in this Recital E are collectively referred to herein as the “Project
Approvals.” Existing land use entitlements and approvals for the Project Site are shown
in Exhibit B.
F. City has determined that the Project presents certain public benefits and
opportunities which are advanced by City and Developer entering into this Agreement.
This Agreement will, among other things, (1) reduce uncertainties in planning and
provide for the orderly development of the Project; (2) provide greatly needed
commercial and residential development along the El Camino Real corridor; (3) mitigate
any significant environmental impacts; (4) provide for and generate substantial revenues
for the City in the form of one time and annual fees and exactions and other fiscal
benefits; and (5) otherwise achieve the goals and purposes for which the Development
Agreement Statute was enacted.
G. In exchange for the benefits to City described in the preceding Recital,
together with the other public benefits that will result from the development of the
Project, Developer will receive by this Agreement assurance that it may proceed with the
Project in accordance with the “Applicable Law” (defined below), and therefore desires
to enter into this Agreement.
H. On August 15,2013, following a duly noticed public hearing, the Planning
Commission adopted Resolution No. 2736-2013, recommending that the City Council
approve this Agreement.
I. The City Council, after conducting a duly noticed public hearing, has
found that this Agreement is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance and
has conducted all necessary proceedings in accordance with the City’s rules and
regulations for the approval of this Agreement. In accordance with SSFMC section
19.60.120 the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing adopted Ordinance No. [___],
approving and authorizing the execution of this Agreement.
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties, pursuant to the authority contained in Government
Code Sections 65864 through 65869.5 and Chapter 19.60 of the Municipal Code and in
consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, agree as follows:
ARTICLE 1. DEFINITIONS
“Administrative Project Amendment” shall have that meaning set forth in
Section 7.01 of this Agreement.
“Administrative Agreement Amendment” shall have that meaning set forth in
Section 7.02 of this Agreement.
“Agreement” shall mean this Development Agreement.
34
3
“Applicable Law” shall have that meaning set forth in Section 6.03 of this
Agreement.
“City Law” shall have that meaning set forth in Section 6.05 of this Agreement.
“Deficiencies” shall have that meaning set forth in Section 9.02 of this
Agreement.
“Development Agreement Statute” shall have that meaning set forth in Recital A
of this Agreement.
“Effective Date” shall have that meaning set forth in Section 2.01 of this
Agreement.
“Judgment” shall have that meaning set forth in Section 9.02 of this Agreement.
“Periodic Review” shall have that meaning set forth in Section 10.05 of this
Agreement.
“Project” shall have that meaning set forth in Recital D of this Agreement.
“Project Approvals” shall have that meaning set forth in Recital E of this
Agreement.
“Project Site” shall have that meaning set forth in Recital C of this Agreement.
“Subsequent Approvals” shall mean those certain other land use approvals,
entitlements, and permits in addition to the Project Approvals that are necessary or
desirable for the Project. In particular, the parties contemplate that Developer will seek
approvals for Use Permits, sign permits, amendments to the Use Agreement, and
amendments to this Agreement. The Subsequent Approvals may also include, without
limitation, the following: amendments of the Project Approvals, design review
approvals, improvement agreements, grading permits, building permits, lot line
adjustments, sewer and water connection permits, certificates of occupancy, subdivision
maps, rezonings, development agreements, permits, and any amendments to, or repealing
of, any of the foregoing.
“Tax” and “Taxes” shall not include any generally applicable City Business
License Tax or locally imposed Sales Tax.
“Term” shall have that meaning set forth in Section 2.02 of this Agreement.
35
4
ARTICLE 2. EFFECTIVE DATE AND TERM
Section 2.01. Effective Date. This Agreement shall become effective upon the date
the ordinance approving this Agreement becomes effective (the “Effective
Date”).
Section 2.02. Term. The term of this Agreement (the “Term”) shall commence upon
the Effective Date and continue for a period of twenty (20) years.
ARTICLE 3. OBLIGATIONS OF DEVELOPER
Section 3.01. Obligations of Developer Generally. The parties acknowledge and
agree that the City’s agreement to perform and abide by the covenants and
obligations of City set forth in this Agreement is a material consideration for
Developer’s agreement to perform and abide by its long term covenants and
obligations, as set forth herein. The parties acknowledge that many of
Developer’s long term obligations set forth in this Agreement are in addition to
Developer’s agreement to perform all the mitigation measures identified in the
Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”).
Section 3.02. City Fees.
(a) Developer shall pay those processing, inspection and plan checking fees and
charges required by the City for processing applications and requests for
Subsequent Approvals under the applicable non-discriminatory regulations
in effect at the time such applications and requests are submitted to the City.
(b) Consistent with the terms of the Agreement, City shall have the right to
impose only such development fees (the “Development Fees”) as have been
adopted by City as of the Effective Date of this Agreement, or as to which
City has initiated formal studies and proposals pursuant to City Council
action, and which are identified in Exhibit C. This shall not prohibit City
from imposing on Developer any fee or obligation that is imposed by a
regional agency in accordance with state or federal obligations and required
to be implemented by City. Development Fees shall be due upon issuance of
building permits or certificates of occupancy for the Project, as may be
appropriate, except as otherwise provided under the Agreement.
Section 3.03. Mitigation Measures. Developer shall comply with the MMRP
approved in conjunction with the MND for the Project, as it may be modified
from time to time in accordance with CEQA or other law.
ARTICLE 4. OBLIGATIONS OF CITY
Section 4.01. Obligations of City Generally. The parties acknowledge and agree
that Developer’s agreement to perform and abide by its covenants and
obligations set forth in this Agreement, including Developer’s decision to process
the siting of the Project in the City, is a material consideration for City’s
36
5
agreement to perform and abide by the long term covenants and obligations of
City, as set forth herein.
Section 4.02. Protection of Vested Rights. To the maximum extent permitted by
law, City shall take any and all actions as may be necessary or appropriate to
ensure that the vested rights provided by this Agreement can be enjoyed by
Developer and to prevent any City Law, as defined below, from invalidating or
prevailing over all or any part of this Agreement. City shall cooperate with
Developer and shall undertake such actions as may be necessary to ensure this
Agreement remains in full force and effect. Except as authorized in Section 6.09,
City shall not support, adopt, or enact any City Law, or take any other action
which would violate the express provisions or intent of the Project Approvals or
the Subsequent Approvals.
Section 4.03. Availability of Public Services. To the maximum extent permitted by
law and consistent with its authority, City shall assist Developer in reserving
such capacity for sewer and water services as may be necessary to serve the
Project.
Section 4.04. Developer’s Right to Rebuild. City agrees that Developer may
renovate or rebuild all or any part of the Project within the Term of this
Agreement should it become necessary due to natural disaster, changes in
seismic requirements, or should the buildings located within the Project become
functionally outdated, within Developer’s sole discretion, due to changes in
technology. Any such renovation or rebuilding shall be subject to the square
footage and height limitations vested by this Agreement, and shall comply with
the Project Approvals, the building codes existing at the time of such rebuilding
or reconstruction, and the requirements of CEQA.
ARTICLE 5. COOPERATION - IMPLEMENTATION
Section 5.01. Processing Application for Subsequent Approvals. By approving the
Project Approvals, City has made a final policy decision that the Project is in the
best interests of the public health, safety and general welfare. Accordingly, City
shall not use its discretionary authority in considering any application for a
Subsequent Approval to change the policy decisions reflected by the Project
Approvals or otherwise to prevent or delay development of the Project as set
forth in the Project Approvals. Instead, the Subsequent Approvals shall be
deemed to be tools to implement those final policy decisions.
Section 5.02. Timely Submittals By Developer. Developer acknowledges that City
cannot expedite processing Subsequent Approvals until Developer submits
complete applications on a timely basis. Developer shall use its best efforts to
(i) provide to City in a timely manner any and all documents, applications, plans,
and other information necessary for City to carry out its obligations hereunder;
and (ii) cause Developer’s planners, engineers, and all other consultants to
provide to City in a timely manner all such documents, applications, plans and
37
6
other necessary required materials as set forth in the Applicable Law. It is the
express intent of Developer and City to cooperate and diligently work to obtain
any and all Subsequent Approvals.
Section 5.03. Timely Processing By City. Upon submission by Developer of all
appropriate applications and processing fees for any Subsequent Approval, City
shall promptly and diligently commence and complete all steps necessary to act
on the Subsequent Approval application including, without limitation:
(i) providing at Developer’s expense and subject to Developer’s request and prior
approval, reasonable overtime staff assistance and/or staff consultants for
planning and processing of each Subsequent Approval application; (ii) if legally
required, providing notice and holding public hearings; and (iii) acting on any
such Subsequent Approval application. City shall ensure that adequate staff is
available, and shall authorize overtime staff assistance as may be necessary, to
timely process such Subsequent Approval application.
Section 5.04. The City may deny an application for a Subsequent Approval only if
such application does not comply with the Agreement or Applicable Law (as
defined below) or with any state or federal law, regulations, plans, or policies as
set forth in Section 6.09.
Section 5.05. Other Government Permits. At Developer’s sole discretion and in
accordance with Developer’s construction schedule, Developer shall apply for
such other permits and approvals as may be required by other governmental or
quasi-governmental entities in connection with the development of, or the
provision of services to, the Project. City shall cooperate with Developer in its
efforts to obtain such permits and approvals and shall, from time to time at the
request of Developer, use its reasonable efforts to assist Developer to ensure the
timely availability of such permits and approvals.
Section 5.06. Residential Property Development
Developer understands that the planned construction of the residential component
of the Project is a substantial inducement to the City to approve this
Development Agreement. In furtherance of achieving that goal, City shall have
the right to promote the residential component of the Project to the residential
development community, including developers, lenders and equity investors with
the goal of identifying qualified investors and residential developers that wish to
negotiate with Developer to obtain the right to build out part or all of the
residential component. Developer agrees to negotiate in good faith with any
qualified residential developer, lender or equity investor that is identified by the
City during such process. Developer shall not be obligated to enter into any
agreement with any such residential developer, lender or equity investor, nor to
defer the commencement of construction of any part of the Project during any
negotiations with any such residential developer, lender or equity investor. The
terms and conditions of any agreement that Developer may determine to enter
38
7
into with any such residential developer, lender or equity investor shall be in
Developer’s sole and absolute discretion.
Section 5.07. Assessment Districts or Other Funding Mechanisms.
(a) Existing Fees . The Parties understand and agree that as of the Effective
Date the fees and exactions listed in Exhibit C are the only City fees and
exactions. Except for those fees and exactions listed in Exhibit C, City is
unaware of any pending efforts to initiate, or consider applications for new
or increased fees, exactions, or assessments covering the Project Site, or any
portion thereof.
(b) Future Fees, Taxes and Assessments. City understands that long term
assurances by City concerning fees, taxes and assessments were a material
consideration for Developer agreeing to enter this Agreement and to pay
long term fees, taxes and assessments described in this Agreement. City
shall retain the ability to initiate or process applications for the formation of
new assessment districts covering all or any portion of the Project Site.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, Developer retains all its rights to oppose the
formation or proposed assessment of any new assessment district or
increased assessment. In the event an assessment district is lawfully formed
to provide funding for services, improvements, maintenance or facilities
which are substantially the same as those services, improvements,
maintenance or facilities being funded by the fees or assessments to be paid
by Developer under the Project Approvals or this Agreement, such fees or
assessments to be paid by Developer shall be subject to reduction/credit in
an amount equal to Developer’s new or increased assessment under the
assessment district. Alternatively, the new assessment district shall
reduce/credit Developer’s new assessment in an amount equal to such fees
or assessments to be paid by Developer under the Project Approvals or this
Agreement.
ARTICLE 6. STANDARDS, LAWS AND PROCEDURES GOVERNING THE
PROJECT
Section 6.01. Vested Right to Develop. Developer shall have a vested right to
develop the Project on the Project Site in accordance with the terms and
conditions of this Agreement. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to
eliminate or diminish the requirement of Developer to obtain any required
Subsequent Approvals.
Section 6.02. Permitted Uses Vested by This Agreement. The permitted uses of the
Project Site; the density and intensity of use of the Project Site; the maximum
height, bulk and size of proposed buildings; provisions for reservation or
dedication of land for public purposes and the location of public improvements;
the general location of public utilities; and other terms and conditions of
development applicable to the Project, shall be as set forth in the Project
39
8
Approvals and, as and when they are issued (but not in limitation of any right to
develop as set forth in the Project Approvals), the Subsequent Approvals.
Permitted uses shall include, without limitation those uses listed as “permitted”
in the El Camino Real Mixed Use zone district.
Section 6.03. Applicable Law. The rules, regulations, official policies, standards
and specifications applicable to the Project (the “Applicable Law”) shall be those
set forth in this Agreement and the Project Approvals, and, with respect to
matters not addressed by this Agreement or the Project Approvals, those rules,
regulations, official policies, standards and specifications (including City
ordinances and resolutions) governing permitted uses, building locations, timing
of construction, densities, design, heights, fees, exactions, and taxes in force and
effect on the Effective Date of this Agreement.
Section 6.04. Uniform Codes. City may apply to the Project Site, at any time during
the Term, then current Uniform Building Code and other uniform construction
codes, and City’s then current design and construction standards for road and
storm drain facilities, provided any such uniform code or standard has been
adopted and uniformly applied by City on a citywide basis and provided that no
such code or standard is adopted for the purpose of preventing or otherwise
limiting construction of all or any part of the Project.
Section 6.05. No Conflicting Enactments. Except as authorized in Section 6.09,
City shall not impose on the Project (whether by action of the City Council or by
initiative, referendum or other means) any ordinance, resolution, rule, regulation,
standard, directive, condition or other measure (each individually, a “City Law”)
that is in conflict with Applicable Law or this Agreement or that reduces the
development rights or assurances provided by this Agreement. Without limiting
the generality of the foregoing, any City Law shall be deemed to conflict with
Applicable Law or this Agreement or reduce the development rights provided
hereby if it would accomplish any of the following results, either by specific
reference to the Project or as part of a general enactment which applies to or
affects the Project:
(a) Change any land use designation or permitted use of the Project Site;
(b) Limit or control the availability of public utilities, services or facilities or
any privileges or rights to public utilities, services, or facilities (for example,
water rights, water connections or sewage capacity rights, sewer
connections, etc.) for the Project;
(c) Limit or control the location of buildings, structures, grading, or other
improvements of the Project in a manner that is inconsistent with or more
restrictive than the limitations included in the Project Approvals or the
Subsequent Approvals (as and when they are issued);
40
9
(d) Limit or control the rate, timing, phasing or sequencing of the approval,
development or construction of all or any part of the Project in any manner;
(e) Apply to the Project any City Law otherwise allowed by this Agreement that
is not uniformly applied on a City-wide basis to all substantially similar
types of development projects and project sites;
(f) Result in Developer having to substantially delay construction of the Project
or require the issuance of additional permits or approvals by the City other
than those required by Applicable Law;
(g) Establish, enact, increase, or impose against the Project or Project Site any
fees, taxes (including without limitation general, special and excise taxes but
excluding any increased local sales tax or increases city business license
tax), assessments, liens or other monetary obligations (including generating
demolition permit fees, encroachment permit and grading permit fees) other
than those specifically permitted by this Agreement or other connection fees
imposed by third party utilities;
(h) Impose against the Project any condition, dedication or other exaction not
specifically authorized by Applicable Law; or
(i) Limit the processing or procuring of applications and approvals of
Subsequent Approvals.
Section 6.06. Initiatives and Referenda.
(a) If any City Law is enacted or imposed by initiative or referendum, or by the
City Council directly or indirectly in connection with any proposed initiative
or referendum, which City Law would conflict with Applicable Law or this
Agreement or reduce the development rights provided by this Agreement,
such Law shall not apply to the Project.
(b) Except as authorized in Section 6.09, without limiting the generality of any
of the foregoing, no moratorium or other limitation (whether relating to the
rate, timing, phasing or sequencing of development) affecting subdivision
maps, building permits or other entitlements to use that are approved or to be
approved, issued or granted within the City, or portions of the City, shall
apply to the Project.
(c) To the maximum extent permitted by law, City shall prevent any City Law
from invalidating or prevailing over all or any part of this Agreement, and
City shall cooperate with Developer and shall undertake such actions as may
be necessary to ensure this Agreement remains in full force and effect.
(d) Developer reserves the right to challenge in court any City Law that would
conflict with Applicable Law or this Agreement or reduce the development
rights provided by this Agreement.
41
10
Section 6.07. Environmental Mitigation. The parties understand that the MND was
intended to be used in connection with each of the Project Approvals and
Subsequent Approvals needed for the Project. Consistent with the CEQA
policies and requirements applicable to the MND, City agrees to use the MND in
connection with the processing of any Subsequent Approval to the maximum
extent allowed by law and not to impose on the Project any mitigation measures
or conditions of approval other than those specifically imposed by the Project
Approvals and the MND/MMRP or specifically required by CEQA or other
Applicable Law.
Section 6.08. Life of Subdivision Maps, Development Approvals, and Permits. The
term of any subdivision map or any other map, permit, rezoning or other land use
entitlement approved as a Project Approval or Subsequent Approval shall
automatically be extended for the longer of the duration of this Agreement
(including any extensions) or the term otherwise applicable to such Project
Approval or Subsequent Approval if this Agreement is no longer in effect. The
term of this Agreement and any subdivision map or other Project Approval or
Subsequent Approval shall not include any period of time during which a
development moratorium (including, but not limited to, a water or sewer
moratorium or water and sewer moratorium) or the actions of other public
agencies that regulate land use, development or the provision of services to the
land, prevents, prohibits or delays the construction of the Project or a lawsuit
involving any such development approvals or permits is pending.
Section 6.09. State and Federal Law. As provided in California Government Code
§ 65869.5, this Agreement shall not preclude the application to the Project of
changes in laws, regulations, plans or policies, to the extent that such changes are
specifically mandated and required by changes in state or federal laws or
regulations. Not in limitation of the foregoing, nothing in this Agreement shall
preclude City from imposing on Developer any fee specifically mandated and
required by state or federal laws and regulations.
Section 6.10. Timing of Project Construction and Completion.
(a) The Project consists of three phases. Phasing will occur in such a manner as
to always preserve the potential for 284 apartment units on the site during
the term of the Agreement.
(i) Phase 1 construction will begin within 18 months after final approval
by the City of all discretionary approvals of the overall plan, and the
passage of all applicable statutes of limitations without legal challenge
and will include:
All retail except Building E on the master plan.
All second floor office space.
All current site improvements and design features.
Second floor parking above Safeway/ Major 2 Building.
42
11
No change to building architecture as approved by the City
Council per DR11-0019.
Structural/foundation enhancements for Safeway/Major 2
building sufficient to support approved residential construction
and associated parking above.
(ii) Phase 2 will include:
Building E and at least 141 apartment units.
All parking structure levels.
Subterranean parking to replace shopping center surface parking
under Building E unless the subterranean parking was
constructed elsewhere on the Project site as a result of
developing residential units as a part of Phase 1.
Second floor parking above Building E and the Health Club.
(iii) Phase 3 will include the remainder of up to 284 total apartment units
(b) Developer will have the option of modifying the unit mix, size of units, and
sequencing for later phases of the Project in response to changes in market
conditions that may occur from time to time.
ARTICLE 7. AMENDMENT
Section 7.01. To the extent permitted by state and federal law, any Project Approval
or Subsequent Approval may, from time to time, be amended or modified in the
following manner:
(a) Administrative Project Amendments. Upon the written request of Developer
for an amendment or modification to a Project Approval or Subsequent
Approval, the Chief Planner or his/her designee shall determine: (i) whether
the requested amendment or modification is minor when considered in light
of the Project as a whole; and (ii) whether the requested amendment or
modification is consistent with this Agreement and Applicable Law. If the
Chief Planner or his/her designee finds that the proposed amendment or
modification is minor, consistent with this Agreement and Applicable Law,
and will result in no new significant impacts not addressed and mitigated in
the MND, the amendment shall be determined to be an “Administrative
Project Amendment” and the Chief Planner or his designee may, except to
the extent otherwise required by law, approve the Administrative Project
Amendment without notice and public hearing. Without limiting the
generality of the foregoing, lot line adjustments, minor alterations in vehicle
circulation patterns or vehicle access points, location of parking stalls on the
site, number of required parking stalls if city development standards allow,
substitutions of comparable landscaping for any landscaping shown on any
final development plan or landscape plan, variations in the location of
43
12
structures that do not substantially alter the design concepts of the Project,
variations in the residential unit mix (number of one, two or three bedroom
units), location or installation of utilities and other infrastructure connections
or facilities that do not substantially alter the design concepts of the Project,
and minor adjustments to the Project Site diagram or Project Site legal
description shall be treated as Administrative Project Amendments.
(b) Non-Administrative Project Amendments. Any request by Developer for an
amendment or modification to a Project Approval or Subsequent Approval
which is determined not to be an Administrative Project Amendment as set
forth above shall be subject to review, consideration and action pursuant to
the Applicable Law and this Agreement.
Section 7.02. Amendment of this Agreement. This Agreement may be amended
from time to time, in whole or in part, by mutual written consent of the parties
hereto or their successors in interest, as follows:
(a) Administrative Agreement Amendments. Any amendment to this
Agreement which does not substantially affect (i) the Term of this
Agreement, (ii) permitted uses of the Project Site, (iii) provisions for the
reservation or dedication of land, (iv) conditions, terms, restrictions or
requirements for subsequent discretionary actions, (v) the density or
intensity of use of the Project Site or the maximum height or size of
proposed buildings or (vi) monetary contributions by Developer, shall be
considered an “Administrative Agreement Amendment” and shall not,
except to the extent otherwise required by law, require notice or public
hearing before the parties may execute an amendment hereto. Such
amendment may be approved by City resolution.
(b) Any amendment to this Agreement other than an Administrative Agreement
Amendment shall be subject to recommendation by the Planning
Commission (by advisory resolution) and approval by the City Council (by
ordinance) following a duly noticed public hearing before the Planning
Commission and City Council, consistent with Government Code Sections
65867 and 65867.5.
(c) Amendment Exemptions. No amendment of a Project Approval or
Subsequent Approval, or a Subsequent Approval shall require an amendment
to this Agreement. Instead, any such matter automatically shall be deemed
to be incorporated into the Project and vested under this Agreement.
ARTICLE 8. ASSIGNMENT, TRANSFER AND NOTICE
Section 8.01. Assignment and Transfer. Developer may transfer or assign all or any
portion of its interests, rights, or obligations under the Agreement and the Project
approvals to third parties acquiring an interest or estate in the Project or any
portion thereof including, without limitation, purchasers or lessees of lots,
44
13
parcels, or facilities. Developer will seek City's prior written consent to any
transfer, which consent will not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. City may
refuse to give consent only if, in light of the proposed transferee's reputation and
financial resources, such transferee would not in City's reasonable opinion be
able to perform the obligations proposed to be assumed by such transferee. Such
determination will be made by the City Manager and will be appealable by
Developer to the City Council
ARTICLE 9. COOPERATION IN THE EVENT OF LEGAL CHALLENGE
Section 9.01. Cooperation.
In the event of any administrative, legal, or equitable action or other proceeding
instituted by any person not a party to the Agreement challenging the validity of
any provision of the Agreement or any Project approval, the parties will
cooperate in defending such action or proceeding. City shall promptly notify
Developer of any such action against City. If City fails promptly to notify
Developer of any legal action against City or if City fails to cooperate in the
defense, Developer will not thereafter be responsible for City's defense. The
parties will use best efforts to select mutually agreeable legal counsel to defend
such action, and Developer will pay compensation for such legal counsel
(including City Attorney time and overhead for the defense of such action), but
will exclude other City staff overhead costs and normal day-to-day business
expenses incurred by City. Developer's obligation to pay for legal counsel will
extend to fees incurred on appeal. In the event City and Developer are unable to
select mutually agreeable legal counsel to defend such action or proceeding, each
party may select its own legal counsel and Developer will pay its and the City's
legal fees and costs. Developer shall reimburse the City for all reasonable court
costs and attorneys’ fees expended by the City in defense of any such action or
other proceeding or payable to any prevailing plaintiff/petitioner.
Section 9.02. Reapproval.
If, as a result of any administrative, legal, or equitable action or other proceeding,
all or any portion of the Agreement or the Project approvals are set aside or
otherwise made ineffective by any judgment in such action or proceeding
("Judgment"), based on procedural, substantive or other deficiencies
("Deficiencies"), the parties will use their respective best efforts to sustain and
reenact or readopt the Agreement, and/or the Project approvals, that the
Deficiencies related to, unless the Parties mutually agree in writing to act
otherwise:
(i) If any Judgment requires reconsideration or consideration by City of
the Agreement or any Project approval, then the City will consider or
reconsider that matter in a manner consistent with the intent of the
Agreement and with Applicable Law. If any such Judgment invalidates or
otherwise makes ineffective all or any portion of the Agreement or Project
45
14
approval, then the parties will cooperate and will cure any Deficiencies
identified in the Judgment or upon which the Judgment is based in a
manner consistent with the intent of the Agreement and with Applicable
Law. City will then consider readopting or reenacting the Agreement, or
the Project approval, or any portion thereof, to which the Deficiencies
related.
(ii) Acting in a manner consistent with the intent of the Agreement
includes, but is not limited to, recognizing that the parties intend that
Developer may develop the Project as described in the Agreement, and
adopting such ordinances, resolutions, and other enactments as are
necessary to readopt or reenact all or any portion of the Agreement or
Project approvals without contravening the Judgment.
ARTICLE 10. DEFAULT; REMEDIES; TERMINATION
Section 10.01. Defaults. Any failure by either party to perform any term or provision
of the Agreement, which failure continues uncured for a period of thirty (30)
days following written notice of such failure from the other party (unless such
period is extended by mutual written consent), will constitute a default under the
Agreement. Any notice given will specify the nature of the alleged failure and,
where appropriate, the manner in which said failure satisfactorily may be cured.
If the nature of the alleged failure is such that it cannot reasonably be cured
within such 30-day period, then the commencement of the cure within such time
period, and the diligent prosecution to completion of the cure thereafter, will be
deemed to be a cure within such 30-day period. Upon the occurrence of a default
under the Agreement, the non-defaulting party may institute legal proceedings to
enforce the terms of the Agreement or, in the event of a material default,
terminate the Agreement. If the default is cured, then no default will exist and the
noticing party shall take no further action.
Section 10.02. Termination. If City elects to consider terminating the Agreement due
to a material default of Developer, then City will give a notice of intent to
terminate the Agreement and the matter will be scheduled for consideration and
review by the City Council at a duly noticed and conducted public hearing.
Developer will have the right to offer written and oral evidence prior to or at the
time of said public hearings. If the City Council determines that a material
default has occurred and is continuing, and elects to terminate the Agreement,
City will give written notice of termination of the Agreement to Developer by
certified mail and the Agreement will thereby be terminated sixty (60) days
thereafter.
Section 10.03. Enforced Delay; Extension of Time of Performance. In addition to
specific provisions of the Agreement, neither party will be deemed to be in
default where delays in performance or failures to perform are due to, and a
necessary outcome of, war, insurrection, strikes or other labor disturbances,
walk- , outs, riots, floods, earthquakes, fires, casualties, acts of God, restrictions
46
15
imposed or mandated by other governmental entities (including new or
supplemental environmental regulations), enactment of conflicting state or
federal laws or regulations, judicial decisions, or similar basis for excused
performance which is not within the reasonable control of the party to be
excused. Litigation attacking the validity of the Agreement or any of the Project
approvals, or any permit, ordinance, entitlement or other action of a
governmental agency other than City necessary for the development of the
Project pursuant to the Agreement will be deemed to create an excusable delay as
to Developer. Upon the request of either party hereto, an extension of time for
the performance of any obligation whose performance has been so prevented or
delayed will be memorialized in writing. The term of any such extension will be
equal to the period of the excusable delay, or longer, as may be mutually agreed
upon.
Section 10.04. Legal Action. Either party may institute legal action to cure, correct, or
remedy any default, enforce any covenant or agreement in the Agreement, enjoin
any threatened or attempted violation thereof, and enforce by specific
performance the obligations and rights of the parties thereto. The sole and
exclusive remedy for any default or violation of the Agreement will be specific
performance. In any proceeding brought to enforce the Agreement, the prevailing
party will be entitled to recover from the unsuccessful party all costs, expenses
and reasonable attorney's fees incurred by the prevailing party in the enforcement
proceeding.
Section 10.05. Periodic Review.
(a) Conducting the Periodic Review. Throughout the Term of this Agreement,
at least once every twelve (12) months following the execution of this
Agreement, City shall review the extent of good-faith compliance by
Developer with the terms of this Agreement. This review (the “Periodic
Review”) shall be conducted by the Chief Planner or his/her designee and
shall be limited in scope to compliance with the terms of this Agreement
pursuant to California Government Code Section 65865.1.
(b) Notice. At least five (5) days prior to the Periodic Review, and in the
manner prescribed in Section 11.09 of this Agreement, City shall deposit in
the mail to Developer a copy of any staff reports and documents to be used
or relied upon in conducting the review and, to the extent practical, related
exhibits concerning Developer’s performance hereunder. Developer shall be
permitted an opportunity to respond to City’s evaluation of Developer’s
performance, either orally at a public hearing or in a written statement, at
Developer’s election. Such response shall be made to the Chief Planner.
(c) Good Faith Compliance. During the Periodic Review, the Chief Planner
shall review Developer’s good-faith compliance with the terms of this
Agreement. At the conclusion of the Periodic Review, the Chief Planner
shall make written findings and determinations, on the basis of substantial
47
16
evidence, as to whether or not Developer has complied in good faith with the
terms and conditions of this Agreement. The decision of the Chief Planner
shall be appealable to the City Council. If the Chief Planner finds and
determines that Developer has not complied with such terms and conditions,
the Chief Planner may recommend to the City Council that it terminate or
modify this Agreement by giving notice of its intention to do so, in the
manner set forth in California Government Code Sections 65867 and 65868.
The costs incurred by City in connection with the Periodic Review process
described herein shall be borne by Developer.
(d) Failure to Properly Conduct Periodic Review. If City fails, during any
calendar year, to either (i) conduct the Periodic Review or (ii) notify
Developer in writing of City’s determination, pursuant to a Periodic Review,
as to Developer’s compliance with the terms of this Agreement and such
failure remains uncured as of December 31 of any year during the term of
this Agreement, such failure shall be conclusively deemed an approval by
City of Developer’s compliance with the terms of this Agreement.
(e) Written Notice of Compliance. With respect to any year for which
Developer has been determined or deemed to have complied with this
Agreement, City shall, within thirty (30) days following request by
Developer, provide Developer with a written notice of compliance, in
recordable form, duly executed and acknowledged by City. Developer shall
have the right, in Developer’s sole discretion, to record such notice of
compliance.
Section 10.06. Default by City or Developer. In the event City or Developer defaults
under the terms of this Agreement, City or Developer shall have all rights and
remedies provided herein or under law. Either party may, in addition to any
other rights or remedies, institute legal action to cure, correct, or remedy any
default, enforce any covenant or agreement herein, enjoin any threatened or
attempted violation thereof, recover damages for any default, enforce by specific
performance the obligations and rights of the parties hereto, or to obtain any
remedies consistent with the purpose of this Agreement.
Section 10.07. California Law. This Agreement shall be construed and enforced in
accordance with the laws of the State of California. Any action to enforce or
interpret this Agreement shall be filed and heard in the Superior Court of San
Mateo County, California.
Section 10.08. Resolution of Disputes. With regard to any dispute involving
development of the Project, the resolution of which is not provided for by this
Agreement or Applicable Law, Developer shall, at City’s request, meet with
City. The parties to any such meetings shall attempt in good faith to resolve any
such disputes. Nothing in this Section 10.07 shall in any way be interpreted as
requiring that Developer and City and/or City’s designee reach agreement with
regard to those matters being addressed, nor shall the outcome of these meetings
48
17
be binding in any way on City or Developer unless expressly agreed to by the
parties to such meetings.
Section 10.09. Attorneys’ Fees. In any legal action or other proceeding brought by
either party to enforce or interpret a provision of this Agreement, the prevailing
party is entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and any other costs incurred in that
proceeding in addition to any other relief to which it is entitled.
Section 10.10. Hold Harmless. Developer shall hold City and its elected and
appointed officers, agents, employees, and representatives harmless from claims,
costs, and liabilities for any personal injury, death, or property damage which is a
result of, or alleged to be the result of, the construction of the Project, or of
operations performed under this Agreement by Developer or by Developer’s
contractors, subcontractors, agents or employees, whether such operations were
performed by Developer or any of Developer’s contractors, subcontractors,
agents or employees. Nothing in this section shall be construed to mean that
Developer shall hold City harmless from any claims of personal injury, death or
property damage arising from, or alleged to arise from, any gross negligence or
willful misconduct on the part of City, its elected and appointed representatives,
offices, agents and employees.
ARTICLE 11. MISCELLANEOUS
Section 11.01. Incorporation of Recitals and Introductory Paragraph. The Recitals
contained in this Agreement, and the introductory paragraph preceding the
Recitals, are hereby incorporated into this Agreement as if fully set forth herein.
Section 11.02. No Agency. It is specifically understood and agreed to by and
between the parties hereto that: (i) the subject development is a private
development; (ii) City has no interest or responsibilities for, or duty to, third
parties concerning any improvements until such time, and only until such time,
that City accepts the same pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement or in
connection with the various Project Approvals or Subsequent Approvals;
(iii) Developer shall have full power over and exclusive control of the Project
herein described, subject only to the limitations and obligations of Developer
under this Agreement, the Project Approvals, Subsequent Approvals, and
Applicable Law; and (iv) City and Developer hereby renounce the existence of
any form of agency relationship, joint venture or partnership between City and
Developer and agree that nothing contained herein or in any document executed
in connection herewith shall be construed as creating any such relationship
between City and Developer.
Section 11.03. Enforceability. City and Developer agree that unless this Agreement
is amended or terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement, this
Agreement shall be enforceable by any party hereto notwithstanding any change
hereafter enacted or adopted (whether by ordinance, resolution, initiative, or any
other means) in any applicable general plan, specific plan, zoning ordinance,
49
18
subdivision ordinance, or any other land use ordinance or building ordinance,
resolution or other rule, regulation or policy adopted by City that changes, alters
or amends the rules, regulations and policies applicable to the development of the
Project Site at the time of the approval of this Agreement as provided by
California Government Code Section 65866.
Section 11.04. Severability. If any term or provision of this Agreement, or the
application of any term or provision of this Agreement to a particular situation, is
held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the
remaining terms and provisions of this Agreement, or the application of this
Agreement to other situations, shall continue in full force and effect unless
amended or modified by mutual consent of the parties. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, if any material provision of this Agreement, or the application of such
provision to a particular situation, is held to be invalid, void or unenforceable,
either City or Developer may (in their sole and absolute discretion) terminate this
Agreement by providing written notice of such termination to the other party.
Section 11.05. Other Necessary Acts. Each party shall execute and deliver to the
other all such other further instruments and documents as may be reasonably
necessary to carry out the Project Approvals, Subsequent Approvals and this
Agreement and to provide and secure to the other party the full and complete
enjoyment of its rights and privileges hereunder.
Section 11.06. Construction. Each reference in this Agreement to this Agreement or
any of the Project Approvals or Subsequent Approvals shall be deemed to refer
to the Agreement, Project Approval or Subsequent Approval as it may be
amended from time to time, whether or not the particular reference refers to such
possible amendment. This Agreement has been reviewed and revised by legal
counsel for both City and Developer, and no presumption or rule that ambiguities
shall be construed against the drafting party shall apply to the interpretation or
enforcement of this Agreement.
Section 11.07. Other Miscellaneous Terms. The singular shall include the plural; the
masculine gender shall include the feminine; “shall” is mandatory; “may” is
permissive. If there is more than one signer of this Agreement, the signer
obligations are joint and several.
Section 11.08. Covenants Running with the Land. All of the provisions contained in
this Agreement shall be binding upon the parties and their respective heirs,
successors and assigns, representatives, lessees, and all other persons acquiring
all or a portion of the Project, or any interest therein, whether by operation of law
or in any manner whatsoever. All of the provisions contained in this Agreement
shall be enforceable as equitable servitudes and shall constitute covenants
running with the land pursuant to California law including, without limitation,
Civil Code Section 1468. Each covenant herein to act or refrain from acting is
for the benefit of or a burden upon the Project, as appropriate, runs with the
50
19
Project Site and is binding upon the owner of all or a portion of the Project Site
and each successive owner during its ownership of such property.
Section 11.09. Notices. Any notice or communication required hereunder between
City or Developer must be in writing, and may be given either personally, by
telefacsimile (with original forwarded by regular U.S. Mail) by registered or
certified mail (return receipt requested), or by Federal or other similar courier
promising overnight delivery. If personally delivered, a notice shall be deemed
to have been given when delivered to the party to whom it is addressed. If given
by facsimile transmission, a notice or communication shall be deemed to have
been given and received upon actual physical receipt of the entire document by
the receiving party’s facsimile machine. Notices transmitted by facsimile after
5:00 p.m. on a normal business day or on a Saturday, Sunday or holiday shall be
deemed to have been given and received on the next normal business day. If
given by registered or certified mail, such notice or communication shall be
deemed to have been given and received on the first to occur of (i) actual receipt
by any of the addressees designated below as the party to whom notices are to be
sent, or (ii) five (5) days after a registered or certified letter containing such
notice, properly addressed, with postage prepaid, is deposited in the
United States mail. If given by Federal Express or similar courier, a notice or
communication shall be deemed to have been given and received on the date
delivered as shown on a receipt issued by the courier. Any party hereto may at
any time, by giving ten (10) days written notice to the other party hereto,
designate any other address in substitution of the address to which such notice or
communication shall be given. Such notices or communications shall be given to
the parties at their addresses set forth below:
If to City, to: City Manager
City of South San Francisco
400 Grand Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Phone: (650) 829-6629
Fax: (650) 829-6623
With a Copy to: Meyers Nave
575 Market Street, Suite 2600
San Francisco, CA 94105
Attn: Steven T. Mattas, City Attorney
Phone: (415) 421-3711
Fax: (415) 421-3767
51
20
If to Developer, to: El Camino and Spruce LLC
c/o WT Mitchell Group Inc.
PO Box 5127
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone: 925-407-2676
Fax: 925-988-8032
With Copies to: Morrison & Foerster LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Attn: Zane O. Gresham
Phone: (415) 268-7000
Fax: (415) 260-7522
Section 11.10. Entire Agreement, Counterparts And Exhibits. This Agreement is
executed in two (2) duplicate counterparts, each of which is deemed to be an
original. This Agreement consists of [___] pages and [___] exhibits which
constitute in full, the final and exclusive understanding and agreement of the
parties and supersedes all negotiations or previous agreements of the parties with
respect to all or any part of the subject matter hereof. All waivers of the
provisions of this Agreement shall be in writing and signed by the appropriate
authorities of City and the Developer. The following exhibits are attached to this
Agreement and incorporated herein for all purposes:
Exhibit A: Description and Diagram of Project Site
Exhibit B: Existing Land Use Entitlements and Approvals
Exhibit C: City Fees and Exactions
Section 11.11. Recordation Of Development Agreement. Pursuant to California
Government Code § 65868.5, no later than ten (10) days after City enters into
this Agreement, the City Clerk shall record an executed copy of this Agreement
in the Official Records of the County of San Mateo.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been entered into by and between
Developer and City as of the day and year first above written.
52
21
CITY
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,
a municipal corporation
By:_______________________________
Name:____________________________
City Manager
ATTEST:
By: ___________________________
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By: ___________________________
City Attorney
Developer
EL CAMINO AND SPRUCE LLC,
a Nevada Limited Liability Company
By:______________________________
Name:____________________________
Its:_______________________________
2241933.1
53
22
Exhibit A: Description and Diagram of Project Site
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Real property in the City of South San Francisco, County of San Mateo, State of California,
described as follows:
ALL THAT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY SITUATE IN THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN
FRANCISCO, COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BEING LOT 1, BLOCK 2,
AS DESIGNATED ON THE MAP ENTITLED, "TANFORAN PARK, UNIT NO. 2," WHICH MAP
WAS FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, JANUARY 5, 1967, IN BOOK 66 OF MAPS AT PAGES 5, 6, AND 7,
MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 1, SAID CORNER BEING
A POINT IN THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF EL CAMINO REAL AS SHOWN ON SAID
MAP; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE NORTH 27° 54’ 38" WEST, 86.78
FEET (NORTH 26° 38’ 46" WEST, 86.94 FEET); THENCE NORTH 30° 47’ 29" WEST, 488.12
FEET (NORTH 29° 31’ 37" WEST); THENCE ALONG A TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT,
HAVING A RADIUS OF 25.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 89° 46’ 45" AN ARC
LENGTH OF 39.17 FEET TO A POINT IN THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SOUTH SPRUCE
AVENUE AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHEASTERLY LINE
NORTH 58° 59’ 16" EAST, 4.90 FEET (NORTH 60° 15’ 08" EAST); THENCE ALONG A
TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 689.75 FEET, THROUGH A
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 27° 31’ 15" AN ARC LENGTH OF 331.31 FEET (R OF 689.95 FEET,
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 27° 30’ 30", L OF 331.25 FEET); THENCE NORTH 31° 28’ 01" EAST,
272.47 FEET (NORTH 32° 44’ 38" EAST, 272.47 FEET); THENCE ALONG A TANGENT CURVE
TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1961.99 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
5° 32’ 44", AN ARC LENGTH OF 189.90 FEET (R OF 1959.86 FEET, CENTRAL ANGLE OF 5°
32’ 02", L OF 189.29 FEET); THENCE NORTH 37° 00’ 45" EAST, 45.82 FEET (NORTH 38° 16’
40" EAST, 46.42 FEET); THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTHEASTERLY LINE SOUTH 52° 59’
15" EAST, 232.76 FEET (SOUTH 51° 43’ 20" EAST); THENCE ALONG A TANGENT CURVE
TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1999.86 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
0° 22’ 21", AN ARC LENGTH OF 13.00 FEET (CENTRAL ANGLE OF 0° 22’ 22", L OF 13.01
FEET); THENCE NORTH 57° 19’ 24" EAST, 130.66 FEET (NORTH 58° 35’ 52" EAST, 130.53
FEET) TO A POINT IN THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF HUNTINGTON AVENUE AS
SHOWN ON SAID MAP; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE ALONG A NON-
TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 959.93 FEET, CONCAVE TO THE
SOUTHWEST, WHOSE CENTER BEARS SOUTH 53° 05’ 43" WEST, THROUGH A CENTRAL
ANGLE OF 2° 23’ 28", AN ARC LENGTH OF 40.06 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID
SOUTHWESTERLY LINE SOUTH 57° 19’ 24" WEST, 124.49 FEET (SOUTH 58° 35’ 52" WEST,
124.50 FEET); THENCE SOUTH 32° 40’ 36" EAST, 419.97 FEET (SOUTH 31° 24’ 08" EAST,
419.97 FEET); THENCE NORTH 57° 19’ 24" EAST, 124.99 FEET (NORTH 58° 35’ 52" EAST) TO
A POINT IN SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF HUNTINGTON AVENUE; THENCE ALONG
SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE SOUTH 32° 40’ 36" EAST, 40.00 FEET (SOUTH 31° 24’ 08"
EAST); THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE SOUTH 57° 19’ 24" WEST, 134.99
FEET (SOUTH 58° 35’ 52" WEST); THENCE SOUTH 32° 40’ 36" EAST, 82.92 FEET (SOUTH 31°
24’ 08" EAST); THENCE SOUTH 53° 25’ 00" WEST, 923.20 FEET (SOUTH 54° 40’ 52" WEST,
922.99 FEET) TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
THE BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL IS NORTH 58° 59’ 16"
EAST ALONG THE CENTER LINE OF SOUTH SPRUCE AVENUE AS SHOWN ON THE
RECORD OF SURVEY RECORDED IN BOOK "6" OF LICENSED LAND SURVEYORS MAPS
AT PAGE 77, SAN MATEO COUNTY RECORDS.
APN: 014-183-110
JPN: 014-018-183-11A
54
23
Exhibit B: Existing Land Use Entitlements and Approvals
[To be completed when the exact titles and resolution numbers for
entitlements approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council are
known.]
55
24
Exhibit C: City Fees and Exactions
56
180 ECR - Centennial Village
Illustrative calculations of estimated proposed fees
Area Estimations*
180 ECR
Retail/Commercial SF 187,170
Office SF 35,327
Residential Units 284
Total 222,497
Existing Commercial Demolished 144,821
Net New Gross Sq Ft 77,676
Estimated Existing and Proposed Fees, Including Fee Credits
180 ECR
Fee Category Rate Fee
Sewer Capacity Fee (1)varies by use Retail/Commercial $84,875
(Resolution 39-2010)Office $96,083
Residential $1,047,108
General Plan Maintenance Fee 0.0015 of construction value, per GSF 117,000.00$
(Resolution 74-2007)
Child Care Impact Fee 0.68$ per NN GSF for Commercial 28,797.32$
(SSFMC 20.310)1,851.00$ per High Density Residential Unit 525,684.00$
Park-in-Lieu Fee 3,276.00$ per 1,000 GSF Nonresidential 254,466.58$
(per Draft Parkland Acquisition and
Construction Fee)
Public Safety Impact Fee 0.44$ per NN GSF for Retail 82,354.80$
(Resolution 97-2012)0.44$ per NN GSF for Office 15,543.88$
563.00$ per High Density Residential Unit 159,892.00$
Total of Fees 2,411,804.54$
Fees per GSF 10.84$
(1) - Sewer Capacity Fee calculation will vary by use based on application of Resolution 39-2010.
* The areas are estimated and provided for the purpose of illustrating the fee calculation. The actual fee and fee credit for each
phase will be calculated at the time of building permit submittal.
Exhibit C
City Fees and Exactions
57
Attachment 2a
Draft Resolution of Denial
58
RESOLUTION NO._________
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A RESOLUTION DENYING A USE PERMIT, DESIGN
REVIEW, TRANSPORTATION DEMAND
MANAGEMENT PLAN, FOR THE DEVELOPMENT
OF A 14.5 ACRE SITE FOR THE CENTENNIAL
VILLAGE AT 180 EL CAMINO REAL PROJECT IN
THE EL CAMINO REAL MIXED USE ZONING
DISTRICT
WHEREAS, El Camino and Spruce LLC, a Nevada limited liability company
(“Applicant”), has submitted an application for a mixed-use project on an approximately 14.5
acre site located at 180 El Camino Real, which consists of approximately 220,000 square feet of
commercial/retail space and up to 284 residential rental units (“Project”); and,
WHEREAS, Applicant seeks approval of a Use Permit, Design Review, Transportation
Demand Management Plan, and Development Agreement; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), 14 California
Code of Regulations §15270, CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or
disapproves; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on September 11, 2013,
which was continued to September 25, 2013 and to October 23, 2013 and to November 13, 2013,
and another duly noticed public hearing on February 12, 2014, which was continued to February
26, 2014, to consider the IS/MND, the Use Permit, Design Review, Transportation Demand
Management Plan, and Development Agreement and take public testimony.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the record before
it, which includes without limitation, the California Environmental Quality Act, Public
Resources Code §21000, et seq. (“CEQA”) and the CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of
Regulations §15000, et seq.; the South San Francisco General Plan, General Plan EIR and South
El Camino Real General Plan Amendment EIR; the South San Francisco Municipal Code; the
Project applications; the Centennial Village Project Plans, as prepared by Johnson Lyman
Architects, dated August 1, 2013; the Preliminary Transportation Demand Management Plan, as
prepared by TJKM Transportation Consultants, dated July 9, 2013; the 180 El Camino Real
IS/MND, including the Draft and Final MND and all appendices thereto; all site plans, and all
reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission’s meeting
held on August 15, 2013, and Planning Commission deliberations; all reports, minutes, and
59
public testimony submitted as part of the City Council’s duly noticed public hearing on
September 11, 2013, which was continued to September 25, 2013 and to October 23, 2013 and to
November 13, 2013, and duly noticed public hearing on February 12, 2014, which was continued
to February 26, 2014, and City Council deliberations; and any other evidence (within the
meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e) and §21082.2), the City Council of the City of
South San Francisco hereby finds as follows:
A. General Findings
1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution.
2. The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings
are located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco, 315 Maple Avenue,
South San Francisco, CA 94080, and in the custody of Chief Planner, Susy Kalkin.
B. Use Permit/Design Review
1. The City’s General Plan Land Use Designation for the site is El Camino Real
Mixed Use (“ECRMX”), which allows for high-intensity active uses and mixed-use
developments. The General Plan also requires a minimum floor area ratio (“FAR”) for
commercial uses and for active uses fronting El Camino Real and other Arterial/Collector streets
in the corridor at ground level (SSF General Plan Policy 3.4-I-17).
2. During testimony before the Planning Commission and City Council, the
Applicant confirmed that he will build an initial commercial component of the Project, but also
stated that subsequent phases of the Project, specifically the residential component of the Project,
will only be built when “economically feasible,” a determination within the sole discretion of the
Applicant. In the event the Applicant never determines, at his sole discretion, that the residential
component is feasible, the residential component of Project will not be constructed.
3. The Applicant has not provided the City with any guarantee that any portion of
the residential portion of the Project will ever be built. Therefore, because there is no guarantee
that the residential component of the Project will be constructed, the Project is inconsistent with
the City’s General Plan and El Camino Real Sub-Area Plan for the following reasons:
i. The City finds that the first phase of the Project standing alone would not
meet the minimum FAR requirements for commercial uses or active uses at the completion of
the first phase of the development. SSF General Plan Policy 3.4-I-18 requires sites larger than
20,000 square feet to have an FAR of no less than 0.6, of which a minimum of 0.3 FAR must
include active uses. The first phase of the project includes 201,497 square feet of commercial
uses, with 166,170 square feet of active uses, which only results in a total FAR of 0.32 and an
active use FAR of 0.26, both below the minimum thresholds. Therefore the proposed Project
60
that is guaranteed to be built is not consistent with the minimum FAR requirements included in
the General Plan.
ii. The General Plan Planning Sub-Areas Element (Chapter 3) identifies the
subject site as within the El Camino Sub-Area. Planning Sub-Area Element Policy 3.4-G-5
[Encourage the implementation of the Guiding Principles of the Grand Boulevard Initiative as
adopted by the Grand Boulevard Task Force in April of 2007] and Policy 3.4-G-6 [Develop the
South El Camino area as a vibrant corridor with a variety of residential and non-residential uses
to foster a walkable and pedestrian-scaled environment] target housing and job growth along the
El Camino Real corridor, building compact high-quality mixed-use development, and
strengthening pedestrian and bicycle connections within the corridor. Because the residential
component is not included in the first phase of development and there are no credible assurances
that the subsequent residential development phases will ever be completed, the proposed Project
is not targeting housing along the El Camino Real corridor, is not implementing the goals of the
Grand Boulevard Initiative Guiding Principles by creating a high-density mixed-use
development in a strategic area of El Camino that promotes walking and transit and an improved
quality of life, and is therefore not consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element.
iii. The General Plan Housing Element (Chapter 10) identifies the subject
site as a near-term housing opportunity site with an ability to accommodate up to 295 residential
units. Consistent with Housing Element Policy 1-1 [The City shall implement zoning to ensure
there is an adequate supply of land to meet its 2007 to 2014 ABAG Regional Housing Needs
Allocation (RHNA) of 373 very low income units, 268 low income units, 315 moderate income
units, and 679 above moderate units], the City adopted the South El Camino Real General Plan
Amendment, Zoning and Design Guidelines in 2010, which up-zoned the proposed Project site
to allow for high density (multi-family) residential development. Housing Element Policy 1-9
[The City shall maximize opportunities for residential development, through infill and
redevelopment of underutilized sites, without impacting existing neighborhoods or creating
conflicts with industrial operations] and Program 1-9A [Through the Zoning Ordinance update,
South El Camino Real General Plan update, the El Camino Real / Chestnut Specific Plan, the
City will identify opportunities for residential development through infill and redevelopment of
underutilized sites] further confirmed the importance of facilitating regulations that allow
residential development on El Camino Real. The proposed Project is not consistent with the
Housing Element because the residential component is not included in the first phase of
development, and further, there are no feasible assurances that subsequent residential
development phases will ever be completed.
iv. The General Plan Transportation Element (Chapter 4) includes Policy
4.2-G-6 [Make efficient use of existing transportation facilities and, through the arrangement of
land uses, improved alternate modes, and enhanced integration of various transportation
systems serving South San Francisco, strive to reduce the total vehicle-miles traveled] and
Policy 4.2-G-9 [Accept LOS E or F after finding that: There is no practical and feasible way to
61
mitigate the lower level of service; and the uses resulting in the lower level of service are of
clear, overall public benefit]. Because the residential component is not included in the first
phase of development and there are no credible assurances that subsequent residential
development phases will be completed, the proposed Project will not create a mixed-use project
that serves to reduce vehicle miles traveled and is not providing a clear, overall public benefit to
allow the lower level of service. Therefore the proposed Project is not consistent with the
General Plan Transportation Element.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City
of South San Francisco hereby makes the findings contained in this Resolution and denies a Use
Permit (UP11-0006), Design Review (DR11-0019) and Transportation Demand Management
Plan (TDM13-0001) for the Project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall become effective immediately
upon its passage and adoption.
* * * * * * *
I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the City Council of the City of
South San Francisco at the regular meeting held on the 26th day of February, 2014 by the
following vote:
AYES:________________________________________________________________
NOES:________________________________________________________________
ABSTENTIONS:________________________________________________________
ABSENT:______________________________________________________________
Attest:__________________________________
City Clerk
2241442.1
62
Attachment 3a
City Council Staff Reports – Meetings of September 11, 2013, September 25, 2013 and
October 23, 2013 (without attachments)
63
Staff Report
DATE: September 11, 2013
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Marty Van Duyn, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: CENTENNIAL VILLAGE – USE PERMIT, DESIGN REVIEW,
TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A
PHASED DEVELOPMENT TO CONSTRUCT A MIXED-USE PROJECT
INCLUDING APPROXIMATELY 222,000 SQUARE FEET OF
COMMERCIAL SPACE AND 284 RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON A 14.5 ACRE
SITE LOCATED AT 180 EL CAMINO REAL IN THE EL CAMINO REAL
MIXED USE (ECRMX) ZONING DISTRICT IN ACCORDANCE WITH
SSFMC CHAPTERS 19.60, 20.090, 20.300, 20.330, 20.350, 20.400, 20.440,
20.450, 20.460, 20.480 & 20.490.
Address: 180 El Camino Real (APN 014-183-110)
Owner: Shamain Partnership
Applicant: El Camino and Spruce LLC
Case No.: P11-0065: UP11-0006, DR11-0019, TDM13-0001, DA13-0002 &
ND12-0004
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council follow the recommendation of the Planning
Commission and take the following actions:
1. Adopt a Resolution making findings and adopting Mitigated Negative Declaration
ND12-0004; and
2. Adopt a Resolution making findings and approving Planning Project P11-0065,
including Use Permit UP11-0006, Design Review DR11-0019, and Transportation
Demand Management Plan TDM13-0001 based on the attached draft findings and
subject to the attached draft conditions of approval; and
3. Waive reading and introduce an Ordinance approving Development Agreement
DA13-0002.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
(A complete discussion of the proposed project is contained in the attached Planning
Commission staff report dated August 15, 2013.)
64
Staff Report
Subject: 180 El Camino Real - Mixed Use Development
Date: September 11, 2013
Page 2 of 6
Existing Site
The Project site is a 14.5 acre lot with frontages on El Camino Real and South Spruce Ave. The
existing shopping center on the site was constructed in 1965, and currently includes Safeway,
Bally’s Total Fitness, CVS, and Bedroom Express. Firestone Tire & Auto Center is located in a
smaller building at the northwest corner of the site, close to the intersection of El Camino Real
and South Spruce Ave.
The site is bordered by commercial uses to the south, Brentwood Shopping Center and single-
family residential to the west across El Camino Real, See’s Candies and single-family residential
to the north across South Spruce Ave, and office and other general commercial uses to the east
across Huntington Ave. The subject site does not extend all the way to Huntington Avenue –
there is a surface parking lot, a professional office building and a Salvation Army facility
abutting the eastern edge of the property.
The City has in recent years updated General Plan policies and Zoning Ordinance standards
related to the El Camino Real corridor in an effort to “develop the South El Camino area as a
vibrant corridor with a variety of residential and non-residential uses to foster a walkable and
pedestrian-scaled environment” (General Plan Guiding Policy 3.4-G-7), and has been working
with the applicant to develop a plan to achieve this objective on the site.
Proposed Project
The proposed project consists of the demolition of the existing 145,000 square foot shopping
center and replacing it with a mixed-use shopping center containing approximately 220,000
square feet of commercial area, with 284 residential units on upper floors, on this prominent 14.5
acre site.
El Camino Real and South Spruce Avenue would be fronted by a series of two-story buildings
(Buildings A, B, C, D and Major Tenant 3 - CVS) providing a total of 42,400 square feet for
retail uses on the ground floor and 35,300 square feet for office uses on the second floor. These
buildings would serve to create a more pedestrian-friendly environment at the street edge,
increase the amount of commercial activity on the site, and obscure views of the interior parking
lot.
The interior of the site would include an L-shaped five story mixed-use building, with
commercial uses on the ground floor, parking on the second level, and 284 residential units on
the third, fourth and fifth floors. The residential component of the project would consist of a
mixture of one- and two-bedroom apartment units with associated amenities, including open
courtyards. The ground floor tenant spaces would include a 58,000-square-foot Safeway, a
30,000-square-foot Commercial/Retail use (Major Tenant 2), a 36,000-square-foot Health Club
use, and 21,000 square feet of smaller commercial tenant spaces (Building E).
The development could be constructed in up to three phases; following is a breakdown of each
specific phase:
Phase 1
- Construction of ground level retail for Major Tenants 1 (Safeway), 2 (to be determined), the
health club, and both levels of Buildings A, B, C and D and Major Tenant 3 (CVS).
65
Staff Report
Subject: 180 El Camino Real - Mixed Use Development
Date: September 11, 2013
Page 3 of 6
- Construction of all surface parking and landscaping improvements.
- Construction of 184 parking stalls above Safeway and Major Tenant 2.
Phase 2
- Construction of all structured parking and Building E (including basement level parking).
- Construction of parking level above Building E and Health Club building.
- Construction of a minimum of 141 residential units above the Health Club and Building E.
Phase 3
- Construction of the remaining residential units (up to a total 284 units) above Safeway and
Major Tenant 2.
ZONING CONSISTENCY
Upon full build-out, the proposed project will entail a mixed-use development that fulfills all of
the purpose statements, standards and regulations of the El Camino Real Mixed Use (“ECRMX”)
Zone District, subject to approval of specific exceptions for which the Planning Commission
recommended approval. These exceptions are related to “Supplemental Regulations” within the
ECRMX District, and the approval body is allowed to grant exceptions for specific standards
upon determining that the underlying intent of the ECRMX district is still being met.
A more detailed review of the City’s development standards and requirements is contained in the
attached Planning Commission staff report.
PRELIMINARY TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN
In accordance with the Transportation Demand Management (“TDM”) Ordinance, a preliminary
TDM plan is included as part of the project to achieve a minimum 28% alternative mode use,
applicable to all nonresidential development expected to generate 100 or more average daily
trips. In general, the preliminary TDM plan provides for the requisite mode shift goal, and
includes all of the required trip reduction measures, including carpool and vanpool ridematching
services, designated employer contact, guaranteed ride home program, and showers and clothes
locker facilities. A copy of the preliminary TDM plan is attached.
GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
The General Plan Land Use Designation for the site is El Camino Real Mixed Use (“ECRMX”).
The ECRMX land use designation allows for high-intensity active uses and mixed-use
developments. The frontage of the site along El Camino Real and other arterial/collector streets
are required to be devoted to active uses. Upon full build-out of the project, the development
will conform to the General Plan Land Use Policies by creating a mixed-use environment within
the required FAR parameters that emphasizes pedestrian-activity with buildings built up to the
sidewalk along El Camino Real and South Spruce Ave, provides a well-articulated and visually
engaging development that implements the goals of the Grand Boulevard Initiative and locates
parking in a way that is not visually dominant.
66
Staff Report
Subject: 180 El Camino Real - Mixed Use Development
Date: September 11, 2013
Page 4 of 6
Additionally, the Housing Element identifies the subject site as a near-term housing opportunity
site. Assuming a density of 60 dwelling units per acre for a third of the site, consistent with
densities allowed within the South El Camino Real corridor, the site was identified as being able
to accommodate up to 295 units.
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
The applicant and the City have negotiated a Development Agreement (“DA”) to clarify and
obligate Project features and mitigation measures. The applicant has stated that currently the
economics of the project do not justify the development of apartments, as the total rental income
versus total costs of development are not sufficient to justify the risks associated with the
development at this time. Therefore, the primary feature of the DA is the phasing of the
residential units. Upon the tenth anniversary of the execution of the agreement, the applicant
will be required to perform a calculation of Economic Feasibility; if the performance triggers are
met, the applicant would be required to construct Phase 2 within 12 months. Other Development
Agreement items include:
The term of the Agreement would be twenty (20) years.
Payment of applicable fees, including Public Safety Impact Fee and Child Care Impact
Fee, including annual escalators.
Timing of Project Construction and Completion.
o Phase 1 construction will begin within 18 months of final project entitlement
approval.
o If the 284 apartment units have not been constructed within 10 years of the
approval of the DA, then three triggers are identified to determine if the
residential units are “Economically Feasible”. The triggers were developed
jointly by the project applicant, City staff and the City’s economic consultants. If
all three triggers are met, the developer shall either commence construction or
arrange with another Developer to commence construction of Phase 2 within 12
months.
o Upon the completion of Phase 2, if the same “Economically Feasible” triggers are
met the developer shall either commence construction or arrange with another
Developer to commence construction of Phase 3 within 12 months.
The proposed Development Agreement is attached to the draft Ordinance.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The City adopted the South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment (“South ECR GPA”) on
March 24, 2010. The South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment EIR was prepared as a
Program EIR, pursuant to Section 15168 of the California Environmental Quality Act
(“CEQA”), and this document was certified by the City Council following public review and
comment.
67
Staff Report
Subject: 180 El Camino Real - Mixed Use Development
Date: September 11, 2013
Page 5 of 6
Consistent with the CEQA tiering principles and procedures, an Initial Study/ Mitigated
Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) was prepared to determine whether the project could have any
significant impacts that had not been adequately addressed in the South ECR GPA EIR. The
IS/MND identifies significant impacts that would be reduced to less than significant impacts
through various mitigation measures, which are discussed in the document.
The IS/MND was distributed to the State Clearinghouse and circulated for a 30-day public
review on April 12, 2013. A total of six comment letters were received from commenting
agencies: San Mateo County Health System (dated April 29, 2013); San Francisco International
Airport (dated May 3, 2013); County of San Mateo Department of Public Works (dated May 8,
2013); C/CAG staff (dated May 13, 2013); the California Department of Transportation (dated
May 14, 2013); and the City of San Bruno (dated May 21, 2013). None of the comment letters
raised significant environmental issues.
A copy of the “Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration” and the “Final
Mitigated Negative Declaration”, which includes the comment letters and the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, are attached to the CEQA Resolution.
REVIEW BY OTHER AGENCIES
The project site is located within Airport Influence Area B as defined in the Airport Land Use
Compatibility Plan (“ALUCP”) for San Francisco International Airport (“SFO”). Projects
located within this influence area are subject to the ALUCP policies related to noise
compatibility, safety compatibility, and airspace protection.
When the current ALUCP was adopted by the City/County Association of Governments of San
Mateo County (C/CAG) in November 2012, the SFO noise contours were updated. Under the
previous 1996 Comprehensive Land Use Plan (“CLUP”), the project site was located within the
CNEL 65 to 70 dB noise contour, which allows multi-family residential units subject to adequate
sound insulation and grant of avigation easement. The 2012 ALUCP updated noise contours
located the project site within the CNEL 70 to 75 dB noise contour, which would not allow new
residential development.
ALUCP General Policy GP-5.3 grants an exception to noise consistency evaluations for
development actions in the review process before the effective date of the current ALUCP,
provided that the proposed development complies with all other requirements of the current
ALUCP. In SFO’s comment letter related to the IS/MND, they verify that the project application
was deemed complete before the adoption of the ALUCP, and therefore is to be evaluated under
the 1996 CLUP. However, any future proposal (not included in the proposed development
application) to construct additional dwelling, subdivide land, or create condominiums for
residential use within the CNEL 70-75 dB contour would be considered incompatible with the
ALUCP.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
At the Planning Commission meeting of August 15, 2013, the Commission reviewed the
proposed project. Five members of the public spoke on the project, with questions related to
68
69
Staff Report
DATE: September 25, 2013
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Marty Van Duyn, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: CENTENNIAL VILLAGE – USE PERMIT, DESIGN REVIEW,
TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A
PHASED DEVELOPMENT TO CONSTRUCT A MIXED-USE PROJECT
INCLUDING APPROXIMATELY 222,000 SQUARE FEET OF
COMMERCIAL SPACE AND 284 RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON A 14.5 ACRE
SITE LOCATED AT 180 EL CAMINO REAL IN THE EL CAMINO REAL
MIXED USE (ECRMX) ZONING DISTRICT IN ACCORDANCE WITH
SSFMC CHAPTERS 19.60, 20.090, 20.300, 20.330, 20.350, 20.400, 20.440,
20.450, 20.460, 20.480 & 20.490.
Address: 180 El Camino Real (APN 014-183-110)
Owner: Shamain Partnership
Applicant: El Camino and Spruce LLC
Case No.: P11-0065: UP11-0006, DR11-0019, TDM13-0001, DA13-0002 &
ND12-0004
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council follow the recommendation of the Planning
Commission and take the following actions:
1. Adopt a Resolution making findings and adopting Mitigated Negative Declaration
ND12-0004; and
2. Adopt a Resolution making findings and approving Planning Project P11-0065,
including Use Permit UP11-0006, Design Review DR11-0019, and Transportation
Demand Management Plan TDM13-0001 based on the attached draft findings and
subject to the attached draft conditions of approval; and
3. Waive reading and introduce an Ordinance approving Development Agreement
DA13-0002.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
September 11th Staff Report and Discussion
The September 11, 2013 City Council Staff Report (without attachments) is attached for
background on the project. At that meeting, Council was supportive of the proposed project but
70
71
Staff Report
Subject: 180 El Camino Real - Mixed Use Development
Date: September 25, 2013
Page 3 of 3
2. Draft Entitlements Resolution
Exhibit A: Conditions of Approval (as attached to the draft resolution provided
with the September 11, 2013 City Council Packet)
Exhibit B: Preliminary Transportation Demand Management Plan (as attached to
the draft resolution provided with the September 11, 2013 City
Council Packet)
Exhibit C: Project Plans (as attached to the draft resolution provided with the
September 11, 2013 City Council Packet)
3. Draft Ordinance
Exhibit A: Development Agreement
4. City Council Staff Report – September 11, 2013
BMN/MVD/SK/GB/bg
72
Staff Report
DATE: October 23, 2013
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Marty Van Duyn, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: CENTENNIAL VILLAGE – USE PERMIT, DESIGN REVIEW,
TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A
PHASED DEVELOPMENT TO CONSTRUCT A MIXED-USE PROJECT
INCLUDING APPROXIMATELY 222,000 SQUARE FEET OF
COMMERCIAL SPACE AND 284 RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON A 14.5 ACRE
SITE LOCATED AT 180 EL CAMINO REAL IN THE EL CAMINO REAL
MIXED USE (ECRMX) ZONING DISTRICT IN ACCORDANCE WITH
SSFMC CHAPTERS 19.60, 20.090, 20.300, 20.330, 20.350, 20.400, 20.440,
20.450, 20.460, 20.480 & 20.490.
Address: 180 El Camino Real (APN 014-183-110)
Owner: Shamain Partnership
Applicant: El Camino and Spruce LLC
Case No.: P11-0065: UP11-0006, DR11-0019, TDM13-0001, DA13-0002 &
ND12-0004
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council follow the recommendation of the Planning
Commission and take the following actions:
1. Adopt a Resolution making findings and adopting Mitigated Negative Declaration
ND12-0004; and
2. Adopt a Resolution making findings and approving Planning Project P11-0065,
including Use Permit UP11-0006, Design Review DR11-0019, and Transportation
Demand Management Plan TDM13-0001 based on the attached draft findings and
subject to the attached draft conditions of approval; and
3. Waive reading and introduce an Ordinance approving Development Agreement
DA13-0002.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
September 11th and September 25th Staff Reports and Discussion
The September 11, 2013 and September 25, 2013 City Council Staff Reports (without
attachments) are attached for background on the project. At the September 25th meeting, Council
73
74
Staff Report
Subject: 180 El Camino Real - Mixed Use Development
Date: October 23, 2013
Page 3 of 3
3. Draft Ordinance
Exhibit A: Development Agreement
4. City Council Staff Reports – September 11, 2013 and September 25, 2013 (without
attachments)
BMN/MVD/SK/GB/bg
75
Initial Study and
Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of South San Francisco
180 El Camino Real
Prepared for
The City of South San Francisco
By
April 8, 2013
Table of Contents
1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1-1
1.1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ................................................ 1-1
1.2 Project Information ....................................................................................... 1-3
1.3 2010 South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment and EIR ................ 1-6
1.4 City of South San Francisco Standard Conditions of Project Approval ....... 1-8
1.5 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ............................................... 1-14
1.6 Lead Agency’s Determination .................................................................... 1-15
2 Project Description .................................................................................................. 2-1
2.1 Project Location and Setting ........................................................................ 2-1
2.2 Project Description ....................................................................................... 2-6
3 Environmental Checklist ......................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 Aesthetics .................................................................................................... 3-2
3.2 Agricultural Resources ................................................................................. 3-4
3.3 Air Quality .................................................................................................... 3-6
3.4 Biological Resources ................................................................................. 3-14
3.5 Cultural Resources .................................................................................... 3-16
3.6 Geology and Soils ...................................................................................... 3-20
3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...................................................................... 3-23
3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ............................................................. 3-25
3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality ..................................................................... 3-29
3.10 Land Use and Planning .............................................................................. 3-32
3.11 Mineral Resources ..................................................................................... 3-33
3.12 Noise .......................................................................................................... 3-34
3.13 Population and Housing ............................................................................. 3-36
Table of Contents
ii
3.14 Public Services .......................................................................................... 3-37
3.15 Recreation .................................................................................................. 3-39
3.16 Transportation and Traffic .......................................................................... 3-40
3.17 Utilities and Service Systems ..................................................................... 3-49
3.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance ........................................................... 3-51
4 References ................................................................................................................. 4-1
5 Appendix ................................................................................................................... 5-1
Phase I Environmental Assessment of 170-192 El Camino Real
Air Quality Analysis Calculation Output
First Quarter 2012 Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report: Chevron 306441 (Former
Unocal No. 6980) 190-192 El Camino Real
Traffic Impact Study for 180 El Camino Real in the City of South San Francisco,
Updated Draft Report
180 El Camino Real– Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration
iii
List of Figures
Figure 1.1: Regional Context ................................................................................. 1-4
Figure 1.2: Project Location ................................................................................... 1-5
Figure 2.1: South ECR GPA Boundary and Project Site ....................................... 2-2
Figure 2.2: View of Site From El Camino Real ...................................................... 2-3
Figure 2.3: View of On-site Parking and Fences at Residential Neighborhood
West of Site ......................................................................................... 2-3
Figure 2.4: Commercial Uses East of Site ............................................................. 2-4
Figure 2.5: Commercial Uses South of Site ........................................................... 2-4
Figure 2.6: Commercial Buildings Along El Camino Real ...................................... 2-5
Figure 2.7: Site Plan .............................................................................................. 2-8
Figure 2.8: Second Level Plan ............................................................................... 2-9
Figure 2.9: Third Level Plan ................................................................................. 2-10
Figure 2.10: Landscape Plan ................................................................................. 2-11
Figure 2.11: Conceptual Podium Level Landscape Plan ....................................... 2-12
Figure 2.12: West Elevation ................................................................................... 2-13
Figure 2.13: North Elevation .................................................................................. 2-14
Figure 2.14: Phase 1 Elevation - Retail Major 2 (Safeway) ................................... 2-15
Figure 2.15: Health Club Elevation ........................................................................ 2-16
Figure 2.16: Phase 1 Elevation - Health Club ........................................................ 2-17
Figure 2.17: Building E Elevation ........................................................................... 2-18
Figure 2.18: South Elevation - Retail Major 2 (Safeway) ....................................... 2-19
Figure 2.19: Elevation - Retail Major 2 and 3 ........................................................ 2-20
Figure 2.20: Elevation - Building B ........................................................................ 2-21
Figure 2.21: Elevation - Building A ........................................................................ 2-22
Figure 2.22: Elevation - Buildings C and D ............................................................ 2-23
Figure 3.1: Remediation Compound Location ..................................................... 3-27
Table of Contents
iv
List of Tables
Table 1.1: Summary Of Impacts And Proposed Mitigation Measures
That Reduce The Impact ..................................................................... 1-7
Table 2.1: Total Gross Square Footage ............................................................... 2-6
Table 2.2: Residential Units .................................................................................. 2-6
Table 3.1: Construction Criteria Pollutant Emissions as Compared with
BAAQMD Thresholds of Significance (Pounds Per Day) .................... 3-8
Table 3.2: Construction Criteria Pollutant Emissions With Mitigation
Measures as Compared with BAAQMD Thresholds of Significance ... 3-8
Table 3.3: Operations-Related Emissions as Compared with BAAQMD
Thresholds of Significance at Project Level ......................................... 3-9
Table 3.4: Air Quality Data Summary for the Project Vicinity ............................. 3-11
Table 3.5: Existing Permitted Stationary Pollutant Source and Roadway
Pollutant Source Compared to BAAQMD Thresholds ....................... 3-13
Table 3.6: Constructions-Related Greenhouse Gas Emission ........................... 3-23
Table 3.7: Operations-Related Greenhouse Gas Emission as Compared
with BAAQMD Thresholds of Significance at Project Level ............... 3-24
Table 3.8: C/CAG Level Of Service Thresholds ................................................. 3-41
Table 3.9: AM and PM Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Summary ....... 3-42
Table 3.10: AM and PM Peak Hour Roadway Segment Level of
Service Summary .............................................................................. 3-43
Table 3.11: AM and PM Peak Hour Intersection Cumulative Level of Service
Summary ........................................................................................... 3-44
Table 3.12: AM and PM Peak Hour Roadway Segment Cumulative
Level of Service Summary ................................................................. 3-47
1 Introduction
1.1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
This Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which can be found in the California Public Resources Code Section
21000 et seq., and the CEQA Guidelines found in California Code of Regulations Title 14, Chapter 3,
Section 15000 et seq., as amended.
Pursuant to State law this Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration will be made available to the State
Clearinghouse and the public for a 30-day review period prior to the Lead Agency considering adoption
of this document.
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15074 (California Code of Regulations Title 14, Chapter 3) when
considering adoption of a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration the Lead Agency is
bound by the following:
A. Any advisory body of a public agency making a recommendation to the decision-making body
shall consider the proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration before making
its recommendation.
B. Prior to approving a project the Lead Agency shall consider the proposed negative declaration or
mitigated negative declaration together with any comments received during the public review
process. The decision-making body shall adopt the proposed negative declaration or mitigated
negative declaration only if it finds on the whole of the record before it that there is no substantial
evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and that a negative
declaration or mitigated negative declaration reflects the Lead Agency’s independent judgment
and analysis.
C. When adopting a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration, the Lead Agency shall
specify the location and custodian of the documents or other material which constitute the record
of proceedings upon which its decision is based.
D. When adopting a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration, the Lead Agency shall
also adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has either required in
the Project or made a condition of approval to avoid or mitigate significant environmental
impacts.
E. A Lead Agency shall not adopt a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration for a
project within the boundaries of a comprehensive airport land use plan or, if a comprehensive
airport land use plan has not been adopted, for a project within two nautical miles of a public use
Chapter 1: Introduction
1-2
airport, without first considering whether the project will result in a safety hazard or noise
problem for persons using the airport or for persons residing or working in the project area.
In the case of the proposed Project, the Design Review Board and Planning Commission are the advisory
bodies. The decision making body is the South San Francisco City Council.
LEAD AGENCY/CONTACT
The Lead Agency for this Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration is the City of South San Francisco.
During the 30-day comment period, please mail comments on this Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative
Declaration to the project manager for the Lead Agency at the following address:
Billy Gross, Associate Planner
Department of Economic and Community Development-Planning Division
P.O. Box 711
South San Francisco, CA 94083
Contact Phone: (650) 877-8535
180 El Camino Real– Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration
1-3
1.2 Project Information
PROJECT TITLE
180 El Camino Real
LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
City of South San Francisco
Economic and Community Development Department
(mailing)
P.O. Box 711
South San Francisco, CA 94083
(physical)
315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER
Billy Gross, Associate Planner
(650) 877-8535
PROJECT LOCATION
180 El Camino Real, South San Francisco (See Figure 1.1 Project Location)
Assessor’s Parcel Number: 014183110
PROJECT APPLICANT’S NAME AND ADDRESS
WT Mitchell Group
3380 Vincent Rd
Suite Hub
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
REQUIRED PROJECT ENTITLEMENTS
Use Permit
Design Standard Exceptions
Design Review
Transportation Demand Management Plan
CalTrans – Approval for the proposed left turn on WB El Camino Real onto the south driveway
GENERAL PLAN /ZONING DESIGNATION
El Camino Real Mixed Use/El Camino Real Mixed Use (ECRMX)
Chapter 1: Introduction
1-4
SURROUNDING LAND USES AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
See Chapter 2 Project Description.
Figure 1.1: Regional Context
180 El Camino Real– Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration
1-5
Figure 1.2: Project Location
Chapter 1: Introduction
1-6
1.3 2010 South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment
and EIR
The City of South San Francisco last prepared a comprehensive General Plan update in 1999. At that time,
the City also prepared and certified a Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the General Plan.
On March 24, 2010, the City adopted the South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment (South ECR
GPA), which amended the General Plan to allow mixed-use development along the South El Camino Real
Corridor. The Amendment added the El Camino Real Mixed Use designation to the General Plan, with
which the project site is currently designated. Zoning Ordinance amendments were also adopted at the
same time. A full program-level EIR was prepared on these amendments, and was certified by the City
Council following public review and comment on the Revised Draft EIR. The South El Camino Real
General Plan Amendment EIR (South ECR GPA EIR) was prepared as a Program EIR, pursuant to
Section 15168 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines).
To make environmental review as efficient as possible, CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines establish policies
and procedures for relying on previously certified EIRs, and focusing the environmental analysis of
subsequent projects. This process, known as “tiering” allows for:
“the coverage of general matters and environmental effects in an environmental impact report prepared
for a policy, plan, program, or ordinance followed by narrower or site-specific environmental impact
reports which incorporate by reference the discussion in any prior environmental impact report and
which concentrate on the environmental effects which (a) are capable of being mitigated, or (b) were not
analyzed as significant effects on the environment in the prior environmental impact report.” (Pub.
Resources Code, § 21068.5.)
CEQA also allows a lead agency to tier a negative declaration from a previously prepared EIR. (CEQA
Guidelines, § 15152.) Specific provisions in CEQA also provide for tiering from an EIR prepared for a
General Plan. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21083.3, CEQA Guidelines, § 15183.)
Consistent with the CEQA tiering principles and procedures, in evaluating the potential environmental
effects of this Project, an initial study was prepared to determine whether the Project could have any
significant impacts that had not been adequately addressed in the South ECR GPA EIR.
The initial study that follows includes analysis of potential Project related impacts. The initial study and
the accompanying analyses demonstrates that there is no substantial evidence that the Project may have
significant impacts that have not been adequately addressed in either the General Plan EIR or the South
ECR GPA EIR, or that cannot be avoided through compliance with federal, State and local policies.
Therefore, a mitigated negative declaration is proposed for the Project.
Table 1.1 summarizes environmental factors potentially affected and mitigation measures that reduce the
impact to a less than significant level:
180 El Camino Real– Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration
1-7
Table 1.1: Summary Of Impacts And Proposed Mitigation Measures That Reduce The
Impact
Impact Mitigation
Measure
Significance With
Mitigation
Page
Number
3.3 Air Quality
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to
an existing or projected air quality violation?
AQ-1 Less Than
Significant
3-8
3.5 Cultural Resources
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in §15064.5?
CULT-1 Less Than
Significant
3-17
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
CULT-2 Less Than
Significant
3-18
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
CULT-3 Less Than
Significant
3-19
3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
HAZ-1 Less Than
Significant
3-26
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into
the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-
quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment?
3.16 Transportation and Traffic
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy
establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance
of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of
transportation including mass transit and non-motorized
travel and relevant components of the circulation system,
including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways
and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
TRANS-1 Less Than
Significant
3-46
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program,
including, but not limited to level of service standards and
travel demand measures, or other standards established by
the county congestion management agency for designated
roads or highways?
In accordance with CEQA, this mitigated negative declaration tiers from the South ECR GPA EIR, which
is available for review during regular business hours at the City’s Economic and Community
Chapter 1: Introduction
1-8
Development Department – Planning Division, City Hall Annex, 315 Maple Avenue, South San
Francisco, California, 94080.
1.4 City of South San Francisco Standard Conditions of
Project Approval
The following Conditions of Project Approval (COAs) are required through the City of South San
Francisco standard project review and approval procedures. Each of the following requirements will be
imposed upon and incorporated into the Project, as conditions of approval and/or conditions of a
building permit. Implementation of these COAs will help ensure that potential impacts associated with
the Project remain less than significant.
AIR QUALITY
Dust Control. All construction projects are required to comply with the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District’s (BAAQMD) dust control measures including Basic Fugitive Dust Emissions
Reduction Measures, Basic Exhaust Emissions Reduction Measures and some of the Additional Fugitive
Dust Emissions Reduction Measures identified by the BAAQMD May 2011. These measures are levied by
the Engineering Division as a condition of building permit issuance and are monitored for compliance by
City inspectors. The measures include:
Water all active construction sites at least twice daily.
Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at
least two feet of freeboard.
Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access
roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites.
Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at
construction sites.
Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public
streets.
Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously graded
areas inactive for ten days or more).
Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiled materials.
Install sandbags or other erosion-control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways.
Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.
Watering should be used to control dust generation during the break-up of pavement.
Cover all trucks hauling demolition debris from the site.
Use dust-proof chutes to load debris into trucks whenever feasible.
Water or cover stockpiles of debris, soil, sand or other materials that can be blown by the wind.
180 El Camino Real– Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration
1-9
Diesel powered equipment shall be maintained in good working condition, with manufacturer-
recommended mufflers, filters, and other equipment.
Diesel powered equipment shall not be left inactive and idling for more than ten minutes, and
shall comply with applicable BAAQMD rules.
Use alternative fueled construction equipment, if possible.
All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.
All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible.
Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the
maximum idling time to five (5) minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control
measure Title 13, Section 2484 of the California Code of regulations). Clear signage shall be
provided for construction workers at all access points.
Post a visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding
dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 24 hours. The Air
District phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
Toxic Air Contaminants. The potential for toxic air contaminants (asbestos and lead based paint) to be
released into the environment is regulated and monitored through the Building Division. Any applicant
requesting a building or demolition permit involving a structure suspected of containing asbestos (defined
as a building constructed prior to 1978) and/or lead based paint (defined as a building constructed prior
to 1960) is required to obtain a J Permit from the BAAQMD. The J Permit is required to be posted on the
job site and if it is not there the job will be fined by the BAAQMD and may be shut down by the City’s
Building Division. Through this process, the BAAQMD and the City Building Division ensure that
asbestos and lead based paints are handled, removed, encapsulated and disposed of in accordance with
prevailing law requisite to protect the environment, the people conducting the work and nearby sensitive
receptors. The process typically requires surveys and removal of lead based paints and asbestos by licensed
contractors certified in the handling methods requisite to protect the environment and public health and
safety. The process also provides for BAAQMD and City supervision to ensure compliance.
Vehicle Emissions. The potential for air quality degradation from vehicle emissions is regulated to some
extent by Section 20.400.003 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. Table 20.400.003 in the Zoning
Ordinance establishes specific program requirements for a project generating one hundred or more
vehicle non-residential trips per day or a project seeking a floor area ratio (FAR) bonus. The required
alternative mode use for all projects is twenty-eight percent below standard non-residential trip rates
modeled for the project without Traffic Demand Management (TDM) measures and incremental increase
in reduction. Projects with increased FAR are required to increase their alternative mode use accordingly.
The Planning Division implements and monitors this requirement.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Table 18-1-B Uniform Building Code. All construction projects are required to comply with the
Uniform Building Code. Projects located on soils identified in Volume 2 Table 18-1-B of the Uniform
Building Code are required to comply with the construction specifications to mitigate potential impacts
due to liquefaction. This requirement is enforced and monitored by the Engineering Division.
Chapter 1: Introduction
1-10
Compliance with the Uniform Building Code is also implemented and monitored by the Building
Division.
Geotechnical Reports. The City Engineering Division also requires geotechnical reports as a part of the
permit package for projects to be constructed on vacant land, demolition and rebuilding and additions to
buildings that require grading and additional loading. The geotechnical reports are required to be
prepared by a licensed geologist, geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist. The reports address
design and construction specifications for the project including grading, site drainage, utility and
infrastructure design specifications and placement and building design. The reports are peer reviewed by
the City’s geotechnical consultant and are modified as recommended by the City’s consultant.
Geotechnical approval is required prior to issuance of a building permit. The geotechnical professional of
record is required to sign all project drawings and the City’s geotechnical consultant provides
construction inspections, oversight and monitoring for the City. The Engineering Division implements
and monitors this requirement.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Stormwater Runoff Prevention (Operational). All Projects are required to comply with the San Mateo
Countywide Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (STOPPP), an organization of the City/County
Association of Governments (C/CAG) of San Mateo County holding a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Storm Water Discharge permit. The City requires the implementation of
Best Management Practices (BMP’s) for new development and construction as part of its storm water
management program, as levied through standard City COA’s. The requirements are implemented and
monitored by the Public Works Department.
The measures address pollution control and management mechanisms for contractor activities, e.g.
structure construction, material delivery and storage, solid waste management, employee and
subcontractor training. Stormwater pollution prevention measures also affect site development and
operations in order to prevent pollution due to project occupancy. Typical storm water quality protection
measures include:
Walking and light traffic areas shall use permeable pavements where feasible. Typical pervious
pavements include pervious concrete, porous asphalt, turf block, brick pavers, natural stone
pavers, concrete unit pavers, crushed aggregate (gravel), cobbles and wood mulch.
Parking lots shall include hybrid surfaces (pervious material for stalls only), concave medians
with biofilters (grassy swales), and landscaped infiltration/detention basins as feasible.
Landscape design shall incorporate biofilters, infiltration and retention/detention basins into the
site plan as feasible.
Outdoor work areas including garbage, recycling, maintenance, storage, and loading, applicable
storm water controls include siting or set back from drainage paths and water ways, provision of
roofing and curbs or berms to prevent run on and run off. If the area has the potential to generate
contaminated run off, structural treatment controls for contaminant removal (such as debris
screens or filters) shall be incorporated into the design.
Roof leaders and site drainage shall be filtered and directed to the City storm drain system.
180 El Camino Real– Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration
1-11
Drainage from paved surfaces shall be filtered through vegetated swales, buffer or sand strips
before discharge to the City’s storm drain system.
Stormwater Runoff Prevention (Construction). The City of South San Francisco requires through
COAs, project compliance with the State Water Quality Control Board’s general permitting requirements
which requires the applicant to secure a Construction Activities Storm Water General Permit, complete a
Notice of Intent (NOI) and prepare and obtain approval of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP). The state issues a Waste Discharge Identification number within 10 days of receipt of a
complete NOI and SWPPP. The applicant is then required to submit copies of the NOI and SWPPP to the
City of South San Francisco’s Technical Services Supervisor within the Water Quality Control Plant the
Public Works Department prior to issuance of building and/or grading permits. The requirements are
implemented and monitored by Water Quality Control personnel. Typical construction stormwater
protection measures include:
Identify all storm drains, drainage swales and creeks located near construction sites and prevent
pollutants from entering them by the use of filter fabric cloth, rock bags, straw wattles, slope
hydroseeding, cleaning up leaks, drips or spills immediately, use dry cleanup methods to clean up
spills, use of berms, temporary ditches and check dams to reduce the velocity of surface flow.
Place rock bags at all drain inlets to filter silt and along curb and gutter to filter water before the
drain inlets.
Place straw wattles and hydroseed the sloped areas.
Place straw matting at the temporary sloped areas for erosion control.
Place drain systems to filter and then drain into drain inlets.
Use silt fencing with straw mats and hand broadcast seed for erosion control.
Construct temporary drainage systems to filter and divert water accordingly.
Construct temporary rock and asphalt driveways and wheel washers to buffer public streets from
dirt and mud.
Use part and full time street sweepers that operate along public streets and roads.
Cover all stockpiled soils to protect from erosion. Use berms around stockpiled soils.
Cover and protect from erosion plaster, concrete and other powders which create large amounts
of suspended solids.
Store all hazardous materials (paints, solvents, chemicals) in accordance with secondary
containment regulations and cover during wet weather.
Use terracing to prevent erosion.
Through grading plan review and approval, phase grading operations to reduce disturbed areas
during wet weather, limit vegetation removal, delineate clearing limits, setbacks, easements,
sensitive or critical areas, trees, drainage courses and buffer zones to prevent unnecessary
disturbance and exposure. Limit or prohibit grading during the wet weather season, October 15 to
April 15th.
Chapter 1: Introduction
1-12
Prevent spills and leaks by maintaining equipment, designating specific areas of a site for such
activities that are controlled and away from water courses and perform major maintenance off-
site or in designated areas only.
Cover and maintain all dumpsters, collect and properly dispose of all paint removal wastes, clean
up paints, solvents, adhesives and all cleaning solvents properly. Recycle and salvage appropriate
wastes and maintain an adequate debris disposal schedule.
Avoid roadwork and pavement stormwater pollution by following manufacturers’ instructions.
NOISE
Interior Ambient Noise. The City of South San Francisco regulates noise exposure through its General
Plan, Municipal Code (Chapter 8.32 – “Noise”) and State law.
The California Building Code (CBC) Title 24, Part 2, Chapter 2.35 of the California Code of Regulation,
collectively known as Title 24, contains acoustical requirements for interior sound levels in habitable
rooms for multi-family residential land uses. Title 24 contains requirements for construction of new
hotels, motels, apartment houses, and dwellings other than detached single-family dwellings intended to
limit the extent of noise transmitted into habitable spaces. The standard specifies the extent to which
walls, doors, and floor-ceiling assemblies must block or absorb sound in between units and the amount of
attenuation needed to limit noise from exterior sources. The standard sets forth an interior noise level of
45 dBA (CNEL or Ldn) in any habitable room with all doors and windows closed and requires an
acoustical analysis demonstrating how dwelling units have been designed to meet this interior standard
where such units are proposed in areas subject to noise levels greater than 60 dBA (CNEL or Ldn). Title 24
requirements are enforced as a condition of building permit issuance by the Building Division.
The City, through its General Plan, regulates noise in the City of South San Francisco. Policies include:
9-I-4 Ensure that project applications for all new noise-sensitive land uses (plans and specifications),
including hospitals and residential units proposed within the CNEL 60 dB to CNEL 69 dB aircraft
noise contour include an acoustical study, prepared by a professional acoustic engineer, that
specifies the appropriate noise mitigation features to be included in the design and construction
of these uses, to achieve an interior noise level of not more than CNEL 45 dB in any habitable
room, based on the latest official San Francisco International Airport (SFO) noise contours and
on-site measurement data.
9-1-5 Ensure that project applications for new noise-sensitive land uses (plans and specifications),
including schools and places of assembly, proposed within the CNEL 60 dB to CNEL 69 dB
aircraft noise contour include an acoustical study, prepared by a professional acoustic engineer,
that specifies the appropriate noise mitigation features to be included in the design and
construction of these uses, to achieve an interior noise level of not more than Leq 45 dB for the
noisiest hour of normal facility operation.
9-I-6 Require that applicants for new noise-sensitive development in areas subject to noise generators
producing noise levels greater than 65 dB CNEL, obtain the services of a professional acoustical
engineer to provide a technical analysis and design of mitigation measures.
180 El Camino Real– Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration
1-13
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 SFO to grant an avigation easement to the City and County
of San Francisco, as proprietor of SFO.
Exterior Ambient Noise. The City of South San Francisco regulates exterior noise levels through the
South San Francisco Municipal Code (Section 8.32.030). The Municipal Code regulates noise pursuant to
land use and time of day. Lower density residential maximum noise exposure (excluding vehicle horns
and emergency vehicles) is restricted to 50 dB from 10 P.M. to 7 A.M. and 60 dB from 7 A.M. to 10 P.M.
Higher density residential and commercial is restricted to 55 dB from 10 P.M. to 7 A.M. and 65 dB from 7
A.M. to 10 P.M. Industrial land uses are restricted to 70 dB anytime of the day. These noise standards are
implemented largely through enforcement actions (i.e., citizen complaint and governmental response).
The Fire Department through its Code Enforcement Officer implements these regulations.
The City of South San Francisco regulates construction noise through the South San Francisco Municipal
Code (Section 8.32.050(d)). Construction noise is limited to 8 A.M. to 8 P.M. Monday through Friday, 9
A.M. to 8 P.M. on Saturdays and 10 A.M. to 6 P.M. on Sundays and holidays. The Building Division
enforces and monitors these regulations. Exceptions to the hours of construction may be granted by the
Chief Building Official under certain circumstances.
Chapter 1: Introduction
1-14
1.5 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
Environmental factors that may be affected by the Project, as defined by the California Environmental
Quality Act are listed alphabetically below. Factors marked with a filed in block (X) were determined to be
potentially affected by the Project, involving at least one impact that has been identified as a “Potentially
Significant Impact” with mitigation measures identified that would reduce the impact to a less than
significant level, as indicated in the Environmental Checklist (Chapter 3) and the related discussion that
follows. Unmarked factors ( ) were determined to not be significantly affected by the Project, based on the
discussion provided in Chapter 3.
□ Aesthetics □ Greenhouse Gas Emissions □ Population / Housing
□ Agriculture Resources ⊠ Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
□ Public Services
⊠ Air Quality □ Hydrology and Water
Quality
□ Recreation
□ Biological Resources □ Land Use /Planning ⊠ Transportation/Traffic
⊠ Cultural Resources □ Mineral Resources □ Utilities/ Service Systems
□ Geology/Soils □ Noise □ Mandatory Findings of
Significance
180 El Camino Real– Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration
1-15
1.6 Lead Agency’s Determination
On the basis of the evaluation in this Initial Study:
I find that the proposed Project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the Project have been made
by or agreed to by the Project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that the proposed Project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed Project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially
significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed Project, nothing further is required.
Chapter 1: Introduction
1-16
This page intentionally left blank.
2 Project Description
2.1 Project Location and Setting
The Project site is located at the southern boundary of the City of South San Francisco, west of US 101 at
180 El Camino Real as shown in Figures 1.1 and 1.2. The site is located on the southern part of the South
ECR GPA planning area at the southeast corner of South Spruce Avenue and El Camino Real, and north
of the City of San Bruno. Uses within the same block include commercial buildings and surface parking
located directly east and south of the site. Surrounding and nearby land uses are a mix of commercial and
residential, with predominantly commercial uses along El Camino Real, across Huntington Avenue (east
of the site) and south of the site, and residential uses west of El Camino Real and one block north of South
Spruce Avenue as shown in Figures 2.1 to 2.6. Golden Gate National Cemetery is located southwest of the
site.
The Project site is a 14.5-acre corner lot with frontages on El Camino Real and South Spruce Avenue.
Portions of the site extend as driveways to Huntington Avenue.
Existing uses at the site include three single-story commercial buildings totaling 143,000 square feet. The
largest building at the eastern portion of the property includes Safeway Supermarket, Bally’s Total Fitness,
a vacant unit, Bedroom Express, and Longs Drug store. Another building on the northwestern portion
includes Firestone Tire and Auto Center. A third building includes the canopy and kiosk of a former
service station located west of the Firestone building. The remaining area comprises paved parking
surrounding the buildings and landscaped areas within and along the perimeter of the site.
Currently, four driveways along El Camino Real, two driveways along South Spruce Avenue, and two
driveways along Huntington Avenue provide site access.
Chapter 2: Project Description
2-2
Figure 2.1: South ECR GPA Boundary and Project Site
180 El Camino Real– Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration
2-3
Figure 2.2: View of Site from El Camino Real
Figure 2.3: View of On-site Parking and Fences at Residential Neighborhood West of Site
Chapter 2: Project Description
2-4
Figure 2.4: Commercial Uses East of Site
Figure 2.5: Commercial Uses South of Site
180 El Camino Real– Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration
2-5
Figure 2.6: Commercial Buildings Along El Camino Real
Chapter 2: Project Description
2-6
2.2 Project Description
The proposed Project consists of removal of existing buildings and construction of six new ones:
Buildings A, B, C, D, and Major Tenant 3 (CVS), and a mixed-use building containing ground-floor
commercial with parking and residential uses above. Buildings A, B, C, D, and Major Tenant 3 (CVS)
consist of two stories (up to 40 feet in height) and the mixed-use buildings consist of five stories (up to
approximately 70 feet in height with one tower component at 90 feet height above Safeway (See Figures
2.7 to 2.28). The following table shows the gross square footage of the buildings to be constructed on the
14.5-acre site.
Table 2.1: Total Gross Square Footage
Building Area (sf)
Retail (1st Level)
Major Tenant 1/Safeway, Major Tenant 2, Major Tenant
3/CVS
100,670
Health Club 36,000
Buildings A, B, C, D, E 50,500
Office (2nd Level)
Major Tenant 3 and Buildings A, B, C, D 35,327
Sub Total-Retail/Office 222,497
Residential
52 1-Bedroom @ 800 sf (3 Levels) 124,800
43 2-Bedroom @ 1,100 sf (3 levels) 141,900
Corridor/Common Area (3 Levels) 137,538
Podium Plaza Area 47,735
Sub Total-Residential 451,973
Total (Gross Square Feet) 674,470
Total Project Site Area (Acres) 14.5
Floor Area Ratio (Excluding Parking) 1.07
The proposed commercial component is approximately 222,500 square feet. The proposed residential
component comprises a mix of one and two bedroom units totaling 285 units. The following table shows
the proposed unit breakdown.
Table 2.2: Residential Units
Unit Type Square Footage per UnitNumber of Units
1-Bedroom 800156
2-Bedroom 1,100129
Total (# of Units) 285
Density 19.6 du/ac
180 El Camino Real– Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration
2-7
A total of 1,249 parking spaces will provide parking for the retail and residential components of the
project. Ground level parking will provide 580 spaces and a parking structure will provide 669 spaces. The
residential parking ratio is 1.5 spaces per 1-bedroom units and 1.8 spaces per 2-bedroom units while the
commercial parking ratio is one space per 250 square feet. Additionally, 20 bicycle parking spaces will be
provided near building entrances.
As proposed, vehicular traffic access is provided at two driveways along El Camino Real, two driveways
along South Spruce Avenue, and two driveways along Huntington Avenue. The southernmost driveway
along El Camino Real will be modified to allow left turn entry from southbound traffic along El Camino
Real. This would include modifications to the existing median, which currently prevents left-turn in along
El Camino Real. Driveways along South Spruce Avenue will be realigned to accommodate a right-turn in,
right-turn out and one that allows all turns. A modification to the existing median and a new southbound
left-turn lane along El Camino Real would be subject to Caltrans review and approval. Pedestrian
pathways and entrances are located along driveways and between buildings on El Camino Real and South
Spruce Avenue (See Figure 2.7).
The Project consists of two phases. Phase 1 will include:
Construction of pad for Major Tenant 3 (CVS);
Demolition of all three single-story existing buildings totaling 143,000 square feet;
Construction of site work including underground utility;
Construction of ground level retail for Major Tenants 1 (Safeway), 2, and 3 (CVS), a health club,
and both levels for Buildings A, B, C and D;
Construction of 184 parking stalls above Safeway and Major Tenant 2; and
Construction of 126 residential units on three levels above Safeway and Major Tenant 2 (See
Figures 2.16 and 2.28).
Phase 2 will occur when economically feasible, and will include:
Potential demolition of building portion of parking in Phase 1 to be connected to parking in
Phase 2;
Replacement parking to accommodate any Phase 1 parking impacted due to construction of
Phase 2 parking;
Podium deck over the health club and Building E to accommodate second level parking, then
connect to parking in Phase 1;
Construction of Building E; and
141 residential units on three levels.
2-8
Chapter 2: Project Description
Figure 2.7: Site Plan
2-9
180 El Camino Real– Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration
Figure 2.8: Second Level Plan
2-10
Chapter 2: Project Description
Figure 2.9: Third Level Plan
2-11
180 El Camino Real– Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration
Figure 2.10: Landscape Plan
2-12
Chapter 2: Project Description
Figure 2.11: Podium Level Plan
2-13
180 El Camino Real– Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration
Figure 2.12: West Elevation
2-14
Chapter 2: Project Description
Figure 2.13: North Elevation
2-15
180 El Camino Real– Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration
Figure 2.14: Phase 1 Elevation - Retail Major 2 (Safeway)
2-16
Chapter 2: Project Description
Figure 2.15: Health Club Elevation
2-17
180 El Camino Real– Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration
Figure 2.16: Phase 1 Elevation - Health Club
2-18
Chapter 2: Project Description
Figure 2.17: Building E Elevation
2-19
180 El Camino Real– Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration
Figure 2.18: South Elevation - Retail Major 2 (Safeway)
2-20
Chapter 2: Project Description
Figure 2.19: Elevation - Retail Major 2 and 3
2-21
180 El Camino Real– Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration
Figure 2.20: Elevation - Building B
2-22
Chapter 2: Project Description
Figure 2.21: Elevation - Building A
2-23
180 El Camino Real– Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration
Figure 2.22: Elevation - Buildings C and D
2-24
Chapter 2: Project Description
Figure 2.23: Section
2-25
180 El Camino Real– Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration
Figure 2.24: Site Photometric Plan
2-26
Chapter 2: Project Description
Figure 2.25: Preliminary Grading Plan
2-27
180 El Camino Real– Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration
Figure 2.26: Preliminary Utility Plan
2-28
Chapter 2: Project Description
Figure 2.27: Stormwater Management Concept
2-29
180 El Camino Real– Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration
Figure 2.28: Phase 1 Plan
Chapter 2: Project Description
2-30
This page intentionally left blank.
3 Environmental Checklist
This Environmental Checklist provides the technical analysis and discussion of environmental impacts
and mitigation measures in support of the City of South San Francisco’s determination regarding the
appropriateness of a Mitigated Negative Declaration as the environmental review process for the Project.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
This section provides an evaluation of the potential environmental impacts of the Project. These potential
impacts are based on the Environmental Checklist in the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G and each
checklist item is followed by a detailed discussion and, if necessary, mitigation measures to reduce impacts
to a less than significant level.
The level of significance is determined by considering the predicted magnitude of the Project’s potential
for significant impacts. The following levels of impact significance are described in this initial study:
No Impact – Impact does not apply to the projects like the one involved.
Less than Significant Impact – Impact would not result in a substantial and adverse change in the
environment and would not require mitigation.
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation – Impact may result in a substantial or potentially
substantial, adverse change in the environment; the incorporation of mitigation measures would reduce
the potentially significant impact to a less than significant level.
Potentially Significant Impact – Impact may result in a substantial or potentially substantial, adverse
change in the environment.
Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist
3-2
3.1 Aesthetics
DISCUSSION
a) Scenic Vistas
Scenic views that may be impacted by the Project include limited long-range views of Sign Hill and the
San Bruno Mountains that are visible facing north from South Spruce Avenue. Views facing west are
blocked by existing fences and residential developments along El Camino Real. Views facing south are
blocked due to uphill slope along El Camino Real and commercial developments south of the site. The
proposed Project would not block existing views of Sign Hill and San Bruno Mountains from El Camino
Real and South Spruce Avenue. While the proposed Project may obstruct limited views of the San Bruno
Mountains and Sign Hill from within the site, given existing obstructions from the existing site and
surrounding buildings, this would not create a new substantial adverse effect. Therefore, the impact on
scenic vistas is less than significant.
b) State Scenic Highway
The Project site is not located on or visible from a State Scenic Highway, nor is El Camino Real a
designated or eligible scenic highway. Therefore, there is no impact on scenic resources within a state
scenic highway.
c) Visual Character
The Project site is currently a shopping center with a one-story box retail building and two other stand-
alone buildings surrounded by surface parking and limited landscape along the site perimeter. The
proposed Project would substantially enhance the existing visual character and quality of the site and its
surroundings by providing a well-articulated and visually engaging façade along El Camino Real and
South Spruce Avenue. Furthermore, the mixed use retail/office buildings along El Camino Real
implement the goals of the South ECR GPA and the Grand Boulevard Initiative that emphasize
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Determination of Environmental Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
I. AESTHETICS — Would the Project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including,
but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character
or quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare,
which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
180 El Camino Real– Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-3
walkability and buildings built up to the sidewalk along El Camino Real. Therefore, there is no adverse
impact on visual character.
d) Light or Glare
Sources of light and glare in the Project vicinity include interior and exterior building lights, surface
parking lot lights, and city street lights. The existing level and sources of light and glare are typical of those
in a developed urban setting. The proposed Project would increase the building area on the Project site,
and therefore, would increase the amount of nighttime lighting and glare. However, development
standards that control outdoor artificial light, such as shielded light fixtures that reduce glare onto the
public right-or-way or adjoining properties (per the California Green Building Standards Code1 and the
City’s Zoning Ordinance), would reduce potentially significant long-term light and glare impacts to less
than significant levels.
1 California Building Standards Commission, 2010 California Green Building Standards Code, California Code of Regulations,
Title 24, Part 11, Section 5.106.8, January 1, 2011
Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist
3-4
3.2 Agricultural Resources
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Determination
of Environmental Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES: In
determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are
significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer
to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept.
of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing
impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining
whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland,
are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may
refer to information compiled by the California Department
of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s
inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range
Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment
project; and forest carbon measurement methodology
provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air
Resources Board. Would the Project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of,
forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code
section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by Government
Code section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest
land to non-forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
180 El Camino Real– Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-5
DISCUSSION
a – e) Farmland and Forestland
The Project site does not contain any farmland or timberland. The Project site is not zoned for
agricultural or forest use and no parcels are classified Williamson Act contract lands. Therefore, the
proposed Project would have no impact on agricultural resources.
Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist
3-6
3.3 Air Quality
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Determination of Environmental Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
III. AIR QUALITY — Where available, the significance
criteria established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control district may be
relied upon to make the following determinations.
Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions, which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people?
DISCUSSION
a) Conflict with Air Quality Plan
The Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan (CAP) is the latest BAAQMD adopted document that provides air
quality goals and control measures for the Project area. The goals of the 2010 Bay Area CAP are:
Attain air quality standards;
Reduce population exposure and protecting public health in the Bay Area; and
Reduce GHG emission and protect the climate.
The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (Updated May 2011 and May 2012) are consistent with the 2010 Bay
Area CAP goals. The analysis in Section (b) below shows that Project-generated construction and
operation-related emissions would be mitigated to remain within the thresholds established by
BAAQMD.2 Thus, the proposed Project is not in conflict with the applicable air quality plan and impacts
are less than significant.
2 The Air District’s June 2010 adopted thresholds of significance were challenged in a lawsuit. On March 5, 2012 the Alameda
County Superior Court issued a judgment finding that the Air District had failed to comply with CEQA when it adopted the
180 El Camino Real– Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-7
b) Air Quality Standards
The following analysis is based on methodologies and assumptions recommended in the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District (BAAQMD) CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (dated June 2010, updated in May
2011, and revised in May 2012). The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it would
exceed BAAQMD’s construction and/or operational mass emission thresholds. California Emissions
Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2011.1.1, a computer model developed in cooperation with air
districts within the state including BAAQMD, was used to calculate Project-generated emissions.
CalEEMOD model is preferred to URBEMIS for CEQA analysis as it incorporates combustion GHG and
GHG emissions from indirect sources.3 A combination of project specific information such as
construction schedule and land use information as described in Section 2.2 Project Description of this
document and default information contained in CalEEMod were used to obtain construction-related and
operations-related emissions. See Appendix for assumptions and detailed calculation output tables.
Construction-Related Impacts
The following analyzes construction-related criteria pollutants including reactive organic gases (ROG),
nitrogen oxides (NOx), particulate matter (PM10), and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) emitted during
excavation, paving, painting, operating machinery, or transporting materials during construction. The
proposed Project is tentatively scheduled to begin demolition and construction in 2013, and estimates six
weeks for demolition followed by a year of construction of buildings and additional time for interior
finishes on residential buildings. (See Chapter 2.2 Project Description for details on project components.)
Table 3.1 shows that estimated construction emissions generated by the Project exceeds the BAAQMD
significance thresholds for construction-related ROG in 2013 and 2014. The Project construction would
generate less than significant levels of Nox, PM10, and PM2.5. Additionally, since BAAQMD best
management practices, listed under Air Quality in Section 1.4, are required as part of project approval,
impacts due to construction related PM10 and PM2.5 (fugitive dust) pollutants would be less significant.
thresholds. The court found that the adoption of the thresholds was a project under CEQA and ordered the Air District to
examine whether the thresholds would have a significant impact on the environment under CEQA before recommending their
use. The court did not determine whether the thresholds are or are not based on substantial evidence and thus valid on the
merits. The court issued a writ of mandate ordering the District to set aside the thresholds and cease dissemination of them
until the Air District had complied with CEQA. The court’s order permits the Air District to develop and disseminate these
CEQA Guidelines, as long as they do not implement the thresholds of significance.
Although the BAAQMD’s adoption of significance thresholds for air quality analysis has been subject to judicial actions, the
City of South San Francisco has determined that BAAQMD’s Revised Draft Options and Justification Report (October 2009),
provide substantial evidence to support the BAAQMD recommended thresholds. Therefore, the City of South San Francisco
has determined the BAAQMD recommended thresholds are appropriate for use in this analysis.
3 California Emissions Estimator Model, Technical Paper: Methodology Reasoning and Policy Development of the California
Emissions Estimator Model, July 2011, www.caleemod.com, Accessed November 19, 2012.
Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist
3-8
Table 3.1: Construction Criteria Pollutant Emissions as Compared with BAAQMD
Thresholds of Significance (Pounds Per Day)
Daily Emission
Reactive Organic
Gases (ROG)
Nitrogen Oxides
(NOx)
Particulate Matter
(PM10 exhaust)
Fine Particulate Matter
(PM2.5 exhaust)
Year 2013 (lbs/day) 76.9 40.32.1 2.1
Year 2014 (lbs/day) 72.6 12.90.7 0.7
BAAQMD Threshold 545482 54
Notes: Bold text shows emissions greater than threshold. Refer to Appendix for all emission assumptions.
Source: BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, May 2011; CalEEMOD, Dyett & Bhatia, 2012.
Since the majority (91 percent) of construction-related ROG emissions is due to area sources (paint VOC
levels and consumer products), the following mitigation measure would reduce constructions-related
ROG emission impacts to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Project applicant to include the use of maximum 0 g/L emission VOC paint
for interior surfaces and 100 g/L emission VOC paint for exterior surface in the construction contract.
Table 3.2 shows that constructions-related emissions would be reduced to less than significant levels with
the mitigation measure.
Table 3.2: Construction Criteria Pollutant Emissions With Mitigation Measures as
Compared with BAAQMD Thresholds of Significance (Pounds Per Day)
Description
Reactive Organic
Gases (ROG)
Nitrogen Oxides
(NOx)
Particulate Matter
(PM10 exhaust)
Fine Particulate Matter
(PM2.5 exhaust)
Year 2013 (lbs/day) 13.746.62.1 2.1
Year 2014 (lbs/day) 9.418.30.7 0.7
BAAQMD Daily Threshold 545482 54
Notes: Refer to Appendix for all emission assumptions.
Source: BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, May 2011; CalEEMOD, Dyett & Bhatia, 2012.
Operations-Related Impacts
BAAQMD provides thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants for project operations including
reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrogen oxides (NOx), particulate matter (PM10), and fine particulate
matter (PM2.5) resulting from driving, operating landscape equipment, and heating. Where a proposed
Project replaces an existing emission source that is in operation at the beginning of environmental
analysis, BAAQMD recommends subtracting existing emissions from the estimated emissions to obtain
the baseline operations emissions for the proposed Project.4 Table 3.3 shows that operations-related
emissions generated by the proposed Project would be within the thresholds of significance for ROG,
NOx, PM10 (exhaust), and PM2.5 (exhaust). Thus, the Project’s impacts due to operations-related
emissions would be less than significant.
4 Kirk, Allison, Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Phone conversation, December 19, 2012.
180 El Camino Real– Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-9
Table 3.3: Operations-Related Emissions as Compared with BAAQMD Thresholds of
Significance at Project Level (Pounds Per Day and Tons Per Year) 1
Description
Reactive
Organic
Gases
(ROG)
Nitrogen
Oxides (NOx)
Particulate Matter
(PM10 exhaust)
Fine Particulate Matter
(PM2.5 exhaust)
Pounds per day (lbs/day)
Project 66.755.92.22.2
Existing Use 31.539.51.41.4
Project minus Existing (Baseline) 35.216.30.90.9
BAAQMD Daily Threshold 54548254
Tons per year (tpy)
Project 12.210.20.40.4
Existing Use 5.87.20.30.3
Project minus Existing (Baseline) 6.23.00.22 0.22
BAAQMD Annual Threshold 10101510
Notes: 1. Refer to Appendix for all emission assumptions. 2. Some numbers may appear not to add up due to rounding.
Source: BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, May 2011; CalEEMOD, Dyett & Bhatia, 2012.
BAAQMD also establishes the following screening criteria for carbon monoxide (CO) emissions:
Project is consistent with congestion management program
Project does not increase traffic volume at affected intersection to more than 44,000 vehicles trips
per hour; and
Project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 24,000
vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g., tunnel,
parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon, below-grade roadway).
Since the Project requires a transportation demand management (TDM) program per Section 20.400.003
of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, the Project is consistent with the regional congestion
management program. The traffic impact study shows that the Project would result in fewer than 44,000
vehicle trips per hour at any of the studied intersections.5 Additionally, the primary intersections analyzed
for the Project do not include intersections with limited vertical or horizontal mixing. Per the BAAQMD
CEQA Guidelines, “if all of the screening criteria are met by a proposed project, then the lead agency or
applicant would not need to perform a detailed air quality assessment of their project’s air pollutant
emissions.” Since the proposed Project meets all three screening criteria for CO, the Project is less than
significant in CO emission and does not require further analysis.
5 Traffic Impact Study for 180 El Camino Real, Figure 5 Project Traffic Volumes.
Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist
3-10
c) Cumulative Pollutant Impact
The Bay Area is designated as an attainment area for carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide,
and lead. Per the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan, the Bay Area (as of 2009 data) is at non-attainment status
for the following pollutants:
1-hour Ozone (State standard of 0.09 ppm)
8-hour Ozone (State standard of 0.070 ppm and national standard of 0.081 ppm)
24-hour PM2.5 (National standard of 36 μg/m3 )
Annual PM2.5 (State standard of 50 μg/m3)
24-hour PM10 (State standard of 50 μg/m3)
Annual PM10 (State standard of 20 μg/m3)
Table 3.4 summarizes pollutant concentrations in the Project vicinity for the past three years as compared
to the national and California air pollution standards that were not met by the region. The table shows
that the State and national standard for ozone was exceeded once in 2010 in Redwood City, and the
national standard for the maximum 24-hour concentration of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) was
exceeded every year for the past three years, while respirable particulate matter (PM10) remained within
State and national standards.
180 El Camino Real– Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-11
Table 3.4: Air Quality Data Summary for the Project Vicinity (2009-2011)A
Pollutant
Standard 2009 2010 2011
CalB Nat
San
Francisco
Redwood
City
San
Francisco
Redwood
City
San
Francisco
Redwood
City
Ozone (ppb)C
Max. 1-Hr 0.09 - 728779113 7076
Cal 1-Hr Days - - 0002 00
Max. 8-Hr 0.07 0.081 56635177 5494
Nat 8-Hr Days - - 0001 00
Cal 8-Hr Days - - 0001 00
PM10 (μg/m3)D
Annual Avg 20 - 18.7- E 19.9- 19.5-
Max 24-Hr 50 - 36-40- 46-
Nat Days - - 0-0- 0-
Cal Days - - 0-0- 0-
PM2.5 (μg/m3)
Max 24-Hr - 36 35.631.745.336.5 47.539.7
Nat Days - - 1031 21
Annual Avg 50 - 9.78.710.58.3 9.58.7
Notes:
Bold text indicates days exceeding standards.
A. This table only includes non-attainment pollutants for the Bay Area. Data represents summaries for nearest two monitoring
stations: Arkansas Street in San Francisco and Redwood City.
B. California standards are nominally “not to be exceeded,” but, other than for annual standards, in practice allow
approximately 1 exceedance per year.
C. ppm = parts by volume per million of air.
D. μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter.
E. PM10 monitoring was discontinued on June 30, 2008 at Redwood City and is not available.
Source: California Air Resources Board (CARB), Air Quality Data Statistics, www.arb.cag.gov/adam, Accessed December 10, 2012.
BAAQMD annual air quality summaries, http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Communications-and-Outreach/Air-Quality-in-the-Bay-Area/Air-
Quality-Summaries.aspx, 2011, Accessed December 11, 2012. Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan.
The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines recommends that cumulative air quality impacts from
criteria air pollutants for a project level analysis be addressed by comparison to the mass daily and annual
thresholds, which were developed to identify a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant
regional air quality impact. Since daily and annual impacts due to construction and operations-related
pollutions remain less than significant with mitigation as shown in previous Section (a), cumulative
criteria pollutant impacts remain less than significant.
Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist
3-12
d) Impact to Sensitive Receptors
As discussed earlier, the proposed Project does not include industrial uses and, therefore, is not a source
of substantial pollutant concentrations. However, the proposed Project includes new residential units, and
creates new sensitive receptors. Thus, this section includes analysis on impacts of existing toxic sources to
future residents. Examples of toxic sources include stationary sources, high traffic roads, freeways, rail
yards, and ports.6 Since the Project site is not located within 1,000 feet of freeways, rail yards or ports, the
following analysis compares health risks of new sensitive receptors to BAAQMD thresholds for stationary
sources and high traffic roads.
The proposed Project includes residential, retail, and office uses. These uses may involve the use of
hazardous materials and petroleum products in the form of routine janitorial and maintenance supplies.
Storage of these materials is required to comply with State and local standards intended to protect the
public health and safety and will not pose a hazard. Thus, the proposed Project would result in less than
significant cumulative impacts regarding pollutants.
BAAQMD Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards (May, 2011)
establishes project-level thresholds for risk and hazards for new receptors when considering stationary
sources individually and cumulatively. BAAQMD provides a Google EarthTM file with locations of existing
permitted stationary sources for San Mateo County. Currently, two stationary sources are located within
1,000 feet. However, since Brentwood Auto Service, located within the Project area will be replaced with
the proposed Project, only one stationary source, a generator at Lowe’s, remains to be analyzed.7 Table 3.5
shows all risks at Lowe’s are within BAAQMD thresholds for individual projects, and impacts of
pollutants to sensitive receptors are less than significant.
BAAQMD establishes a screening analysis for estimating risk and hazard impacts from California
highways and surface streets to receptors such as future residences of the proposed Project. Interstate-280,
I-380, US-101 are located more than 1,000 feet away from the Project site, and do not pose health or
hazard impacts as defined by BAAQMD screening analysis. Other roadways concerning this analysis
includes El Camino Real (also known as State Route 82), which runs north-south along the Project’s
western boundary, and carries an annual average daily traffic of about 41,500 vehicles per day north of I-
380, including trucks. Additionally, the Project is estimated to generate 11,475 vehicle trips daily upon
completion. The residential units closest to El Camino Real, as shown in conceptual site plans, are located
approximately 60 feet from the road edge. Table 3.5 shows risks for receptors located 50 feet east and 20
feet above El Camino Real per BAAQMD Highway Screening Analysis Tool for San Mateo County.8 Table
3.5 shows that cancer risk, exposure to fine particulate matter, chronic hazard, and acute hazards are less
than significant for individual sources and when considered cumulatively.
6 CAPCOA, Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects.
7 Allison Kirk, BAAQMD, Risk & Hazard Stationary Source Inquiry Form, Email correspondence, December 10, 2012.
8 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines Tools and Methodology, http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-and-Research/CEQA-
GUIDELINES/Tools-and-Methodology.aspx, Accessed November 19, 2012.
180 El Camino Real– Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-13
Additionally, the proposed Project incorporates BAAQMD recommended best management practices for
reducing exposure to toxic air contaminants (TAC) from roadways such as locating residential units away
from major roadways by placing them along Huntington Avenue instead of El Camino Real and by
incorporating street trees along El Camino Real and South Spruce Avenue and throughout the Project site
boundary and surface parking area as well as the podium level (See Figures 2.6 to 2.9). Furthermore, the
proposed Project includes phased developments to build half of the residential units at a later phase. Thus,
risks due to pollutant sources would be less than significant.
e) Odors
The proposed Project includes retail, office, parking, and residential uses and does not include any uses
associated with unpleasant odors such as landfills or manufacturing plants. Thus, the following analysis
regards odor impacts to future residents. BAAQMD establishes a threshold of significance for odors as
five confirmed complaints per year averaged over three years. Since existing uses do not include sensitive
odor receptors, there are no odor complaints to date. For future residences, industrial uses and
manufacturing plants located east of the Centennial Trail present potential odor sources. Since the
prevailing wind for this location is from the west most of the year,9 odors from existing industrial uses
located east of the Centennial Trail are not expected to drift to the proposed Project site. Thus, odor
impacts are less than significant.
9 Windfinder.com, Wind and Weather Statistics for San Francisco Airport, http://www.windfinder.com/windstats
/windstatistic_san_francisco.htm, Accessed December 10, 2012.
Table 3.5: Existing Permitted Stationary Pollutant Source (Within 1,000 Feet of the
Proposed Project) and Roadway Pollutant Source Compared to
BAAQMD Thresholds
Distance
from pro-
ject (Ft)
Plant
#
Source
Name Address UTM E UTM N
Cancer
Risk in a
million
PM2.5
(ug/m3)
Chronic
Hazard
Index
Acute
Hazard
Index
450 1320
2
Lowe's
HTW, Inc
(Stationary
Source)1
1340 El
Camino
Real, San
Bruno 55092841659580.410.002 0.68 --
El Camino
Real
(Roadway)
4.580.066 0.006 0.012
BAAQMD Threshold –Individual Project100.3 1.0 1.0
Cumulative Sources4.980.068 0.686 0.012
BAAQMD Threshold –Cumulative1000.8 10 --
Notes: 1. Data for Lowe’s reflects detailed adjustments per completed HRSA by BAAQMD after screening values from
BAAQMD and Google Earth kmz files were identified.
Source: Allison Kirk, BAAQMD, Risk & Hazard Stationary Source Inquiry Form, Email correspondence, December 10, 2012 and
BAAQMD Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards (May, 2011), Google Earth, 2012, BAAQMD
CEQA Guidelines Tools and Methodology, http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-and-Research/CEQA-GUIDELINES/Tools-and-
Methodology.aspx, Accessed November 19, 2012.
Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist
3-14
3.4 Biological Resources
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Determination of Environmental Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES — Would the Project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly
or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans, policies,
or regulations, or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
DISCUSSION
a, b) Biological Resources
According to the South ECR GPA EIR, the California Gap Analysis designates the Project site and the
surrounding area as urbanized, without sensitive habitats. According to the Gap Analysis, there are no
known riparian habitats or other sensitive natural communities, wetlands, or wildlife corridors within the
Project site or in the surrounding area. The South ECR GPA EIR identified three special status species
that had the potential to occur within the South ECR GPA boundary. However, there are no habitats
within the Project site that would support these species, and the observed occurrences of these species are
outside the Project site. Therefore, there are no impacts on species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special status species, or on riparian habitat.
180 El Camino Real– Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-15
c, d) Wetlands and Migratory Wildlife Corridors
The Project site and surrounding area is a highly urbanized area which does not contain any migratory
wildlife corridors. There are no protected wetlands within the Project site or the surrounding area.
Therefore, there will be no impact with regard to protected wetlands and the movement of wildlife.
e, f) Local Policies and Ordinances and Plans
There are no trees on the Project site that meet the criteria for protection or any local ordinances or
policies protecting other biological resources that would apply to the Project site. The Project site is not in
an area subject to the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan. Therefore, there will be no impact
with regard to local policies and ordinances and Habitat Conservation Plans.
Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist
3-16
3.5 Cultural Resources
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Determination of Environmental Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES — Would the Project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
§15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
DISCUSSION
a) Historic Resources
Section 15064.5 defines historical resources as the following:
Listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources;
Included in a local register or historical resource (Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(g);
Identified in an historical resources survey (meets the criteria of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1(g)); or
Meets the California Register of Historical Resources criteria (Public Resources Code Section
5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4852 or Section 5020.1(j)).
The historic-era use of the area within the vicinity of the Project site began early with the Spanish, with
the route of El Camino Real as a principal thoroughfare from the late 18th century to present day. Map
review by Northwest Information Center (NIC) reveals that an 1858 map for Rancho Buriburi depicts El
Camino Real and several houses along the road, but does not depict them within the Project site. Review
of 1896 and 1915 15-minute San Mateo topographic quadrangles do not depict any buildings or structures
within the Project site.10 NIC records search, which includes listings of California Register of Historical
Resources, California State Historical Landmarks, California State Points of Historical Interest, and the
National Register of Historic Places, lists that one of two buildings located on 190 El Camino Real (DOE-
41-96-0165-0000), as having undergone Section 106 review and determined ineligible for the National
10 Much, Bryan, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Record search results for the proposed project at 180 El
Camino Real, South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California, November 19, 2012.
180 El Camino Real– Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-17
Register.12 NIC recommends further review of buildings older than 40 years of age at this site. In
reviewing local surveys, the City’s latest historic preservation survey of 1985-1986, which identifies
architectural and historic resources of South San Francisco, and an updated Citywide List of Designated
and Potential Historic Resources (updated November 13, 2002) per the City, show that these buildings
were not listed as eligible for designated or potential historic resources.13 Thus, there would be no impact
to historic resources.
b) Archaeological Resources
Record search by the NIC shows that at the time of Euroamerican contact, the Native Americans that
lived in this portion of the peninsula were speakers of the Costanoan or Ohlone language, part of the
Utian language family. Based on mission registers of tribal name and locations, the Project site is
described as being located within the area controlled by Urebure, and that the people of the San Bruno
Creek area just south of San Bruno Mountain lived as a single village group. There are no Native
American resources in or adjacent to the Project site referenced in ethnographic literature. Based on an
evaluation of the environmental setting and features associated with known sites, Native American
resources in this part of San Mateo County have been found in close proximity to sources of water, near
the bay margin and its associated wetlands, and near ecotones and other productive environments. The
proposed Project site is situated on terraces above the broad marshland and wetlands that formed around
the mouths of Colma Creek and San Bruno Creek. Intermittent streams once flowed adjacent to the site,
and portions of the site contain deposits that have been undifferentiated alluvial deposit from the
Holocene. Given the correlation of these factors, there is a moderately high potential of unrecorded
Native American resources buried with no surface indications within the site. The proposed Project site
has been highly developed and is presently covered with asphalt, buildings, or fill that obscures the
visibility of original surface soils, which negates the feasibility of an adequate surface inspection. Thus, the
Project could significantly impact archaeological resources.
Mitigation CULT-1: The Project Applicant shall incorporate the following provisions into the grading
and construction contracts as a condition of approval of permit:
Prior to ground disturbance, the depths of impact for the proposed Project be adequately
determined to assess locations that have the potential to disturb sensitive landforms. This
information should be compared with archival research to determine the appropriate locations
for geo-archaeological testing. A report containing “next-step” recommendations should be
provided.15
Prior to the initiation of construction or ground-disturbing activities, the Project Applicant will
ensure that all construction personnel involved in ground-disturbing activities shall receive
environmental training from a qualified archaeologist that will include discussion of what
12 Much, Bryan, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Record search results for the proposed project at 180 El
Camino Real, South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California, November 19, 2012.
13 South San Francisco Historic Preservation Survey 1985-1986: A Comprehensive Study of History and Architecture, City of
South San Francisco Community Services Department.
15 Ibid.
Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist
3-18
constitutes cultural resources, the possibility of buried cultural resources, how to recognize such
possible buried cultural resources, as well as the procedure to follow if such cultural resources are
encountered. Project Applicant shall ensure that project personnel involved in ground disturbing
activities are informed that collecting significant historical or unique archaeological resources
discovered during development of the project is prohibited by law. Prehistoric or Native
American resources can include chert or obsidian flakes, projectile points, mortars and pestles;
and dark friable soil containing shell and bone dietary debris, heat-affected rock, or human
burials. Historic resources can include nails, bottles, ceramics or other items often found in
refuse deposits and buried features, such as privy pits and foundations;
If unknown potential or unique archaeological resources are encountered during construction,
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5 (f), “provisions for historical or unique
archaeological resources accidentally discovered during construction” should be instituted. Work
should be temporarily halted within 50 feet or as deemed appropriate by the archaeologist and
workers should avoid altering the materials and their context until a qualified professional
archaeologist has evaluated the significance of the find and provided appropriate
recommendations. Project personnel should not collect cultural resources.”
If any find is determined to be significant, representatives of the Project proponent and/or lead
agency and the qualified archaeologist shall meet to determine the appropriate avoidance
measures or other appropriate measure, with the ultimate determination to be made by the City,
which shall assure implementation of appropriate measures recommended by the archaeologist.
The City shall determine whether avoidance is necessary and feasible in light of factors such as the
nature of the find, project design, costs, and other considerations. If avoidance is unnecessary or
infeasible, other appropriate measures (e.g., data recovery) such as plans for methodical
excavation of the portions of the site shall be instituted and results in detailed technical reports for
submittal to the Northwest Information Center. Work may proceed on other parts of the project
site while measure for historical resources or unique archaeological resources is carried out. All
significant archaeological materials recovered shall be subject to scientific analysis, professional
museum curation, and a resource mitigation plan and monitoring program report prepared by
the qualified archaeologist for submittal to the Northwest Information Center.
With this mitigation, the Project’s impacts to archaeological resources will be less than significant.
c) Paleontological Resources or Geologic Features
Per the South ECR GPA EIR, the University of California Museum of Paleontology website showed that
Equus fossil was found in the City of South San Francisco without providing the exact location. The South
ECR GPA EIR assessed that the lithology of the fossil is identified as mudstone, which is located in areas
near the bay and in the San Bruno Mountains, areas outside of the South ECR GPA boundary. Thus, it is
unlikely that fossils would be located within the Project site. However, because the site is developed and
covered with asphalt, it is difficult to assess the impact of excavation and grading during construction, and
the Project may impact paleontological resources.
Mitigation CULT-2: In the event of an unanticipated discovery of a paleontological resource during
construction, excavations within 50 feet of the find or as deemed appropriate by a paleontologist shall be
temporarily halted or diverted until the discovery is examined by a qualified paleontologist (per Society of
Vertebrate Paleontology standards [SVP 1995,1996]). A qualified paleontologist shall document the
180 El Camino Real– Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-19
discovery as needed, evaluate the potential resource, and assess the significance of the find under the
criteria set forth in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. The paleontologist shall notify the
appropriate agencies to determine procedures that would be followed before construction is allowed to
resume at the location of the find. If the City determines that avoidance is not feasible, the paleontologist
shall prepare an excavation plan for mitigating the effect of the project on the qualities that make the
resource important, and such plan shall be implemented. The plan shall be submitted to the City for
review and approval.
With this mitigation, the Project’s impacts to paleontological resources will be less than significant.
d) Human Remains
As stated in subsection A, the proposed Project site has been highly developed and is presently covered
with asphalt, buildings, or fill that obscures the visibility of original surface soils, which negates the
feasibility of an adequate surface inspection regarding human remains. Thus, the proposed Project may
have significant impacts to human remains.
Mitigation CULT-3: In the event that human skeletal remains are uncovered at the project site during
construction or ground-breaking activities, all work shall immediately halt and the San Mateo County
Coroner shall be contacted to evaluate the remains, and following the procedures and protocols pursuant
to Section 15064.5 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. If the County Coroner determines that the remains are
Native American, the City shall contact the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC),
pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, and all excavation and site
preparation activities shall cease within a 50-foot radius of the find until appropriate arrangements are
made. If the agencies determine that avoidance is not feasible, then an alternative plan shall be prepared
with specific steps and timeframe required to resume construction activities. Monitoring, data recovery,
determination of significance and avoidance measures (if applicable) shall be completed expeditiously.
With this mitigation, the Project’s impacts to human remains will be less than significant.
Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist
3-20
3.6 Geology and Soils
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Determination of Environmental Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS — Would the Project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the Project, and potentially result in on-
or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table
18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of waste water?
180 El Camino Real– Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-21
DISCUSSION
a) Seismic Hazards
i. Earthquake Fault Rupture
The Project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and no active or potentially
active faults traverse the Project site.16 Thus, potential impacts related to surface fault rupture would be
less than significant.
ii. Ground Shaking
As the Project site is located approximately two miles east of San Andreas Fault, the nearest known active
fault, the Project site will, on average, experience stronger earthquake shaking more frequently.17
Although intense shaking may damage buildings, building codes and construction standards established
by the California Building Code and contained in Title 24 of the CCR are required and will help prevent
extensive structural damage due to seismic-related ground shaking. Therefore, potential impacts related
to ground shaking would be less than significant.
iii. Liquefaction
ABAG designates the portion of the Project site along South Spruce Avenue as an area of high liquefaction
susceptibility during an earthquake and the remaining area as very low liquefaction susceptibility.18
Mandatory compliance with existing building codes and construction standards established in the
California Building Code, the requirements of the City of South San Francisco Municipal Code, and
policies contained in the City of South San Francisco General Plan would reduce seismic-related
liquefaction to less than significant levels.
iv. Landslides
ABAG designates the Project site as “flatland.”19 There is no threat of landslides on the Project site;
therefore, there will be no impacts with respect to landslides.
b, c, d) Soils
According to the Phase I Environmental Assessment, the Project site is underlain by fill materials to a
depth of four to 11.5 feet below grade and by alluvium to the maximum depth explored, 65 feet below
grade20. The existing Project site is a developed site with three single-story buildings on a parking lot. The
site is situated 25 to 35 feet above mean sea level and the local topography slopes from north to northeast.
Per the United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil
16ABAG, http://gis.abag.ca.gov/Website/FaultZones/, Accessed November 1, 2012.
17 ABAG, http://gis.abag.ca.gov/Website/ShakingPotential/, Accessed November 1, 2012.
18 ABAG, http://gis.abag.ca.gov/Website/LiquefactionSusceptibility/, Accessed November 1, 2012.
19 ABAG, http://gis.abag.ca.gov/website/LandslideDistribution/, Accessed November 1, 2012.
20 AEI Consultants, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, November 4, 2004.
Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist
3-22
Survey, the Project site consists of “urban land,” consisting of manmade soils and fill material that are not
sources of topsoil.21 Thus, there would be no impact to loss of topsoil.
Erosion hazards would be highest during construction activities, when soils at the Project site may be
sensitive to disturbances caused by construction traffic and to changes in moisture content during wet
weather periods. The federal Clean Water Action Section (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
Program [NPDES]) requires every permit applicant for a site of one acre or more of Project area to obtain
a NPDES Construction General Permit and prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plan (SWPPP) prior to construction. Best management practices included in SWPPP are designed to
minimize the discharge of pollutants and to control erosion and effectively manage runoff and retain
sediment on-site during construction. All Projects must also comply with the San Mateo Countywide
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (STOPPP), which addresses pollution control during
construction and operation. Project Applicant must incorporate best management practices of SWPPP
and STOPPP as a condition of approval (See Section 1.4).
California Code Regulation, Title 24, Part 2, the California Building Code (Chapter 15.08 of the City’s
Municipal Code) establishes standards for structural and soil requirements. The City of South San
Francisco Municipal Code Section 15.08.140), requires the Project Applicant to submit a soils engineering
report or a geotechnical report with a grading permit (See Section 1.4). The soils engineering report or a
geotechnical report includes detailed information on existing soils and recommendations for grading
procedures and design criteria for corrective measures and for building on potentially unstable soil or
expansive soil. Mandatory compliance with the City of South San Francisco Municipal Code and NPDES
General Construction Permit requirements would reduce impacts due to soil erosion, unstable soil, or
expansive soil to less than significant levels.
e) Capability of Soils to Support Septic Tanks
The City is currently served by the City’s municipal sewer system and future projects will continue to be
required to be connected to the City’s system. Therefore, there would be no impact on soils due to septic
systems.
21 Natural Resources Conservation Service. San Mateo County, Eastern Part, and San Francisco County,
California Survey Area Data. Web Soil Survey website: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov. Accessed February 19, 2013.
180 El Camino Real– Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-23
3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Determination of Environmental Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
XVII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS — Would the
project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases?
DISCUSSION
a – b) Greenhouse Gas Emissions
BAAQMD’s GHG threshold is defined in terms of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e), a metric that
accounts for the emission from various greenhouse gases based on their global warming potential.
CalEEMod was used to quantify greenhouse gas emissions at the project level. See Section 3.3 Air Quality
for description of CalEEMod and Appendix for detailed calculation output and assumptions.
Constructions-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Though BAAQMD does not establish thresholds for constructions-related emissions, the BAAQMD Air
Quality Guidelines (Updated May 2011) requires CEQA documents to disclose this information. Table 3.6
shows that a total of 1,764 metric tons of CO2e would be emitted over two years of construction.
Table 3.6: Constructions-Related Greenhouse Gas Emission
(Metric Tons of CO2e Per Service Population Per Year)
By Year Total Emission (MT CO2e/Yr)
2013 1,243
2014 511
Total 1,764
Source: BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, May 2011; CalEEMOD, Dyett & Bhatia, 2012.
Per the South ECR GPA EIR, a total of 526,766 metric tons of CO2e was generated in South San Francisco
in 2005 and a total of 517,975 metric tons of CO2e is expected by 2020 with state mandates.22 Since the
maximum yearly constructions-related greenhouse gas emissions generated by the Project represents
0.2% of total greenhouse gas emission estimates for the City, the impact would be less than significant.
22 South GPA EIR, Table 3.6-6.
Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist
3-24
Operations-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Where a proposed Project replaces an existing emission source that is in operation at the beginning of
environmental analysis, BAAQMD recommends subtracting existing emissions from the estimated
emissions for the proposed Project to obtain baseline emission. Table 3.7 shows that the per service
population greenhouse gas emissions level for the Project is within the BAAQMD threshold, and impact
would be less than significant.
Table 3.7: Operations-Related Greenhouse Gas Emission as Compared with BAAQMD
Thresholds of Significance at Project Level (Metric Tons of CO2e Per
Service Population Per Year)
Description
Total Emission
(MT CO2e/Yr)Service Population
Per Service Population
Emission (MT CO2e/SP/Yr)
Project 10,288----
Existing Use 5,868----
Project After Subtracting
Existing Emissions (Baseline) 4,4201,4531 3.04
BAAQMD Threshold ----4.6
Notes:
1. Service Population Calculation is based on Department of Finance population projection rate for 2012 of 3.044 persons
per household, yielding 867 persons for the proposed Project. Employee projection is based on the South ECR GPA
employment projection rate of 400 sf/employee for commercial (total and 375 sf/employee for office use. This yields
586 employees for the proposed Project, and a total of 1,453 service population (employee + residents).
Source: BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, May 2011; CalEEMOD, Dyett & Bhatia, 2012.
Cumulative Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact
As the Project’s CO2e emissions would not exceed BAAQMD threshold levels, the Project would not
result in a cumulatively considerable contribution of GHG emissions or a cumulatively significant impact
to global climate change. Furthermore, CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5 allows tiering and streamlining
the analysis of greenhouse gas emissions for a project-specific environmental document by referencing
existing programmatic review such as the South ECR GPA EIR. As described in the South ECR GPA EIR,
the Amendment will increase total carbon dioxide equivalent emissions in South San Francisco compared
to existing conditions. However, due to emission reductions that would result from State regulations and
the implementation of the Amendment, emissions in 2020 (the buildout year for South ECR GPA) are not
expected to exceed existing levels. The South ECR GPA EIR recognized the impact as cumulatively
significant; however, the Amendment’s contribution was less than considerable. The proposed Project is
entirely consistent with the South ECR GPA policies and EIR. In addition, the Project would not result in
any new additional impacts related to greenhouse gas that were not identified or analyzed in the South
ECR GPA EIR. Therefore, there is no further impact to be analyzed regarding impacts of greenhouse gas
emissions or plan consistency.
180 El Camino Real– Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-25
3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Determination of Environmental Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS — Would
the Project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
e) For a Project located within an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the Project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the Project area?
f) For a Project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the Project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the Project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with
an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized
areas or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands?
DISCUSSION
a – d) Hazardous Materials
The following analyzes risks regarding hazardous materials for existing uses on Project site, historical
uses, and proposed uses as part of the Project.
According to AEI’s Phase I Environmental Assessment, the Project site is subject to the routine use, and
disposal of hazardous materials or petroleum products in the form of solvents, petroleum-based fluids,
Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist
3-26
and aboveground hazardous substance or petroleum storage tanks used for vehicle repair operations at
Firestone, photodeveloping chemicals at Longs Drugs, and a propane container at Safeway.23 The
materials appear to be properly stored and the materials observed did not appear to pose a hazard to the
project site. Furthermore, these materials are contained within the site and do not involve transportation
of or emission that would affect surrounding properties including schools.
Though the Project site is not listed as a hazardous site per Government Code Section 65962.5,24 the Phase
I Environmental Assessment reveals former uses that may have resulted in residual concentrations of
subsurface soil contamination on site from former vehicle repair uses prior to Firestone and an open
leaking underground storage tank (LUST) site from former Unocal service station use that is currently
undergoing groundwater monitoring at a quarterly basis to obtain case closure.25 The Assessment report
shows that impacts from former leaking hydraulic lifts at Firestone appear to be less than significant, but
recommends continuous monitoring for presence of volatile organic compounds and heavy range
hydrocarbon concentration through groundwater sampling and analysis at existing monitoring wells.
Currently five wells are being monitored (four of them twice a year and one of them once a year) at the
former Unocal service station site. The monitoring wells are located in front and behind the Firestone
building, where proposed commercial Building A and a portion of surface parking area will be located.
Based on the latest groundwater monitoring report by Stantec, which shows results of groundwater
monitoring and sampling as well as analysis from soil samples performed on September 20, 2011 and
January 6, 2012, hydrocarbons concentrations such as gasoline range organics were reported as high as
62,000 micrograms per liter (ug/L) with depth of highest soil impact ranging from 10 feet to 40 feet.26 The
groundwater monitoring report shows that the highest concentration of gasoline range organics is located
just west of the service bays at Firestone and decreases in concentration with less than 100 ug/L detected
at a location 30 feet from the monitoring well MW-1R located west of the Firestone service bays. (See
Figure 5 of Stantec Report in the Appendix). Since the areas identified by the Stantec report as having
concentration of hydrocarbons are not proposed to include residential units, the following mitigation
measures prevent potential leakage of contaminated soil into future ground-level retail uses.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Prior to approval of a building permit, obtain case closure at Chevron
Facility 306441 (Former Unocal Service Station No. 6980) located at 190-192 El Camino Real, South San
Francisco (Assessor’s Parcel Number 014-183-110).
If case closure cannot be obtained, the following must be completed as a condition of approval:
Prepare and implement a remediation plan and gain project approval from San Mateo County
Health Systems Groundwater Protection System (SMCHS-GPP).
23 AEI Consultants, Phase I Environmental Assessment of 170-192 El Camino Real, November 4, 2004.
24 California Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Toxic Substances Control, “Cortese” List,
http://www.calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/SectionA.htm, accessed December 4, 2012.
25 Ibid.
26 Stantec, First Quarter 2012 Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report: Chevron 306441 (Former Unocal No. 6980) 190-192 El
Camino Real, South San Francisco, California, May 15, 2012.
180 El Camino Real– Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-27
To ensure safety from potential harm to construction crew during excavation and construction,
the Project applicant will determine the depth of soil contamination from the latest groundwater
monitoring report for the site of former Unocal service prior to demolition and grading at the
Project site. Appropriate safety and engineering controls will be taken per the Health and Safety
Code (Cal OSHA regulations California Code of Regulations, Title 8) to protect construction
crew and the public.
To mitigate potential migration of volatile contamination to indoor air, the Project will include
active or passive vapor control systems over the area of the former Unocal site (proposed Building
A area) as shown in Figure 3-1 as approved with a vapor mitigation system approved by SMCHS-
GPP.
Figure 3.1: Remediation Compound Location
With these mitigation measures, the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts involving
hazardous materials to the public, environment, or schools.
e – f) Airport
The Project is subject to Part 77, Subpart C for the San Francisco Airport, which establishes height criteria
at airport approach zones, the proposed Project would not exceed any height limits established by the
most recently adopted San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan and the Comprehensive
Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport (SFO
Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist
3-28
ALUCP, October 2012). The Part 77 map allows 100 to 150 feet above ground level (AGL) on the Project
site and the Project proposes a maximum height of 90 feet (See Figures 2.12 to 2.22).27 The Project site is
located within Zone 4 Outer Approach/Departure Zone, but does not propose uses incompatible in such
zones such as hospitals, schools, or stadiums.28 Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in any
new impacts regarding airport hazards.
g) Emergency Response
In 1995, the City prepared an Emergency Response Plan integrated with the San Mateo Area/ County
Multi-Hazard Functional Plan. The City’s plan is in compliance with existing law. There will be no new
impacts in regards to emergency response.
h) Fire
The Project site is not adjacent to wildlands; therefore there will be no new impact in regards to wildland
fires.
27 SFO ALUCP, October 2012, Exhibit IV-7 Critical Aeronautical Surfaces
28 SFO ALUCP, October 2012, Exhibit IV-7 Safety Compatibility Zones and Table IV-2 Safety Compatibility Criteria
180 El Camino Real– Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-29
3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Determination of Environmental Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY — Would the
Project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local groundwater
table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-
existing nearby wells would drop to a level which
would not support existing land uses or planned
uses for which permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including through the alteration
of the course of a stream or river, in a manner
which would result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including through the alteration
of the course of a stream or river, or substantially
increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a
manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-
site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard
area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other
flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures, which would impede or redirect flood
flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury or death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist
3-30
DISCUSSION
a, f) Water Quality
The City requires the Developer to prepare and obtain approval of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plan (SWPPP) and the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for new development and
construction as part of its stormwater management program, as applied through standard City conditions
of project approval by the City Engineer of the City’s Public Works Department. Additionally, adherence
to federal, state, and local laws would ensure that impacts will be less than significant.
b) Groundwater
The Project site receives water supply from existing local infrastructure. The proposed Project would rely
on water service from the California Water Service Company (Cal Water). Per the Cal Water 2010 Urban
Water Management Plan (UWMP) for the City of South San Francisco, a historical maximum of 1,500
AFY has been pumped from the Westside basin to supplement purchased water. The 2010 UWMP
projects a 2020 service population of 58,297, which accommodates the population projection estimates for
South ECR GPA EIR as discussed in Section 3.17(d). Cal Water is working on installing additional wells
in the South San Francisco District serving this Project area, and Project impact to groundwater would be
less than significant. A “will serve” letter has been obtained by Cal Water stating that, while the specific
requirements cannot be determined until utility plans, water demand, and fire department requirements
are submitted to the Company, the Company is prepared to provide water service to the project.
c, d, e) Drainage
A large portion of the Project site is currently paved. Paved portions of the site include driveways and
surface parking. The portion of the site that is currently not paved includes landscaped areas within and
surrounding surface parking. Based on the storm water management concept drawings by Pacific Land
Services (See Figure 2.27), the Project would provide a total of 68,200 square feet of landscaped pervious
surface compared to 32,000 square feet of existing pervious surface. Thus, the Project would not increase
drainage or runoff. Additionally, the preliminary utility plan shows that new stormwater infiltration
basins will be installed at landscaped areas at surface parking lots and along the street frontage (See Figure
2.26).
The Project site is currently served by municipal storm sewers and is located within the Colma Creek
Flood Control Zone29; however, the site is not subject to hydromodification since the majority of Colma
Creek is lined. Furthermore, the Project applicant is required to submit a SWPPP and an Erosion Control
Plan to the City Engineer of the City’s Public Works Department prior to the commencement of any
grading or construction of the proposed Project. The SWPPP is required to include stormwater pollution
control devices and filters to be installed to prevent pollutants from entering the City’s storm drain system
and San Francisco Bay. The Plan shall be subject to review and approval of the City Engineer and the
City’s Stormwater Coordinator. The City also requires projects to incorporate BMPs to help reduce
stormwater runoff. Adherence to federal, state, and local laws would ensure that impacts will be less than
significant.
29 Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA Issued Flood Maps, https://msc.fema.gov/webapp/wcs/
stores/servlet/FemaWelcomeView, Accessed November 1, 2012.
180 El Camino Real– Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-31
g, h, i) Flood Hazards
Review of the Flood Insurance Rate map, published by FEMA and dated October 2012, indicated a small
portion of the Project site facing South Spruce Avenue is located in Zone X, areas outside of the 100-year
flood zone.30 No Base Flood Elevations or depths are shown within this zone. The Project site is not
located near a levy or a dam. There will be no impacts in regards to flood hazards.
j) Tsunami Hazards
The City’s General Plan estimates that potential wave run-up of a 100-year tsunami would be
approximately 4.3 feet above mean sea level (msl) and approximately 6.0 feet above msl for a 500-year
tsunami.31 The Project site, approximately 25 to 35 feet above mean sea level,32 would be too high for
inundation by a 500-year tsunami and would be outside any potential tsunami hazard zone. There will be
no impacts in regards to tsunami hazards.
30 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Map Service Center, Flood Insurance Rate Map Item ID 06081C0043E San Mateo
County Unincorporated and Incorporated, http://map1.msc.fema.gov/idms/IntraView.cgi?KEY=39891326& IFIT=1, Accessed
November 1, 2012.
31 City of South San Francisco, General Plan, October 1999, p. 250.
32 AEI Consultants, Phase I Environmental Assessment of 170-192 El Camino Real, November 4, 2004.
Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist
3-32
3.10 Land Use and Planning
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Determination of Environmental Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING — Would the Project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy,
or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over
the Project (including, but not limited to the
general plan, specific plan, local coastal program,
or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan?
DISCUSSION
a) Division of an Established Community
The Project is compatible with development north and south of the Project site along El Camino Real in
terms of land use patterns. Currently, development along El Camino Real in the southern areas of South
San Francisco consists of a mix of residential, commercial, and office buildings. The proposed Project has
a height and density similar to the projects surrounding of the Project site—two-story commercial
buildings along El Camino Real (west) and South Spruce Avenue (north) and taller and wider buildings
along Huntington Avenue (east) and south of the Project site. The proposed Project would contribute to
compatible land use and urban design patterns along El Camino Real, resulting in a more cohesive
community. Therefore, the proposed Project would have no impact on dividing an established
community.
b – c) Conflicts with Plans
The Project is consistent with the El Camino Real Mixed Use (ECRMX) designation in the City’s South
ECR GPA and the Zoning Ordinance, which establishes a minimum height of 25 feet and a maximum
height of 80 feet with an additional 20 feet height increase for the incorporation of TDM measures. The
most recently adopted Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) for the Environs
of San Francisco International Airport (October 2012) limits buildings to 100 to 150 feet critical
aeronautical surface height at the Project site. The Project proposes two story retail/office buildings of 39
feet high and five-story mixed-use buildings at maximum 74 feet high with a 90 foot high tower element
which would not exceed the ALUCP height limits. The Project does not propose land uses incompatible
in Airport Outer Approach/Departure Zones per the ALUCP. The Project site is not in an area subject to
any habitat conservation or natural community conservation plans. There will be no impact with regard
to local policies and ordinances and habitat conservation plans.
180 El Camino Real– Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-33
3.11 Mineral Resources
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Determination of Environmental Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
X. MINERAL RESOURCES — Would the Project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the region
and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-
important mineral resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use
plan?
DISCUSSION
a – b) Mineral Resources
There are no mineral resources located on the Project site. Therefore, there are no impacts on mineral
resources.
Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist
3-34
3.12 Noise
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Determination of Environmental Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
XI. NOISE — Would the Project:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise
levels in excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne
noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels
existing without the Project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above
levels existing without the Project?
e) For a Project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the Project expose people residing
or working in the Project area to excessive noise
levels?
f) For a Project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the Project expose people residing
or working in the Project area to excessive noise
levels?
DISCUSSION
a, e, f) Consistency with Plans, Ordinances, and Applicable Standards
General Policy GP-5.3 of the latest San Francisco Airport Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility
Plan, October 2012 (SFO ALUCP) states that a project application completed prior to the adoption of the
latest ALUCP and located within the CNEL 70 dB contour of the previous 1996 Compatibility Land Use
Plan (CLUP) will be subject to the 1996 CLUP’s 2006 noise contour.
Because the proposed Project application was deemed complete by the City on June 19, 2012, the
proposed Project is subject to the 2006 noise contours of the 1996 CLUP. Per Exhibit III-1 of the SFO
ALUCP, the southwestern portion of the Project site is located in the CNEL 70 to 75 dB (1996 CLUP
Noise Compatibiltiy Zone Boundary Forecast 2006 NEM) noise contour range and the remaining area in
the 65 to 70 dB range.33 Figure 2.7 shows the boundary of the 70 to 75 dB noise contour area and that
33 C/CAG, Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport, “Table
IV-I Noise/Land Use Compatibility Criteria” and “Exhibit III-1 Area Affected by Updated CNEL 70 dB Contour”, October
2012.
180 El Camino Real– Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-35
residential units are located in the 65 to 70 dB range. Per the ALUCP, commercial use is compatible
without restrictions in this 70 dB to 75 dB noise range. Multi-family residential use is conditionally
compatible in the 65 to 70 dB range with the following provisions included as condition of building
permit approval:35
Project Applicant to provide an acoustical study provided by a professional acoustical engineer
that provides mitigation features to achieve an interior noise level of maximum CNEL 45 from
exterior noise per California Code of Regulations Title 21, Section 5014.
Provide notice to owners of real property near the Airport of the proximity to SFO and of the
potential impacts that could occur on the property from airport/aircraft operations
The property owners shall grant an avigation easement to the City and County of San Francisco.
If the proposed development is not built, then, upon notice by the local permitting authority, SFO
shall record a notice of termination of the avigation easement.36
Adherence to existing State and local requirements will ensure that impacts are less than significant.
b, d) Groundborne Noise and Vibration
Construction-related noise and vibration is considered a short-term impact associated with demolition,
site preparation, grading, and other construction-related activities. Construction activities associated with
the Project would be temporary in nature and related impacts would be short-term. Typical noise levels
from construction equipment range from 80 to 90 dBA at 50 feet for most types of construction
equipment, and slightly higher levels for certain types of earthmoving and impact equipment such as pile
drivers. The South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 8.32.050(d) restricts construction noise to
weekdays between the hours of eight a.m. and eight p.m., on Saturdays between the hours of nine a.m.
and eight p.m., and on Sundays and holidays between the hours of ten a.m. and six p.m. Adherence with
the City’s Code will ensure that construction related noise impacts are less than significant.
c) Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels
The proposed Project is entirely consistent with the South ECR GPA and resulting Environmental Impact
Report. The Project would not result in any new additional impacts to ambient noise levels other than
those identified in the South ECR GPA EIR. Additionally, South San Francisco Municipal Code Section
8.32.030 restricts exterior ambient noise in higher density residential and commercial areas to 55 dB from
ten p.m. to seven a.m. and 65 dB from seven a.m. to 10 p.m. Therefore, there is no impact and no further
analysis is needed.
35 C/CAG, Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport, “Table
IV-I Noise/Land Use Compatibility Criteria” and “Figure D-3 Forecast 2015 and 2020 Noise Exposure”, October 2012
36 C/CAG, Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport, “Table
IV-I Noise/Land Use Compatibility Criteria” and “Figure D-3 Forecast 2015 and 2020 Noise Exposure”, October 2012.
Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist
3-36
3.13 Population and Housing
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Determination of Environmental Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the Project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,
either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
DISCUSSION
a) Population Growth
The South ECR GPA EIR projected an additional 2,410 people in the Planning Area in 2020. The
proposed Project is entirely consistent with the South ECR GPA and EIR, and therefore has been included
in the South ECR GPA buildout projection. The proposed Project would not increase the population or
result in any new additional impacts beyond what was projected and analyzed by the South ECR GPA
EIR. Therefore, there is no further impact to be analyzed regarding population growth.
b) and c) Displacement of Housing or People
The existing use does not contain residential uses. The Project will result in new housing. Therefore, there
is no impact in regards to displacement of housing or people.
180 El Camino Real– Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-37
3.14 Public Services
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Determination of Environmental Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES —
a) Would the Project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental facilities,
need for new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response
times or other performance objectives for any of
the public services:
i) Fire protection?
ii) Police protection?
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities?
DISCUSSION
a) Public Services
i. Fire
The Project site will be served by Fire Station #61, located at 480 North Canal Street, 1.2 miles northeast of
the Project site. If the current level of staffing is maintained, the South San Francisco Fire Department will
be able to meet the current National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standard of one firefighter per
1,000 residents. It is not anticipated that new facilities or an expansion of existing facilities is required to
serve the Project. In addition, the proposed Project will have to adhere to General Plan policies as well as
the California Fire Code, the Uniform Building Code and the City’s Municipal Code. Given this, no
impacts to fire services are anticipated.
ii. Police
The Project site will be served by the police station located at 33 Arroyo Drive, 1.2 miles north of the
Project site. The South ECR GPA EIR anticipated that four additional officers would be required to
maintain a law enforcement standard of 1.5 police officers per 1,000 residents at buildout and concluded
that an additional four officers would not require the construction of a new police station, resulting in less
than significant impacts. The proposed Project is entirely consistent with the South ECR GPA and EIR,
and has been included in the South ECR GPA buildout projection. The Project would not result in any
new additional impacts that were not identified and analyzed in the South ECR GPA EIR. Therefore, there
is no further impact to be analyzed regarding police services.
Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist
3-38
iii. Schools
The South ECR GPA EIR shows that the South San Francisco Unified School District has sufficient
capacity to meet the demand resulting from the South ECR GPA for school facilities and concludes that
there is a less than significant impact on school facilities. The proposed Project is entirely consistent with
the South ECR GPA and EIR, and therefore has been included in the South ECR GPA buildout
projection. The Project would not result in any new additional impacts that were not identified and
analyzed in the South ECR GPA EIR. Therefore, there is no further impact to be analyzed regarding
schools.
iv. Parks
The South ECR GPA EIR shows that South San Francisco has an adequate amount of proposed parkland
to meet the additional parkland needed at buildout to meet the General Plan parkland ratio standard of
3.0 acres per 1,000 new residents and one-half acre per 1,000 employees at buildout, resulting in less than
significant impacts. The proposed Project is entirely consistent with the South ECR GPA and EIR, and
therefore has been included in the South ECR GPA buildout projection. The Project would not require
the construction or expansion of any new park or recreation facilities, and therefore would not result in
any new additional impacts that were not identified and analyzed in the South ECR GPA EIR. Therefore,
there is no further impact to be analyzed regarding parks.
180 El Camino Real– Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-39
3.15 Recreation
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Determination of Environmental Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
XIV. RECREATION —
a) Would the Project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur
or be accelerated?
b) Does the Project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities, which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
DISCUSSION
a, b) Recreation
See Section 3.14 (a)(iv) Parks.
Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist
3-40
3.16 Transportation and Traffic
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Determination of Environmental Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
XV. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC — Would the
Project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or
policy establishing measures of effectiveness for
the performance of the circulation system, taking
into account all modes of transportation including
mass transit and non-motorized travel and
relevant components of the circulation system,
including but not limited to intersections, streets,
highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle
paths, and mass transit?
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion
management program, including, but not limited to
level of service standards and travel demand
measures, or other standards established by the
county congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian
facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance
or safety of such facilities?
DISCUSSION
a, b) Transportation
This section analyzes the proposed Project’s transportation and traffic impacts and cumulative impacts to
level of service standards at roadway intersections and segments. The City’s General Plan and San Mateo
County (C/CAG) Congestion Management Plan (CMP) establish standards regarding traffic operations,
level of service, and street systems.
The South San Francisco General Plan includes the following standards:
180 El Camino Real– Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-41
Policy 4.2-G-5: Make efficient use of existing transportation facilities and, through the
arrangement of land uses, improved alternate modes, and enhanced integration of various
transportation systems serving South San Francisco, strive to reduce the total vehicle-miles
traveled.
Policy 4.2-G-8: Strive to maintain LOS D or better on arterial and collector streets, at all
intersections, and on principal arterials in the CMP during peak hours.
Policy 4.2-G-9: Accept LOS E or F after finding that:
There is no practical and feasible way to mitigate the lower level of service; and
The uses resulting in the lower level of service are of clear, overall public benefit.
Table 3.8 shows the thresholds of road segments surrounding the Project site as established by C/CAG in
the CMP.
Table 3.8: C/CAG Level Of Service Thresholds
Roadway Segment LOS
El Camino Real between Hickey Blvd and I-380 E
El Camino Real between I-380 and Trousdale E
I-280 between SR-1 (South) and San Bruno Ave D
I-380 between I-280 and US 101 F
US 101 between San Francisco County Line and I-380 E
US 101 between I-380 and Millbrae Ave D
Source: San Mateo County CMP, 2011.
C/CAG also establishes the following standards:38
Freeway segments currently in compliance with the adopted LOS standard:
A project is considered to have a CMP impact if the project will cause the freeway segment to
operate at a level of service that violates the standard adopted in the CMP.
A project will be considered to have a CMP impact if the cumulative analysis indicates that
the combination of the proposed project and future cumulative traffic demand will result in
the freeway segment to operate at a level of service that violates the standard adopted in the
current CMP and the proposed project increases traffic demand on the freeway segment by
an amount equal to one percent or more of the segment capacity, or causes the freeway
segment volume-to-capacity ratio to increase by one percent.
Freeway segments currently not in compliance with the adopted LOS standard:
A project is considered to have a CMP impact if the project will add traffic demand equal to
one percent or more of the segment capacity or causes the freeway segment volume-to-
capacity ratio to increase by one percent, if the freeway segment is currently not in
compliance with the adopted LOS standard.
38 San Mateo County Congestion Management Program, 2011, Appendix L: Traffic Impact Analysis Policy, Section
V
Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist
3-42
Under the Project condition, all nine intersections will operate at acceptable LOS D or better during the
AM and PM peak hours. Table 3.9 shows LOS for the Existing, the No Project with projected future
traffic, and the Project conditions with projected future traffic. It was noted that the westbound approach
of Noor Avenue at El Camino Real is expected to operate at LOS E during the p.m. peak hour; however,
since the City’s LOS criteria apply to the intersection as a whole which is operating acceptably at LOS A,
the LOS E operations on the side-street approach do not result in a significant impact.
Table 3.9: AM and PM Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Summary
No. Intersection
Peak Hour
Existing
Condition
(2012) No Project Project
LOS
1 El Camino Real / Arroyo Dr
AM B B B
PM B B B
2 El Camino Real / Westborough Blvd
AM C D D
PM C C C
3 El Camino Real / W Orange Avenue
AM C C C
PM C C C
4 El Camino Real / Ponderosa Rd
AM C C C
PM B B B
5 El Camino Real / Country Club Dr
AM B B B
PM B B B
6 El Camino Real / S Spruce Ave-Hazelwood Dr
AM C C C
PM C D D
7 Huntington Ave / S Spruce Ave
AM B B B
PM C C C
8
El Camino Real / Noor Ave
AM A A A
PM A A A
Westbound Noor Ave Approach
AM B B B
PM D D E
9 Huntington Ave / Noor Ave
AM B B B
PM B B B
Notes: LOS = Level of service; Results for minor approaches to two-way stop-controlled intersections are indicated in italics.
Source: W-Trans, 2012.
The CMP sets the standard to be LOS D for I-280, LOS E for El Camino Real and LOS F for I-380. Table
3.10 shows that two of the eight roadway segments studied are expected to operate at unacceptable levels
during peak hour under Project condition. The two roadway segments include northbound p.m. peak
hour traffic and southbound a.m. peak hour traffic on I-280 between Sneath Lane and San Bruno Avenue,
which will operate unacceptably at LOS E, and northbound a.m. peak hour traffic on US 101 between San
Bruno Avenue and I-380, which will operate unacceptably at LOS F.
180 El Camino Real– Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-43
Table 3.10: AM and PM Peak Hour Roadway Segment Level of Service Summary
No.
Roadway
Segment Location
Direction Peak Hour
Existing
Condition
(2012) No Project Project
LOS
1
El Camino
Real
S Spruce Ave to
Country Club Dr
NB AM E E E
PM E E E
SB AM E E E
PM E E E
2
I-380 to S Spruce
NB AM D D D
PM D D D
SB AM D D D
PM D D D
3
I-280
Sneath Ln to E
Junipero Serra Blvd
NB AM C C C
PM D D D
SB AM C C C
PM D D D
4
San Bruno Ave
West to Sneath Ln
NB AM C D D
PM D E E
SB AM D E E
PM D D E
5
I-380
US 101 to El
Camino
Real
EB AM D D D
PM C C C
WB AM B B B
PM D D C
6
El Camino Real to I-
280
EB AM E E E
PM C C C
WB AM B B B
PM E E E
7
US 101
I-380 to Airport
Blvd
NB AM D E E
PM D D D
SB AM D D D
PM D D D
8
San Bruno Ave to I-
380
NB AM F F F
PM E E E
SB AM E E E
PM E E E
Notes: LOS = Level of service; NB = Northbound; SB = Southbound; Bold indicates unacceptable level of operations.
Source: Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc, 2012.
Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist
3-44
However, since these two roadway segments would have performed at unacceptable level of service at the
No Project condition, and the addition of Project-generated traffic is less than one percent of the road
capacity, the Project’s impact would be less than significant.
Table 3.11 shows that at projected future cumulative volume, five intersections would operate at level of
service E or F.
Table 3.11: AM and PM Peak Hour Intersection Cumulative Level of Service Summary
No. Intersection
Peak Hour Cumulative Conditions
LOS
1 El Camino Real/Arroyo Dr
AM D
PM C
2 El Camino Real/Westborough Blvd-Chestnut Ave
AM F*
PM F
3 El Camino Real/West Orange Ave
AM F*
PM F
4 El Camino Real/Ponderosa Rd
AM F*
PM E
5 El Camino Real/Country Club Dr
AM F*
PM B
6 El Camino Real/South Spruce Ave-Hazelwood Dr
AM F*
PM F*
7 Huntington Ave / South Spruce Ave
AM C
PM C
8
El Camino Real / Noor Ave
AM A
PM A
Westbound Noor Ave Approach
AM C
PM F
9 Huntington Ave / Noor Ave
AM B
PM B
Notes: LOS = Level of service; Results for minor approaches to two-way stop-controlled intersections are indicated in italics.
Bold indicates unacceptable operations; * = delay greater than 2 minutes.
Source: Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc, 2012.
Though the westbound Noor Avenue approach would operate at LOS F, the intersection as a whole would
still perform at an acceptable level. Since the City’s operation standards are applied to the intersection as a
whole, not individual approaches, there would be no cumulative traffic impact at intersections.
For the five intersections that are identified as operating deficiently, it would be necessary to widen one or
more approaches to the impacted intersections to provide additional through and/or turn lanes. The need
for additional lanes varies by intersection and it should be noted that not all intersections would require
180 El Camino Real– Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-45
the same level of widening to achieve acceptable operations. However, additional improvements beyond
these five intersections may be necessary to provide a consistent configuration of El Camino Real along
the corridor. The necessary capacity enhancements to the intersection would require acquisition of
additional right-of-way, relocation of utilities and modified access to adjacent properties. Furthermore,
the intersections are controlled by Caltrans, requiring all improvements to be approved by the State;
therefore implementation of the required mitigation measures is beyond the control of the City alone.
Policy 4.2-G-9 of the South San Francisco General Plan states that “if there is no practical and feasible way
to mitigate the lower level of service and the uses resulting in the lower level of service are of clear public
benefit” then LOS E or F is acceptable. As this Project provides clear public benefits by meeting the goals
of the Grand Boulevard Initiative Plan, implementing the South San Francisco General Plan Amendment,
and meeting the policies of the South San Francisco General Plan, the Project would not result in
significant impacts at these intersections. This finding is also consistent with the previously approved
South El Camino Real General Plan Amendments EIR.
This Project provides clear public benefits by fulfilling the following:
Meets the goals of the Grand Boulevard Initiative Plan39 by:
Targeting housing and job growth at a key intersection along the El Camino corridor;
Building compact mixed-use development and high-quality urban design and construction;
and
Strengthening pedestrian and bicycle connections with the corridor by providing bicycle
parking, interior pedestrian networks throughout and to El Camino and South Spruce
Avenue, and sidewalks and pedestrian entrances along Huntington Avenue to connect to the
San Bruno BART station.
Implements the South San Francisco General Plan Amendment.
Meets the policies of the South San Francisco General Plan:
Policy 2-G-7: Encourage mixed-use residential, retail, and office development in centers
where they would support transit, in locations where they would provide increased access to
neighborhoods that currently lack such facilities, and in corridors where such developments
can help to foster identity and vitality.
Policy 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.
Policy 3.4-G-2: Encourage development of a mix of uses, with pockets of concentrated activity
that provide focii and identity to the different parts of El Camino Real.
Policy 3.4-G-5: Encourage the implementation of the Guiding Principles of the Grand
Boulevard Initiative as adopted by the Grand Boulevard Task Force in April of 2007.
Policy 3.4-G-7: Develop the South El Camino area as a vibrant corridor with a variety of
residential and non-residential uses to foster a walkable and pedestrian-scaled environment.
39 Grand Boulevard Task Force, Grand Boulevard Initiative Plan, Adopted April 3, 2007,
http://www.grandboulevard.net/library/documents.html, Accessed February 7, 2013
Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist
3-46
Policy 3.4-1-24: Promote visually intricate development, using horizontal and vertical
building articulation that engages pedestrians; and diversity in color, materials, scale, texture,
and building volumes.
Policy 3.4-1-30: Require development be oriented to El Camino Real, with the ground floor of
buildings designed so that pedestrians can see shops, restaurants, and activities as they walk
along the sidewalk. The ground floor of buildings along Huntington, Noor, and South Spruce
avenues should also be designed to provide visual interest and promote pedestrian comfort.
Policy 4.3-I-4: Require provision of secure covered bicycle parking at all existing and future
multifamily residential, commercial, industrial, and office/institutional uses.
Housing Element Policy 1-9: The City shall maximize opportunities for residential
development, through infill and redevelopment of underutilized sites, without impacting
existing neighborhoods or creating conflicts with industrial operations.
Housing Element Policy 2-4: The City shall ensure that new development promotes quality
design and harmonizes with existing neighborhood surroundings.
Table 3.12 shows that at future cumulative volume, two freeway segments would perform at unacceptable
level of service. However, traffic generated by the Project represents less than one percent of freeway
capacity. Thus, the Project’s impact to freeway segments would be less than significant based on C/CAG
standards.
180 El Camino Real– Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-47
Notes: LOS = Level of service; Results for minor approaches to two-way stop-controlled intersections are indicated in italics.
Source: Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc, 2012.
Table 3.12: AM and PM Peak Hour Roadway Segment Cumulative Level of Service
Summary
No. Roadway Segment Location Direction Peak Hour Cumulative
1
El Camino Real
S Spruce Ave to Country Club Dr
NB AM E
PM E
SB AM E
PM E
2
I-380 to S Spruce
NB AM D
PM D
SB AM D
PM D
3
I-280
Sneath Ln to E Junipero Serra Blvd
NB AM D
PM D
SB AM D
PM E
4
San Bruno Ave West to Sneath Ln
NB AM D
PM F
SB AM E
PM E
5
I-380
US 101 to El Camino Real
EB AM D
PM C
WB AM B
PM E
6
El Camino Real to I-280
EB AM F
PM C
WB AM C
PM F
7
US 101
I-380 to Airport Blvd
NB AM E
PM E
SB AM D
PM E
8
San Bruno Ave to I-380
NB AM F
PM F
SB AM F
PM F
Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist
3-48
c) Air Traffic Patterns
The proposed Project would not change any air traffic patterns nor would it change the location of the
San Francisco International Airport. Therefore there will be no impacts on air traffic.
d) Incompatible Design Features or Incompatible Uses
The proposed Project would not increase hazards due to incompatible use or designs that would
negatively alter the public right-of-way. Clear sight lines would be maintained at the project driveways,
and any landscaping or signage would need to be either low-lying or setback from the project driveways as
required by South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 20.330.010 Parking Area Design and
Development Standards. Therefore, there will be no impact in regards to hazards.
e) Emergency Access
The proposed Project includes two driveways on South Spruce Avenue, one existing and one modified
driveway along El Camino Real, and modifies two driveways along Huntington Avenue to allow all
turning movements. Therefore, there will be no adverse impact in regard to emergency access.
f) Public Transit, Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
The Project supports the user of alternative transportation by providing sidewalks and street-oriented
retail along El Camino Real and South Spruce Avenue, Huntington Avenue, and through the provision of
bike racks near building entrances. The Project also includes sidewalks along the project frontage at El
Camino Real and South Spruce Avenue, and new pedestrian pathways that connect all new buildings and
parking areas to sidewalks along these main streets. Moreover, the Project’s street-oriented design (i.e.
continuous setbacks and street-facing facades) complements the walkability goals of the South San
Francisco El Camino Real Master Plan (2006). Additionally, the Project supports the goals of the Grand
Boulevard Initiative by placing retail and residential uses near existing SamTrans bus lines along El
Camino Real. Furthermore, a pedestrian entrance will be provided along Huntington Avenue to provide a
southern connection of the property (the closest point to the San Bruno BART station) to Huntington
Avenue (See Figure 2.7 Site Plan). The Project impact will be less than significant.
180 El Camino Real– Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-49
3.17 Utilities and Service Systems
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Determination of Environmental Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS — Would the
Project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of
the applicable Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water
or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the Project from existing entitlements and
resources, or are new or expanded entitlements
needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider, which serves or may serve
the Project that it has adequate capacity to serve
the Project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the Project’s solid
waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
DISCUSSION
a, b, e) Wastewater
The proposed Project will be required to comply with all applicable regulations and would not cause an
exceedance of wastewater treatment requirements. The South ECR GPA EIR shows that projected
wastewater generation at buildout will be below the capacity allocated to the City of South San Francisco
at buildout, resulting in less than significant impacts. The proposed Project is entirely consistent with the
South ECR GPA and EIR, and therefore has been included in the South ECR GPA buildout projection.
The Project would not result in any new additional impacts that were not identified and analyzed in the
South ECR GPA EIR. Therefore, there is no further impact to be analyzed regarding wastewater.
c) Storm Water Drainage
The Project site is currently served by municipal storm sewers. The Project site is located within the
Colma Creek Flood Control Zone; however the Project site is not subject to hydromodification since the
Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist
3-50
majority of Colma Creek is lined. The proposed Project would not require new or expansion of
stormwater drainage facilities, resulting in no impact.
d) Water Supply
The proposed Project is entirely consistent with the South ECR GPA and EIR, and therefore has been
included in the South ECR GPA buildout projection. The South ECR GPA EIR estimated a 2000 city
population of 60,552, of which 49,807 or 82 percent were included in the service population of the South
San Francisco District for the California Water Service Company (Cal Water). Assuming the same
percentage of service population, the 2020 projected service population with the additional 2,410 persons
resulting from the South ECR GPA EIR was estimated at 57,678. Since then, a new 2010 Urban Water
Management Plan (UWMP) has been adopted by Cal Water. The 2010 UWMP projects a 2020 service
population of 58,297, which accommodates the 57,678 population projection estimated by the South ECR
GPA EIR.40
Since the South ECR GPA EIR was adopted, Senate Bill No. 7 (SBx7-7), also known as the 20x2020 policy
was signed into law in November 2009. SBx7-7 amended the State Water Code to require a 20 percent
reduction in urban per capita water use by December 31, 2020. The 2015 and 2020 district-specific targets
for South San Francisco District are 138 and 124 gallons per capita per day (gpcd), respectively, compared
to an average use of 140 gpcd between 2005 and 2010.
Since the 2010 UWMP includes water reduction measures to comply with SBx7-7, which the City and Cal
Water service areas must follow, and the 2010 UWMP accounts for the Project site, the Project would not
result in any new additional impacts that were not identified and analyzed in the South ECR GPA EIR.
Therefore, there is no further impact to be analyzed regarding water supply.
f, g) Solid Waste
The South ECR GPA EIR shows that the expected additional waste generated under the amendment is not
expected to strain existing landfill capacity. The proposed Project is entirely consistent with the South
ECR GPA and EIR, and therefore has been included in the South ECR GPA buildout projection. The
Project would not result in any new additional impacts that were not identified and analyzed in the South
ECR GPA EIR. Therefore, there is no further impact to be analyzed regarding solid waste.
40 California Water Service Company, 2010 Urban Water Management Plan: South San Francisco District, Table 3.3-8, June 2011.
180 El Camino Real– Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-51
3.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for
Determination of Environmental Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE —
Would the Project:
a) Have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat
of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant
or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range or a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
b) Have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively
considerable” means that the incremental
effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects,
and the effects of probable future projects)?
c) Have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
DISCUSSION
a, c) Quality of Environment and Adverse Effects on Human Beings
Impacts of the Project are considered to be less than significant with mandatory compliance with existing
federal, State and local standards and implementation of mitigation measures discussed in this Initial
Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration. Implementation of the Project would not degrade the quality and
extent of the environment nor result in adverse effects on human beings, provided the Project adheres to
all mandated policies, rules and regulations of all relevant governing bodies.
b) Cumulative Impacts
The proposed Project is entirely consistent with the South ECR GPA and accompanying EIR, which
included analysis regarding cumulative impacts. The Project would not result in any new additional
cumulative impacts other than those identified in the South ECR GPA EIR.
Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist
3-52
This page intentionally left blank.
4 References
AEI Consultants, Phase I Environmental Assessment of 170-192 El Camino Real, November 4, 2004.
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). Liquefaction Scenario Shaking Maps, available at ABAG,
http://gis.abag.ca.gov/Website/LiquefactionSusceptibility/, accessed November 2012.
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). Earthquake Shaking Scenarios, available at
http://gis.abag.ca.gov/website/LandslideDistribution/, accessed November 2012.
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). Landslide Hazard Areas, available at
http://gis.abag.ca.gov/Website/Tsunami-Maps/viewer.htm, accessed November 2012.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status,
available at http://gis.abag.ca.gov/website/LandslideDistribution/, accessed December 2012.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District, BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, June 2010, Revised May 2011,
Updated May 2012.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan: Volume I and II–
Final Adopted, September 2010.Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD),
California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, December 2010 and May 2012.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), Stationary Source Risk and Hazard Analysis
Tool for San Mateo County kml file, available at http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-
and-Research/CEQA-GUIDELINES/Tools-and-Methodology.aspx, accessed December 2012.
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use
Projects: CAPCOA Guidance Document, July 2009.
California Air Resources Board, ADAM Air Quality Data Statistics, available at
http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam, accessed August, 2012.
California Air Resources Board, Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective,
2005, available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf, accessed December 2012.
California Air Resources Board, Air Quality Trend Summaries, 2010, available at
http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/trends/trends1.php, accessed December 2012.
California Building Standards Commission, 2010 California Green Building Standards Code, California
Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11, January 1, 2011.
Chapter 4: References
4-2
California Emission Estimator Model, Technical Paper: Methodology Reasoning and Policy Development of
the California Emission Estimator Model, July 2011.
California Emission Estimator Model, User’s Guide, Version 2011.1, February 2011.
California Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Toxic Substances Control, “Cortese” List,
http://www.calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/SectionA.htm, accessed December 4, 2012.
California Water Service Company, 2010 Urban Water Management Plan: South San Francisco District,
Table 3.3-8, June 2011.
C/CAG of San Mateo County, Final San Mateo County Congestion Management Program, November
2011.
City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG), Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport, October 2012.
City of South San Francisco, South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment Draft EIR, November 2009.
City of South San Francisco, City of South San Francisco General Plan, October 1999.
Citywide List of Designated and Potential Historic Resources, Updated November 13, 2002, City of South
San Francisco.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA Issued Flood Maps, https://msc.fema.gov/
webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/FemaWelcomeView, Accessed November 1, 2012.
Grand Boulevard Task Force, Grand Boulevard Initiative Plan: The El Camino Real Corridor: From
Mission Street in Daly city to the Alameda in San Jose, Adopted April 3, 2007 (Amended by
Resolution 31-2010, Adopted March 24, 2010),
http://www.grandboulevard.net/library/documents.html, Accessed February 7, 2013.
Much, Bryan, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Record search results for the
proposed project at 180 El Camino Real, South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California,
November 19, 2012.
Natural Resources Conservation Service. San Mateo County, Eastern Part, and San Francisco County,
California Survey Area Data. Web Soil Survey website: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov.
Accessed February 19, 2013.
South San Francisco Historic Preservation Survey 1985-1986: A Comprehensive Study of History and
Architecture, City of South San Francisco Community Services Department and the Firm of
Bonnie L. Bamburg.
Stantec, First Quarter 2012 Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report: Chevron 306441 (Former Unocal No.
6980) 190-192 El Camino Real, South San Francisco, California, May 15, 2012.
Chapter 4: References
4-3
University of California Museum of Paleontology, UCMP Specimen Database, available at
http://ucmpdb.berkeley.edu, accessed December 2012.
Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc., Traffic Impact Study for 180 El Camino Real in the City of
South San Francisco Updated Draft Report, February 27, 2013.
Chapter 4: References
4-4
This page intentionally left blank.
5 Appendix
AEI Consultants, Phase I Environmental Assessment of 170-192 El Camino Real, November 4, 2004.
California Emission Estimator Model, Air Quality Analysis Calculation Output, November 27, 2012 and
December 4, 2012.
Stantec, First Quarter 2012 Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report: Chevron 306441 (Former Unocal No.
6980) 190-192 El Camino Real, South San Francisco, California, May 15, 2012.
Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc., Traffic Impact Study for 180 El Camino Real in the City of
South San Francisco, Updated Draft Report, February 27, 2013.
Chapter 5: Appendix
5-2
This page intentionally left blank.
DYETT & BHATIA
Urban and Regional Planners
755 Sansome Street, Suite 400
San Francisco, California 94111
415 956 4300 415 956 7315
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of South San Francisco
180 El Camino Real
Prepared for
The City of South San Francisco
By
May 23, 2013
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1
2 Comments on the Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated
Negative Declaration .................................................................................................. 3
3 Responses to Comments on the Initial Study and Proposed
Mitigated Negative Declaration ................................................................................. 5
4 Revisions to the Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration ...... 9
5 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ...................................................... 13
Table of Contents
ii
This page intentionally left blank.
1 Introduction
PURPOSE
This document is the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Centennial Village mixed-use
development project at 180 El Camino Real. This document has been prepared by the City of South
San Francisco in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and pursuant
to the requirements of CEQA, California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., and the
CEQA Guidelines found in California Code of Regulations Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 15000 et
seq., as amended. The City of South San Francisco is the lead agency as defined by CEQA for
environmental review of this project.
The Final Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) includes the Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated
Negative Declaration, Comments on and Responses to Comments on the Initial Study/Proposed
MND, and minor corrections and clarifications to the Proposed MND.
The primary purpose of the Final MND is to revise and refine the environmental analysis in the
Initial Study/Proposed MND, published on April 12, 2013, in response to comments received
during the public review period. This document, which includes the Initial Study/Proposed MND
as an appendix, constitutes the Final MND on the project. It amends and incorporates by reference
the Initial Study/Proposed MND, which is available as a separately-bound document from the City
of South San Francisco Planning Division at 315 Maple Avenue, in South San Francisco, and also
online at http://www.ssf.net/index.aspx?nid=367.
PROCESS
Section 15073 of the State CEQA Guidelines indicate that a lead agency shall provide a public
review period for a proposed MND pursuant to Section 151045(b) of not less than 30 days from
when submitted to the State Clearinghouse.
The Initial Study/Proposed MND for the project at 180 El Camino Real was circulated for the
required 30-day public review period beginning on Friday, April 12, 2013 and ending on May 13,
2013. In addition, the City of South San Francisco prepared and circulated to all interested agencies
and individuals a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration.
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15074(b) requires that the decision-making body of the Lead
Agency consider the Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration together with any comments
received during the public review process prior to approving a project.
Six comment letters were received regarding the proposed project. Chapter 2 of this document
contains the comments received; Chapter 3 contains the responses to these comments; and Chapter
City of South San Francisco
180 El Camino Real
2
4 lists the revisions to the Proposed MND by chapter and page, in the same order as the revisions
would appear in the Proposed MND.
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
3
2 Comments on the Initial Study and
Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
This chapter contains copies of the comment letters received on the Initial Study/Proposed
Mitigated Negative Declaration. A total of six comment letters were received during the 30-day
public review period. Each letter is numbered and each individual comment is assigned a letter in
the page margin. Responses to each comment are provided in Chapter 3 of this document. Where
appropriate, the clarifications and/or revisions suggested in these comment letters have been
incorporated into the Proposed MND. These revisions are shown in Chapter 4 of this document.
Table 2-1: Comments Received on the Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration for 180 El Camino Real
Number Date Agency Commenter
1 April 29, 2013 San Mateo County Health System Deno G. Milano, PG, Hazardous
Materials Specialist
2 May 3, 2013 San Francisco International Airport John Bergener, Airport Planning
Manager
3 May 8, 2013 County of San Mateo Public Works Mark Chow, P.E.
4 May 13, 2013 City/County Association of
Governments of Sa Mateo County
David F. Corbone, C/CAG Staff
5 May 14, 2013 California Department of
Transportation
Erik Alm, AICP
6 May 21, 2013 City of San Bruno Mark Sullivan, Housing and
Redevelopment Manager
City of South San Francisco
180 El Camino Real
4
This page intentionally left blank
.
Letter #1
1-a
1-b
1-c
Letter #2
2-a
2-b
2-c
Letter #3
3-a
3-b
Letter #4
4-a
4-b
4-c
Letter #5
5-a
5-b
Letter #6
6-a
3 Responses to Comments on the Initial
Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration
This chapter includes responses to each comment, and in the same order, as presented in 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.
1-a: Comment 1-a lists San Mateo County Health System’s updates to the Environmental Site
Assessment cited in Section 3.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials of the Proposed MND.
The Proposed MND has been revised to reflect these updates. They are:
Groundwater monitoring is performed semi-annually, not quarterly.
Groundwater monitoring is being performed to assess the extent, stability, and risk of
the contamination, not for case closure.
Six wells are monitored, not five. In addition, SMCHS noted that it could support
destruction of these wells to facilitate development, provided that necessary monitoring
wells are reinstalled when construction is complete.
Hydrocarbon concentrations higher than the stated 62,000 micrograms per liter (ug/L)
were reported.
SMCHS notes that there were hydrocarbon concentrations reported in shallow soil and
soil vapor that exceed Environmental Screening Levels established by the Regional
Water Quality Control Board.
The TPH-gas concentrations in groundwater exceed 100 ug/L over a distance of at least
120 feet from the monitoring well MW-1R, rather than the stated concentration of less
than 100 ug/L at a location 30 feet from the monitoring well.
Significant concentrations of hydrocarbons have been reported in soil as shallow as 2.5
feet below grade, not 10 to 40 feet below grade.
1-b: Comment 1-b proposes changes to the Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 listed in Section 3.8,
Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The Proposed MND has been revised to reflect the
changes. They are:
Bullet #2 under Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 now references “soil and groundwater
sampling reports” rather than “groundwater monitoring report”.
City of South San Francisco
180 El Camino Real
6
Bullet #2 under Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 now includes the following condition:
“The project applicant must obtain GPP staff approval of the soil management plan
discussed in the GPP staff letter dated April 9, 2013, before any soil excavation
commences [in] the vicinity of Buildings A and B”.
Bullet #3 under Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 now includes the following condition:
“The applicant will incorporate into the design of Building A remediation wells and
appurtenant equipment (e.g. piping) approved by GPP staff so residual hydrocarbons
can be remediated during building occupancy to levels that no longer pose a significant
risk to human health, environment, and water quality as determined by GPP staff or
the State Water Resources Control Board”.
2-a: Comment 2-a points out that although the development will be situated within noise
contours currently incompatible with new residential development per ALUCP policy NP-
4, the ALUCP General Policy GP-5.3 grants an exception to noise consistency evaluations
for development actions in the review process before the effective date of the current
ALUCP, and 180 El Camino Real qualifies for this exception. No change to the Proposed
MND is required.
2-b: The comment points out that while a portion of the project site is situated in Safety Zone 4
– Outer Approach/Departure Zone, the project does not propose any incompatible uses.
No change to the Proposed MND is required.
2-c: The comment states that the project is subject to notification of proposed construction for
projects that may have a potential effect on air navigation facilities. The comment suggests
that FAA Form 7460-1, Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration, be submitted by
the project sponsor through the FAA’s Obstruction Evaluation/Airport Airspace Analysis
website, and indicates that a Determination of No Hazard from the FAA should be
obtained prior to project approval. No change to the Proposed MND is required.
3-a: The comment requires that the project proponent submit drainage calculations to show
that the post development discharge rate from the site does not exceed the existing rate. If it
is determined that the future discharge rate exceeds the existing rate, the comment requires
that an on-site storm water detention system be designed and incorporated into the
project. A mitigation measure, HYDRO-1, has been added to the Proposed MND.
3-b: The comment is a request that trash management measures be incorporated into the design
elements of the storm drainage systems and appurtenances. The Proposed MND has been
revised to add this information. This information has been added as a requirement in
Mitigation Measure HYDRO-1.
4-a: The first paragraph of this comment is the same as Comment 2-a. The second paragraph
states that multi-family uses on the project site are subject to including adequate sound
insulation in the building design to achieve an interior noise level of 45 db CNEL in all
habitable rooms and granting an avigation easement to the City of South San Francisco. No
change to the Proposed MND is required.
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
7
4-b: This comment is the same as comment 2-b. No change to the Proposed MND is required.
4-c: This comment is the same as comment 2-c. No change to the Proposed MND is required.
5-a: The comment requests that the project’s traffic impact analysis be updated to reflect 2035
Cumulative Conditions. There is, however, no specific requirement to analyze traffic
impacts to a cumulative year of 2035, and, typically, the cumulative forecast year used is
that which corresponds to the City’s General Plan, which in this case is 2030. Furthermore,
a 2030 horizon is adequate as the 180 El Camino Real project was included in the GP
Amendment and is consistent with the GP Amendment land use plan. Therefore, no
change has been made to the Proposed MND.
5-b: The comment points out that any work or traffic control that encroaches into the state
ROW requires an encroachment permit issued by Caltrans. No change to the Proposed
MND is required.
6-a: The comment states that the City of San Bruno supports this type of mixed-use
development along the El Camino Real Corridor. No change to the Proposed MND is
required.
City of South San Francisco
180 El Camino Real
8
This page intentionally left blank.
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
9
4 Revisions to the Initial Study and Proposed
Mitigated Negative Declaration
This chapter includes the revisions to the Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration. The revisions have been made in response to comments or based on review by the
MND preparers. The revisions appear here in the order in which they appear in the Proposed
MND. Text additions are noted in underline and text deletions appear in strikeout.
City of South San Francisco
180 El Camino Real
10
Table 4-1: Revisions to the Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for
180 El Camino Real
Chapter/
Section Page Revision
3.8 3-26 The second paragraph under the subheading “a-d) Hazardous Materials” is amended as
follows:
Though the Project site is not listed as a hazardous site per Government Code Section
65962.5,24 the Phase I Environmental Assessment reveals former uses that may have resulted
in residual concentrations of subsurface soil contamination on site from former vehicle repair
uses prior to Firestone and an open leaking underground storage tank (LUST) site from
former Unocal service station use that is currently undergoing groundwater monitoring at a
quarterly semi-annual basis to obtain case closure assess the extent, stability, and risk of the
contamination.25 The Assessment report shows that impacts from former leaking hydraulic
lifts at Firestone appear to be less than significant, but recommends continuous monitoring
for presence of volatile organic compounds and heavy range hydrocarbon concentration
through groundwater sampling and analysis at existing monitoring wells. Currently five six
wells are being monitored (four three of them twice a year and one three of them once a
year) at the former Unocal service station site. The monitoring wells are located in front and
behind the Firestone building, where proposed commercial Building A and a portion of
surface parking area will be located. Based on the latest groundwater monitoring report by
Stantec, which shows results of groundwater monitoring and sampling as well as analysis from
soil samples performed on September 20, 2011 and January 6, 2012, hydrocarbons
concentrations such as gasoline range organics were reported as higher than as 62,000
micrograms per liter (ug/L) with depth of highest soil impact ranging from 10 feet to 40 as
shallow as 2.5 feet below grade.26 The groundwater monitoring report shows that the highest
concentration of gasoline range organics is located just west of the service bays at Firestone
and decreases in concentration with less than remains in excess of 100 ug/L detected at a
location 30 over a distance of at least 120 feet from the monitoring well MW-1R located
west of the Firestone service bays. (See Figure 5 of Stantec Report in the Appendix).
Additionally, hydrocarbon concentrations reported in shallow soil and soil vapor significantly
exceeded Environmental Screening Levels established by the Regional Water Quality Control
Board. Since the areas identified by the Stantec report as having concentration of
hydrocarbons are not proposed to include residential units, the following mitigation measures
prevent potential leakage of contaminated soil into future ground-level retail uses. SMCHS
also noted that it could support destruction of the monitoring wells to facilitate development,
provided that necessary monitoring wells are reinstalled when construction is complete.
3.8 3-27 The second bullet under “Mitigation Measure HAZ-1” is amended as follows:
To ensure safety from potential harm to construction crew during excavation and
construction, the Project applicant will determine the depth of soil contamination from the
latest soil and groundwater monitoring sampling reports for the site of former Unocal service
prior to demolition and grading at the Project site. Appropriate safety and engineering
controls will be taken per the Health and Safety Code (Cal OSHA regulations California
Code of Regulations, Title 8) to protect construction crew and the public. The project
applicant must obtain GPP staff approval of the soil management plan discussed in the GPP
staff letter dated April 9, 2013, before any soil excavation commences [in] the vicinity of
Buildings A and B.
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
11
Table 4-1: Revisions to the Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for
180 El Camino Real
Chapter/
Section Page Revision
3.8 3-27 The third bullet under “Mitigation Measure HAZ-1” is amended as follows:
To mitigate potential migration of volatile contamination to indoor air, the Project will
include active or passive vapor control systems over the area of the former Unocal site
(proposed Building A area) as shown in Figure 3-1 as approved with a vapor mitigation system
approved by SMCHSGPP. The applicant will incorporate into the design of Building A
remediation wells and appurtenant equipment (e.g. piping) approved by GPP staff so residual
hydrocarbons can be remediated during building occupancy to levels that no longer pose a
significant risk to human health, environment, and water quality as determined by GPP staff or
the State Water Resources Control Board.
3.9 3-30 A mitigation measure is added following the subheading “c, d, e) Drainage”:
Mitigation Measure HYDRO-1:
The project proponent is required to:
Submit drainage calculations to demonstrate that the post development discharge
rate from the site does not exceed the existing rate. If it is determined that the
future discharge rate exceeds the existing rate, an on-site storm water detention
system must be designed and incorporated into the project.
Incorporate trash management measures into the design elements of the storm
drainage systems and appurtenances, to the extent feasible. Trash collecting devices
should be installed at storm drain inlets and maintained by the owner.
City of South San Francisco
180 El Camino Real
12
This page intentionally left blank.
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
13
5 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) fulfills Public Resources Code
Section 21081.6 which requires adoption of a mitigation monitoring program when
mitigation measures are required to avoid or reduce a proposed projects significant
environmental effects. The MMRP is only applicable if the City of South San Francisco decides
to approve the proposed Project.
The MMRP is organized to correspond to environmental issues and significant impacts
discussed in the IS/MND. The table below is arranged in the following five columns:
Recommended mitigation measures;
Timing for implementation of the mitigation measures;
Monitoring action;
Party or parties responsible for monitoring the implementation of the mitigation
measures; and,
A blank for entry of completion date as mitigation occurs
City of South San Francisco
180 El Camino Real
14
180 El Camino Real – Centennial Village Project: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure Timing/
Schedule
Verification
Monitoring
Action
Monitoring
Responsibility
Date
Completed
AQ-1: Project applicant to include the use of
maximum 0 g/L emission VOC paint for interior
surfaces and 100 g/L emission VOC paint for
exterior surface in the construction contract.
Prior to
issuance of
building
permits and
during each
construction
phase
Verify
requirements
are met during
construction
City of South
San Francisco
and
construction
contractor
CULT-1: The Project Applicant shall incorporate
the following provisions into the grading and
construction contracts as a condition of approval
of permit:
Prior to ground disturbance, the depths of
impact for the proposed Project be adequately
determined to assess locations that have the
potential to disturb sensitive landforms. This
information should be compared with
archival research to determine the
appropriate locations for geo-archaeological
testing. A report containing “next-step”
recommendations should be provided.15
Prior to the initiation of construction or
ground-disturbing activities, the Project
Applicant will ensure that all construction
personnel involved in ground-disturbing
activities shall receive environmental training
from a qualified archaeologist that will
include discussion of what constitutes cultural
resources, the possibility of buried cultural
resources, how to recognize such possible
buried cultural resources, as well as the
procedure to follow if such cultural resources
are encountered. Project Applicant shall
ensure that project personnel involved in
ground disturbing activities are informed that
collecting significant historical or unique
archaeological resources discovered during
development of the project is prohibited by
law. Prehistoric or Native American resources
can include chert or obsidian flakes, projectile
points, mortars and pestles; and dark friable
soil containing shell and bone dietary debris,
During
construction
of each phase
Verify
requirements
are met during
construction
City of South
San Francisco
and
construction
contractor
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
15
180 El Camino Real – Centennial Village Project: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure Timing/
Schedule
Verification
Monitoring
Action
Monitoring
Responsibility
Date
Completed
heat-affected rock, or human burials. Historic
resources can include nails, bottles, ceramics
or other items often found in refuse deposits
and buried features, such as privy pits and
foundations;
If unknown potential or unique archaeological
resources are encountered during
construction, Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
section 15064.5 (f), “provisions for historical
or unique archaeological resources
accidentally discovered during construction”
should be instituted. Work should be
temporarily halted within 50 feet or as
deemed appropriate by the archaeologist and
workers should avoid altering the materials
and their context until a qualified professional
archaeologist has evaluated the significance of
the find and provided appropriate
recommendations. Project personnel should
not collect cultural resources.”
If any find is determined to be significant,
representatives of the Project proponent
and/or lead agency and the qualified
archaeologist shall meet to determine the
appropriate avoidance measures or other
appropriate measure, with the ultimate
determination to be made by the City, which
shall assure implementation of appropriate
measures recommended by the archaeologist.
The City shall determine whether avoidance is
necessary and feasible in light of factors such
as the nature of the find, project design, costs,
and other considerations. If avoidance is
unnecessary or infeasible, other appropriate
measures (e.g., data recovery) such as plans
for methodical excavation of the portions of
the site shall be instituted and results in
detailed technical reports for submittal to the
Northwest Information Center. Work may
proceed on other parts of the project site
while measure for historical resources or
unique archaeological resources is carried
City of South San Francisco
180 El Camino Real
16
180 El Camino Real – Centennial Village Project: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure Timing/
Schedule
Verification
Monitoring
Action
Monitoring
Responsibility
Date
Completed
out. All significant archaeological materials
recovered shall be subject to scientific
analysis, professional museum curation, and a
resource mitigation plan and monitoring
program report prepared by the qualified
archaeologist for submittal to the Northwest
Information Center.
CULT-2: In the event of an unanticipated
discovery of a paleontological resource during
construction, excavations within 50 feet of the find
or as deemed appropriate by a paleontologist shall
be temporarily halted or diverted until the
discovery is examined by a qualified paleontologist
(per Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards
[SVP 1995,1996]). A qualified paleontologist shall
document the discovery as needed, evaluate the
potential resource, and assess the significance of
the find under the criteria set forth in Section
15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. The
paleontologist shall notify the appropriate
agencies to determine procedures that would be
followed before construction is allowed to resume
at the location of the find. If the City determines
that avoidance is not feasible, the paleontologist
shall prepare an excavation plan for mitigating the
effect of the project on the qualities that make the
resource important, and such plan shall be
implemented. The plan shall be submitted to the
City for review and approval.
During
construction
of each phase
Verify
requirements
are met during
construction
City of South
San Francisco
and
construction
contractor
CULT-3: In the event that human skeletal remains
are uncovered at the project site during
construction or ground-breaking activities, all
work shall immediately halt and the San Mateo
County Coroner shall be contacted to evaluate the
remains, and following the procedures and
protocols pursuant to Section 15064.5 (e)(1) of
the CEQA Guidelines. If the County Coroner
determines that the remains are
Native American, the City shall contact the
During
construction
of each phase
Verify
requirements
are met during
construction
City of South
San Francisco
and
construction
contractor
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
17
180 El Camino Real – Centennial Village Project: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure Timing/
Schedule
Verification
Monitoring
Action
Monitoring
Responsibility
Date
Completed
California Native American Heritage Commission
(NAHC), pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section
7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, and all
excavation and site preparation activities shall
cease within a 50-foot radius of the find until
appropriate arrangements are made. If the
agencies determine that avoidance is not feasible,
then an alternative plan shall be prepared with
specific steps and timeframe required to resume
construction activities. Monitoring, data recovery,
determination of significance and avoidance
measures (if applicable) shall be completed
expeditiously.
HAZ-1: Prior to approval of a building permit,
obtain case closure at Chevron Facility 306441
(Former Unocal Service Station No. 6980) located
at 190-192 El Camino Real, South San Francisco
(Assessor’s Parcel Number 014-183-110). If case
closure cannot be obtained, the following must be
completed as a condition of approval:
Prepare and implement a remediation plan
and gain project approval from San Mateo
County Health Systems Groundwater
Protection System (SMCHS-GPP).
To ensure safety from potential harm to
construction crew during excavation and
construction, the Project applicant will
determine the depth of soil contamination
from the latest soil and groundwater sampling
reports for the site of former Unocal service
prior to demolition and grading at the Project
site. Appropriate safety and engineering
controls will be taken per the Health and
Safety Code (Cal OSHA regulations California
Code of Regulations, Title 8) to protect
construction crew and the public. The project
applicant must obtain GPP staff approval of
the soil management plan discussed in the
GPP staff letter dated April 9, 2013, before
any soil excavation commences in the vicinity
of Buildings A and B.
Prior to
building
permit
issuance
Completion of
case closure or
verification
that
requirements
are met during
construction
City of South
San Francisco
and San
Mateo County
Health
Systems
Groundwater
Protection
System
(SMCHS-
GPP)
City of South San Francisco
180 El Camino Real
18
180 El Camino Real – Centennial Village Project: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure Timing/
Schedule
Verification
Monitoring
Action
Monitoring
Responsibility
Date
Completed
To mitigate potential migration of volatile
contamination to indoor air, the Project will
include active or passive vapor control
systems over the area of the former Unocal
site (proposed Building A area) as shown in
Figure 3-1 as approved with a vapor
mitigation system approved by SMCHSGPP.
The applicant will incorporate into the design
of Building A remediation wells and
appurtenant equipment (e.g. piping)
approved by GPP staff so residual
hydrocarbons can be remediated during
building occupancy to levels that no longer
pose a significant risk to human health,
environment, and water quality as
determined by GPP staff or the State Water
Resources Control Board.
HYDRO-1:
The project proponent is required to:
Submit drainage calculations to demonstrate
that the post development discharge rate
from the site does not exceed the existing
rate. If it is determined that the future
discharge rate exceeds the existing rate, an
on-site storm water detention system must be
designed and incorporated into the project.
Incorporate trash management measures into
the design elements of the storm drainage
systems and appurtenances, to the extent
feasible. Trash collecting devices should be
installed at storm drain inlets and maintained
by the owner.
Prior to
building
permit
issuance and
during each
phase of
construction
Verification
requirements
are met during
construction
City of South
San Francisco
Pleasanton
4305 Hacienda Drive
Suite 550
Pleasanton, CA
94588-8526
925.463.0611
925.463.3690 fax
Fresno
516 W. Shaw Avenue
Suite 200
Fresno, CA
93704-2515
559.325.7530
559.221.4940 fax
Sacramento
980 Ninth Street
16th Floor
Sacramento, CA
95814-2736
916.449.9095
Santa Rosa
1400 N. Dutton Avenue
Suite 21
Santa Rosa, CA
95401-4643
707.575.5800
707.575.5888 fax
tjkm@tjkm.com
www.tjkm.com
Technical Memorandum
Date: July 17, 2013
To: Billy Gross, Associate Planner,
City of South San Francisco
Bill Mitchell,
WT Mitchell Group Inc.
Project No.: 072-036 T002
From: Atul Patel, P.E
Vishnu Gandluru
Jurisdiction: City of South San Francisco
Subject: TDM Program for the proposed mixed use development in South San Francisco
The purpose of this technical memorandum is to document our Transportation Demand
Management (TDM, also known as Mobility Management) recommendation for the proposed mixed
use development at the southeast corner of intersection of El Camino Real and South Spruce
Avenue in the City of South San Francisco. The proposed project consists of 234 apartments,
20,000 square feet of office space and 190,000 square feet retail.
The City of South San Francisco requires that all nonresidential development expected to generate
100 or more average daily trips implement TDM plan to reduce single occupant vehicle (SOV)
travel and to increase the use of rideshare, transit, and bicycle trips to and from the project site
during peak traffic periods. The overall objective of this TDM Program is to reduce the expected
number of project peak hour trips generated by the proposed development. The objective is
achieved by providing commute alternatives to driving alone and strategies that encourage the use
of these alternatives. Commute alternatives include carpooling and vanpooling, public and private
transit, bicycling and walking, and other non-single occupant vehicle options.
TDM is a general term for various strategies that increase transportation system efficiency. TDM
treats mobility as a means to an end, rather than an end in itself, and so helps individuals and
communities meet their transport needs in the most efficient way, which often reduces total
vehicle traffic. TDM prioritizes travel to increase overall system efficiency, based on the value and
costs of each trip, giving higher value trips and lower cost modes priority over lower value and
higher cost travel. For example, a higher value trip would be bicycling to work while a lower value
trip would be driving alone to work. It emphasizes the movement of people and goods, rather
than motor vehicles, and so gives priority to public transit, ridesharing and non-motorized travel,
particularly under the congested urban conditions.
There are many different TDM strategies with a variety of transportation impacts. Some improve
the transportation options available to consumers. Some cause changes in trip scheduling, route,
destination or mode. Others reduce the need for physical travel through more efficient land use,
or transportation substitutes. TDM is an increasingly common response to transportation
problems. Although most individual TDM strategies only affect a small portion of total travel, the
cumulative impacts of a comprehensive TDM program can be significant.
J
Mr. Bill Mitchel
July 9, 2013
Page 2
The propose
shown in Tab
and increase
additional me
increase TDM
amount of po
available at @
Table I: TD
San Francis
Transpo
Managemen
#1 Ride-match
carpool and va
administered b
Ridesharin
common a
alternative
#2 Designated
#3 Direct Rou
Bus stop n
provide be
#4 Guaranteed
Program p
manager fo
subsidized
use alterna
#5 Provide inf
#6 Passenger L
Table continu
ll
ed developme
ble I. These T
TDM particip
easures may b
M participatio
ollution. The
@ 925-407-26
DM Measure
sco
ortation Dem
nt (TDM) Me
hing Program (In
anpool programs
by a designated e
g is one of the m
and cost effective
modes
TDM Coordina
te to Transit
ear the project
etter transit conn
d Ride Home (G
rovided by prop
or employees - o
ride to commut
ative modes
formation board
Loading Zones
ued on next p
ent in the City
TDM measur
pation. In ad
be considered
on, reduce pe
e contact pers
678.
es for Propo
mand
easures P
cludes
s)
employee
most
e
Thre
ator Enco
site to
nection
One
each
GRH)
perty
occasional
ters who
Thre
ds/kiosks Enco
Prov
the p
page.
y of South Sa
res will increa
dition to the
d and are liste
eak hour trips
son will be D
osed Mixed
Potential Tri
ee peak hour trip
ourages alternate
peak hour vehic
transit trip.
ee peak hour trip
ourages alternate
vides ease for loa
passengers
n Francisco p
ase alternate m
adopted TDM
ed in Table II
s, will provide
ee Dee Beuc
Use Develo
ip Reduction
ps reduced.
e mode of trave
cle trip reduced
ps reduced.
e mode of trave
ading and safety
plans to adopt
mode of trav
M measure lis
. These meas
e incentive to
cke, Property
opment in t
R
Ridesh
vehicle
comm
reduc
Exper
ridesh
attract
they o
encou
el The emplo
Beucke, P
site TDM
responsibl
the implem
TDM prog
d for Yields
transit
reduc
Provid
Increa
driver
Tends
By sup
modes
object
increa
flexibi
Comm
The G
emplo
the sh
it is pr
el Informatio
located in
of ride sha
y to Since the
generate v
traffic per
passenger
would des
entrance o
t the TDM pr
vel, reduce po
sted in Table
sures will furt
o users and cu
Manager and
the City of S
Rationale/No
haring can reduc
e trips and incre
muters travel cho
es congestion o
rience indicates t
haring programs
t 5-15% of comm
offer only inform
uragement
oyer has designa
roperty Manage
coordinator wh
le for promoting
mentation of the
grams.
s a one-to-one ra
t trip equals one
ed).
des affordable m
ases transport ch
rs.
s to reduce air p
pporting use of a
s, GRH helps ac
tives. Benefits in
ased commuters
lity and participa
mute Trip Reduc
GRH will be eval
oyers that ultima
hopping center t
ractically feasible
on Boards and K
the center for d
are and similar i
project is expec
very few trips du
iods. Instead of
r loading zone, th
signate the space
of the main build
rogram
ollution
1,
ther
ut down
d is
South
otes
ce peak-period
ease
oices. It
n road.
that
typically
mute trips if
mation and
ated Dee Dee
r, as the on-
ho will be
g and managing
e proposed
atio (one
e auto trip
mobility.
hoice for non-
pollution.
alternative
chieve all TDM
clude
security,
ation in
ction programs
uated with
ately locate in
o determine if
e
Kiosks will be
dissemination
nformation
cted to
uring the peak
providing a
he project
e closest to
ding.
J
Mr. Bill Mitchel
July 9, 2013
Page 3
Table I (con
of South Sa
Transpo
Managemen
#7 Pedestrian
Providing s
frontage, c
driveways,
bicycle pat
Tie pedest
travel to C
and bus sto
#8 Promotiona
New tenan
commute a
#9 Showers/C
#10 Shuttle Pr
#11 Transport
Association (T
# 12 Bicycle Pa
Shower fac
location
Provide Bik
Parking wit
hundred fe
security gu
#13 Bicycle Pa
Bicycle par
within one
entrance o
Table continu
ll
ntinued): T
an Francisco
ortation Dem
nt (TDM) Me
and Bike friendly
sidewalks along
crosswalks at the
and pedestrian
ths within the sit
trian route/bike
Centennial Trail,
ops.
al Programs
nt orientation on
alternatives
lothes Lockers
ogram
tation Manageme
MA)
arking, Long-ter
cilities at or near
ke lockers with
thin view or wit
eet of an attenda
uard
rking, Short-term
rking shall be loc
e hundred feet o
of a building
ued on next p
TDM Measur
o
mand
easures P
y design
property
e
and
te.
routes of
BART
A hig
redu
n
A hig
redu
A go
A hig
redu
parti
ent Enco
m
r the
security,
thin one
ant or
One
bike
main
m
cated
f main
One
bike
main
page.
res for Prop
Potential Tri
gh potential for
uction.
gh potential for
uction.
ood potential for
gh potential for
uction based on
icipation in the p
ourages alternate
peak hour trip
lockers/racks in
ntained.
peak hour trip
lockers/racks in
ntained.
posed Mixed
ip Reduction
additional trip
additional trip
r trip reduction
additional trip
employee
program
e mode of trave
for every three
nstalled and
for every three
nstalled and
d Use Deve
R
Impro
condit
travel
travel,
with la
impro
reduc
Tends
New t
orient
transp
encou
option
Inform
Ridesh
assista
the co
Provid
encou
transp
Provid
emplo
shuttle
el The emplo
TMA, the
Alliance o
approved
provides o
alternative
new Exper
comm
mode
especi
month
A secu
sense
users.
Per C
the pr
provid
reside
on-site
new Short-
installe
requir
Securi
similar
Per C
the pr
provid
Comm
projec
elopment in
Rationale/No
oved walking and
tions increases n
and can reduce
, particularly if im
and use mix, tra
ovements, and in
e driving.
s to reduce air p
tenant and empl
tation packets o
portation alterna
urage employees
ns
mation on ”Spare
hare week, trip
ance-routes and
ommuters
ding showers/loc
urages employee
portation alterna
des direct benefi
oyees who live a
e route
oyer will particip
Peninsula Cong
r a similar organ
by the Chief Pla
ongoing support
e commute prog
rience has shown
muters will avera
one-third of the
ially during warm
hs.
ure zone bicycle
of security for p
ity’s ordinance r
roject applicant p
de 67 bike stalls
ential and 7 bike
e employees.
-term bicycle pa
ed in compliance
rements of zonin
ity measures sho
r to the long-ter
ity’s ordinance r
roject applicant p
de 54 bike stalls
mercial office spa
ct site
the City
otes
d cycling
non-motorized
automobile
mplemented
ansit
centives to
pollution.
loyee
n
atives will
s to try new
e the Air”,
planning
maps will help
ckers
es to adopt
atives
it for the
long the
pate in a local
gestion Relief
nization
anner, the
t for
grams
n that bicycle
age using this
e time,
mer summer
e lockers offers
potential
requirement,
plans to
for multi-unit
stalls for the
arking shall be
e with the
ng district.
ould be applied
rm measures.
requirement,
plans to
for the
ace at the
J
Mr. Bill Mitchel
July 9, 2013
Page 4
Table I (con
of South Sa
#14 Free parki
Vanpools
The propose
increase the
designed to r
per the minim
reduce proje
measures ma
increase TDM
amount of po
Table II: Ad
of South Sa
Transpo
Managemen
Carpool Incent
– Offers $ gift
Bike to Work
School Pool Pr
Encourage
together to
Shuttle Progra
Shared Parking
Parking spa
than one u
Allows par
more effici
Table continu
ll
ntinued): T
an Francisco
ing for Carpools
ed TDM plan
use of alterna
realistically sh
mum alternat
ect related res
ay be conside
M participatio
ollution.
dditional TD
an Francisco
ortation Dem
nt (TDM) Me
tive for Employe
cards to new ca
Day
rograms
residents to car
o school.
m
g
aces are shared
user
rking facilities to
iently.
ued on next p
TDM Measur
o
s and An in
is intended to
ative modes o
hift the retail
tive mode use
sidential trips
red and are r
on, reduce pe
DM Measure
o
mand
easures P
ees
arpoolers
One
ever
mon
using
trans
A hig
redu
rpool
Thre
A hig
redu
by more
be used
Prov
mixe
page.
res for Prop
ncentive to carp
o reduce sing
of travel duri
trips to altern
e requiremen
s. In addition
recommended
eak hour trips
es for Propo
Potential Tri
peak hour trip
ry employee that
thly transportat
g an alternative m
sportation
gh potential for
uction
ee peak hour trip
gh potential for
uction
vides ease of par
ed uses.
posed Mixed
pooling employe
gle occupant v
ng peak traffi
native modes
ts. In addition
to the above
d in Table II.
s, will provide
osed Mixed
ip Reduction
will be credited
t is offered a
tion allowance fo
mode of
additional trip
ps reduced.
additional trip
rking for various
d Use Deve
es Ten p
stalls s
and va
mixed
develo
vehicle (SOV)
c periods. Th
s of transport
n, the TDM p
e adopted TD
These meas
e incentive to
Use Develo
R
for
or
Yields
trip re
Provid
mater
and pu
event.
Schoo
relativ
period
use of
Reduc
aroun
road s
At full-bui
month tria
to determ
service. If
shuttle wi
The proje
fair share
number o
service) to
shuttle ser
area in the
s Shared
reduc
benefi
develo
use of
elopment in
ercent of emplo
shall be reserved
anpools, as the p
d-use retail/comm
opment.
) travel and to
he TDM prog
tation by 28 p
plan also prop
DM measure a
ures will furth
o users and cu
opment in t
Rationale/No
s a one-to-one ra
educed)
des Bike to Wor
rials to employer
ublic agencies to
.
ol trips are nume
vely short. Redu
d vehicle trips by
f alternative mod
ces vehicle trave
d schools, and o
safety improvem
ld out of the apa
al program will b
mine demand for
there is sufficien
ll be provided.
ct will participat
contribution (ba
f employees usin
o the shuttle pro
rvice is impleme
e future.
d parking does n
e vehicle travel
icial for mixed u
opment and can
f alternative mod
the City
oyee vehicle
d for carpools
project site is a
mercial
o
grams are
percent
poses to
additional
her
ut down
the City
otes
atio (one auto
rk Day
rs, residents,
o promote the
erous, but
ces peak-
y encouraging
des.
el, and traffic
often includes
ments.
artments a six-
be undertaken
the shuttle
nt demand, a
te and pay a
ased on
ng the shuttle
ogram if
ented in the
not directly
but is very
se
encourage
des.
J
Mr. Bill Mitchel
July 9, 2013
Page 5
Table II (co
Developme
Land Use Mix
Degree to
and comm
located clo
internal tri
Increasing Den
Density re
people or
Increased d
driving rela
alternative
ll
ontinued): A
ent in the C
which residenti
ercial land uses
ose together gen
ps
nsity
fers to the num
jobs in a given a
density tends to
atively less attra
modes
Additional T
ity of South
al, office
are
nerating
Incre
per c
Neig
typic
miles
Inter
comp
typic
ber of
area
o make
ctive than
Incre
capit
in ur
capit
TDM Measu
h San Franc
eased land use m
capita vehicle tra
ghborhoods with
cally have 5-15%
s.
rnal capture for a
prising residentia
cally about 30% p
eased density te
ta vehicle travel.
rban densities ty
ta VMT by 2-3%
ures for Pro
isco
mix tends to red
avel.
h good land use
lower vehicle-
a mixed land use
al, office and reta
per ITE.
nds to reduce p
. Each 10% incre
ypically reduces p
.
oposed Mixe
duce
mix
e
ail is
Increa
reduc
must t
Allow
cycling
per
ease
per
Increa
the nu
option
ed Use
ased land use mi
e the distances t
travel for errand
ws more use of w
g for such trips
ased density tend
umber of transpo
ns.
x tends to
that residents
ds
walking and
ds to increase
ortation
38
49
42
47
328 CARS
8
+39.5
+40.0
+36.0
SLOPE
+36.0
Ramp Up
to Parking
Transformer
S 31°24'08" E
82.92'
8'6" x 18'0" stalls
with 25'0" aisles (typ)
No compacts allowed
7,000 SF Retail
7,000 SF Office
N 58°35'52" E
124.99'
7,500 SF Retail
7,500 SF Office
7,500 SF Retail7,500 SF Office
Loading
Area
14
25'0"
419.97'
N26°38'46"W
86.94'
N 29°31'37" W
488.12'
N60°15'08"E
4.90'
= 89°46'45"
R = 25.00'
L = 39.17'
23
+36.0
+34.0 +34.0
+33.0BLDGBTWOSTORY
NO
PARKING
NO
PARKING
+34.5'
NO
PARKING
N58°35'52"E
+46.0
+36.5
+49.0
MODIFIED DRIVEWAY
RIGHT IN/RIGHT OUT
WITH LEFT IN
Refuse
BLDG CTWO STORY
Stairs
+41.0
49
10
+38.0
+40.0'
130.53'
20' Setback
from curb
+34.5'
S 31°24'08" E
Loading
+29.0
Transformer
Cart
Storage
+53.0
6
+48.0
NOT A
PART
E
L
C
A
M
I
N
O
R
E
A
L
MAJOR 2
+35.0
+43.0
S58°35'52"W
BLDG E
15' Setback
from curb
+36.0
124.50'
Bike Rack
(4 bikes typ)
+29.0
BLDG DTWO STORY
Loading
Colored Asphalt(typ)
(.29 SRI Min)
+30.0
200'0"
82.92'
NOT A
PART
+50.0
Compactor
289'4'
160' 0"
+34.0'
+39.0
Bike Rack
(4 bikes typ)
16
NO
PARKING
NO
PARKING
10'0"
New Driveway
Right In/Right Out
10% DRIVEWAY DOWN +39.0
+47.0
22'0"
Stairs
Returnables
+39.5
65'
BLDG ATWO STORY
Transformer
+41.0
+39.0
+37.0
+47.0
+34.0
+35.0
+39.0
+40.0
+33.0
+31.0
+44.0
+51.0
+32.0
+45.0
+42.0'
+50.0
+42.0
CVSTWO STORY
+41.0'
+52.0
12
LOBBY
5 0 '
+33.560'
+34.0
18
+36.0
95'
Retaining wall
6
Cart
Storage
OF FLOOD ZONE LIMITS
40'
Loading Area
30' high parking
luminaire (typ)
See Sht. CB
Transformer
17
15' Storm Drain
Easment
Existing
Driveway
Refuse
(see Sht CB)
15' Storm Drain
Easment
APPROXIMATE LOCATION
1
5
'
1
5
'
Decorative Pavers(typ)
(See Sht. CB)
Decorative lights &
planter pots(typ)
See Sht. CB
+33.5
Cart
Storage
Outdoor Seating
Loading Area Refuse
(see Sht CB)
Loading Area
H
U
N
T
I
N
G
T
O
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
Bike Rack
(4 bikes typ)
+34.5
Bike Rack
(4 bikes typ)
Cart Storage
Retaining wall along Property line
with 6' high wood fence
34
S 58°35'52" W
134.99'
40'52" W
922.99'
30,000 S.F.
57,770 S.F.
Type IB construction
SAFEWAY
7,500 SF Retail
7,500 SF Office
+40.0
12,900 SF
5,827 SF Office
9'0" x 18'0" stalls
with 25'0" aisles (typ)
No compacts allowed
Cart
Storage
+35.5'
+36.5
EXISTINGDRIVEWAY
Apartment Elevator/stairs to
parking and apartments above
Apartment Elevator/stairs to
parking and apartments above
Ramp Up
to Parking +40.0
Apartment Elevator/stairs to
parking and apartments above
Gateway Entry
S 31°24'08" E
Existing Driveway
Right In/Right Out
9
71 CARS
Pedestrian
connection
74 cars
Pedestrian
connection
12
18
4
17
4
9
21,000 S.F.
85'
Safeway Elevator to
upper parking level only Safeway Elevator to
upper parking level only
Apartment Elevator/stairs to
parking and apartments above
LOBBYLOBBY
15
20' high parking
luminaire (typ)
See Sht. CB
Transformer
Required Commercial Frontage:
Total Project frontage on El Camino = 520'
Total Building frontage on El Camino = 263'
51% Building frontage
Note:
El Camino Building Frontage = 263'
Transparent frontage = 187'
(71% of building)
Note:
Spruce Avenue Building Frontage = 687'
Transparent frontage = 395' = 66% of building
Sidewalk along street (typ)
Sidewalk along street (typ)
160'
1
5
'
N 3 8 °1 6 '4 0 "E
13
5% SLOPE
15' setback
S P R U C E A V E N U E
Pedestrian
Connection
+26.0
+27.0
+25.0
+28.0
+33.5
+32.5
13
Ramp
15' Storm Drain
Easment
New Driveway
All Turns
4' STEP
HEALTH CLUB
58'
+29.0
+33.0
36,000S.F.
10'
1 3 2 '
1 1 0 '
5 '
27'6 8 '
5 6 '
+39.0
2
3
2
.
7
6
'
4 6 .4 2 '
Apartment Elevator/stairs to
parking and apartments above
LOBBY
2 2 0 '
S
5
1
°
4
3
'
2
0
"
E
Apartments above
shown dotted +/- 37' setback
at residential level
NOT A
PART
Ramp Up
to Parking
17
25
72 CARS
Colored Asphalt(typ)
(.29 SRI Min)
48
Bike Rack
(4 bikes typ)
6
54 CARS
JOHNSON
LYMAN
ARCHITECTS
1375 Locust Street, #202, Walnut Creek, CA 94596
925.930.9690 930.9039 fax
1" = 40'
Pedestrian
Connections
Information
Kiosk
A2
1.15.13
Sam Trans
Location
Trip Reduction
Measures
Information
Kiosk
Pedestrian
Connections
Car pool
drop off
Show er/Locker
locations
(Accessible for all
tenants)
(Show er/Locker
locations (Accessible for all tenants)
Short-term Bike Parking
Locations
Sam Trans
Location
Short-term Bike Parking
Locations
Pedestrian
Connections
Centennial V illage
A Transit Oriented Development South San Francisco
Roof-deck long-termbike parking location
Basement long-termbike parking location
Roof-deck longtermbike parking location
JOHNSON
LYMAN
ARCHITECTS
1375 Locust Street, #202, Walnut Creek, CA 94596
925.930.9690 930.9039 fax
Building E
Apartments
over retailApartments
over Health Club
Landscape Architect
Cover Sheet
Centennial Village
A Transit Oriented Development South San Francisco
Thomas Baak & Assoc.1620 North Main, #4Walnut Creek, CA 94596925.933.2583925.933.0242 fax
Sub Total
Project Description
The design statement respects the historic tradition of South San Francisco, and recall the imagery of
those architectural styles.
The buildings at the corner of Spruce and El Camino create a nice urban statement, with two story
building forms that define the street edge and a nice presentation to the passerby, and also provide a
prominent node for the project. A mix of Victorian and more classical elements are incorporated here.
This theme is continued for the apartments on the east side above the retail and is broken down
architecturally to create interest along the façade, including the tower element on the south side of the
building as a landmark feature...
The retail buildings create the south edge of the project continuing down to El Camino Real
The buildings are further broken down with varied materials including a mix of stucco with a varied mix
of colors, roof tiles, fabric awnings, which all blend into the urban fabric and context.
Pedestrian amenities are another critical component of the project, and we have indicated decorative
lights, benches, decorative signage, street trees, etc.
View to Building E looking East
Sheet Index Vicinity Map Project Team
222,497 sf
Johnson Lyman Architects1375 Locust St., #202Walnut Creek, CA 94596925.930.9690925.930.9039 fax
Architect
Civil Engineer
Pacific Land Services2151 Salvio St., Suite SConcord, CA 94520925.680.6406 ext. 18Fax 924.680 6407
Majors 1,2,3
Health Club
Shops A,B,C,D,E (1st Level)
Major 3 & Shops A,B,C,D (2nd Level)
Provided area =47,735 sf (outdoor courtyard)
AreaBuilding
Sub Total
Parking
Total cars provided
Retail/Office Retail/Office 222,497 sf (250 sf/car) = 890 cars
A1
Total cars required
Usable Open space for Residential
Developer
Project Summary - Final Phase
100,670 sf
36,000 sf
50,500 sf
35,327 sf
8.1.13
Total Building Area
w/out parking structure Ground Level Area = 187,170 sf (30% coverage)
North 14.5 acres (631,700 sf)
FAR:
Site Area
F.A.R.
47 One Bdrm @ 800 sf x 3 levels
42 Two Bdrm @1,100 sfx 3 levels
Corridor/Common area x 3 levels
Podium Plaza area Bldg Area w/out parking structure = 659,170 sf
112,800 sf
138,600 sf
137,538 sf
47,735 sf
141 One Bdrm units (1.5 cars/unit)212 cars
126 Two Bdrm units (1.8 cars/unit)227 cars
1,329 cars
Apartments (267 units on 3 Levels)
1.04
Required area =40,050 sf (267 units@150sf/unit)
436,673 sf
659,170 sf
.30Active Use FAR:
Active uses(Grd Lvl uses-no office) = 187,170 sf
Landscape Area = 68,200 sf (11% coverage)
WT Mitchell Group3380 Vincent Road, Ste HUBWalnut Creek, CA 94523(925) 988-8033(925) 988-8032 fax
A4D
A4E
A5
A5-PH1
A6
A7
A8
A9
A10
A11
A12
CB
SE1
C4.1
C5.1
C6.1
C1
P1
P2
P3
PH2
A1
A1A
PH1
A1B
A1C
A1D
A1E
A1E-PH1
A1E-PH2
A1F
A2
A2A
A2B
L1
L2
L3
L2A
L2B
A3
A4
A4A
A4B
A4C
Phased Elevations
Phased Elevations
Elevations
Phased Elevations
Elevations
Elevations
Elevations
Elevations
Elevations
Elevations
Sections
Color/Materials
Lighting Plan
Grading Plan
Utility Plan
Stormwater Plan
Existing Survey
Phase 1 Plan
Phase 2 Plan
Phase 3 Plan
Existing Photos
Cover Sheet
Site Aerial
Context Photos
Rendering
Rendering
Rendering
Aerial View
Aerial View - PH1
Aerial View - PH2
Rendering
Ground Level
Second Level Plan
Third Level Plan
Landscape Plan
Landscape Plan
Landscape Detail
Landscape Plan Enlarged
Landscape Plan Enlarged
Elevations
Elevations
Phased Elevations
Phased Elevations
Phased Elevations
1,369 cars
Total Bike stalls provided 20 Bikes
(557 cars - Ground Level)
(657 cars - Parking Structure)
(155 cars - Basement Level)
Site
38
49
42
47
328 CARS
8
+39.5
+40.0
+36.0
SLOPE
Ramp Up
to Parking
Transformer
S 31°24'08" E
82.92'
8'6" x 18'0" stalls
with 25'0" aisles (typ)No compacts allowed
7,000 SF Retail
7,000 SF Office
7,500 SF Retail
7,500 SF Office
7,500 SF Retail7,500 SF Office
Loading
Area
14
25'0"
419.97'
N 29°31'37" W
488.12'
23
+36.0
+33.0BLDG BTWO STORY
NO
PA
R
K
I
N
G
NO
PA
R
K
I
N
G
+34.5'
NO
PA
R
K
I
N
G
N58°35'52"E
+36.5
Refuse
BLDG CTWO STORY
+41.0
49
+40.0'
130.53'
+34.5'
S 31°24'08" E
Loading
+29.0
Transformer
Cart
Storage
.0
6
MAJOR 2
+35.0
S58°35'52"W
BLDG E
+36.0
124.50'
Bike Rack
(4 bikes typ)
+29.0
BLDG DTWO STORY
Loading
Colored Asphalt(typ)(.29 SRI Min)
+30.0
200'0"
Compactor
289'4'
160' 0"
+34.0'
Bike Rack
(4 bikes typ)
16
NO
PA
R
K
I
N
G
NO
PA
R
K
I
N
G
10'0"
10% DRIVEWAY DOWN +39.0 22'0"
Returnables
+39.5
65'
BLDG ATWO STORY
Transformer
+39.0
+33.0
+31.0
+32.0
+42.0'
CVSTWO STORY
+41.0'
12
LOBBY
5 0 '
+33.560'
+34.0
18
+36.0
95'
Retaining wall
6
CartStorage
40'
Loading Area
Transformer
17
Refuse
(see Sht CB)
1
5
'
1
5
'
Decorative Pavers(typ)
(See Sht. CB)
Decorative lights &
planter pots(typ)
See Sht. CB
+33.5
Cart
Storage
Outdoor Seating
Loading Area Refuse
(see Sht CB)
Loading Area
Bike Rack
(4 bikes typ)
+34.5
Bike Rack(4 bikes typ)
Cart Storage
34
30,000 S.F.
57,770 S.F.
Type IB construction
SAFEWAY
7,500 SF Retail7,500 SF Office
+40.0
12,900 SF
5,827 SF Office
9'0" x 18'0" stalls
with 25'0" aisles (typ)
No compacts allowed
Cart
Storage
+35.5'
+36.5
Apartment Elevator/stairs to
parking and apartments above
Apartment Elevator/stairs toparking and apartments above
Ramp Up
to Parking +40.0
Apartment Elevator/stairs toparking and apartments above
Gateway Entry
9
71 CARS
Pedestrianconnection
74 cars
Pedestrianconnection
12 4
17
4
9
21,000 S.F.
85'
Safeway Elevator to
upper parking level only Safeway Elevator toupper parking level only
Apartment Elevator/stairs toparking and apartments above
LOBBYLOBBY
15
20' high parking
luminaire (typ)
See Sht. CB
Transformer
160'
1
5
'
N 3 8 °1 6 '4 0 "E
13
5% SLOPE
S P R U C E A V E N U E
20' high parkingluminaire (typ)
See Sht. CB
+28.0
+33.5
+32.5
13
Ramp
4' STEP
HEALTH CLUB
58'
+29.0
+33.0
36,000S.F.
10'
1 3 2 '
1 1 0 '
5 '
6 8 '
5 6 '
+39.0
2
3
2
.
7
6
'
4 6
Apartment Elevator/stairs to
parking and apartments above
LOBBY
2 2 0 '
S
5
1
°
4
3
'
2
0
"
E
Apartments aboveshown dotted
Ramp Upto Parking
17
25
72 CARS
Colored Asphalt(typ)(.29 SRI Min)
48
Bike Rack
(4 bikes typ)
6
54 CARS
Pedestrian
Connection
Noise ContourResidential Setback
18
10
+36.0
Pedestrian
Connection
JOHNSON
LYMAN
ARCHITECTS
1375 Locust Street, #202, Walnut Creek, CA 94596
925.930.9690 930.9039 fax
A1A1" = 100'
Centennial
Trail
Sam Trans
Bus Route
To South San Francisco
Station
To San Bruno Station
Sam Trans
Bus Route
8.1.13
Centennial Village
A Transit Oriented Development South San Francisco
Aerial
Context
JOHNSON
LYMAN
ARCHITECTS
1375 Locust Street, #202, Walnut Creek, CA 94596
925.930.9690 930.9039 fax
PH1
8.1.13
Centennial Village
A Transit Oriented Development South San Francisco
Historical
Context
JOHNSON
LYMAN
ARCHITECTS
1375 Locust Street, #202, Walnut Creek, CA 94596
925.930.9690 930.9039 fax
Health Club
Building D
A1B
View from Spruce Avenue
Building E
8.1.13
Centennial Village
A Transit Oriented Development South San Francisco
JOHNSON
LYMAN
ARCHITECTS
1375 Locust Street, #202, Walnut Creek, CA 94596
925.930.9690 930.9039 fax
A1C
Building B Building A
View to Plaza from Intersection
8.1.13
Centennial Village
A Transit Oriented Development South San Francisco
JOHNSON
LYMAN
ARCHITECTS
1375 Locust Street, #202, Walnut Creek, CA 94596
925.930.9690 930.9039 fax
A1D
8.1.13
View from Huntington Avenue Driveway
Entry Feature
@ Huntington AvenueBldg E
Building A CVSMajor 2
View from El Camino Real Driveway
Centennial Village
A Transit Oriented Development South San Francisco
JOHNSON
LYMAN
ARCHITECTS
1375 Locust Street, #202, Walnut Creek, CA 94596
925.930.9690 930.9039 fax
A1E
View looking south
Aerial View from Intersection
Spruce Avenue
S p r u c e Av e n u e
El Camino Real
8.1.13
E l C a m i n o R e a l
Centennial Village
A Transit Oriented Development South San Francisco
JOHNSON
LYMAN
ARCHITECTS
1375 Locust Street, #202, Walnut Creek, CA 94596
925.930.9690 930.9039 fax
Spruce Avenue
Phase 1
8.1.13
A1E-PH1
E l C a m i n o R e a l
S p r uc e A v e nu e
View looking south
Aerial View from Intersection
Centennial Village
A Transit Oriented Development South San Francisco
JOHNSON
LYMAN
ARCHITECTS
1375 Locust Street, #202, Walnut Creek, CA 94596
925.930.9690 930.9039 fax
A1E
View looking south
Aerial View from Intersection
Spruce Avenue
E l C a m i n o R e a l
S p r u c e Av e n u e
El Camino Real
Phase 2
8.1.13
Centennial Village
A Transit Oriented Development South San Francisco
JOHNSON
LYMAN
ARCHITECTS
1375 Locust Street, #202, Walnut Creek, CA 94596
925.930.9690 930.9039 fax
View from El Camino Real looking northeast
A1F
Residential over
Major 2 Parking
Entry
8.1.13
Centennial Village
A Transit Oriented Development South San Francisco
38
49
42
47
328 CARS
8
+39.5
+40.0
+36.0
SLOPE
Ramp Up
to Parking
Transformer
S 31°24'08" E
82.92'
8'6" x 18'0" stalls
with 25'0" aisles (typ)
No compacts allowed
7,000 SF Retail
7,000 SF Office
N 58°35'52" E
124.99'
7,500 SF Retail
7,500 SF Office
7,500 SF Retail7,500 SF Office
Loading
Area
14
25'0"
419.97'
N26°38'46"W
86.94'
N 29°31'37" W
488.12'
N60°15'08"E
4.90'
= 89°46'45"
R = 25.00'
L = 39.17'
23
+36.0
+34.0
+34.0
+33.0BLDG BTWO STORY
NO
PA
R
K
I
N
G
NO
PA
R
K
I
N
G
+34.5'
NO
PA
R
K
I
N
G
N58°35'52"E
+46.0
+36.5
+49.0
MODIFIED DRIVEWAY
RIGHT IN/RIGHT OUT
WITH LEFT IN
Refuse
BLDG CTWO STORY
Stairs
+41.0
49
+38.0
+40.0'
130.53'
20' Setback
from curb
+34.5'
S 31°24'08" E
Loading
+29.0
Transformer
Cart
Storage
+53.0
6
+48.0
NOT A
PART
E L C A M I N O R E A L
MAJOR 2
+35.0
+43.0
S58°35'52"W
BLDG E
15' Setback
from curb
+36.0
124.50'
Bike Rack
(4 bikes typ)
+29.0
BLDG DTWO STORY
Loading
Colored Asphalt(typ)
(.29 SRI Min)
+30.0
200'0"
82.92'
NOT A
PART
+50.0
Compactor
289'4'
160' 0"
+34.0'
+39.0
Bike Rack
(4 bikes typ)
16
NO
PA
R
K
I
N
G
NO
PA
R
K
I
N
G
10'0"
New Driveway
Right In/Right Out
10% DRIVEWAY DOWN +39.0
+47.0
22'0"
Stairs
Returnables
+39.5
65'
BLDG ATWO STORY
Transformer
+41.0
+39.0
+37.0
+47.0
+34.0
+35.0
+39.0
+40.0
+33.0
+31.0
+44.0
+51.0
+32.0
+45.0
+42.0'
+50.0
+42.0
CVSTWO STORY
+41.0'
+52.0
12
LOBBY
5 0 '
+33.560'
+34.0
18
+36.0
95'
Retaining wall
6
Cart
Storage
OF FLOOD ZONE LIMITS
40'
Loading Area
Transformer
17
15' Storm Drain
Easment
Existing
Driveway
Refuse
(see Sht CB)
15' Storm Drain
Easment
APPROXIMATE LOCATION
1
5
'
1
5
'
Decorative Pavers(typ)
(See Sht. CB)
Decorative lights &
planter pots(typ)
See Sht. CB
+33.5
Cart
Storage
Outdoor Seating
Loading Area Refuse
(see Sht CB)
Loading Area
H U N T I N G T O N A V
E N U E
Bike Rack
(4 bikes typ)
+34.5
Bike Rack
(4 bikes typ)
Cart Storage
Retaining wall along Property line
with 6' high wood fence
34
S 58°35'52" W
134.99'
40'52" W
922.99'
30,000 S.F.
57,770 S.F.
Type IB construction
SAFEWAY
7,500 SF Retail
7,500 SF Office
+40.0
12,900 SF
5,827 SF Office
9'0" x 18'0" stalls
with 25'0" aisles (typ)
No compacts allowed
Cart
Storage
+35.5'
+36.5
EXISTINGDRIVEWAY
Apartment Elevator/stairs to
parking and apartments above
Apartment Elevator/stairs to
parking and apartments above
Ramp Up
to Parking +40.0
Apartment Elevator/stairs to
parking and apartments above
Gateway Entry
S 31°24'08" E
Existing Driveway
Right In/Right Out
9
71 CARS
Pedestrian
connection
74 cars
Pedestrian
connection
12 4
17
4
9
21,000 S.F.
85'
Safeway Elevator to
upper parking level only Safeway Elevator to
upper parking level only
Apartment Elevator/stairs to
parking and apartments above
LOBBYLOBBY
15
20' high parking
luminaire (typ)
See Sht. CB
Transformer
Required Commercial Frontage:
Total Project frontage on El Camino = 520'
Total Building frontage on El Camino = 263'
51% Building frontage
Note:
El Camino Building Frontage = 263'
Transparent frontage = 187'
(71% of building)
Note:
Spruce Avenue Building Frontage = 687'
Transparent frontage = 395' = 66% of building
Sidewalk along street (typ)
Sidewalk along street (typ)
160'
1
5
'
N 3 8 °1 6 '4 0 "E
13
5% SLOPE
15' setback
S P R U C E A V E N U E
20' high parking
luminaire (typ)
See Sht. CB
+26.0
+27.0
+25.0
+28.0
+33.5
+32.5
13
Ramp
15' Storm Drain
Easment
New Driveway
All Turns
4' STEP
HEALTH CLUB
58'
+29.0
+33.0
36,000S.F.
10'
1 3 2 '
1 1 0 '
5 '
6 8 '
5 6 '
+39.0
2
3
2
.
7
6
'
4 6 .4 2 '
Apartment Elevator/stairs to
parking and apartments above
LOBBY
2 2 0 '
S
5
1
°
4
3
'
2
0
"
E
Apartments above
shown dotted +/- 37' setback
at residential level
NOT A
PART
Ramp Up
to Parking
17
25
72 CARS
Colored Asphalt(typ)
(.29 SRI Min)
48
Bike Rack
(4 bikes typ)
6
54 CARS
Pedestrian
Connection
Noise Contour
Residential Setback
18
Pedestrian
Connection
10
+36.0
Pedestrian
Connection
Transformer
+
Refuse
31 CARS
+33.5 Ramp Dn
to Parking
Ramp Up
to Parking
JOHNSON
LYMAN
ARCHITECTS
1375 Locust Street, #202, Walnut Creek, CA 94596
925.930.9690 930.9039 fax
1" = 40'
Apartments
Above
Site Plan A2
Apartments
Above
8.1.13
Centennial Village
A Transit Oriented Development South San Francisco
7'
7'
5
Ramp Dn
9
64 cars
card key entry only
for apartment parking
10
9'x18' stalls with
25' 0" aisle
5
12
5
12
6
10
+18.0' Above
Finish Floor
8
Ramp Dn
27
4
12% Ramp
Dn
9
8
18 17 9
10
9
14
15
10
184 cars
Cart Storage
Mechanical
Area
16
17
Mechanical
Area
66 cars
Ramp up
24
18
6
Ramp Dn
21
8
Cart Storage
+22.0' Above
Finish Floor
Ramp Dn
+15.0' Above
Finish Floor
6
21
6
17
9
12
9
12
7'
Safeway
Elevator Only
Safeway
Elevator Only
Apartment
Elevators/Stairs
Apartment
Elevators/Stairs
Apartment
Elevators/Stairs
Apartment
Elevators/Stairs
Elevators/
Stairs
78 cars
10
52 cars
7'
JOHNSON
LYMAN
ARCHITECTS
1375 Locust Street, #202, Walnut Creek, CA 94596
925.930.9690 930.9039 fax
Centennial Village
A Transit Oriented Development South San Francisco
Bldg C
7,000 sf
Bldg D
7,500 sf
Bldg A
7,500 sf
Bldg B
7,500 sf
Major 3
5,827 sf
All Rooftop mechanical units to be
screened from view by parapet
Parking Structure
456 cars
A2A
Second Level Plan
1" = 40'
8.1.13
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F F
F F F
F
F
F
FF
F
FF
F
F F
F F F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
FF
F
F
F
F
Common
Area
S 31°24'08" E
82.92'
N 58°35'52" E
124.99'
419.97'
130.5
124.50'
S 58°35'52" W
134.99'
Outdoor cooking Area
Corridor
Co
r
r
i
d
o
r
9
Ramp Dn
Apartment
Elevators/Stairs
Courtyard
Common
Area
Community
Area
S 31°24'08" E
10
8
+15.0' Above
Finish Floor
+29.0' Above
Finish Floor71 cars
9
9
17
Ramp up
Ramp Dn
9
Outdoor cooking Area
Safeway
Elevator Only
Safeway
Elevator Only
Apartment
Elevators/Stairs
Apartment
Elevators/Stairs
Elevators/
Stairs
84'
Apartment
Elevators/Stairs
C o r r i d o r
Common
Area
8,600 sf
1
5
'
N 3 8 °1 6 '4 0 "E
2
3
2
.
7
6
'
4 6 .4 2 '
S
5
1
°
4
3
'
2
0
"
E
Noise Contour
Residential Setback
73'
Courtyard
45'
Courtyard
Courtyard
26,135 sf
10,400 sf
5,100 sf
65'
JOHNSON
LYMAN
ARCHITECTS
1375 Locust Street, #202, Walnut Creek, CA 94596
925.930.9690 930.9039 fax
Centennial Village
A Transit Oriented Development South San Francisco
1" = 40'
Third Level Plan
Typical One Bedrm
Apartment
Typical Two Bedrm
Apartment
1/8" = 1'0"1/8" = 1'0"
A2B
42 units/level
21 One Bdrm & 21 Two Bdrm)
26 One Bdrm & 21 Two Bdrm)
47 units/level
8.1.13
Syn: Arbutus ‘Marina’
(Strawberry Tree)
Form: A broadleaf, evergreen tree with dark-green foliage, rich red-brown bark,
and a profuse display of rose-pink flowers and vibrant colored fruit in fall and
winter.
Height: 30ft
Spread: 30ft
Syn: Pyrus ‘Chanticleer’
(Chanticleer Pear)
Form: A deciduous tree with a broadly pyramidal form and white flowers blooming
in early spring. Fall color ranges from yellow to red.
Height: 40ft
Spread: 20ft
Syn: Washingtonia robusta
(Mexican Fan Palm)
Form: A tall native palm tree with bright-green foliage.
Height: 60 ft.
Spread: 10 ft.
Syn: Fraxinus angustifolia ‘Raywood’
(Raywood Ash)
Form: A round-headed, finely textured, deciduous tree with glossy, dark green
foliage.
Height: 30ft
Spread: 25ft
Syn: Platanus acerifolia ‘Columbia’
(Plane Tree)
Form: A tall deciduous, round-headed shade tree, with Sycamore-like leaves.
Height: 70ft
Spread: 50ft
Syn: Lagunaria patersonii
(Primrose Tree)
Form: An evergreen tree with light pink to rose colored flowers (resembling
Hybiscus) during the summer, fading to white with age.
Height: 30ft
Spread: 30ft
Syn: Pittosporum undulatum
(Victorian Box)
Form: A broadleaf evergreen, tropical-character tree, with fragrant creamy-
white flowers in the Spring
Hardy:
Height: 30ft
Spread: 20ft
Syn: Pinus thunberiana
(Japanese Black Pine)
Form: A tall, fast-growing conifer with dense, spreading limbs of dark-green
foliage. Often associated with bonzai gardens.
Height: 50ft, eventually 80 ft.
Spread: 20-30ft
JOHNSON
LYMAN
ARCHITECTS
1375 Locust Street, #202, Walnut Creek, CA 94596
925.930.9690 930.9039 fax
A3
Plaster
with sand finish
Tile roof
Centennial Village
A Transit Oriented Development South San Francisco
Decorative
Trim Decorative
Cornice
90' 0"
West Elevation
Stores E & Apartments
Fabric
Awning
Match
Line
Entry to parking
area
66'0"
Spruce
Avenue
Building E
Fabric
Awning
57'0"
West Elevation
Health Club & Apartments
Metal Balcony
Tile
RoofPlaster
Finish
Entry to parking
area
74'0"
Decorative
Cornice
Parking Structure
66'0"
Match Line
See Below
Courtyard
64'0"
8.1.13
1" = 10'
1" = 10'
Centennial Village
A Transit Oriented Development South San Francisco
JOHNSON
LYMAN
ARCHITECTS
1375 Locust Street, #202, Walnut Creek, CA 94596
925.930.9690 930.9039 fax
69'0"
90'0"
Tile Roof
Apartment Entry
70'0"
65'0"
90'0"
52'0"
A4
Parking Structure
North Elevation
Apartment Entry
North Elevation
Safeway
Decorative
Cornice
Apartment Entry
71'0"
Tile Roof
SafewayMajor 2
Decorative
Rail
Fabric
Awning
SafewayMajor 2
8.1.13
Safeway/Major 2 1" = 10'
Safeway/Major 2 1" = 10'
Centennial Village
A Transit Oriented Development South San Francisco
JOHNSON
LYMAN
ARCHITECTS
1375 Locust Street, #202, Walnut Creek, CA 94596
925.930.9690 930.9039 fax
69'0"
Tile Roof
Apartment Entry
90'0"
52'0"
Tile Roof
Parking Structure
Apartment Entry
Safeway
Apartment Entry
71'0"
SafewayMajor 2
Plaster
27'0"25'0"
Decorative
Cornice
Safeway
52'0"
North Elevation Phase 1
Entry to Parking
27'0"
37'0"
North Elevation - Master Plan
8.1.13
A4A
Safeway/Major 2 1" = 10'
Safeway/Major 2 1" = 10'
Centennial Village
A Transit Oriented Development South San Francisco
JOHNSON
LYMAN
ARCHITECTS
1375 Locust Street, #202, Walnut Creek, CA 94596
925.930.9690 930.9039 fax 8.1.13
North Elevation - Master Plan
90'0"
70'0"
65'0"
Apartment Entry
Decorative
Cornice
Tile RoofDecorative
Rail
Fabric
Awning
SafewayMajor 2
North Elevation - Phase 1
30'0"
Plaster
Fabric
Awnings
27'0"
Major 2Safeway
52'0"
A4B
Safeway/Major 2 1" = 10'
Safeway/Major 2 1" = 10'
Centennial Village
A Transit Oriented Development South San Francisco
JOHNSON
LYMAN
ARCHITECTS
1375 Locust Street, #202, Walnut Creek, CA 94596
925.930.9690 930.9039 fax 8.1.13
A4C
30'0"
Entry to Parking
25'0"
27'0"
Plaster
with sand finish
Entry to
parking structure
Tile Roof
66'0"70'0"
West Elevation - Phase 1
Major 2 1" = 10'
Major 2 1" = 10'
West Elevation - Master Plan
Centennial Village
A Transit Oriented Development South San Francisco
JOHNSON
LYMAN
ARCHITECTS
1375 Locust Street, #202, Walnut Creek, CA 94596
925.930.9690 930.9039 fax
South Elevation - Master Plan
Future Parking Structure
South Elevation - Phase 1
8.1.13
Tile Roof
Decorative
Cornice
Match Line
Match Line
A4D
Safeway
Tile Roof
Decorative
Cornice
72'0"
Parking Structure
54'0"
Safeway Loading
Area
52'0"
Safeway/Parking Structure 1" = 10'
Safeway
Centennial Village
A Transit Oriented Development South San Francisco
JOHNSON
LYMAN
ARCHITECTS
1375 Locust Street, #202, Walnut Creek, CA 94596
925.930.9690 930.9039 fax
South Elevation - Phase 1
Match Line
Match Line
A4E
South Elevation - Master Plan
Major 2 Loading
Area
Entry to
Parking Level
Entry to
Parking Level
8.1.13
Major 2 Safeway
Safeway
Major 2 Loading
Area
Major 2
Major 2/Safeway 1" = 10'
Major 2/Safeway 1" = 10'
JOHNSON
LYMAN
ARCHITECTS
1375 Locust Street, #202, Walnut Creek, CA 94596
925.930.9690 930.9039 fax
Fabric
Awnings
Metal
Balcony Tile roof Plaster
finish Decorative BaseDecorative
Cornice
Health Club & Apartments
Decorative
Trim
Decorative
Trim
A5
26'0"
74'0"
Health Club & Apartments - View from Spruce Avenue
Tile roof
Plaster
finish
Property
Line
Metal
Balcony
Spruce
Avenue
71'0"
Match Line
See Sht A6
71'0"
Green
Screen
8.1.13
Centennial Village
A Transit Oriented Development South San Francisco
1" = 10'
East Elevation
1" = 10'
North Elevation
JOHNSON
LYMAN
ARCHITECTS
1375 Locust Street, #202, Walnut Creek, CA 94596
925.930.9690 930.9039 fax
Spruce
Avenue
Fabric
Awnings Property
Line
Decorative
CorniceFabric
Awnings
Aluminum & Glass
Storefront
Decorative
Cornice
A5-PH1
Fabric
Awnings
Health Club - View from Spruce Avenue
Plaster
finish
Plaster
finish
Decorative
Trim
Health Club
Plaster
finish
Decorative
Cornice
Plaster
finish
Spruce
Avenue
Health Club
Health Club
24'0"
22'0"
24'0"
22'0"
Phase 1
Elevation
24'0"
24'0"22'0
22'0"
8.1.13
1" = 10'
Centennial Village
A Transit Oriented Development South San Francisco
North Elevation
1" = 10'
South Elevation
1" = 10'
East Elevation
West Elevation
1" = 10'
JOHNSON
LYMAN
ARCHITECTS
1375 Locust Street, #202, Walnut Creek, CA 94596
925.930.9690 930.9039 fax
East Elevation
66'0"
Bldg. EParking Garage
Decorative
Trim
1" = 10'
Match Line
See Sht. A5
64'0"64'0"
Parking Garage & Bldg. E
Match
Line Plaster
with sand finish
1" = 10'
East Elevation
Tile Roof
Bldg. E & Apartments
A6
Plaster
with sand finish
54'0"
52'0"
54'0"
Decorative
Cornice
Parking GarageBldg. E
Match
Line
66'0"
8.1.13
Centennial Village
A Transit Oriented Development South San Francisco
Centennial Village
A Transit Oriented Development South San Francisco
JOHNSON
LYMAN
ARCHITECTS
1375 Locust Street, #202, Walnut Creek, CA 94596
925.930.9690 930.9039 fax
Match Line
See Below
South Elevation
Safeway
Tile Roof
Decorative
Cornice
72'0"
Parking Structure
South Elevation
54'0"
Safeway Loading
Area
52'0"
A7
8.1.13
Match Line
Major 2 Loading
Area
Entry to
Parking Level
SafewayMajor 2
Safeway/Parking Structure
Major 2/Safeway 1" = 10'
1" = 10'
JOHNSON
LYMAN
ARCHITECTS
1375 Locust Street, #202, Walnut Creek, CA 94596
925.930.9690 930.9039 fax
Loading
Area
1" = 10'
North ElevationEast Elevation
1" = 10'Major 3
El Camino Real
Plaster
with sand finish
15'0"
2nd Flr
Decorative
CornicePlaster
with sand finish
Major 3 - View from El Camino Real
A8
1" = 10'
West Elevation
Individual letter
internally illuminated
signage
South Elevation
Major 3 1" = 10'
Trellis
15'0"
2nd Flr
Plaster
Major 3
35'0"
El Camino Real
35'0"
Tile Roof
Trellis
35'0"35'0"
View from El Camino Real Driveway
8.1.13
Centennial Village
A Transit Oriented Development South San Francisco
JOHNSON
LYMAN
ARCHITECTS
1375 Locust Street, #202, Walnut Creek, CA 94596
925.930.9690 930.9039 fax
North Elevation
1" = 10'
31'0"
South Elevation
30'0"
Plaster
Finish
Shops A & B
Aluminum & Glass
Storefront
Shops B
1" = 10'
1" = 10'
35'6"
1" = 10'
Shops B
West Elevation
30'0"
East Elevation
Plaster
Finish
30'0"
Decorative
Cornice
Fabric
Awning
Fabric
Awning
Roof Tile
35'0"
Decorative
Cornice Fabric
Awning
33'6"
El Camino Real
Spruce
Avenue
Shops B
Tile Roof
29'6"
35'0"
Plaster
Finish
Plaster
Tile Roof
A9
8.1.13
Centennial Village
A Transit Oriented Development South San Francisco
JOHNSON
LYMAN
ARCHITECTS
1375 Locust Street, #202, Walnut Creek, CA 94596
925.930.9690 930.9039 fax
West Elevation
1" = 10'
35'0"
31'6"
35'0"
A10
Decorative
CorniceFabric
Awning
East Elevation
1" = 10'Shops A
31'6"
1" = 10'Shops A
35'0"
Plaster
Decorative
Cornice
Fabric
Awning
North Elevation
Shops A
31'6"
Fabric
Awning
1" = 10'Shops A
South Elevation
31'6"
Plaster
Plaster
35'0"
8.1.13
Centennial Village
A Transit Oriented Development South San Francisco
JOHNSON
LYMAN
ARCHITECTS
1375 Locust Street, #202, Walnut Creek, CA 94596
925.930.9690 930.9039 fax
Plaster
Finish
A11
31' 6"
North Elevation
Trellis
Tile
RoofPlaster
Finish
Shops C
31'6"
West Elevation
36'6"
Shops D
Shops C&D 1" = 10'
36' 0"
36' 0"
Fabric
Awning
South Elevation
1" = 10'
East Elevation
39' 0"
34' 0"
Shops C
Plaster
Finish
Trellis
Shops D
East Elevation
1" = 10'
Plaster
Finish
36' 6"
Tile
Roof
Fabric
Awning
1" = 10'
West Elevation
31' 6"
34' 0"
Plaster
Finish
Fabric
Awning
34'6"
Decorative
Cornice
Shops C & D
8.1.13
Centennial Village
A Transit Oriented Development South San Francisco
38
49
42
47
328 CARS
8
+39.5
+40.0
+36.0
SLOPE
Ramp Upto Parking
Transformer
S 31°24'08" E
82.92'
8'6" x 18'0" stallswith 25'0" aisles (typ)No compacts allowed
7,000 SF Retail7,000 SF Office
N 58°35'52" E
124.99'
7,500 SF Retail7,500 SF Office
7,500 SF Retail7,500 SF Office
LoadingArea
14
25'0"
419.97'
N26°38'46"W
86.94'
N 29°31'37" W
488.12'
N60°15'08"E
4.90'
= 89°46'45"
R = 25.00'
L = 39.17'
23
+36.0
+34.0 +34.0
+33.0BLDG BTWO STORY
NO
PA
R
K
I
N
G
NO
PAR
K
I
N
G
+34.5'
NO
PA
R
K
I
N
G
N58°35'52"E
+46.0
+36.5
+49.0
MODIFIED DRIVEWAY
RIGHT IN/RIGHT OUT
WITH LEFT IN
Refuse
BLDG CTWO STORY
Stairs
+41.0
49
+38.0
+40.0'
130.53'
20' Setbackfrom curb
+34.5'
S 31°24'08" E
Loading
+29.0
Transformer
CartStorage
+53.0
6
+48.0
NOT A
PART
E L C A M I N O R E A L
MAJOR 2
+35.0
+43.0
S58°35'52"W
BLDG E
15' Setbackfrom curb
+36.0
124.50'
Bike Rack(4 bikes typ)
+29.0
BLDG DTWO STORY
Loading
Colored Asphalt(typ)
(.29 SRI Min)
+30.0
200'0"
82.92'
NOT A
PART
+50.0
Compactor
289'4'
160' 0"
+34.0'
+39.0
Bike Rack(4 bikes typ)
16
NO
PAR
K
I
N
G
NO
PAR
K
I
N
G
10'0"
New DrivewayRight In/Right Out
10% DRIVEWAY DOWN +39.0
+47.0
22'0"
Stairs
Returnables
+39.5
65'
BLDG ATWO STORY
Transformer
+41.0
+39.0
+37.0
+47.0
+34.0
+35.0
+39.0
+40.0
+33.0
+31.0
+44.0
+51.0
+32.0
+45.0
+42.0'
+50.0
+42.0
CVSTWO STORY
+41.0'
+52.0
12
LOBBY
5 0 '
+33.560'
+34.0
18
+36.0
95'
Retaining wall
6
CartStorage
OF FLOOD ZONE LIMITS
40'
Loading Area
Transformer
17
15' Storm DrainEasment
ExistingDriveway
Refuse(see Sht CB)
15' Storm DrainEasment
APPROXIMATE LOCATION
1
5'
1
5'
Decorative Pavers(typ)
(See Sht. CB)
Decorative lights &planter pots(typ)See Sht. CB
+33.5
CartStorage
Outdoor Seating
Loading AreaRefuse(see Sht CB)
Loading Area
H U N T I N G T O N A V E N U E
Bike Rack(4 bikes typ)
+34.5
Bike Rack(4 bikes typ)
Cart Storage
Retaining wall along Property linewith 6' high wood fence
34
S 58°35'52" W
134.99'
S 54°40'52" W
922.99'
30,000 S.F.
57,770 S.F.
Type IB construction
SAFEWAY
7,500 SF Retail7,500 SF Office
+40.0
12,900 SF5,827 SF Office
9'0" x 18'0" stallswith 25'0" aisles (typ)No compacts allowed
CartStorage
+35.5'
+36.5
EXISTINGDRIVEWAY
Apartment Elevator/stairs toparking and apartments above
Apartment Elevator/stairs toparking and apartments above
Ramp Upto Parking +40.0
Apartment Elevator/stairs toparking and apartments above
Gateway Entry
S 31°24'08" E
Existing DrivewayRight In/Right Out
9
71 CARS
Pedestrianconnection
74 cars
Pedestrianconnection
12 4
17
4
9
21,000 S.F.
85'
Safeway Elevator toupper parking level only Safeway Elevator toupper parking level only
Apartment Elevator/stairs toparking and apartments above
LOBBYLOBBY
15
20' high parking
luminaire (typ)See Sht. CB
Transformer
Required Commercial Frontage:Total Project frontage on El Camino = 520'Total Building frontage on El Camino = 263'51% Building frontage
Note:El Camino Building Frontage = 263'
Transparent frontage = 187'
(71% of building)
Note:
Spruce Avenue Building Frontage = 687'Transparent frontage = 395' = 66% of building
Sidewalk along street (typ)
Sidewalk along street (typ)
160'
1
5'
N 3 8 °1 6'4 0 "E
13
5% SLOPE
15' setback
S P R U C E A V E N U E
20' high parkingluminaire (typ)See Sht. CB
+26.0
+27.0
+25.0
+28.0
+33.5
+32.5
13
Ramp
15' Storm DrainEasment
New DrivewayAll Turns
4' STEP
HEALTH CLUB
58'
+29.0
+33.0
36,000S.F.
10'
1 3 2'
1 1 0 '
5 '
6 8'
5 6 '
+39.0
2
3
2
.
7
6
'
4 6 .4 2 '
Apartment Elevator/stairs toparking and apartments above
LOBBY
2 2 0 '
S
5
1
°
4
3'
2
0
"
E
Apartments above
shown dotted +/- 37' setback
at residential level
NOT A
PART
Ramp Upto Parking
17
25
72 CARS
Colored Asphalt(typ)(.29 SRI Min)
48
Bike Rack(4 bikes typ)6
54 CARS
PedestrianConnection
Noise ContourResidential Setback
18
Pedestrian
Connection
10
+36.0PedestrianConnection
Second Floor 15'0"
Top of Parapet 34'0"
Building DSpruce Avenue
60°
Property
Line
Parking
Top of Parapet 67'0"
Parking
Mechanical Equipment
to be screened from view
5th Floor - 49'0"
4th Floor - 39'0"
3rd Floor - 29'0"
2nd Floor - 18'0"
Retail
Residential
Residential
ResidentialResidential
Residential
Residential
Residential
courtyard
60°
2nd Floor - 22'0"
Residential
4th Floor - 39'0"
3rd Floor - 33'0"
5th Floor - 49'0"Residential
Residential
Residential
Safeway
Parking Property
Line
Residential Courtyard Residential
Residential
Apartments Beyond
Residential courtyard Parking
60
Apartments Beyond
ParkingHealth Club
Parking
Parking Structure
Parking
Parking
Retail - Building E
Residential courtyard
Parking
Parking
Property
Line
Mechanical Equipment
to be screened from view
Residential
Residential
Residential
Parking
Split Level Interior
Residential courtyard
Apartments Beyond
5th Floor - 49'0"
4th Floor - 39'0"
3rd Floor - 29'0"
2nd Floor - 18'0"
Datum 0'0"
Property
Line
60°
Adjacent Property
15' setback
Property
Line
2'37' setback
Patio
Health Club
ents
ments
ents
ing
JOHNSON
LYMAN
ARCHITECTS
1375 Locust Street, #202, Walnut Creek, CA 94596
925.930.9690 930.9039 fax
C
Section
C
A
A
BB
D
D
1" = 20'
North/South Section AA @ Safeway
1" = 20'
Health Club
1" = 20'
West/East Section BB @ Apartments
Building E
West/East Section CC @ Apartments
Building EHealth Club
North/South Section DD @ Apartments
1" = 20'
A12
8.1.13
Centennial Village
A Transit Oriented Development South San Francisco
JOHNSON
LYMAN
ARCHITECTS
1375 Locust Street, #202, Walnut Creek, CA 94596
925.930.9690 930.9039 fax
18' 0"
1/8" = 1'0"
Bldg E Detail/SectionBldg A Detail/Section
1/8" = 1'0"
Plaster
Finish
Basalite - Italian Renaissance
Plaster
1/8" = 1'0"
Scored Concrete - Davis Sand color
Concrete Pavers
Plaster
Plaster
Finish
22' 0"
31' 0"
BM Wilmington Tan
Landscape Forms - Rosa
Planter Pots
29' 0"
Landscape Forms
Scarborough
Retail
Roof Tile
Spanish Blend - Lifetile
All Mechanical equipment not
to project above parapet
Building Materials
Metal Doors
Refuse Enclosure
Decorative
Cornice
CB
8' high Plaster walls with roof
Plaster
DE 728 Madera
Concrete Flatwork
BK Light
Plaster & Metal
BM GargoyleDEC 763 Oatmeal Cookie
BK Light
Wood Trim
DEC Briar
Trash container
Plaster
33' 0"
Landscape Forms
Scarborough
Wall Lights
Bench
Kaye - Horseshoe
39' 0"
Visa Sconce
Plaster
Bone White
Storefront
DE Bungalow Taupe
Plaster
BM Platinum Gray
Bike rack
DE Desert Gray
Major 2 Detail/Section
Residential
Residential
Residential
49' 0"
Projecting
Metal Canopy
Parking
Concrete
Roof Tile
Residential
Residential
Residential
Parking
Retail
Plaster
Finish
63' 0"63' 0"
53' 0"
33' 0"
43' 0"
90' 0"
70' 0"
20' Parking Area Lights & 14' Pedestrian Lighting
Visionaire Monterey
Exterior Lighting
8.1.13A Transit Oriented Development South San FranciscoCentennial Village
16' 0"
NO PARKING
NO PARKING
NO PARKING
SL
O
P
E
Ca
r
t
St
o
r
a
g
e
NO PARKINGNO PARKING
NO PARKING
NO PARKING
Loading 7,500 SF Retail7,500 SF OfficeDriveThru BLDG BTWO STORY
40
,
0
0
0
S
.
F
.
17
,
0
0
0
S
.
F
.
BL
D
G
C
TW
O
S
T
O
R
Y
7,
0
0
0
S
F
R
e
t
a
i
l
7,
0
0
0
S
F
O
f
f
i
c
e
H U N T I N G T O
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
LO
B
B
Y
S
P
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
NO
T
A
P
A
R
T
E L C A M I N O R E A L
HE
A
L
T
H
C
L
U
B
BL
D
G
E
MAJO
R
2
30,000 S.F.
BL
D
G
D
TW
O
S
T
O
R
Y
Ra
m
p
U
p
to
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
7,
5
0
0
S
F
R
e
t
a
i
l
7,
5
0
0
S
F
O
f
f
i
c
e
NO
T
A
P
A
R
T
57
,
7
7
0
S
.
F
.
Ty
p
e
I
B
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
SA
F
E
W
A
Y
Ramp Upto Roof
Re
t
u
r
n
a
b
l
e
s
BLDG ATWO STORY7,500 SF Retail7,500 SF OfficeCVSTWO STORY
El
e
v
a
t
o
r
s
El
e
v
a
t
o
r
12,900 SF6,327 SF Office
St
a
i
r
s
Elevator
NO
T
A
P
A
R
T
Luminaire ScheduleSymbolQtyLabel
Lu
m
e
n
s
LL
F
De
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
3A
11
0
0
0
0
0.
7
5
0
10
0
0
W
M
H
S
I
N
G
L
E
10A1
N.
A
.
0.
7
5
0
10
0
0
W
M
H
T
W
I
N
13A3
11
0
0
0
0
0.
7
5
0
10
0
0
W
M
H
S
I
N
G
L
E
(
T
Y
P
E
3
)
16D
13
5
0
0
0.
7
5
0
15
0
W
M
H
D
E
C
O
Calculation SummaryLabelUnitsAvg
Ma
x
Mi
n
Av
g
/
M
i
n
Ma
x
/
M
i
n
1Fc5.87
18
.
1
0.
3
19
.
5
7
60
.
3
3
ON-SITEFc6.41
18
.
1
0.
8
8.
0
1
22
.
6
3
3.74.23.62.12.03.74.44.33.42.03.03.94.43.72.11.93.64.
3
4.
2
3.
2
1.
8
2.
8
3.
9
4.
3
3.
7
2.
1
1.
9
3.
6
4.
3
4.
2
3.
2
1.
8
2.
9
3.
9
4.
3
3.
7
2.
1
1.
9
3.
6
4.
3
4.
2
3.
2
1.
8
3.
0
4.
0
4.
2
4.24.23.82.32.23.64.94.93.32.12.84.54.43.82.22.03.44.
6
4.
5
2.
8
1.
6
2.
6
4.
3
4.
1
3.
7
2.
2
2.
0
3.
4
4.
5
4.
5
2.
8
1.
6
2.
6
4.
3
4.
1
3.
7
2.
2
2.
0
3.
4
4.
5
4.
5
2.
9
1.
7
2.
7
4.
4
4.
4
3.
4
4.84.97.16.87.08.35.56.48.18.07.15.95.37.26.76.77.75.
0
5.
4
7.
0
7.
1
6.
6
5.
4
5.
0
7.
0
6.
6
6.
7
7.
6
4.
9
5.
4
7.
0
7.
2
6.
6
5.
4
5.
0
7.
0
6.
5
6.
7
7.
6
5.
0
5.
4
7.
1
7.
3
6.
9
5.
3
4.
8
6.
6
3.94.35.55.55.66.85.66.48.06.76.95.25.54.
3
5.
3
5.
2
5.
1
5.
5
4.
3
4.
1
5.
6
4.
9
5.
6
4.
0
4.
4
5.
0
2.84.02.73.94.54.77.47.08.46.46.9
3.
3
3.
4
3.
5
3.
7
3.
3
4.
4
2.
5
1.32.11.52.02.64.37.89.113.99.46.0
2.
1
3.
0
2.
5
17.213.812.95.9
3.
3
4.
2
1.
4
1.
6
11.29.614.57.7
4.
9
6.
6
3.
1
3.
5
13.716.212.95.1
4.
6
4.
3
4.
5
5.48.35.24.4
4.
5
4.
2
4.
5
4.65.13.33.3
6.
8
3.
1
3.
2
4.74.43.42.4
5.
0
2.
0
1.
4
4.74.93.0
4.
7
2.
1
1.
5
11.26.53.6
6.
7
3.
6
3.
5
0.92.03.96.810.910.712.37.84.84.45.26.39.36.15.64.
0
3.
4
4.
9
6.
9
10
.
5
6.
7
6.
2
4.
7
4.
8
6.
6
7.
5
11
.
1
7.
4
5.
1
4.
1
4.
9
6.
3
9.
1
6.
3
5.
3
3.
5
4.
1
5.
1
5.
0
0.40.92.03.97.010.810.511.98.25.65.15.213.614.415.67.64.
9
5.
3
5.
5
13
.
3
13
.
4
16
.
8
7.
6
5.
9
6.
0
7.
8
16
.
6
12
.
6
12
.
2
6.
1
6.
1
5.
6
13
.
0
14
.
0
15
.
0
7.
3
3.
4
4.
1
5.
4
4.
8
0.40.81.52.55.811.417.511.96.94.45.18.217.39.011.711.56.
3
6.
1
8.
3
17
.
0
9.
0
11
.
7
11
.
8
7.
3
7.
2
12
.
1
11
.
1
9.
1
15
.
8
8.
3
7.
1
8.
6
17
.
1
8.
8
10
.
9
11
.
3
4.
9
6.
2
3.
1
0.31.12.13.44.94.87.710.05.44.24.45.013.513.916.77.55.
2
5.
2
5.
4
13
.
6
14
.
7
15
.
5
8.
1
5.
4
5.
3
8.
7
14
.
5
14
.
4
12
.
6
5.
7
5.
6
5.
7
13
.
1
13
.
8
15
.
5
7.
2
3.
6
3.
8
1.
1
0.42.75.15.76.47.36.55.03.52.93.45.17.310.87.16.44.
6
3.
8
5.
0
6.
3
9.
2
6.
3
5.
7
4.
8
4.
6
5.
7
6.
6
8.
3
5.
9
4.
9
4.
4
5.
2
6.
9
9.
9
6.
8
5.
8
3.
7
3.
4
0.
8
0.72.82.64.36.16.74.45.02.82.52.84.14.66.35.74.43.
8
3.
0
3.
7
3.
5
4.
8
4.
4
3.
8
3.
1
3.
2
3.
5
4.
4
4.
7
3.
3
3.
7
3.
1
3.
9
3.
8
5.
2
4.
7
3.
6
2.
4
4.
5
1.
6
0.31.26.71.75.15.53.34.33.72.22.64.24.66.45.84.03.
5
2.
7
2.
2
2.
9
3.
2
3.
1
2.
0
2.
5
2.
4
2.
0
3.
0
3.
1
2.
8
2.
1
2.
8
2.
8
3.
5
4.
2
3.
9
2.
0
2.
3
7.
3
3.
3
2.12.92.92.43.85.16.49.26.45.64.
2
2.
9
2.
3
3.
0
3.
4
3.
3
2.
2
2.
6
2.
5
2.
2
3.
3
3.
4
2.
9
2.
6
2.
9
3.
6
3.
7
5.
2
4.
7
3.
3
2.
3
4.
6
4.
4
2.62.84.03.64.75.913.815.314.67.74.
2
3.
8
4.
3
3.
8
5.
2
4.
6
4.
3
3.
4
3.
5
4.
2
4.
6
5.
1
3.
6
4.
0
3.
9
5.
2
6.
2
8.
8
6.
3
5.
4
3.
5
4.
8
4.
2
3.45.57.86.86.48.416.19.611.511.05.
5
4.
8
5.
7
7.
4
11
.
2
6.
9
6.
5
4.
9
5.
0
6.
6
7.
3
10
.
8
7.
5
6.
1
5.
0
5.
1
13
.
1
14
.
5
14
.
9
7.
6
3.
4
7.
0
2.
7
4.96.15.77.16.96.913.313.618.17.05.
4
5.
6
5.
8
13
.
6
13
.
8
17
.
6
7.
6
6.
3
6.
2
8.
2
16
.
8
13
.
6
13
.
2
6.
1
6.
8
8.
7
16
.
9
9.
0
11
.
2
11
.
3
5.
1
4.
7
1.
5
4.27.14.97.25.46.58.212.17.26.75.
0
4.
9
8.
2
17
.
1
9.
3
12
.
2
11
.
8
7.
8
7.
9
12
.
7
11
.
8
9.
4
17
.
2
8.
8
6.
9
6.
2
13
.
0
13
.
4
16
.
7
7.
3
4.
3
4.
8
1.
6
4.14.43.75.24.54.83.
7
4.
1
5.
0
13
.
8
15
.
2
16
.
0
8.
9
6.
7
7.
1
9.
6
16
.
3
15
.
1
13
.
4
5.
1
5.
1
6.
1
7.
7
11
.
3
7.
5
7.
1
5.
0
6.
8
3.
1
3.53.63.
1
3.
1
4.
7
6.
0
9.
4
7.
1
7.
4
6.
7
8.
4
7.
8
8.
4
10
.
1
6.
5
5.
1
3.
8
4.
0
4.
0
5.
9
6.
0
5.
4
4.
5
4.
1
4.
6
6.66.36.
6
3.
3
5.
1
5.
1
6.
1
9.
5
11
.
6
10
.
0
7.
0
5.
6
3.
8
3.
7
2.
6
2.
8
3.
0
4.
3
5.
6
5.
3
6.
9
4.
1
5.
1
2.65.2
5.
8
8.
5
6.
1
8.
3
7.
1
4.
4
2.
9
2.
0
2.
3
2.
7
4.
4
3.
8
5.
3
7.
9
6.
0
5.
2
5.
0
3.14.9
5.
5
9.
3
4.
1
2.
8
2.
0
1.
7
6.
1
6.
5
6.
7
5.
2
6.
1
6.
1
4.
8
3.
4
3.
1
5.86.0
4.
2
5.
2
2.12.8
2.
0
2.
7
5.
7
3.
6
3.
4
2.
4
6.
0
3.
7
2.
7
2.
5
2.
0
5.
8
4.
9
5.
6
2.
6
5.
1
5.
0
1.
1
1.
6
0.
6
PA
R
K
I
N
G
A
R
E
A
UN
D
E
R
ST
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
S
Area ID Area Total (sf)Roof (sf)Concrete Pave (sf)AC Pavement (sf)Landscape (sf)Bioretention (sf)
DMA 1 54,23912,900 872 30,6909,777 975
DMA 2 29,11420,748 0 4,9953,371 800
DMA 3 49,20138,514 0 7,7992,8881,400
DMA 4 47,36627,015 0 17,2413,1101,240
DMA 5 17,318 00 13,1634,155 366
DMA 6 6,850 00 5,967 883150
DMA 7 70,94445,8584,37210,24110,4731,840
DMA 8 13,6017,0004,151 0 2,450 325
DMA 9 18,5777,5001,4725,7183,887 485
DMA 10 19,0108,0007,429 0 3,581 450
DMA 11 9,8827,8291,525 0528300
DMA 12 5,111 0 1,7253,176 210120
DMA 13 13,038 0 3,0655,4554,518 210
DMA 14 39,210 00 36,2562,954 820
DMA 15 23,7557,430 0 13,4562,869 575
DMA 16 52,9378,993 0 39,6484,2961,200
DMA 17 54,9628,666 0 41,6944,6021,250
DMA 18 40,34521,943 0 16,7871,615 940
DMA 19 65,30937,982 0 25,2942,0331,573
Total 630,769260,37824,611277,58068,20015,019
38
49
42
47
328 CARS
8
+39.5
+40.0
+36.0
SLOPE
Ramp Up
to Parking
Transformer
S 31°24'08" E
82.92'
8'6" x 18'0" stalls
with 25'0" aisles (typ)
No compacts allowed
7,000 SF Retail
7,000 SF Office
N 58°35'52" E
124.99'
7,500 SF Retail
7,500 SF Office
7,500 SF Retail7,500 SF Office
Loading
Area
14
25'0"
419.97'
N 29°31'37" W
488.12'
N60°15'08"E
4.90'
= 89°46'45"
R = 25.00'
L = 39.17'
23
+36.0
+34.0 +34.0
+33.0BLDG BTWO STORY
NO
PA
R
K
I
N
G
NO
PA
R
K
I
N
G
+34.5'
NO
PA
R
K
I
N
G
N58°35'52"E
+46.0
+36.5
+49.0
EWAY
T OUT
Refuse
BLDG CTWO STORY
Stairs
+41.0
49
+38.0
+40.0'
130.53'
+34.5'
S 31°24'08" E
Loading
+29.0
Transformer
Cart
Storage
+53.0
6
+48.0
NOT A
PART
E L C A M I N O R E A L
MAJOR 2
+35.0
+43.0
S58°35'52"W
BLDG E
15' Setback
from curb
+36.0
124.50'
Bike Rack
(4 bikes typ)
+29.0
BLDG DTWO STORY
Loading
Colored Asphalt(typ)
(.29 SRI Min)
+30.0
200'0"
82.92'
NOT A
PART
+50.0
Compactor
289'4'
160' 0"
+34.0'
+39.0
Bike Rack
(4 bikes typ)
16
NO
PA
R
K
I
N
G
NO
PA
R
K
I
N
G
10'0"
New Driveway
Right In/Right Out
10% DRIVEWAY DOWN +39.0
+47.0
22'0"
Stairs
Returnables
+39.5
65'
BLDG ATWO STORY
Transformer
+41.0
+39.0
+37.0
+47.0
+34.0
+35.0
+39.0
+40.0
+33.0
+31.0
+44.0
+51.0
+32.0
+45.0
+42.0'
+50.0
+42.0
CVSTWO STORY
+41.0'
+52.0
12
LOBBY
5 0 '
+33.560'
+34.0
18
+36.0
95'
Retaining wall
6
Cart
Storage
OF FLOOD ZONE LIMITS
40'
Loading Area
Transformer
17
15' Storm Drain
Easment
Existing
Drivew
Refuse
(see Sht CB)
15' Storm Drain
Easment
APPROXIMATE LOCATION
1
5
'
1
5
'
Decorative Pavers(typ)
(See Sht. CB)
Decorative lights &
planter pots(typ)
See Sht. CB
+33.5
Cart
Storage
Outdoor Seating
Loading Area Refuse
(see Sht CB)
Loading Area
H U N T I N G T O N A V E N U E
Bike Rack
(4 bikes typ)
+34.5
Bike Rack
(4 bikes typ)
Cart Storage
Retaining wall along Property line
34
S 58°35'52" W
134.99'
W
30,000 S.F.
57,770 S.F.
Type IB construction
SAFEWAY
7,500 SF Retail
7,500 SF Office
+40.0
12,900 SF
5,827 SF Office
9'0" x 18'0" stalls
with 25'0" aisles (typ)
No compacts allowed
Cart
Storage
+35.5'
+36.5
EXISTINGDRIVEWAY
Apartment Elevator/stairs to
parking and apartments above
Apartment Elevator/stairs toparking and apartments above
Ramp Up
to Parking +40.0
Apartment Elevator/stairs to
parking and apartments above
Gateway Entry
S 31°24'08" E
Existing Driveway
Right In/Right Out
9
71 CARS
Pedestrian
connection
74 cars
Pedestrian
connection
12 4
17
4
9
21,000 S.F.
85'
Safeway Elevator to
upper parking level only Safeway Elevator to
upper parking level only
Apartment Elevator/stairs to
parking and apartments above
LOBBYLOBBY
15
20' high parking
luminaire (typ)
See Sht. CB
Transformer
ge:
amino = 520'
Camino = 263'
= 263'
Note:
Spruce Avenue Building Frontage = 687'
Transparent frontage = 395' = 66% of building
Sidewalk along street (typ)
along street (typ)
160'
1
5
'
N 3 8 °1 6 '4 0 "E
13
5% SLOPE
15' setback
S P R U C E A V E N U E
20' high parking
luminaire (typ)
See Sht. CB
+26.0
+27.0
+25.0
+28.0
+33.5
+32.5
13
Ramp
15' Storm Drain
Easment
New Driveway
All Turns
4' STEP
HEALTH CLUB
58'
+29.0
+33.0
36,000S.F.
10'
1 3 2 '
1 1 0 '
5 '
6 8 '
5 6 '
+39.0
2
3
2
.
7
6
'
4 6 .4 2 '
Apartment Elevator/stairs to
parking and apartments above
LOBBY
2 2 0 '
S
5
1
°
4
3
'
2
0
"
E
Apartments above
shown dotted +/- 37' setback
at residential level
NOT A
PART
Ramp Up
to Parking
17
25
72 CARS
Colored Asphalt(typ)
(.29 SRI Min)
48
Bike Rack
(4 bikes typ)
6
54 CARS
Pedestrian
Connection
Noise Contour
Residential Setback
18
Pedestrian
Connection
10
+36.0
Pedestrian
Connection
9'x18' stalls with
25' 0" aisle
12
12
6
8
27
12% Ramp
Dn
8
18 17
9
15
10
184 cars
Cart Storage
Mechanical
Area
Mechanical
Area
Ramp Dn
21 Cart Storage
+22.0' Above
Finish Floor
Ramp Dn
+15.0' Abov
Finish Floor
21
38
49
42
47
328 CARS
8
+39.5
+40.0
+36.0
SLOPE
Ramp Up
to Parking
Transformer
S 31°24'08" E
82.92'
8'6" x 18'0" stalls
with 25'0" aisles (typ)
No compacts allowed
7,000 SF Retail
7,000 SF Office
N 58°35'52" E
124.99'
7,500 SF Retail
7,500 SF Office
7,500 SF Retail7,500 SF Office
Loading
Area
14
25'0"
419.97'
N 29°31'37" W
488.12'
N60°15'08"E
4.90'
= 89°46'45"
R = 25.00'
L = 39.17'
23
+36.0
+34.0 +34.0
+33.0BLDG BTWO STORY
NO
PA
R
K
I
N
G
NO
PA
R
K
I
N
G
+34.5'
NO
PA
R
K
I
N
G
N58°35'52"E
+46.0
+36.5
+49.0
EWAY
T OUT
Refuse
BLDG CTWO STORY
Stairs
+41.0
49
+38.0
+40.0'
130.53'
+34.5'
S 31°24'08" E
Loading
+29.0
Transformer
Cart
Storage
+53.0
6
+48.0
NOT A
PART
E L C A M I N O R E A L
MAJOR 2
+35.0
+43.0
S58°35'52"W
BLDG E
15' Setback
from curb
+36.0
124.50'
Bike Rack
(4 bikes typ)
+29.0
BLDG DTWO STORY
Loading
Colored Asphalt(typ)
(.29 SRI Min)
+30.0
200'0"
82.92'
NOT A
PART
+50.0
Compactor
289'4'
160' 0"
+34.0'
+39.0
Bike Rack
(4 bikes typ)
16
NO
PA
R
K
I
N
G
NO
PA
R
K
I
N
G
10'0"
New Driveway
Right In/Right Out
10% DRIVEWAY DOWN +39.0
+47.0
22'0"
Stairs
Returnables
+39.5
65'
BLDG ATWO STORY
Transformer
+41.0
+39.0
+37.0
+47.0
+34.0
+35.0
+39.0
+40.0
+33.0
+31.0
+44.0
+51.0
+32.0
+45.0
+42.0'
+50.0
+42.0
CVSTWO STORY
+41.0'
+52.0
12
LOBBY
5 0 '
+33.560'
+34.0
18
+36.0
95'
Retaining wall
6
Cart
Storage
OF FLOOD ZONE LIMITS
40'
Loading Area
Transformer
17
15' Storm Drain
Easment
Existing
Drivew
Refuse
(see Sht CB)
15' Storm Drain
Easment
APPROXIMATE LOCATION
1
5
'
1
5
'
Decorative Pavers(typ)
(See Sht. CB)
Decorative lights &
planter pots(typ)
See Sht. CB
+33.5
Cart
Storage
Outdoor Seating
Loading Area Refuse
(see Sht CB)
Loading Area
H U N T I N G T O N A V E N U E
Bike Rack
(4 bikes typ)
+34.5
Bike Rack
(4 bikes typ)
Cart Storage
Retaining wall along Property line
34
S 58°35'52" W
134.99'
W
30,000 S.F.
57,770 S.F.
Type IB construction
SAFEWAY
7,500 SF Retail
7,500 SF Office
+40.0
12,900 SF
5,827 SF Office
9'0" x 18'0" stalls
with 25'0" aisles (typ)
No compacts allowed
Cart
Storage
+35.5'
+36.5
EXISTINGDRIVEWAY
Apartment Elevator/stairs to
parking and apartments above
Apartment Elevator/stairs to
parking and apartments above
Ramp Up
to Parking +40.0
Apartment Elevator/stairs to
parking and apartments above
Gateway Entry
S 31°24'08" E
Existing Driveway
Right In/Right Out
9
71 CARS
Pedestrian
connection
74 cars
Pedestrian
connection
12 4
17
4
9
21,000 S.F.
85'
Safeway Elevator to
upper parking level only Safeway Elevator to
upper parking level only
Apartment Elevator/stairs to
parking and apartments above
LOBBYLOBBY
15
20' high parking
luminaire (typ)
See Sht. CB
Transformer
ge:
amino = 520'
Camino = 263'
= 263'
Note:
Spruce Avenue Building Frontage = 687'
Transparent frontage = 395' = 66% of building
Sidewalk along street (typ)
along street (typ)
160'
1
5
'
N 3 8 °1 6 '4 0 "E
13
5% SLOPE
15' setback
S P R U C E A V E N U E
20' high parking
luminaire (typ)
See Sht. CB
+26.0
+27.0
+25.0
+28.0
+33.5
+32.5
13
Ramp
15' Storm Drain
Easment
New Driveway
All Turns
4' STEP
HEALTH CLUB
58'
+29.0
+33.0
36,000S.F.
10'
1 3 2 '
1 1 0 '
5 '
6 8 '
5 6 '
+39.0
2
3
2
.
7
6
'
4 6 .4 2 '
Apartment Elevator/stairs to
parking and apartments above
LOBBY
2 2 0 '
S
5
1
°
4
3
'
2
0
"
E
Apartments above
shown dotted +/- 37' setback
at residential level
NOT A
PART
Ramp Up
to Parking
17
25
72 CARS
Colored Asphalt(typ)
(.29 SRI Min)
48
Bike Rack
(4 bikes typ)
6
54 CARS
Pedestrian
Connection
Noise Contour
Residential Setback
18
Pedestrian
Connection
10
+36.0
Pedestrian
Connection
1375 Locust Street, #202, Walnut Creek, CA 94596
925.930.9690 930.9039 fax
JOHNSON
LYMAN
ARCHITECTS
1375 Locust Street, #202, Walnut Creek, CA 94596
925.930.9690 930.9039 fax
P1
New Construction
1" = 80'
Project Summary
AreaBuilding
Parking
Retail/Office
Phase 1
Active Use FAR:
Ground Level
2nd Level
184 Parking stalls over Safeway, Major 2
Majors 1,2,3
Health Club
Shops A,B,C,D (1st Level)
Major 3 & Shops A,B,C,D (2nd Level)
100,670 sf
36,000 sf
29,500 sf
35,327 sf
201,497 sf
Total Bike stalls provided
Total Building Area
Incorporate 184 parking stalls
over Safeway & Major 2
Total cars provided
(184 cars - 2nd Level Parking Structure)
20 Bikes
14.5 acres (631,700 sf)
FAR:
Site Area
F.A.R.
Active uses(Grd Lvl uses-no office) = 166,170 sf
.26
Bldg Area w/out parking structure = 201,497 sf
.32
Total cars required
Health Club 36,000 sf (150 sf/car) = 240 cars
Retail/Office 165,497 sf (225 sf/car) = 736 cars
976 cars
761 Parking stalls
8.1.13
(761 cars - Ground Level)
945 cars
Centennial Village
A Transit Oriented Development South San Francisco
54 54 54 26
25
419.97'
Cart
Storage
Ramp up
+34.0
48
213 CARS
11
5
14
20
10
17
77 CARS
54 54 54 26
25
Cart
Storage
Ramp up
48
213 CARS
14
20
38
49
42
47
328 CARS
8
+39.5
+40.0
+36.0
SLOPE
Ramp Up
to Parking
Transformer
S 31°24'08" E
82.92'
8'6" x 18'0" stalls
with 25'0" aisles (typ)
No compacts allowed
7,000 SF Retail
7,000 SF Office
N 58°35'52" E
124.99'
7,500 SF Retail
7,500 SF Office
7,500 SF Retail7,500 SF Office
Loading
Area
14
25'0"
419.97'
N 29°31'37" W
488.12'
N60°15'08"E
4.90'
= 89°46'45"
R = 25.00'
L = 39.17'
23
+36.0
+34.0
+34.0
+33.0BLDG BTWO STORY
NO
PA
R
K
I
N
G
NO
PA
R
K
I
N
G
+34.5'
NO
PA
R
K
I
N
G
N58°35'52"E
+46.0
+36.5
+49.0
EWAY
T OUT
Refuse
BLDG CTWO STORY
Stairs
+41.0
49
+38.0
+40.0'
130.53'
+34.5'
S 31°24'08" E
Loading
+29.0
Transformer
Cart
Storage
+53.0
6
+48.0
NOT A
PART
E L C A M I N O R E A L
MAJOR 2
+35.0
+43.0
S58°35'52"W
BLDG E
15' Setback
from curb
+36.0
124.50'
Bike Rack
(4 bikes typ)
+29.0
BLDG DTWO STORY
Loading
Colored Asphalt(typ)
(.29 SRI Min)
+30.0
200'0"
82.92'
NOT A
PART
+50.0
Compactor
289'4'
160' 0"
+34.0'
+39.0
Bike Rack
(4 bikes typ)
16
NO
PA
R
K
I
N
G
NO
PA
R
K
I
N
G
10'0"
New Driveway
Right In/Right Out
10% DRIVEWAY DOWN +39.0
+47.0
22'0"
Stairs
Returnables
+39.5
65'
BLDG ATWO STORY
Transformer
+41.0
+39.0
+37.0
+47.0
+34.0
+35.0
+39.0
+40.0
+33.0
+31.0
+44.0
+51.0
+32.0
+45.0
+42.0'
+50.0
+42.0
CVSTWO STORY
+41.0'
+52.0
12
LOBBY
5 0 '
+33.560'
+34.0
18
+36.0
95'
Retaining wall
6
Cart
Storage
OF FLOOD ZONE LIMITS
40'
Loading Area
Transformer
17
15' Storm Drain
Easment
Existing
Drivew
Refuse
(see Sht CB)
15' Storm Drain
Easment
APPROXIMATE LOCATION
1
5
'
1
5
'
Decorative Pavers(typ)
(See Sht. CB)
Decorative lights &
planter pots(typ)
See Sht. CB
+33.5
Cart
Storage
Outdoor Seating
Loading Area Refuse
(see Sht CB)
Loading Area
H U N T I N G T O N A V E N U E
Bike Rack
(4 bikes typ)
+34.5
Bike Rack
(4 bikes typ)
Cart Storage
Retaining wall along Property line
34
S 58°35'52" W
134.99'
W
30,000 S.F.
57,770 S.F.
Type IB construction
SAFEWAY
7,500 SF Retail
7,500 SF Office
+40.0
12,900 SF
5,827 SF Office
9'0" x 18'0" stalls
with 25'0" aisles (typ)
No compacts allowed
Cart
Storage
+35.5'
+36.5
EXISTINGDRIVEWAY
Apartment Elevator/stairs to
parking and apartments above
Apartment Elevator/stairs to
parking and apartments above
Ramp Up
to Parking +40.0
Apartment Elevator/stairs to
parking and apartments above
Gateway Entry
S 31°24'08" E
Existing Driveway
Right In/Right Out
9
71 CARS
Pedestrian
connection
74 cars
Pedestrian
connection
12 4
17
4
9
21,000 S.F.
85'
Safeway Elevator to
upper parking level only Safeway Elevator to
upper parking level only
Apartment Elevator/stairs to
parking and apartments above
LOBBYLOBBY
15
20' high parking
luminaire (typ)
See Sht. CB
Transformer
ge:
amino = 520'
Camino = 263'
= 263'
Note:
Spruce Avenue Building Frontage = 687'
Transparent frontage = 395' = 66% of building
Sidewalk along street (typ)
along street (typ)
160'
1
5
'
N 3 8 °1 6 '4 0 "E
13
5% SLOPE
15' setback
S P R U C E A V E N U E
20' high parking
luminaire (typ)
See Sht. CB
+26.0
+27.0
+25.0
+28.0
+33.5
+32.5
13
Ramp
15' Storm Drain
Easment
New Driveway
All Turns
4' STEP
HEALTH CLUB
58'
+29.0
+33.0
36,000S.F.
10'
1 3 2 '
1 1 0 '
5 '
6 8 '
5 6 '
+39.0
2
3
2
.
7
6
'
4 6 .4 2 '
Apartment Elevator/stairs to
parking and apartments above
LOBBY
2 2 0 '
S
5
1
°
4
3
'
2
0
"
E
Apartments above
shown dotted +/- 37' setback
at residential level
NOT A
PART
Ramp Up
to Parking
17
25
72 CARS
Colored Asphalt(typ)
(.29 SRI Min)
48
Bike Rack
(4 bikes typ)
6
54 CARS
Pedestrian
Connection
Noise Contour
Residential Setback
18
Pedestrian
Connection
10
+36.0
Pedestrian
Connection
38
49
42
47
328 CARS
8
+39.5
+40.0
+36.0
SLOPE
Ramp Up
to Parking
Transformer
S 31°24'08" E
82.92'
8'6" x 18'0" stalls
with 25'0" aisles (typ)
No compacts allowed
7,000 SF Retail
7,000 SF Office
N 58°35'52" E
124.99'
7,500 SF Retail
7,500 SF Office
7,500 SF Retail7,500 SF Office
Loading
Area
14
25'0"
419.97'
N 29°31'37" W
488.12'
N60°15'08"E
4.90'
= 89°46'45"
R = 25.00'
L = 39.17'
23
+36.0
+34.0 +34.0
+33.0BLDG BTWO STORY
NO
PA
R
K
I
N
G
NO
PA
R
K
I
N
G
+34.5'
NO
PA
R
K
I
N
G
N58°35'52"E
+46.0
+36.5
+49.0
EWAY
T OUT
Refuse
BLDG CTWO STORY
Stairs
+41.0
49
+38.0
+40.0'
130.53'
+34.5'
S 31°24'08" E
Loading
+29.0
Transformer
Cart
Storage
+53.0
6
+48.0
NOT A
PART
E L C A M I N O R E A L
MAJOR 2
+35.0
+43.0
S58°35'52"W
BLDG E
15' Setback
from curb
+36.0
124.50'
Bike Rack
(4 bikes typ)
+29.0
BLDG DTWO STORY
Loading
Colored Asphalt(typ)
(.29 SRI Min)
+30.0
200'0"
82.92'
NOT A
PART
+50.0
Compactor
289'4'
160' 0"
+34.0'
+39.0
Bike Rack
(4 bikes typ)
16
NO
PA
R
K
I
N
G
NO
PA
R
K
I
N
G
10'0"
New Driveway
Right In/Right Out
10% DRIVEWAY DOWN +39.0
+47.0
22'0"
Stairs
Returnables
+39.5
65'
BLDG ATWO STORY
Transformer
+41.0
+39.0
+37.0
+47.0
+34.0
+35.0
+39.0
+40.0
+33.0
+31.0
+44.0
+51.0
+32.0
+45.0
+42.0'
+50.0
+42.0
CVSTWO STORY
+41.0'
+52.0
12
LOBBY
5 0 '
+33.560'
+34.0
18
+36.0
95'
Retaining wall
6
Cart
Storage
OF FLOOD ZONE LIMITS
40'
Loading Area
Transformer
17
15' Storm Drain
Easment
Existing
Drivew
Refuse
(see Sht CB)
15' Storm Drain
Easment
APPROXIMATE LOCATION
1
5
'
1
5
'
Decorative Pavers(typ)
(See Sht. CB)
Decorative lights &
planter pots(typ)
See Sht. CB
+33.5
Cart
Storage
Outdoor Seating
Loading Area Refuse
(see Sht CB)
Loading Area
H U N T I N G T O N A V E N U E
Bike Rack
(4 bikes typ)
+34.5
Bike Rack
(4 bikes typ)
Cart Storage
Retaining wall along Property line
34
S 58°35'52" W
134.99'
W
30,000 S.F.
57,770 S.F.
Type IB construction
SAFEWAY
7,500 SF Retail
7,500 SF Office
+40.0
12,900 SF
5,827 SF Office
9'0" x 18'0" stalls
with 25'0" aisles (typ)
No compacts allowed
Cart
Storage
+35.5'
+36.5
EXISTINGDRIVEWAY
Apartment Elevator/stairs to
parking and apartments above
Apartment Elevator/stairs toparking and apartments above
Ramp Up
to Parking +40.0
Apartment Elevator/stairs to
parking and apartments above
Gateway Entry
S 31°24'08" E
Existing Driveway
Right In/Right Out
9
71 CARS
Pedestrian
connection
74 cars
Pedestrian
connection
12 4
17
4
9
21,000 S.F.
85'
Safeway Elevator to
upper parking level only Safeway Elevator toupper parking level only
Apartment Elevator/stairs to
parking and apartments above
LOBBYLOBBY
15
20' high parking
luminaire (typ)
See Sht. CB
Transformer
ge:
amino = 520'
Camino = 263'
= 263'
Note:
Spruce Avenue Building Frontage = 687'
Transparent frontage = 395' = 66% of building
Sidewalk along street (typ)
along street (typ)
160'
1
5
'
N 3 8 °1 6 '4 0 "E
13
5% SLOPE
15' setback
S P R U C E A V E N U E
20' high parking
luminaire (typ)
See Sht. CB
+26.0
+27.0
+25.0
+28.0
+33.5
+32.5
13
Ramp
15' Storm Drain
Easment
New Driveway
All Turns
4' STEP
HEALTH CLUB
58'
+29.0
+33.0
36,000S.F.
10'
1 3 2 '
1 1 0 '
5 '
6 8 '
5 6 '
+39.0
2
3
2
.
7
6
'
4 6 .4 2 '
Apartment Elevator/stairs to
parking and apartments above
LOBBY
2 2 0 '
S
5
1
°
4
3
'
2
0
"
E
Apartments above
shown dotted +/- 37' setback
at residential level
NOT A
PART
Ramp Up
to Parking
17
25
72 CARS
Colored Asphalt(typ)
(.29 SRI Min)
48
Bike Rack
(4 bikes typ)
6
54 CARS
Pedestrian
Connection
Noise Contour
Residential Setback
18
Pedestrian
Connection
10
+36.0
Pedestrian
Connection
38
49
42
47
328 CARS
8
+39.5
+40.0
+36.0
SLOPE
Ramp Up
to Parking
Transformer
S 31°24'08" E
82.92'
8'6" x 18'0" stalls
with 25'0" aisles (typ)
No compacts allowed
7,000 SF Retail
7,000 SF Office
N 58°35'52" E
124.99'
7,500 SF Retail
7,500 SF Office
7,500 SF Retail7,500 SF Office
Loading
Area
14
25'0"
419.97'
N 29°31'37" W
488.12'
N60°15'08"E
4.90'
= 89°46'45"
R = 25.00'
L = 39.17'
23
+36.0
+34.0 +34.0
+33.0BLDG BTWO STORY
NO
PA
R
K
I
N
G
NO
PA
R
K
I
N
G
+34.5'
NO
PA
R
K
I
N
G
N58°35'52"E
+46.0
+36.5
+49.0
EWAY
T OUT
Refuse
BLDG CTWO STORY
Stairs
+41.0
49
+38.0
+40.0'
130.53'
+34.5'
S 31°24'08" E
Loading
+29.0
Transformer
Cart
Storage
+53.0
6
+48.0
NOT A
PART
E L C A M I N O R E A L
MAJOR 2
+35.0
+43.0
S58°35'52"W
BLDG E
15' Setback
from curb
+36.0
124.50'
Bike Rack
(4 bikes typ)
+29.0
BLDG DTWO STORY
Loading
Colored Asphalt(typ)
(.29 SRI Min)
+30.0
200'0"
82.92'
NOT A
PART
+50.0
Compactor
289'4'
160' 0"
+34.0'
+39.0
Bike Rack
(4 bikes typ)
16
NO
PA
R
K
I
N
G
NO
PA
R
K
I
N
G
10'0"
New Driveway
Right In/Right Out
10% DRIVEWAY DOWN +39.0
+47.0
22'0"
Stairs
Returnables
+39.5
65'
BLDG ATWO STORY
Transformer
+41.0
+39.0
+37.0
+47.0
+34.0
+35.0
+39.0
+40.0
+33.0
+31.0
+44.0
+51.0
+32.0
+45.0
+42.0'
+50.0
+42.0
CVSTWO STORY
+41.0'
+52.0
12
LOBBY
5 0 '
+33.560'
+34.0
18
+36.0
95'
Retaining wall
6
Cart
Storage
OF FLOOD ZONE LIMITS
40'
Loading Area
Transformer
17
15' Storm Drain
Easment
Existin
Drivew
Refuse
(see Sht CB)
15' Storm Drain
Easment
APPROXIMATE LOCATION
1
5
'
1
5
'
Decorative Pavers(typ)
(See Sht. CB)
Decorative lights &
planter pots(typ)
See Sht. CB
+33.5
Cart
Storage
Outdoor Seating
Loading Area Refuse
(see Sht CB)
Loading Area
H U N T I N G T O N A V E N U E
Bike Rack
(4 bikes typ)
+34.5
Bike Rack
(4 bikes typ)
Cart Storage
Retaining wall along Property line
34
S 58°35'52" W
134.99'
W
30,000 S.F.
57,770 S.F.
Type IB construction
SAFEWAY
7,500 SF Retail
7,500 SF Office
+40.0
12,900 SF
5,827 SF Office
9'0" x 18'0" stalls
with 25'0" aisles (typ)
No compacts allowed
Cart
Storage
+35.5'
+36.5
EXISTINGDRIVEWAY
Apartment Elevator/stairs toparking and apartments above
Apartment Elevator/stairs toparking and apartments above
Ramp Up
to Parking +40.0
Apartment Elevator/stairs to
parking and apartments above
Gateway Entry
S 31°24'08" E
Existing Driveway
Right In/Right Out
9
71 CARS
Pedestrian
connection
74 cars
Pedestrian
connection
12 4
17
4
9
21,000 S.F.
85'
Safeway Elevator to
upper parking level only Safeway Elevator to
upper parking level only
Apartment Elevator/stairs to
parking and apartments above
LOBBYLOBBY
15
20' high parking
luminaire (typ)
See Sht. CB
Transformer
ge:
amino = 520'
Camino = 263'
= 263'
Note:
Spruce Avenue Building Frontage = 687'
Transparent frontage = 395' = 66% of building
Sidewalk along street (typ)
along street (typ)
160'
1
5
'
N 3 8 °1 6 '4 0 "E
13
5% SLOPE
15' setback
S P R U C E A V E N U E
20' high parking
luminaire (typ)
See Sht. CB
+26.0
+27.0
+25.0
+28.0
+33.5
+32.5
13
Ramp
15' Storm Drain
Easment
New Driveway
All Turns
4' STEP
HEALTH CLUB
58'
+29.0
+33.0
36,000S.F.
10'
1 3 2 '
1 1 0 '
5 '
6 8 '
5 6 '
+39.0
2
3
2
.
7
6
'
4 6 .4 2 '
Apartment Elevator/stairs to
parking and apartments above
LOBBY
2 2 0 '
S
5
1
°
4
3
'
2
0
"
E
Apartments above
shown dotted +/- 37' setback
at residential level
NOT A
PART
Ramp Up
to Parking
17
25
72 CARS
Colored Asphalt(typ)
(.29 SRI Min)
48
Bike Rack
(4 bikes typ)
6
54 CARS
Pedestrian
Connection
Noise Contour
Residential Setback
18
Pedestrian
Connection
10
+36.0
Pedestrian
Connection
5
Ramp Dn
9
64 cars
10
9'x18' stalls with
25' 0" aisle
5
12
5
12
6
10
+18.0' Above
Finish Floor
8
Ramp Dn
27
4
12% Ramp
Dn
9
8
18 17 9
10
9
14
15
10
184 cars
Cart Storage
Mechanical
Area
16
17
Mechanical
Area
66 cars
Ramp up
24
18
6
Ramp Dn
21
8
Cart Storage
+22.0' Above
Finish Floor
Ramp Dn
+15.0' Above
Finish Floor
6
21
6
17
9
12
9
12
Elevator OnlyElevator Only Elevators/Stairs
78 cars
10
52 cars
Ramp up
9 -12'
10
12
19
6
8
21
21
14
14
3
70 cars
Ramp up
4
6
9
85 cars
63 Two Bdrm units (1.8 cars/unit)
1375 Locust Street, #202, Walnut Creek, CA 94596
925.930.9690 930.9039 fax
JOHNSON
LYMAN
ARCHITECTS
1375 Locust Street, #202, Walnut Creek, CA 94596
925.930.9690 930.9039 fax
Ground Level
Required area = 21,150 sf (141 units@150sf/unit)
78 One Bdrm units (1.5 cars/unit)
Project Summary
Sub Total
Majors 1,2,3
Health Club
Shops A,B,C,D,E (1st Level)
Major 3 & Shops A,B,C,D (2nd Level)
AreaBuilding
Retail/Office
P2
100,670 sf
36,000 sf
50,500 sf
35,327 sf
222,497 sf
New Construction
1" = 80' Stores E & parking
Phase 2
Apartments (141 units on 3 Levels)
62,400 sf
69,300 sf
77,538 sf
21,600 sf
453,335 sf
47 Units/Level: (26 One Bdrm & 21 Two Bedroom)
Total Units = 141 Units(78 One Bdrm & 63 Two Bdrm)
.72
Incorporate Parking under Building
E with Parking and 141 Apartments over
Stores E and Health Club
26 One Bdrm @ 800 sf x 3 levels
21 Two Bdrm @1,100 sfx 3 levels
Corridor/Common area x 3 levels
Podium Plaza area
3rd, 4th & 5th Levels
Sub Total
(444 cars - 2nd Level Parking Structure)
260 Parking stalls over Stores E & Health Club
2nd Level
230,838 sf
155 Parking stalls under Stores E & Parking Structure
Basement Level
71 cars/level - Total Parking 213 cars
117 cars
1,220 cars
114 cars
Total cars provided
Bldg Area w/out parking structure = 453,335 sf
Total Building Area w/out
parking structure
Usable Open space for Residential
8.2.13
(155 cars - Basement Parking Structure)
FAR:
(213 cars - 3rd, 4th, 5th Level Parking Structure)
Parking
Retail/Office 222,497 sf (225 sf/car) = 989 cars
Total cars required
Total Bike stalls provided 20 Bikes
Active Use FAR:
14.5 acres (631,700 sf)Site Area
F.A.R.
Active uses(Grd Lvl uses-no office) = 187,170 sf
.30
Provided area =21,600 sf (outdoor courtyard)
(557 cars - Ground Level)
1,369 cars
Centennial Village
A Transit Oriented Development South San Francisco
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
FF
F
F
F
F
Outdoor cooking Area
Corridor
Co
r
r
i
d
o
r
9
Ramp Dn
10
8
+15.0' Above
Finish Floor
+29.0' Above
Finish Floor71 cars
9
9
17
Ramp up
Ramp Dn
9
Outdoor cooking Area
84'
Elevators/Stairs
C o r r i d o r
8,600 sf
Courtyard
45'
Courtyard
Courtyard
10,400 sf
5,100 sf
65'
38
49
42
47
328 CARS
8
+39.5
+40.0
+36.0
SLOPE
Ramp Upto Parking
Transformer
S 31°24'08" E
82.92'
8'6" x 18'0" stallswith 25'0" aisles (typ)No compacts allowed
7,000 SF Retail7,000 SF Office
N 58°35'52" E
124.99'
7,500 SF Retail7,500 SF Office
7,500 SF Retail7,500 SF Office
LoadingArea
14
25'0"
419.97'
N 29°31'37" W
488.12'
N60°15'08"E
4.90'
= 89°46'45"
R = 25.00'
L = 39.17'
23
+36.0
+34.0 +34.0
+33.0BLDG BTWO STORY
NO
PAR
K
I
N
G
NO
PAR
K
I
N
G
+34.5'
NO
PAR
K
I
N
G
N58°35'52"E
+46.0
+36.5
+49.0
EWAYT OUT
Refuse
BLDG CTWO STORY
Stairs
+41.0
49
+38.0
+40.0'
130.53'
+34.5'
S 31°24'08" E
Loading
+29.0
Transformer
CartStorage
+53.0
6
+48.0
NOT A
PART
E L C A M I N O R E A L
MAJOR 2
+35.0
+43.0
S58°35'52"W
BLDG E
15' Setbackfrom curb
+36.0
124.50'
Bike Rack(4 bikes typ)
+29.0
BLDG DTWO STORY
Loading
Colored Asphalt(typ)(.29 SRI Min)
+30.0
200'0"
82.92'
NOT APART
+50.0
Compactor
289'4'
160' 0"
+34.0'
+39.0
Bike Rack(4 bikes typ)
16
NO
PAR
K
I
N
G
NO
PAR
K
I
N
G
10'0"
New DrivewayRight In/Right Out
10% DRIVEWAY DOWN +39.0
+47.0
22'0"
Stairs
Returnables
+39.5
65'
BLDG ATWO STORY
Transformer
+41.0
+39.0
+37.0
+47.0
+34.0
+35.0
+39.0
+40.0
+33.0
+31.0
+44.0
+51.0
+32.0
+45.0
+42.0'
+50.0
+42.0
CVSTWO STORY
+41.0'
+52.0
12
LOBBY
5 0'
+33.560'
+34.0
18
+36.0
95'
Retaining wall
6
CartStorage
OF FLOOD ZONE LIMITS
40'
Loading Area
Transformer
17
15' Storm DrainEasment
ExistinDrivew
Refuse(see Sht CB)
15' Storm DrainEasment
APPROXIMATE LOCATION
1
5'
15'
Decorative Pavers(typ)(See Sht. CB)
Decorative lights &planter pots(typ)See Sht. CB
+33.5
CartStorage
Outdoor Seating
Loading Area Refuse(see Sht CB)
Loading Area
H U N T I N G T O N A V E N U E
Bike Rack(4 bikes typ)
+34.5
Bike Rack(4 bikes typ)
Cart Storage
Retaining wall along Property line
34
S 58°35'52" W
134.99'
W
30,000 S.F.
57,770 S.F.
Type IB construction
SAFEWAY
7,500 SF Retail7,500 SF Office
+40.0
12,900 SF5,827 SF Office
9'0" x 18'0" stallswith 25'0" aisles (typ)No compacts allowed
CartStorage
+35.5'
+36.5
EXISTINGDRIVEWAY
Apartment Elevator/stairs toparking and apartments above
Apartment Elevator/stairs toparking and apartments above
Ramp Upto Parking +40.0
Apartment Elevator/stairs toparking and apartments above
Gateway Entry
S 31°24'08" E
Existing DrivewayRight In/Right Out
9
71 CARS
Pedestrianconnection
74 cars
Pedestrianconnection
12 4
17
4
9
21,000 S.F.
85'
Safeway Elevator toupper parking level only Safeway Elevator toupper parking level only
Apartment Elevator/stairs toparking and apartments above
LOBBYLOBBY
15
20' high parkingluminaire (typ)See Sht. CB
Transformer
ge:amino = 520'Camino = 263'
= 263'
Note:Spruce Avenue Building Frontage = 687'Transparent frontage = 395' = 66% of building
Sidewalk along street (typ)
along street (typ)
160'
15'
N 3 8°16 '4 0 "E
13
5% SLOPE
15' setback
S P R U C E A V E N U E
20' high parkingluminaire (typ)See Sht. CB
+26.0
+27.0
+25.0
+28.0
+33.5
+32.5
13
Ramp
15' Storm DrainEasment
New DrivewayAll Turns
4' STEP
HEALTH CLUB
58'
+29.0
+33.0
36,000S.F.
10'
1 3 2'
1 10'
5'
68'
5 6'
+39.0
23
2
.7
6'
46.42'
Apartment Elevator/stairs toparking and apartments above
LOBBY
2 20'
S
5
1
°
43'2
0
"
E
Apartments aboveshown dotted +/- 37' setbackat residential level
NOT A
PART
Ramp Upto Parking
17
25
72 CARS
Colored Asphalt(typ)(.29 SRI Min)
48
Bike Rack(4 bikes typ)6
54 CARS
PedestrianConnection
Noise ContourResidential Setback
18
PedestrianConnection
10
+36.0PedestrianConnection
38
49
42
47
328 CARS
8
+39.5
+40.0
+36.0
SLOPE
Ramp Upto Parking
Transformer
S 31°24'08" E
82.92'
8'6" x 18'0" stallswith 25'0" aisles (typ)No compacts allowed
7,000 SF Retail7,000 SF Office
N 58°35'52" E
124.99'
7,500 SF Retail7,500 SF Office
7,500 SF Retail7,500 SF Office
LoadingArea
14
25'0"
419.97'
N 29°31'37" W
488.12'
N60°15'08"E
4.90'
= 89°46'45"
R = 25.00'
L = 39.17'
23
+36.0
+34.0 +34.0
+33.0BLDG BTWO STORY
NO
PAR
K
I
N
G
NO
PAR
K
I
N
G
+34.5'
NO
PAR
K
I
N
G
N58°35'52"E
+46.0
+36.5
+49.0
EWAY
T OUT
Refuse
BLDG CTWO STORY
Stairs
+41.0
49
+38.0
+40.0'
130.53'
+34.5'
S 31°24'08" E
Loading
+29.0
Transformer
CartStorage
+53.0
6
+48.0
NOT A
PART
E L C A M I N O R E A L
MAJOR 2
+35.0
+43.0
S58°35'52"W
BLDG E
15' Setbackfrom curb
+36.0
124.50'
Bike Rack(4 bikes typ)
+29.0
BLDG DTWO STORY
Loading
Colored Asphalt(typ)(.29 SRI Min)
+30.0
200'0"
82.92'
NOT APART
+50.0
Compactor
289'4'
160' 0"
+34.0'
+39.0
Bike Rack(4 bikes typ)
16
NO
PARK
I
N
G
NO
PAR
K
I
N
G
10'0"
New DrivewayRight In/Right Out
10% DRIVEWAY DOWN +39.0
+47.0
22'0"
Stairs
Returnables
+39.5
65'
BLDG ATWO STORY
Transformer
+41.0
+39.0
+37.0
+47.0
+34.0
+35.0
+39.0
+40.0
+33.0
+31.0
+44.0
+51.0
+32.0
+45.0
+42.0'
+50.0
+42.0
CVSTWO STORY
+41.0'
+52.0
12
LOBBY
5 0'
+33.560'
+34.0
18
+36.0
95'
Retaining wall
6
CartStorage
OF FLOOD ZONE LIMITS
40'
Loading Area
Transformer
17
15' Storm DrainEasment
ExistinDrivew
Refuse(see Sht CB)
15' Storm DrainEasment
APPROXIMATE LOCATION
1
5'
15'
Decorative Pavers(typ)(See Sht. CB)
Decorative lights &planter pots(typ)See Sht. CB
+33.5
CartStorage
Outdoor Seating
Loading Area Refuse(see Sht CB)
Loading Area
H U N T I N G T O N A V E N U E
Bike Rack(4 bikes typ)
+34.5
Bike Rack(4 bikes typ)
Cart Storage
Retaining wall along Property line
34
S 58°35'52" W
134.99'
W
30,000 S.F.
57,770 S.F.
Type IB construction
SAFEWAY
7,500 SF Retail7,500 SF Office
+40.0
12,900 SF5,827 SF Office
9'0" x 18'0" stallswith 25'0" aisles (typ)No compacts allowed
CartStorage
+35.5'
+36.5
EXISTINGDRIVEWAY
Apartment Elevator/stairs toparking and apartments above
Apartment Elevator/stairs toparking and apartments above
Ramp Upto Parking +40.0
Apartment Elevator/stairs toparking and apartments above
Gateway Entry
S 31°24'08" E
Existing DrivewayRight In/Right Out
9
71 CARS
Pedestrianconnection
74 cars
Pedestrianconnection
12 4
17
4
9
21,000 S.F.
85'
Safeway Elevator toupper parking level only Safeway Elevator toupper parking level only
Apartment Elevator/stairs toparking and apartments above
LOBBYLOBBY
15
20' high parkingluminaire (typ)See Sht. CB
Transformer
ge:amino = 520'Camino = 263'
= 263'
Note:Spruce Avenue Building Frontage = 687'Transparent frontage = 395' = 66% of building
Sidewalk along street (typ)
along street (typ)
160'
15'
N 3 8 °16'4 0 "E
13
5% SLOPE
15' setback
S P R U C E A V E N U E
20' high parkingluminaire (typ)See Sht. CB
+26.0
+27.0
+25.0
+28.0
+33.5
+32.5
13
Ramp
15' Storm DrainEasment
New DrivewayAll Turns
4' STEP
HEALTH CLUB
58'
+29.0
+33.0
36,000S.F.
10'
1 3 2'
11 0'
5'
68'
5 6'
+39.0
23
2
.7
6'
46.4 2'
Apartment Elevator/stairs toparking and apartments above
LOBBY
2 2 0'
S
5
1°43'2
0
"E
Apartments aboveshown dotted +/- 37' setbackat residential level
NOT A
PART
Ramp Upto Parking
17
25
72 CARS
Colored Asphalt(typ)(.29 SRI Min)
48
Bike Rack(4 bikes typ)6
54 CARS
PedestrianConnection
Noise ContourResidential Setback
18
PedestrianConnection
10
+36.0PedestrianConnection
38
49
42
47
328 CARS
8
+39.5
+40.0
+36.0
SLOPE
Ramp Upto Parking
Transformer
S 31°24'08" E
82.92'
8'6" x 18'0" stallswith 25'0" aisles (typ)No compacts allowed
7,000 SF Retail7,000 SF Office
N 58°35'52" E
124.99'
7,500 SF Retail7,500 SF Office
7,500 SF Retail7,500 SF Office
LoadingArea
14
25'0"
419.97'
N 29°31'37" W
488.12'
N60°15'08"E
4.90'
= 89°46'45"
R = 25.00'
L = 39.17'
23
+36.0
+34.0 +34.0
+33.0BLDG BTWO STORY
NO
PAR
K
I
N
G
NO
PAR
K
I
N
G
+34.5'
NO
PAR
K
I
N
G
N58°35'52"E
+46.0
+36.5
+49.0
EWAY
T OUT
Refuse
BLDG CTWO STORY
Stairs
+41.0
49
+38.0
+40.0'
130.53'
+34.5'
S 31°24'08" E
Loading
+29.0
Transformer
CartStorage
+53.0
6
+48.0
NOT A
PART
E L C A M I N O R E A L
MAJOR 2
+35.0
+43.0
S58°35'52"W
BLDG E
15' Setbackfrom curb
+36.0
124.50'
Bike Rack(4 bikes typ)
+29.0
BLDG DTWO STORY
Loading
Colored Asphalt(typ)(.29 SRI Min)
+30.0
200'0"
82.92'
NOT A
PART
+50.0
Compactor
289'4'
160' 0"
+34.0'
+39.0
Bike Rack(4 bikes typ)
16
NO
PAR
K
I
N
G
NO
PAR
K
I
N
G
10'0"
New DrivewayRight In/Right Out
10% DRIVEWAY DOWN +39.0
+47.0
22'0"
Stairs
Returnables
+39.5
65'
BLDG ATWO STORY
Transformer
+41.0
+39.0
+37.0
+47.0
+34.0
+35.0
+39.0
+40.0
+33.0
+31.0
+44.0
+51.0
+32.0
+45.0
+42.0'
+50.0
+42.0
CVSTWO STORY
+41.0'
+52.0
12
LOBBY
5 0'
+33.560'
+34.0
18
+36.0
95'
Retaining wall
6
CartStorage
OF FLOOD ZONE LIMITS
40'
Loading Area
Transformer
17
15' Storm DrainEasment
ExistinDrivew
Refuse(see Sht CB)
15' Storm DrainEasment
APPROXIMATE LOCATION
15'
1
5'
Decorative Pavers(typ)(See Sht. CB)
Decorative lights &planter pots(typ)See Sht. CB
+33.5
CartStorage
Outdoor Seating
Loading Area Refuse(see Sht CB)
Loading Area
H U N T I N G T O N A V E N U E
Bike Rack(4 bikes typ)
+34.5
Bike Rack(4 bikes typ)
Cart Storage
Retaining wall along Property line
34
S 58°35'52" W
134.99'
W
30,000 S.F.
57,770 S.F.
Type IB construction
SAFEWAY
7,500 SF Retail7,500 SF Office
+40.0
12,900 SF5,827 SF Office
9'0" x 18'0" stallswith 25'0" aisles (typ)No compacts allowed
CartStorage
+35.5'
+36.5
EXISTINGDRIVEWAY
Apartment Elevator/stairs toparking and apartments above
Apartment Elevator/stairs toparking and apartments above
Ramp Upto Parking +40.0
Apartment Elevator/stairs toparking and apartments above
Gateway Entry
S 31°24'08" E
Existing DrivewayRight In/Right Out
9
71 CARS
Pedestrianconnection
74 cars
Pedestrianconnection
12 4
17
4
9
21,000 S.F.
85'
Safeway Elevator toupper parking level only Safeway Elevator toupper parking level only Apartment Elevator/stairs toparking and apartments above
LOBBYLOBBY
15
20' high parkingluminaire (typ)See Sht. CB
Transformer
ge:amino = 520'Camino = 263'
= 263'
Note:Spruce Avenue Building Frontage = 687'Transparent frontage = 395' = 66% of building
Sidewalk along street (typ)
along street (typ)
160'
15'
N 3 8°16 '4 0 "E
13
5% SLOPE
15' setback
S P R U C E A V E N U E
20' high parkingluminaire (typ)See Sht. CB
+26.0
+27.0
+25.0
+28.0
+33.5
+32.5
13
Ramp
15' Storm DrainEasment
New DrivewayAll Turns
4' STEP
HEALTH CLUB
58'
+29.0
+33.0
36,000S.F.
10'
1 3 2'
1 10'
5'
68'
5 6'
+39.0
2
3
2.
7
6'
46.42'
Apartment Elevator/stairs toparking and apartments above
LOBBY
2 20'
S5
1
°4
3'2
0"E
Apartments aboveshown dotted +/- 37' setbackat residential level
NOT APART
Ramp Upto Parking
17
25
72 CARS
Colored Asphalt(typ)(.29 SRI Min)
48
Bike Rack(4 bikes typ)6
54 CARS
PedestrianConnection
Noise ContourResidential Setback
18
PedestrianConnection
10
+36.0PedestrianConnection
5
Ramp Dn
9
64 cars
10
9'x18' stalls with
25' 0" aisle
5
12
5
12
6
10
+18.0' AboveFinish Floor
8
Ramp Dn
27
4
12% Ramp
Dn
9
8
18 17 9
10
9
14
15
10
184 cars
Cart Storage
MechanicalArea
16
17
Mechanical
Area
66 cars
Ramp up
24
18
6
Ramp Dn
21
8
Cart Storage
+22.0' Above
Finish Floor
Ramp Dn
+15.0' Above
Finish Floor
6
21
6
17
9
12
9
12
Elevator OnlyElevator Only Elevators/Stairs
78 cars
10
52 cars
1375 Locust Street, #202, Walnut Creek, CA 94596
925.930.9690 930.9039 fax
JOHNSON
LYMAN
ARCHITECTS
1375 Locust Street, #202, Walnut Creek, CA 94596
925.930.9690 930.9039 fax
2nd Level 62,400 sf
69,300 sf
77,538 sf
21,600 sf
205,835 sf
227 cars
26 One Bdrm @ 800 sf x 3 levels
21 Two Bdrm @1,100 sfx 3 levels
Corridor/Common area x 3 levels
Podium Plaza area
Phase 3
659,170 sf
230,838 sf
Provided area =47,735 sf (outdoor courtyard)
21 One Bdrm @ 800 sf x 3 levels
21 Two Bdrm @1,100 sfx 3 levels
Corridor/Common area x 3 levels
Podium Plaza area
Required area = 40,050 sf (267 units@150sf/unit)
Bldg Area w/out parking structure = 659,170 sf
1.04
8.2.13
Project Summary
Sub Total
Majors 1,2,3
Health Club
Shops A,B,C,D,E (1st Level)
Major 3 & Shops A,B,C,D (2nd Level)
AreaBuilding
Retail/Office
Sub Total
3rd, 4th & 5th Levels Unchanged
New Construction
Ground Level
Unchanged
1" = 80'
100,670 sf
36,000 sf
50,500 sf
35,327 sf
222,497 sf
126 Two Bdrm units (1.8 cars/unit)
P3
50,400 sf
69,300 sf
60,000 sf
26,135 sf
141 One Bdrm units (1.5 cars/unit)212 cars
1329 cars
42 Units/Level: (21 One Bdrm & 21 Two Bedroom)
Total Units = 126 Units(63 One Bdrm & 63 Two Bdrm)
Incorporate 126 Apartments on
Three Levels over Parking over
Safeway & Major 2
Apartments (126 units on 3 Levels)
Apartments (141 units on 3 Levels)
Total cars required
Total Building Area w/out
parking structure
FAR:
Total cars provided
Active Use FAR:
14.5 acres (631,700 sf)Site Area
F.A.R.
Parking
Usable Open space for Residential
Sub Total
.30
Active uses(Grd Lvl uses-no office) = 187,170 sf
Retail/Office 222,497 sf (225 sf/car) = 989 cars
(213 cars - 3rd, 4th, 5th Level Parking Structure)
20 BikesTotal Bike stalls provided
(444 cars - 2nd Level Parking Structure)
(557 cars - Ground Level)
(155 cars - Basement Parking)1,369 cars
Centennial Village
A Transit Oriented Development South San Francisco
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F F
F
F
F
F F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F F
F F F
F
F
F
FFF
FF
F
F F
F F F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
FF
F
F
F
F
CommonArea
Outdoor cooking Area
Corridor
Co
r
r
i
d
o
r
9
Ramp Dn
Courtyard
CommonArea
10
8
+15.0' Above
Finish Floor
+29.0' Above
Finish Floor71 cars
9
9
17
Ramp up
Ramp Dn
9
Outdoor cooking Area
84'
Elevators/Stairs
C o rrid or
8,600 sf
Noise ContourResidential Setback
73'
Courtyard
45'
Courtyard
Courtyard
26,135 sf
10,400 sf
5,100 sf
65'
View from El Camino Real looking east
JOHNSON
LYMAN
ARCHITECTS
1375 Locust Street, #202, Walnut Creek, CA 94596
925.930.9690 930.9039 fax
View from El Camino Real looking southeast View from Intersection looking southeast
View from El Camino Real looking northeastView from El Camino Real looking northeast
Existing
Photos PH1
8.1.13
Centennial Village
A Transit Oriented Development South San Francisco