Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-01-28 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. RICHARD A. GARBARINO Mayor MARK ADDIEGO Vice Mayor KARYL MATSUMOTO Councilwoman PRADEEP GUPTA Councilman LIZA NORMANDY Councilwoman FRANK RISSO City Treasurer KRISTA MARTINELLI City Clerk MIKE FUTRELL City Manager STEVEN T. MATTAS 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, JANUARY 28, 2015 7:00 P.M. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 28, 2015 AGENDA PAGE 2 CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AGENDA REVIEW PRESENTATIONS  Sutro Biopharma Inc. Presentation. (Alex Greenwood, ECD Director)  Homeless Camps at Gateway and East Grand. (Tom Carney, Safety Inspector).  Presentation of new employees. (Mich Mercado, Human Resources Manager). 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 approving the Minutes of meetings of November 12, 2014, December 10, 2014 and January 14, 2015. 2. Motion confirming payment registers for January 28, 2015. 3. Motion to waive reading and adopt an ordinance amending Chapter 8.50 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code regarding the regulating of smoking on Grand Avenue in the Downtown Area. 4. Motion to waive reading and adopt an ordinance making Modification to the South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 6.48 (Special Events) to clarify Event Permit Regulations and to Chapter 20.340 (Temporary Uses) to revise regulations and permitting for Special Events and Temporary Uses, Citywide. (Tony Rozzi, Senior Planner). 5. Resolution approving the amended Citizen and Advisory Board and Commission Handbook, and approving the use of Rosenberg Rules of Order for the Conduct of Meetings for Advisory Boards, Commissions and Committees. (Jim Steele, Finance Director). REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 28, 2015 AGENDA PAGE 3 6. Resolution approving a Memorandum of Agreement with the City and County of San Francisco for the Regional Groundwater Storage & Recovery Project; and adopting responsible agency findings. Fiscal Impact: None. (Sam Bautista, Principal Engineer). 7. Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute Program Supplemental Agreement No. 024-N with the State of California, for the 2014 Junipero Serra Boulevard and King Drive Intersection Improvements Project. Fiscal Impact: None. (Lawrence Henriquez, Associate Civil Engineer). 8. Resolution approving a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) between the San Mateo County Transportation Authority (“TA”) and the Cities of San Bruno and South San Francisco (“City”) for the implementation of the Skyline Boulevard (State Route 35) Widening Project and authorizing the City Manager to execute the MOU on behalf of the City. Fiscal Impact: None. (Lawrence Henriquez, Associate Civil Engineer). 9. Resolution approving a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) between the San Mateo County Transportation Authority (“TA”) and the Cities of San Bruno and South San Francisco (“City”) for the implementation of the I-380 Congestion Relief Project and authorizing the City Manager to execute the MOU on behalf of the City. Fiscal Impact: None. (Lawrence Henriquez, Associate Civil Engineer). 10. Resolution amending the salary schedule effective January 28, 2015, by assigning a salary range for the Communications Director Job classification in the executive management bargaining unit. (Mich Mercado, Human Resources Manager). ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 11. Acceptance of a donation from Genentech of a Heart Sculpture to be installed at the South San Francisco Conference Center. (Sharon Ranals, Parks and Recreation Director). 12. Resolution amending consulting services agreement with Gates + Associates of San Ramon, California, for additional services related to the Parks and Recreation Master Plan in an additional amount not to exceed $32,600 and amending the Parks and Recreation Department 2014-15 Operating Budget. (Sharon Ranals, Parks and Recreation Director). 13. Resolution executing a funding agreement in the amount of $458,540 with the San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) for the final design of the Grand Boulevard Initiative Complete Streets Project segment extending from Kaiser Way to McLellan Drive along El Camino Real. (Eric Evans, Associate Civil Engineer). 14. Resolution authorizing participation in and support for a County-Wide study of the feasibility of Community Choice aggregation. (Jim Steele, Finance Director). REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 28, 2015 AGENDA PAGE 4 PUBLIC HEARING 15. Downtown Station Area Specific Plan & EIR City of South San Francisco/Owner/Applicant P11-0097: EIR11-0003, GPA11-0003, RZ11-0004, ZA11-0008, SP14-0001 Consideration of the Planning Commission’s recommendation for approval of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan and certification of the Environmental Impact Report (Draft and Final), and the related General Plan Amendments, Zoning Map and Text Amendments to allow and establish regulations for transit oriented, mixed-use development in the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan District Area in accordance with South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapters 20.460, 20.530, 20.540, and 20.550. (Alex Greenwood, ECD Director). ITEMS FROM COUNCIL – COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 16. Council of Cities City Selection Committee appointments. ADJOURNMENT Staff Report Subject: Special Event Pennits / Temporary Uses Municipal Code Revisions Date: January 28,2015 Page 2 of2 By: \\~ {\\cJ Jeff Azzopardi Police Chief MFIPO/SM/LD/JN AG/SK/bm/tr ATTACHMENT: 1. Ordinance ORDINANCE NO. __ _ CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO STATE OF CALIFORNIA AN ORDINANCE MAKING MODIFICATIONS TO THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 6.48 (SPECIAL EVENTS) TO CLARIFY EVENT PERMIT REGULA nONS AND TO CHAPTER 20.340 (TEMPORARY USES) TO REVISE REGULATIONS AND PERMITTING FOR SPECIAL EVENTS AND TEMPORARY USES, CITYWIDE WHEREAS, in July of 2010, the City Council for the City of South San Francisco ("City") adopted a comprehensive update to the City's zoning ordinance, which repealed the then-existing Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, and replaced it with an entirely new Title that, among other actions, established new zoning districts, revised and reformatted many then-existing zoning provisions, eliminated inconsistent and outdated provisions, and codified entirely new zoning provisions, including new land use regulations and development standards ("Zoning Ordinance Update"); and, WHEREAS, since adoption of the Zoning Ordinance Update in July 2010, the City has identified areas of the Zoning Ordinance that require refinement, clarification, and/or correction; and, WHEREAS, the City's Zoning Ordinance establishes regulations for Temporary Uses; and, WHEREAS, the City's Special Event Permit Ordinance (SSFMC Chapter 6.48) was revised and updated in 2010, about the same time as the Zoning Ordinance Update (SSFMC Title 20) was completed; and WHEREAS, the City staff has since identified area s of overlapping authority between Chapter 20.340 and Chapter 6.48, and has drafted proposed revisions to the City's Zoning Ordinance ("Zoning Ordinance Amendment") as well as the City's Special Event Permit Ordinance; and WHEREAS, there are a number of different types of events that occur in the City of South San Francisco that require permits under the Special Event Permit Ordinance; and WHEREAS, certain types of events subject to the Special Event Permit Ordinance have a greater impact on the City than other events; and -1 - WHEREAS, due to the variation in special events and the different level of review required for different types of events, the City has identified revisions to the Special Event Pennit Ordinance pennitting process that is more appropriately tailored to the type of event; and WHEREAS, a more tailored permitting process would be more efficient and less cumbersome for applicants and City staff; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Ordinance Amendment also provides modifications to the Chapter 20.340 in order to provide added flexibility to accommodate construction period impacts in an effort to retain existing businesses that may otherwise close for an extended period of time due to the redevelopment of their current location; and WHEREAS, consistent with General Plan economic development goals for the City to attract, retain and promote existing businesses; WHEREAS, the Zoning Ordinance Amendment provides perfonnance standards and regulations to allow temporary uses for extended periods of time if the use has been relocated due to construction; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Ordinance Update was adopted after preparation, circulation, consideration, and adoption of an Initial StudylNegative DeClaration ("ISIND") in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 2 1000, et seq. ("CEQA"), which IS/ND analyzed the environmental impacts of adopting the Zoning Ordinance Update and concluded that adoption of the Zoning Ordinance Update could not have a significant effect on the environment because none of the impacts required to be analyzed under CEQA would exceed established thresholds of significance; and WHEREAS;the refinements, clarifications, and/or corrections set forth in this Zoning Ordinance Amendm¢nt, as they relate to the regulations governing temporary uses, are minor in nature, the adoption of which would not r~sult in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified effects beyond those disclosed and analyzed in the ISIND prepared and circulated for the Zoning Ordinance Update, nor do the refinements, clarifications, and/or corrections constitute a change in the project or change in circumstances that would require additional environmental review. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED that based on the entirety of the Record before it, as described below, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby ORDAIN as follows: SECTION I. FINDINGS. Based on the entirety of the record as described above, the City Council for the City of South San Francisco hereby makes the following findings: -2- A. General Findings. 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Ordinance. 2. The Record for these proceedings, and upon which this Ordinance is based, includes without limitation, Federal and State law; 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 1999 General Plan and General Plan Environmehtal Impact Report, including the 2001 updates to the General Plan and 2001 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report; the South San Francisco Municipal Code; the Initial Study and Negative Declaration prepared for the Zoning Ordinance Update, including all written comments received; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission's duly noticed meeting on December 4, 2014; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the City Council's duly noticed meeting on January 14, 2015; and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e) and §21082.2). 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. B. Zoning Amendment Findings 1. The proposed zoning amendments are consistent with the adopted General Plan because they strengthen and promote economic development objectives related to business attraction, retention and expansion. The proposed text amendments will remain consistent with the City's General Plan vision for community and economic development and will not impede achievement of any of the goals, policies, or land use designations established in the General Plan. 2. The proposed zoning amendments would generally be suitable in tenns of access, size of parcel, relationship to similar or related uses, and other considerations deemed relevant by the Planning Commission and City Council because appropriate performance standards for temporary uses have been included and would be applied to projects on a case-by-case basis to minimize impacts to the adjacent properties and occupants, and parking and traffic circulation. 3. The proposed zoning amendments would not be detrimental to the use of land in any adjacent zone because any new temporary use would be limited in duration to no longer than two years and would need to meet all appropriate development standards to minimize impacts to the adjacent properties and occupants, and " parking and traffic circulation. SECTION II. AMENDMENTS. -3- The City Council hereby amends the following sections of the South San Francisco Municipal Code to read as follows. Sections and subsections that are not amended by this Ordinance are not included below, and shall remain in full force and effect. A. Add Section 6.48.005 "Purpose" to Chapter 6.48 to read as follows: 6.48.005 Purpose. The purpose of this Chapter is to define the types of events which are regulated and/or permitted within the city of South San Francisco and·to outline the application and permitting process for each type of event subject to this Chapter. B. Revise Section 6.48.010 "Definitions" to read as follows: 6.48.010 Definitions. (a) "Applicant" means any person, finn, partnership, corporation, organization, association, society, club, individual or group of individuals that seeks an event pennit from the city, through the police chief, to host, conduct organize, sponsor, promote, or advertise an event or series of events governed by this Chapter. (b) "Corporate event" shall mean any activity, function, or event, conducted entirely within a business, technology or office park or other corporate or business building, space, or facility, exclusive of parking, loading, and circulation areas, which activity, function, or event is not open to the public, and .is attended only by the host corporation's employees and/or direct or express invite.es of the ho.st corporation. (c) "Event" m~ans any organized activity, function or gathering o.fpersons within the city, including special events, privat~ events, corporate events, and those gatherings exempt from permit requirements under Section 6.48.040. (d) "Event pennit" means a permit issued for a "special event" or "private event" pursuant to this Chapter. (e) "Extraordinary security services" means, as determined by the police chief, that at least one South San Francisco police officer, or alternatively, private security officer approved by the police chief, must be present during the event to. preserve and protect the safety and welfare of those in attendance and in the community. (f) "Open to the public" means during the event, the specific area or premises at which the event is held are available for use by or accessible to the general public, including without -4- limitation business invitees, with or without a fee or charge for admission or use of the area or premlses. (g) "Permitted event" means any event for which a pennit is required and/or has been issued pursuant to this Chapter." (h) "Persons fmanciaUy interested" means all persons who share in the profits, on the basis of gross or net revenue, of the finn~ partnership, corporation, association, society, club, individual or group of individuals that are hosting, providing, maintaining, organizing, allowing, conducting, promoting or advertising a special event. (i) "Police chief' means the chief of police of the city of South San Francisco or his or her designee. (j) "Private Event" means anyone-time activity, function, or event that is likely to be attended by seventy-five or more people and occurs in a rented or leased hall or other venue and is contained within the facility or private property and does not impact departments within the city above and beyond a department's regular day-to-day operations. Private Events include, without limitation, any non-exempt activity, function, or event, occurring alone or as part of a business, conducted for the purposes of holding the attention of, gaining the attention of, or diverting or amusing guests or patrons, such as Birthday parties, Weddings, or ceremonial events, and meets the following criteria: (1) The Private Event is not reasonably expected to obstruct, delay, or interfere with the nonnal flow of pedestrian or vehicular traffic, or otherwise fail to comply with traffic laws and controls; (2) The Private Event is ~ot reasonably expected to require extraordinary security services as determined by either the police chief or fire chief because there is little threat to the public peace, health, safety or general welfare; (3) The Private Event is not reasonably expected to have a common or collective use, purpose or benefit that would involve the use of, or have an impact on public property or public facilities and/or the provision of city public safety services in response thereto. (k) "Special event" means any activity, function or extraordinary event that is likely to be attended by seventy five or more people and impacts one or more departments within the City, above and beyond a departlnent's regular day-to-day operations. Special events include without limitation, any non-exempt activity, function, or event, occurring alone or as part of a business, conducted for the purposes of holding the attention of, gaining the attention of, or diverting or amusing guests or patrons (e.g., an assembly, attraction, display, entertainment, demonstration, carnival, circus, rodeo, or other traveling show, fair, festival, food fair, cook-off, sporting event, -5- concert or performance, or any other planned occurrence) that is likely to meet anyone or more of the . following criteria: (1) Obstruct, delay, or interfere with the normal flow of pedestrian or vehicular traffic, or otherwise fail to comply with traffic laws and controls; (2) Is reasonably expected to threaten the public peace, health, safety or general welfare, or otherwise require extraordinary security services, as detennined by either the police chief or fire chief; (3) Sell or otherwise provide alcoholic beverages, including by any charitable, civic, cultural, fraternal, patriotic, political, religious, social, or amateur sports organizations; or (4) Has a common or collective use, purpose or benefit that involves the use of, or has an impact on, other public property or facilities andlor the provision of city public safety services in response thereto. (1) "Special Event Team", means a group of designated representatives from, but not limited to, the following city departments; police department, fire department, planning department, building departmerit, water quaiity control, public works department, code enforcement, engineering department, and parks and recreation department, who are responsible for evaluating special event permit applications .. C. Revise Sec(ion 6.48.020 "Notification of event required" to read as follows: 6.48.020 Notification of event required. Except for corPorate events and events that are held in a private residence and not open to the public, every perSon, firm, partnership, corporation, organization, association, society, club, individual or group of individuals that intend to host, hold, allow, maintain, organize, conduct, promote or advertise any event, activity, or function that is reasonably expected to be attended by at least seventy-five people, regardless of whether the event, activity, or function is a "private event" or "special event" as defined in Section 6.48.010, shall notify the city police department at least thirty (30) days prior to the event. Notification shall include the location, date(s) and time(s) of the event, the names and addresses of the persons charged with managing the event, the type of event, and the anticipated numbers of attendees. D. Revise Section 6.48.030 "Special event permit and business license required" to read as follows: 6.48.030 Special event and private event permit and business license requirements. -6- It is unlawful for any person to provide, maintain, organize, allow, conduct, promote or advertise any event constituting a special event or private event without first obtaining an event permit from the police chief, in accordance with the application procedures outlined in Sections 6.48.050 and 6.48.055. Any facility, establishment, corporation, or organization that hosts, leases or provides space for any special event or private event must also obtain or have obtained a valid and current business license from the finance department, in accordance with this title. Any corporation, organization, or association that organizes, facilitates, advertises or promotes any special event or private event must also obtain or have obtained a valid and current business license from the finance department, in accordance with this title. Issuance of a business license, as required by this Chapter, shall comply with the procedures and be subject to the provisions of Division I of this title. E. Revise Section 6.48.040 "Exemptions from special event permit requirement" to read as follows: 6.48.040 Exemptions from event permit requirements. The following types of events shall not be required to obtain event permits, provided that, in the sole discretion of the police chief, no extraordinary security services are required and the event will not otherwise adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare. 1. An event attended by seventy-four or fewer persons. 2. An event held in a private residence where no admission is charged and the event is not advertised or open to the public. 3. An event provided for m~bers and their guests at a private club having an established membership and which is not advertised to non-members or open to the pUblic. For purposes of this section, private club means corporations or associations operated solely for objects of national, social, fraternal, patriotic, political, or athletic nature, membership in which is by application and for which regular dues are charged, and the advantages of which club belong to the members, and the operation of which is not primarily for monetary gain. -4. Religious exercise hosted by a religious entity and held in the religious entity's facility. 5. Events held by commercial recreation uses and eating and drinking establishments that are currently licensed and operating in accordance with a use permit, to regularly provide specified entertainment activities at fixed locations in the city. This exemption shall not apply to any party, other than the lawfully pennitted commercial recreation or eating and drinking establishment, who provides, maintains, organizes, allows, conducts, promotes or advertises any event to be held on the premises of the lawfully permitted commercial recreation or eating and drinking establishment. -7- 6. Events, including events not open to the public, held in the restaurant area at full service restaurants, where the restaurant provides food and beverage services to event attendees who are served while seated. This exemption shall only apply to dining activities, and shall not apply to other types of activities, including but not limited to dancing and live entertainment, regardless of whether such other activities are held in the restaurant area. For purposes of this exemption, the "restaurant area" shall be the physical location within the establishment where, as part of the regular course of business, the eStablishment provides food and beverage services to patrons who order and are served while seated. 7. Funeral receptions. 8. Corporate events. 9. Events conducted by, sponsored by, or held to exclusively benefit any bona fid e club or organization that is exempt from taxation pursuant to Internal Revenue Code Sections 501(c)(3), 501 (c) (4) , or 501 (c)(6), when all proceeds, if any, arising from such event are used exclusively for the benevolent purposes of such club or organization. 10. Performances by students at educational institutions, as defined by the Education Code, where such perfonnances are part of an education or instructional curriculum or program. 11. Book readings, book signings, and similar literary entertainment. 12. Events sponsored or organized by any agency ofthe city, the county of San Mateo, the various boards of education, or of any other political subdivision of the state of California, acting within the scope of their authorized function. 13. Events heid in or on a facility, establishment, or area, excluding public rights-of-way, that the applicant rents, leases, borrows, or otherwise directly contracts for the use of with, the city, the county of San Mateo, the various boards of education, or of any other political subdivision of the state of Califomia2 provided the events obtain any and all other permits and approvals that may be required for the event, including without limitation, pennits required by Chapter 10.36 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. 14. Events held at the South San Francisco Conference Center, provided the organizers of the event obtain any and all other permits and approvals that may be required for the event. 15. Any other event, series of events and/or specific type of event that is exempted at the discretion of the police chief, based upon evidence that the event or events will not impact police services and will not adversely affect public health, safety and welfare. -8- F. Revise Section 6.48.050 "Application for private event permit" to read as follows: 6.48.050 Application for private event pennit. (a) Private event pennit applications shall be filed with the police department of the city of South San Francisco, not less than thirty (30) days prior to the opening date of the event, except that the police chief may accept late applications upon: (1) The showing of good cause by the applicant; (2) A detennination that there is sufficient time for the city to process and investigate the application; and (3) If applicable, payment of the late application fee. (b) Complete applications for a private event permit shall include the following information: (1) The true names and addresses of all persons organizing or hosting the private event. (2) If the event is sponsored or promoted by an organization, the name, address, and telephone number of the organization, and the contact information for a responsible party of organization. If requested by the police chief, written a.uthorization to apply for an event permit by an officer of the organization must be submitted with the application. (3) The nature and purpose of the event. (4) The exact location and address of the facility, establishment, or area where the applicant will hold the event, including its boundaries. (5) Date and .estimated st'art and ending times of the event. (6) The estimated number of persons attending the event and the maximum number of persons, if any, to be allowed to attend the event. (7) The extent and type of advertising and promotion of the event; (8) Evidence of any required approvals or clearance from the State Alcoholic Beverages Commission. (9) Any additional information that the police chief determines is needed to make a determination as to whether the event will require extraordinary security services, or whether the event may otherwise adversely impact the public health, safety, or welfare. -9- (c) Application Fees. Each application for a private event permit shall be accompanied by payment of, or a receipt showing that applicant has already paid, a nonrefundable processing fee and, if applicable, any late application fee, as set forth in the master fee schedule of the city adopted by resolution of the city council. G. Add Section 6.48.055 "Application for special event permit to read as follows: 6.48.055 Application for special event permit. (a) Special event permit applications shall be completed and filed with the police department of the city of South San Francisco, not less than sixty days (60) prior to the opening date of the event, except that the police chi~f may accept late applications upon: (1) The showing of good caus e by the applicant; (2) A detennination that there is sufficient time for the city to process and investigate the application; and (3) If applicable, payment of the late application fee. (b) Complete applications for a special event permits shall include the following infonnation: (1) The true names and addresses of all persons financially interested in the event. (2) If the event is sponsored or promoted by an organization, the name, address, and telephone number of the organization, and the contact information for a responsible party of organization. If requested by the police chief, written authorization to apply for an event permit by an officer of the organization must be submitted with the application. (3) The nature and purpose of the event. (4) The exact location and address of the facility, establishment, or area where the applicant will hold the event, including its boundaries. (5) Date and estimated start and ending times of the event. (6) The estimated number of persons attending the event and the maximum number of persons, if any, to be allowed to attend the event. (7) The extent and type of advertising and promotion of the event; -10- (8) Evidence of insurance in a fonn and amount acceptable to the city attorney shall be provided by the applicant, or the facility, establishment, or area in which the event will occur, prior to the issuance of the permit. Should the event be held on public property, the city, its officers, agents, employees, and volunteers shall be named as additional insureds and the policy shall indicate that the insurance is primary and any insurance which may be carried by the city shall be considered as excess to. (9) Evidence of any required approvals or clearance from the State Alcoholic Beverages Commission. (10) Depending :on the size and/or scope of the special event and at the discretion of the police chief or his desigIlee, one or more of the following items contained within the special event application may be required: (a) site plan / route information, (b) security plan, (c) parkin~ plan, (d) marketing plan (e) medical emergency plan, (f) handicap accessibility plan, (g) sanitation and recycling plan (11) Any additional information that the police chief determines is needed to make a determination as to whether the event will require extraordinary security services, or whether the event may otherwise adversely impact the public health, safety, or welfare. (12) All special event permit applications will be reviewed by the special event team (defined in 6.48.10 (1) to determine the necessary services to be provided by the city and the applicable fees associated with those serVices. (c) Application Fees. Each application for an event permit shall be accompanied by payment of, or a receipt showing that applicant has already paid, a nonrefundable processing fee and, if applicable, any late application fee, as set forth in the master fee schedule of the city adopted by resolution of the city council. H. Revise Section 6.48.060 "Conditions on special event permits" to read as follows: 6.48.060 Conditions on event permits. (a) The police chief may impose conditions on events permits relating to the operation of the permitted event, and necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. Conditions may include, but are not limited to: -11- (1) The days, hours, location, or route of the event; (2) The area of assembly and disbanding of parade or other event activities occurring along a route; (3) Accommodation of pedestrian or vehicular traffic, including restricting the event to only a portion of a street traversed; . (4) Requirements for .the use of traffic cones, delineators or barricades; (5) Requirements for .the provision of first aid or sanitary facilities; (6) Requirements for use of event monitors, and providing notice of penn it conditions to event participants; (7) Restrictions on the number and type of vehicles, animals, or structures at the event, and inspection and approval of floats, structures, and decorated vehicles for safety purposes; (8) Compliance with animal protection ordinances and laws; (9) Requirements for use of trash containers, recycling containers, cleanup, and restoration of the facility, establishment or area; (10) Requirements for separate entrances, exits, and restroom facilities on the premises, or other similar restrictions .designed to prevent minors from obtaining alcohol are required; (11) Restrictions on use of amplified sound; (12) Notification to business"es and residences along the affected street(s); (13) Compliance with any relevant ordinance or law, including obtaining any legally required permit or license; (14) Restrictions on the consumption of alcoholic beverages; (15) The age of persons allowed to attend the event; (16) Requirements for extraordinary security services at the event, including how many security guards are required; (17) Other similar conditions related to public health, safety and welfare. I. Revise Section 6.48.070 "Action on applications-Appeal" to read as follows: -12- 6.48.070 Action on applications-Appeal. (a) The police chief shall either grant, conditionally grant, or deny the application for an event permit within fifteen days of receiving a complete application. The pennit may be denied for any of the following reasons: (1) The structUre or building is by reason of its physical design unsuited to ready police inspection; or (2) The applicant has made any false statement in his or her application; or (3) The granting of a permit to the applicant in the location applied for would be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare; or (4) The building or location fails to meet the required or applicable city, county or state building, zoning or health laws or regulations; or (5) The specified facility, establishment or area does not meet with the minimum standards, rules and regulations that have been fonnally adopted by the State Fire Marshal for the prevention of fire or for the protection of life and property against fire or panic; or (6) The facility, establishment or area does not comply with all fire ordinances and/or fire codes of the city, .county or state; or (7) The structure or building is by reason of its physical design unsuited to ready fire safety inspection; or (8) The applicant has not obtained or complied with the conditions of required planning or zoning approvals or with other existing planning division conditions; or (9) The applicant has failed or refuses to comply with any city ordinance, regulation or condition. (b) Appeal. The action of the police chief in denying an event permit shall be subject to an appeal to the city manager. A written application for such an appeal must be filed with the city clerk within ten days after the denial of the permit. Upon failure to file such notice within the ten-day period, the action of the police chief in denying the permit shall be final and conclusive. J. Revise Section 6.48.080 "Special event permit possession" to read as follows: 6.48.080 Event permit possession. -13- The applicant for which an event pennit has been approved shall maintain in their possession during the event, the event penn it and any conditions, for inspection by the police and fire departments upon request. K. Revise Section 6.48.090 "Security officer(s) required" to read as follows: 6.48.090 Security officer(s) required. Every organizer of a pennitted event shall hire a South San Francisco police officer or private security officers approved by the city police chief, to be present during the event, unless in the discretion of the police chief, the hiring of a South San Francisco police officer or private security officer is not necessary to preserve and protect the health, safety, welfare and morals of those in attendance and the community. This discretionary waiver will take into consideration the on-site presence of the pennittee's agent(s) during the event, and their ability to control behavior. If the nature of the permitted event requires hiring of city regular or reserve police officers, the applicant shall deposit funds with the city's police department to cover projected security costs prior to issuance of the event permit. L. Revise Section 6.48.100 ' "Supervision of special event" to read as follows: 6.48.1 00 Supervision of permitted event. Permitted events shall always be supervised continuously during event hours by the permittee or hislher agent, which shall act in permittee's place and for which the permittee is responsible, or by the person hiring the facility;establishment, or area regardless ofthe fact that the person did or did not give consideration for the hire of the facility, establishment, or area. M. Revise Section 6.48.1JO "Police and fire inspection" to read as follows: 6.48.110 Police and fire inspection. All pennitted events shall be open to city inspection at all times without advance notice. N. Revise Section 6.48.130 "Lighting" to read as follows: 6.48.130 Lighting. It is unlawful for any person conducting, maintaining or operating a pennitted event or having charge or control thereof, or for any person employed in and about the same, to hold or conduct, or to cause or permit to be held or conducted any pennitted event unless such event is illuminated by electric light. -14- o. Revise Section 6.48.140 "Number of persons allowed in special event" to read as follows: 6.48.140 Number of persons allowed in permitted event. The maximum number of persons allowed to attend a permitted event shall be the lesser of (i) the maximum number of persons allowed in the specified facility, establishment, or area prescribed in the standards, rules· and regulations that have been formally adopted by the State Fire Marshal for the protection oflife and property against fire or panic, or (ii) the number prescribed in all -city fire codes and ordinances, or (iii) the number prescribed by the event permit. P. Revise Section 6.48.150 ."Public nuisance" to read as follows: 6.48.150 Public nuisance .. No person shall pennit, cause, create, conduct or allow to be maintained a public nuisance in, upon, or in association with any permitted event. In addition to the definition of nuisances set forth elsewhere in this code, including but not limited to Section 6.48.180, a "public nuisance," for the purpose of this chapter~ includes boisterous conduct, and loud, unusual and discordant sounds that cause public annoyance or menace to public comfort, safety or welfare. Q. Revise Section 6.48.160 "Special event permit suspension and revocation" to read as follows: 6.48.160 Event permit suspension or revocation. The police chief shall have the right for cause to revoke or suspend any event permit or approval, and order the event stopped and terminated. Any revocation, suspension, or termination of the event, shall be based on any of the grounds upon which the police chiefmay deny an event pennit, any violation of this chapter, or any violation of the rules and regulations established by the event permit. Any person whose event permit has been revoked shall not be eligible to again be issued an event permit for a period of one year from the date the revocation became final and conclusive. At the discretion of the police chief, any facility, establishment, or area for which an event permit has been revoked shall not be eligible to host, hold, allow, maintain, organize, conduct, promote or advertise any event that requires a permit under this Chapter for a period of one year from the date the revocation became final and conclusive. R. Revise Section 6.48.170 "Licenses and permits not assignable" to read as follows: 6.48.170 Licenses and permits not assignable. -15- No business license or event pennit issued under the tenns of this ch&pter shall be assignable or transferable. S. Revise Section 6.48.180 "Violation-Penalty for violation" to read as follows: 6.48.180 Violation-Penalty for violation. (a) Any violation of this chapter, including but not limited to providing, maintaining, organizing, allowing, conducting, promoting or advertising any event that requires a permit under this Chapter without first obtaining an event pennit, or doing so in a manner that conflicts or is inconsistent w.ith an event permit issued for the event, including allowing more than the maximum number of persons prescribed by Section 6.48.150 to attend the event, is a threat to the public peace, health, safety and welfare, and shall constitute a public nuisance. (b) In the event of a violation of this chapter, the police chief or any police officer at the scene shall have the discretion and authority to issue a notification and warning, issue a citation for violation, require the removal of persons from the facility, establishment, or area where the event is located, prevent persons from entering the facility, establishment, or area where the event is located, order the event stopped and tenninated, andlor take any other action deemed reasonably necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. The permit applicant and property owner of the facility, establishment, or area at which the event is located shall be jointly and severally liable for the actual costs of any and all city services, including police and fire service, required to enforce and remedy violations of this Chapter. In addition to all other penalties authorized by this chapter, any person who violates any provision of this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished as provided in Chapter 1.24 of this code. T. Revise Section 6.48.190 "Nonwaiver clause" to read as follows: 6.48.190 Nonwaiver clause. Nothing in this chapter shall relieve a person to whom an event permit is issued from complying with all other city, county, state and federal health, safety, sanitation, licensing and other law requirements. U. Revise Section 20.340.002 "Temporary Uses Not Requiring a Temporary Use Permit" to read as follows: 20.340.002 Temporary Uses Not Requiring a Temporary Use Permit The following types of temporary uses may be conducted without a temporary use permit. Other permits, such as building permits, may be required. -16- A . Garage Sales. Garage sales of personal property conducted by a resident of the premises for no more than three consecutive days twice a year. B. Real Estate Sales. Real estate sales from a manufactured or mobile unit office for the temporary marketing, sales, or rental of residential, commercial, or industrial development. C. Temporary Construction Office Trailers. On-site temporary construction offices during the period of ?onstruction. Screening may be required by the Chief Planner. D. Seasonal Sales.' The annual sales of holiday related items such as Christmas trees, pumpkins, and similar items may be permitted in accordance with the following standards: 1. Time Period. Seasonal sales associated with holidays are allowed up to a month preceding and one week following the holiday. Christmas tree sales are allowed from Thanksgiving Day through December 31 st. 2. Goods, Signs and Temporary Structures. All items for sale, as well as signs and temporary structures, shall be removed within 10 days after the end of sales, and the appearance of the site shall be returned to its original state. E. Special Events Exempt. Special Events, as defined and regulated by Chapter 6.48, are exempt from the requirements of this Chapter. V. Revise Se.ction 20.340.003 "Temporary Uses Requiring a Temporary Use Permit" to read as follows: . 20.340.003 Temporary Uses Requiring a Temporary Use Pennit Other temporary uses may be permitted pursuant to Chapter 20.520 ("Temporary Use Permits"), subject to the following standards. Additional or more stringent requirements may be established through the Temporary Use Permit process in order to prevent the use from becoming a nuisance with regard to the surrounding neighborhood or the City as a whole. A. Temporary Commercial Uses. Short term temporary commercial uses, such as business promotions, outdoor sales, and displays that do not exceed three consecutive days, may be permitted in accordance with th e following standards: 1. Location. Limited to nonresidential districts. 2. Frequency. No more than four Temporary Commercial Uses at one site shall be allowed within any 12-month period. -17- 3. Signs. Temporary Commercial Uses and sales may include the addition of one nonpennanent sign. up to a maximum size of twenty-four square feet in area, subject to the requirements of Chapter 20.360 ("Signs"). 4. Existing Parking. The available parking shall not be reduced to less than 75 percent of the minimum number of spaces required by Chapter 20.330 C'·On-Site Parking and Loading"). 5. Outdoor Sales. 'Temporary outdoor sales-including, but not limited to, grand opening events, and other special sales events-are also subject to the following standards: a. Temporary outdoor sales shall be part of an existing business on the same site. b. Outdoor display and sales areas must be located on a paved or concrete area on the same lot as the structure(s) containing the business with which the temporary sale is associated. c. Location of the displayed merchandise must not disrupt the nonnal circulation of the site, nor encroach upon driveways, pedestrian walkways, or required landscaped areas, or obstruct sight distances or otherwise create hazards for vehicle or pedestrian traffic. W. Revise Section 20.340.00~ "Temporary Uses Requiring a Minor Use Permit" to read as follows: 20.340.004 Temporary Uses Requiring a Minor Use Pennit A. Temporary uses, such as business promotions, outdoor sales, and displays that either 1) exceed t?ree consecutive days, but not more than one month, or 2) do not exceed three consecutive days but exceed the frequency standards stated in Section 20.340.003(A)(2) of more than four distinct occurrences at one site may be allowed with the approval of a Minor Use Permit by the Chief Planner so long as the temporary use is determined to not impact neighboring uses or otherwise create significant impacts. Further, Temporary Uses tha~ exceed the frequency standards stated in Section 20.340.003(A)(2) of more than four distinct occurrences at one site may be permitted with the approval of a Minor Use Pennit, provided that no more than twelve (12) distinct occurrences take place within a twelve month period. B. Permitted uses that need to be temporarily relocated due to construction activities may be allowed with the approval of a Minor Use Permit by the Chief Planner. Such uses may utilize a temporary non-residential structure and/or compatibly zoned site for use as office, retail, or storage space, subject to appropriate screening, security, trash management, parking, and other relevant performance standards, as determined by the Chief Planner. -18- I. Time Period. Pennitted uses that are temporarily relocated due to construction may commence no more than two weeks prior to start of related permitted construction activity and shall terminate concurrent with issuance of a certificate of occupancy or within two years from initiation, whichever occurs earlier, and the appearance of the site shall be returned to its original state, unless the Minor Use Permit stipulates differently. SECTION III. 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 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 anyone or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases beheld unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable. SECTION IV. 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 14th day of January, 2015. Adopted as an Ordinance of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting of the City Council held the 28 th day of January, 2015 by the following vote: AYES: --------------------------------------------------------------- NOES: ____________________________________________________ __ -19- ABSTENTIONS: ______________________ _ ABSENT: _______________________________ __ Attest ______________ _ Krista Martinelli, City Clerk As Mayor of the City of South San Francisco, I do hereby approve the foregoing Ordinance this 28 th day of January, 2015. Mayor 2389198.1 -20- Staff Report DATE: January Staff Report Subject: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PARTICIPATION IN A COUNTY-WIDE STUDY OF THE FEASIBILITY OF COMMUNITY CHOICE AGGREGATION Page 2 of 2 FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact resulting from Council approval of the attached Resolution. CONCLUSION CCA is a possible vehicle for energy savings in the future, and for alternative choices of energy. Participation in this exploratory stage could therefore result in future savings or energy choices for South San Francisco residents. RESOLUTION NO.- A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PARTICIPATION IN AND SUPPORT FOR A COUNTY-WIDE STUDY OF THE FEASIBILITY OF COMMUNITY CHOICE AGGREGATION WHEREAS, The City of South San Francisco has demonstrated its commitment to an environmentally sustainable future through its policy goals and actions, including energy reduction, clean energy and sustainabillfy programs, and the adoption of a local Climate Action Plan; and, I WHEREAS, The City Council of South BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is authorized to execute the appropriate documents to allow the City and/or any technical consultants retained by the County to request energy usage load data from Pacific Gas Staff Report DATE: January 28, 2015 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Alex Greenwood, Director of Economic and Community Development SUBJECT: DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AND THE RELATED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, ZONING MAP AND TEXT AMENDMENTS TO ALLOW AND ESTABLISH REGULATIONS FOR TRANSIT ORIENTED, MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT IN THE DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN DISTRICT AREA AND CERTIFICATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (DRAFT AND FINAL), IN ACCORDANCE WITH SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTERS 20.460, 20.530, 20.540, AND 20.550. Case Nos.: P11-0097: EIR11-0003, SP14-0001, GPA11-0003, RZ11-0004, ZA11-0008 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council follow the Planning Commission’s recommendation and: 1. Adopt a Resolution making findings and certifying Environmental Impact Report EIR11-0003, including the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations and a mitigation monitoring and reporting program; 2. Adopt a Resolution making findings to adopt the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan SP14- 0001 and General Plan Amendments GPA11-0003; and 3. Introduce an Ordinance approving Zoning Map Amendment RZ11-0004 and Zoning Text Amendment ZA11-0008 to add the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan District Chapter 20.280 and amend Chapters 20.100, 20.330, 20.490, and 20.620 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, and waive further reading. BACKGROUND In 2012, the City embarked on development of a Downtown Station Area Specific Plan, with an overall goal to create a successful and vibrant downtown. Goals include, but are not limited to:  Promoting new high-density, mixed-use development in the areas that are best poised to take advantage of improved access to the City’s Caltrain Station and SamTrans bus routes;  Affirming the historic Grand Avenue Corridor as the focus of the community; and  Providing improved connections to the East of 101 employment district to reestablish the critical connection between local businesses and local employers. Staff Report Subject: Downtown Station Area Specific Plan and EIR Date: January 28, 2015 Page 2 of 12 The Downtown Station Area Specific Plan proposes pedestrian- and bicycle- friendly upgrades, landscaped green spaces, widened sidewalks, new streets, and mass transit connections designed to invigorate walkability and quality of life. The Downtown has been the subject of in-depth study, analysis and community involvement. In addition, the Plan was developed in the context of several State, regional, and City planning policies, including:  State Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Laws (AB 32, SB 375);  ABAG/MTC Designation of Downtown as a “Priority Development Area” (PDA);  City’s Climate Action Plan, Pedestrian Master Plan, and Bicycle Master Plan;  City’s General Plan Housing Element. A more detailed discussion of these policies, as well as the analysis and community input that informed development of the Plan, is discussed in the attached Planning Commission Staff Report (Attachment 7). As a result of this extensive development process, the proposed downtown strategy envisions a new neighborhood of thoughtful residential and commercial development, walking access to everyday amenities, new civic uses, multi-modal transportation investments, and parks, plazas, and gathering spaces for the entire South San Francisco community. DISCUSSION Plan Vision The Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (“Plan”) outlines policies related to land use, circulation, design, utilities and public services to guide growth and strategic, sustainable development within the Plan Area. Additionally, the Plan includes an implementation strategy that lists specific action items, a detailed list of infrastructure needs, conceptual cost estimates, responsible agencies, and potential funding sources. The Plan area, shown below, encompasses roughly 35 blocks within a half-mile of the Caltrain station. Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Area Map The Plan focuses on properties within 0.5 mile of the City’s Caltrain Station, and includes much of the historic downtown, as well as older industrial properties along Sylvester Road in the East of 101 Area. The Plan area is separated into sub-districts, with each sub-district primarily intended for mixed-use, residential, or employment development but with varying bulk, height, and density standards, as detailed in the zoning standards. The criteria for each sub-district were informed by community input, urban design best practices, and citywide recognition of the historic fabric of Grand Avenue and a desire to safeguard that scale and form. Staff Report Subject: Downtown Station Area Specific Plan and EIR Date: January 28, 2015 Page 5 of 12 The Plan incorporates Caltrain’s plan to reconfigure the station and construct a below-grade pedestrian/bicycle underpass at the southeast corner of Grand Avenue and Airport Boulevard to access the train platform from either side of US 101. The planned Caltrain Plaza would be located at the intersection of Airport Boulevard and Grand Avenue and would lead to the anticipated pedestrian and bicycle undercrossing. Multi-Modal Circulation and Parking The Plan recommends implementation of a variety of circulation improvements throughout the plan area to balance travel modes, improve access between downtown and the Eastern Neighborhood (identified as the Plan area parcels immediately east of US 101 and roughly bounded by East Grand Avenue on the north, Gateway Boulevard on the east, Poletti Way and US 101 on the west, and S. Airport Boulevard on the south), improve street connectivity, reduce impacts from regional traffic, and provide transit enhancements from downtown to BART and the South San Francisco ferry terminal. These improvements are informed by and consistent with the City’s adopted Climate Action Plan, Pedestrian Master Plan, Bicycle Master Plan and General Plan policies. Angled parking would be replaced by parallel parking to accommodate new bicycle lanes and widened sidewalks along Grand Avenue (reducing on-street parking from 163 to 141 spaces), Airport Boulevard would be reconfigured to eliminate left turns onto Grand Avenue so that a pedestrian crossing refuge could be constructed for safe passage, and Miller and Baden Avenues would become important streets to move vehicular traffic east to west while preserving the pedestrian scale of Grand Avenue. A variety of strategies are also proposed to manage parking and ensure an adequate supply, while at the same time focusing on reducing demand and promoting alternative travel modes. The Plan improves pedestrian and bicycle connections to the Caltrain Station, as well as throughout the Plan area. The development of a Pedestrian-Priority Zone, which encompasses Grand Avenue, Miller Avenue, Baden Avenue, and portions of Linden Avenue, Maple Avenue, Cypress Avenue and Airport Boulevard would regulate future development and public right-of-way improvements. Community Outreach, Public Review and Revisions to the Plan The proposed Plan is the culmination of over two years of public meetings and analysis, and includes input from residents, business owners, developers, interest groups and others in a concerted effort to improve the downtown business district and surrounding neighborhoods. Over the course of the Plan development there have been three formal community workshops, as well as several Citizens Advisory Committee and Technical Advisory Committee meetings. The Plan has been reviewed by the Parking Place Commission, the Design Review Board, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee and the Parks and Recreation Commission. Additionally, the City hosted an Open House event on July 24, 2014 to present the draft Plan to the community and held a joint Planning Commission and City Council Study Session in June 2013 and most recently on October 15, 2014. On November 6, 2014, the Planning Commission also held a required public hearing for comments on the Draft EIR (DEIR). The level of interest in the Plan has been substantial, and resulted in numerous submitted comments to improve the vision for downtown. Many of the changes to the guiding principles and policies of the Plan were directly informed by the suggestions of residents, advocates, other governmental agencies and the City Council and Planning Commission. A collection of all submitted comments, as well as suggested changes to the draft Downtown Station Area Specific Plan, is included as an attachment to this staff report. Many of the comments have been included into the plan, and some of those changes are highlighted below: Staff Report Subject: Downtown Station Area Specific Plan and EIR Date: January 28, 2015 Page 6 of 12  New vision statement for the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan to "ENSURE the build out of the Plan advances the social, cultural, environmental, and physical goals of the community and results in a series of community benefits that address the needs of existing and future Downtown residents";  Updating Land Use Policy LU-1 to “Encourage the use of local workforce and local business sourcing for development in the plan area that generates quality construction and service jobs with career pathways, that provides job training opportunities for the local workforce, and that pays fair wages so that money in wages and materials used in the construction of these developments is invested in the local economy”;  Adding Land Use Policy LU-10 to “Support regional and local efforts to examine displacement of affordable housing and lower-income households and consider programs to address identified housing needs”;  Adding Land Use Policy LU-11 to "Promote the collaboration and coordination among the economic development, workforce development, and planning departments to maximize the economic vitality of Downtown and benefits for existing and future residents";  Clarifying that additional density or FAR bonuses are eligible with an Incentive Program, so long as public benefits are provided (with zoning to provide specific requirements);  Adding Urban Design Policy UD-52 to “Consider implementing a wayfinding program to more effectively manage travel on Grand Avenue and adjacent streets to provide visitors with parking information for short-term and long-term parking, and connections to transit. Wayfinding signage could also provide information for pedestrian and bicycle routes and networks with attention paid to major destinations, and include mileage or estimated times to encourage these modes of travel”;  Updating Circulation Policy C-7 to “Where possible, consider narrowing local streets and providing traffic calming devices to discourage through or speeding traffic and encourage other modes of transportation especially in residential neighborhoods”; and  Implementing more zoning flexibility to allow custom manufacturing and other clean technology/R&D uses into the downtown properties west of US 101. An errata sheet of complete suggested changes, based on public comments, is included as attachment 2a. to this staff report. General Plan Amendments to incorporate the Specific Plan With adoption of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan, figures, tables, and text within the General Plan would need to be updated to remain consistent and notably, reflect new housing, population, and employment statistics, as well new guiding policies related to the Land Use, Planning Sub-Areas, and Transportation Elements. All of the suggested revisions are included as an attachment to the staff report and broadly summarized below: With adoption of the proposed changes to the zoning map and ordinance, the General Plan’s existing Land Use Diagram would be altered to remove the “Downtown Commercial” designation and substitute the specific plan’s “Grand Avenue Core” and four other sub-districts. In addition, the “Eastern Neighborhood” would replace the current “Business Commercial” designation for the Specific Plan parcels located east of US 101. Several tables related to standards for density and development intensity would also be updated to Staff Report Subject: Downtown Station Area Specific Plan and EIR Date: January 28, 2015 Page 7 of 12 reflect the Plan’s anticipated buildout impacts on density, population and employment and the relatively flat impact to the job/housing balance for the City. Furthermore, reference to the guiding policies of the proposed plan related to the Downtown Planning Sub-Area would be incorporated into the General Plan to ensure consistency with this new vision for South San Francisco’s downtown area. Given so many streetscape improvements related to circulation and multi-modal transportation are also envisioned by the Plan, the Transportation Element of the General Plan also requires modification. Those changes include incorporation of the guiding policies, anticipated roadway improvements, updated figures showing new roadways in the Eastern Neighborhood, Railroad Avenue extension and new bicycle facilities. Zoning Map and Text Amendments When General Plan amendments result in inconsistency between the General Plan and zoning, the zoning must be amended to re-establish consistency. In addition, as zoning is one of the tools used to implement an area plan such as the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan, the Zoning Ordinance must also be consistent with the proposed specific plan. Therefore, adoption of the proposed Plan will include amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to ensure consistency between the Zoning Ordinance and amended General Plan and proposed specific plan. The Zoning Map will also be amended to reflect the changes in zoning designations. The vast majority of zoning changes are related to the proposed amendment to Division III: Specific and Area Plan Districts of the Zoning Ordinance. The amendment adds a new chapter titled “Chapter 20.280 Downtown Station Area Specific Plan District.” The new Downtown Station Area Specific Plan District establishes the following six (6) sub-districts with land use and development regulations:  Downtown Transit Core (DTC);  Grand Avenue Core (GAC);  Downtown Residential Core (DRC);  Transit Office / R&D Core (TO/RD);  Linden Neighborhood Center (LNC); and  Linden Commercial Corridor (LCC). Chapter 20.280 establishes the use regulations, standards and development review procedures to implement the proposed Downtown Station Area Specific Plan. The proposed land use regulations establish uses that are permitted, permitted after review and permitted with approval of a Minor Use Permit by the Chief Planner, and permitted after review and approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission. In addition, the proposed District includes development standards such as lot size and width, FAR, density, height, setbacks, building form, open space, active frontage, and parking and loading that will apply to development within the Specific Plan. Finally, figures identifying changes to the zoning map and illustrative of concepts such as setbacks, height standards, and the Pedestrian Priority Zone are included. The entire proposed Chapter 20.280 is included in the staff report as part of the draft City Council Ordinance attachment (Attachment 3) but it is worth highlighting Section 20.280.005(A) as a potential interest to the City Staff Report Subject: Downtown Station Area Specific Plan and EIR Date: January 28, 2015 Page 8 of 12 Council since it details how additional density or FAR would be administered as part of the incentive program. Consistent with the approach taken in the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Specific Plan, Density or FAR above the designated maximums may be allowed, as identified earlier in this report, subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission. A potential project must consider a list of identified community benefits informed by the public review process and propose improvements above and beyond minimum standards. This could entail inclusion of a local hire program, public art, streetscape enhancements and public spaces, sustainable construction, transit subsidies or other similar benefits. The adoption of the new Downtown Station Area Specific Plan District will also require changes and clarifications to the existing Zoning Ordinance to fulfill the vision of the Plan and remain consistent with proposed regulations in Chapter 20.280. The zoning map and text amendments propose to:  Revise Chapter 20.100 Downtown Districts in several locations to remove the “Downtown Core” and references;  Revise Chapter 20.330 On-site Parking and Loading to reduce parking requirements for three (3) bedroom multi-unit residential buildings in recognition of transit accessibility, and introduce parking standards for “Clean Technology” and “Research and Development” into the required parking standards for Downtown Districts;  Revise Chapter 20.330 On-site Parking and Loading to add subsection 20.330.007(D) to allow shared parking provisions for mixed-use development, consistent with the proposed draft Plan;  Revise Section 20.490.004 Use Permit Required Findings to introduce Planning Commission required findings related to the Plan’s Incentive Program for density or FAR bonuses; and  Revise Section 20.620.005 (Definitions) to add flexibility to “Handicraft/Custom Manufacturing” to allow a range of small-scale, custom manufacturing uses in the Plan area that are aligned with advanced technology. PLANNING COMMISSION AND PUBLIC COMMENTS At the December 18, 2014 Planning Commission public hearing, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed Specific Plan, General Plan Amendments, and Zoning Map and Text Amendments and continued the public hearing to a special meeting on January 8, 2015, at which time the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was presented and reviewed. On January 8, 2015, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended that the City Council certify the EIR, including a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopt the proposed Specific Plan, General Plan Amendments, and Zoning Map and Text Amendments. The Planning Commission resolutions and draft minutes from both of the Commission meetings are attached to this staff report (Attachment 4, 5, 6). Below is a brief summary of public comments shared at the public hearing related to the proposed Plan:  Housing Leadership Council urged the Planning Commission to consider tracking and monitoring displacement of affordable homes and existing residents within the Plan area;  Transform asked the Planning Commission who would be protected by this Plan and stated that there is only a bare minimum of protection in place for current residents who could be displaced as part of new development; Staff Report Subject: Downtown Station Area Specific Plan and EIR Date: January 28, 2015 Page 9 of 12  A resident expressed concern that her current overcrowded living situation would get more expensive if the Plan was approved and that the Plan does not include any community benefits;  San Mateo County Union Community Alliance expressed skepticism that this plan was meant to benefit existing residents and expressed concern that CEQA does not require evaluation of economic and social impacts;  A resident expressed fear that crowded street parking would get worse with adoption of the Plan;  Peninsula Interfaith Action advocated for more affordable housing, expressed concern that the Plan will not do enough to protect residents from displacement related to rising rental rates, and urged the City Council to strengthen the Plan’s language related to displacement; and  Edwin Law, a developer, explained that he included affordable housing in his last project and suggested that the City Council consider measures to protect residents from displacement. In general, the Planning Commission’s comments were enthusiastic about the Plan, but based on the above input from the community, they did express an interest in continuing the conversation about new development and potential resulting displacement, specifically asking staff if there were resources committed to studying displacement and what other actions the City could implement. As stated to the Planning Commission in their staff report for January 8, 2015, a primary concern of public advocates over the course of the two-plus year Plan review process has been the potential displacement of existing residents due to new development pressures. Although the City has incorporated suggested language from the Housing Leadership Council (HLC) to support regional and local efforts to examine displacement of affordable housing with a new Land Use Policy LU-101 in the Plan, the priority for most advocates is that the City consider rent-stabilization (rent control) and just-cause eviction requirements (additional requirements beyond the State’s current 30 day notice requirement for tenants in good standing) that could mitigate rent increases and instability for some residents. Daly City recently adopted sample language for their Housing Element that addresses potential displacement and commits the City to evaluate and adopt mitigating programs within two years. Similar language for the Downtown Plan is now preferred and recommended by groups such as HLC and Transform. In summary, community residents and advocates expressed at the January 8, 2015 Planning Commission hearing that rather than just LU-10, the City’s current housing policies and programs, including its inclusionary housing requirements, and the Plan’s provisions to track and monitor deed-restricted affordable housing units within the Plan area that the City also consider:  Rent Control provisions for the City;  Just-Cause eviction requirements that prevent a property owner from evicting a tenant in order to rent the unit at market rate; and  Commitment of resources and staff to study and address potential displacement with mitigating programs within two years. Based on guidance from the City Council and Planning Commission at the October 15, 2014 joint study session, as well as the policies of surrounding communities, staff has suggested the current Land Use Policy LU-10 as a start for the City to guide its action in the Plan area and support monitoring efforts as 1 LU-10 (for reference): “Support regional and local efforts to examine displacement of affordable housing and lower-income households and consider programs to address identified housing needs.” Staff Report Subject: Downtown Station Area Specific Plan and EIR Date: January 28, 2015 Page 10 of 12 they are developed regionally. There is no doubt that the current real estate conditions have tightened the rental housing market and displaced some residents, despite a lack of downtown development; because this is a 20 year plan and change is expected to occur slowly, however, staff believes that committing to a specific timeline for a new monitoring program may be infeasible without additional City resources and examples of similar programs in the Bay Area, of which currently none have been identified. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY Any change to the Zoning Ordinance must be consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plans. In this case, adoption of the Specific Plan, as well as the Zoning Map and Text Amendments, would require changes to the intensity of existing General Plan land use designations and related figures and tables, but would be consistent with the General Plan policies to promote infill construction, mixed-use development, and pedestrian, bicycle and transit connection improvements. The amendments to the General Plan, as introduced in the “Discussion” section of the staff report, are primarily intended as minor alterations to the General Plan related to anticipated increases in population, jobs, and development related to the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan. As such, City Council adoption of the proposed General Plan Amendments would ensure consistency between the subject Specific Plan, Zoning Map and Text Amendments, and the General Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is a program EIR that examines the potential effects resulting from implementing designated land uses and policies in the proposed Plan. As a programmatic document, the EIR does not assess site-specific impacts. A notice of preparation (NOP) was issued by the City on October 1, 2013 to inform agencies and the general public that an Environment Impact Report was being prepared and to invite comments on the scope and content of the document. A scoping meeting was held on October 16, 2013. The DEIR was prepared for the Plan, published on October 10, 2014, and circulated for the mandatory 45- day public review. The public comment period closed on Monday, November 24, 2014. During that time, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 6, 2014 for comments. Three oral comments and six written comments were received on the document during the circulation period. The consultant prepared the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), which addresses the public comments made at the November 6, 2014 public hearing and the written correspondence. The DEIR and FEIR, in addition to an errata sheet (Attachment 1, Exhibit A) with response to comments represent the complete EIR. The EIR identifies nine significant and unavoidable impacts related to Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Noise, and Traffic/Transportation that could not be mitigated to a less-than-significant level, even with the implementation of identified mitigation measures. Detailed findings for each significant and unavoidable impact, with suggested mitigation measures are included in Attachment 1, Exhibit B. Under CEQA, economic and social effects of a project are not required to be evaluated. However, lead agencies may choose to present economic or social information in, or associated with, an EIR in order to disclose the relative impact of a project, or series of projects, on these important community considerations. Some public comments on the EIR addressed economic and social effects, and the EIR clearly explained Staff Report Subject: Downtown Station Area Specific Plan and EIR Date: January 28, 2015 Page 12 of 12 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft CEQA Resolution (EIR11-0003) a. Exhibit A – EIR for the SSF Downtown Station Area Specific Plan, and Errata Sheet b. Exhibit B – CEQA Findings including Statement of Overriding Considerations c. Exhibit C – Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program 2. Draft Specific Plan and General Plan Amendments Resolution a. Exhibit A – Specific Plan Adoption (SP14-0001) and errata sheet b. Exhibit B – General Plan Amendments (GPA11-0003) and list of proposed changes 3. Draft Ordinance - Zoning Map and Text Amendments (RZ11-0004, ZA11-0008) a. Exhibit A – Chapter 20.280 Downtown Station Area Specific Plan District zoning 4. Planning Commission CEQA Resolution 2756-2015 5. Planning Commission Entitlements Resolution 2757-2015 6. Planning Commission Staff Reports (w/out attachments) – December 18, 2014 and January 8, 2015 7. Planning Commission Draft Minutes Excerpt – Meetings of December 18, 2014 and January 8, 2015 8. Public Comments submitted Attachment 1 Draft CEQA Resolution Exhibit A Environmental Impact Report for the SSF Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Exhibit B CEQA Findings including Statement of Overriding Considerations Exhibit C Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 1 RESOLUTION NO. ________ CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS AND CERTIFYING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, INCLUDING ADOPTION OF THE STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco (“City”) Planning Division staff and the City’s consultant, BMS Design Group, have prepared the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (“Area Plan” or “Plan”), to guide the City in its planning efforts to create a vibrant, transit- supportive, diverse Downtown and incorporating approximately thirty-five blocks within a half mile radius of the City’s Caltrain commuter rail station, with a focus on creating pedestrian- oriented, high density mixed-use development, with a range of commercial, residential, and civic uses, including parks, plazas, and gathering spaces for the community, which Area Plan includes specific proposed amendments to the South San Francisco General Plan, amendments to the South San Francisco Zoning Map and Text amendments to the South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the City determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was required to evaluate the impacts of the proposed Plan; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Preparation was originally issued on October 1, 2013 and a draft environmental impact report was prepared and circulated for a forty-five (45) day public review, from October 10, 2014 to November 24, 2014; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission participated in a joint study session with the City Council on the Plan at a meeting on October 15, 2014, and also held a duly noticed public hearing during the review period on November 6, 2014 to take public comment on the DEIR; and WHEREAS, the City prepared written responses to comments received on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) and prepared a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for circulation, which consists of the DEIR (incorporated by reference), all comments received on the DEIR, written responses to comments received on the DEIR, and revisions to the DEIR; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and carefully considered the information in the Draft EIR and the Final EIR (collectively, “EIR”) at a duly noticed public hearing held on January 8, 2015, and at the conclusion of which, the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council certify the EIR; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and carefully considered the information in the EIR at a duly noticed public hearing held on January 28, 2015, and makes the findings attached to, and incorporated in, this Resolution to certify the EIR, as an objective and accurate 2 document that reflects the independent judgment of the City in the identification, discussion and mitigation of the Plan’s environmental impacts; and WHEREAS, where feasible, mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Project to reduce identified impacts to a level of less than significant; and WHEREAS, no feasible mitigation exists for certain significant and unavoidable air quality, cultural resources, noise and traffic/transportation impacts that would reduce the impacts to a less-than-significant level; and WHEREAS, the Plan cannot be approved unless a Statement of Overriding Considerations is adopted which evaluates the benefits of the proposed Plan against its unavoidable impacts, and an earlier Statement of Overriding Considerations was made by the City and also applies to the Plan as follows: 1. The City of South San Francisco approved an update to its General Plan and Environmental Impact Report in October 1999. The City Council made a statement of overriding considerations in its approval of the General Plan update, because the measures identified to mitigate for traffic congestion along US 101 and regional air pollution would not be sufficient to reduce the impacts to less than significant levels; 2. The Plan, due to increased population and employment growth, could affect air quality, cultural resources, noise, and cause an increase in traffic that would cause intersection LOS standard established by the South San Francisco General Plan to be exceeded. The impacts would be significant and unavoidable on segments of northbound and southbound US-101, as well as six intersections within the City (#6: E. Grand Avenue/Gateway Boulevard, #10: Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard, #12: Baden Avenue/Linden Avenue, #14: San Mateo Avenue/Produce Avenue/South Airport Boulevard, #15: South Airport Boulevard/Mitchell Avenue/Gateway Boulevard, #16: US 101 Northbound/South Airport Boulevard Off Ramp/South Airport Boulevard); 3. Therefore, the Statement of Overriding Considerations that was made for approval of the General Plan would also apply to decision-making on the Plan by the City; and 4. Additionally, the Plan offers specific benefits as stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Plan (attached as Exhibit B and incorporated herein). 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 and General Plan EIR, including all amendments and updates thereto; the South San Francisco Municipal Code; the draft South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan, prepared by BMS Design Group; the draft South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan General Plan Amendments, prepared by BMS Design Group; the draft South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Zoning Map and Zoning Ordinance Amendments, the South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR, including the Draft and Final EIR, and all appendices thereto; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the City Council and 3 Planning Commission Joint Study Session on October 15, 2014; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission’s duly noticed November 6, 2014 meeting; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission’s duly noticed December 18, 2014 and January 8, 2015 meetings; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the City Council’s duly noticed January 28, 2015 meeting 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 Environmental Impact Report for the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (attached as Exhibit A), the CEQA Findings, including the Statement of Overriding Considerations (attached as Exhibit B), and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (attached as Exhibit C), are each incorporated by reference as 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 Final EIR for the project was prepared and completed in compliance with Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq. and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15000 et seq. 5. Based on the City Council’s independent judgment and analysis, the City Council makes the findings regarding the Plan's significant and unavoidable impacts, potentially significant impacts, and less than significant impacts; makes the findings regarding the proposed mitigation measures, and the Project alternatives; and adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations, finding that the benefits of the Project outweigh the Project’s significant and unavoidable environmental impacts, for the reasons set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated by reference. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby makes the CEQA Findings and adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations, attached as Exhibit B, adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, attached as Exhibit C, and certifies the EIR for the South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (EIR 11-0003) attached as Exhibit A. 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 28th day of January, 2015 by the following vote: AYES:________________________________________________________________ 4 NOES:________________________________________________________________ ABSTENTIONS:________________________________________________________ ABSENT:______________________________________________________________ Attest:__________________________________ Krista Martinelli, City Clerk Exhibit A: Draft and Final Environmental Impact Report, and Errata Sheet Exhibit B: CEQA Findings including Statement of Overriding Considerations Exhibit C: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 5 EXHIBIT A ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN (EIR11-0003) The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), and Errata sheet with additional text changes to be incorporated into the FEIR are available at the following website: http://www.ssfdowntownplan.org/background/. 6 EXHIBIT B CEQA FINDINGS INCLUDING STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 7 EXHIBIT B CEQA FINDINGS INCLUDING STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS I. Introduction In 2012, the City embarked on development of an area wide plan, named the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (“Project”) to create a successful and vibrant downtown. The Project proposes pedestrian- and bicycle- friendly upgrades, landscaped green spaces, widened sidewalks, new streets and mass transit connections designed to invigorate walkability and quality of life. The objectives of the project are as follows:  Revitalize downtown South San Francisco to be a vibrant and successful community resource and a source of local pride;  Promote new high-density, mixed-use development in the areas that are best poised to take advantage of improved access to the City’s Caltrain Station and SamTrans bus routes;  Affirm the historic Grand Avenue Corridor as the focus of the community;  Improving pedestrian and bicycle connections to Caltrain as well as the Downtown with the East of 101 employment district to reestablish the critical connection between local businesses and local employers; and  Ensure the build out of the vision advances the social, cultural, environmental, and physical goals of the community and results in a series of community benefits that address the needs of existing and future Downtown residents. The result is a Project that envisions a new neighborhood of thoughtful residential and commercial development, walking access to everyday amenities, new civic uses, multi-modal transportation investments, and parks, plazas, and gathering spaces for the entire South San Francisco community. The California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. (“CEQA”), states that if a project would result in significant environmental impacts, it may be approved if feasible mitigation measures or feasible alternatives are proposed which avoid or substantially lessen the impact or if there are specific economic, social, or other considerations which justify approval notwithstanding unmitigated impacts. When an environmental impact report (“EIR”) has been completed which identifies one or more potentially significant or significant environmental impacts, the approving agency must make one or more of the following findings for each identified significant impact: 1. Changes or alternatives which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR have been required or incorporated into the project; or 2. Such changes or alternatives are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency; or 8 3. Specific economic, social or other consideration make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR. (Pub. Resources Code, §21081). A lead agency need not make any findings for impacts that the EIR concludes are less-than- significant. (See ibid; see also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 716.) As lead agency under California Code of Regulations, title 14, Section 15367, the City of South San Francisco (“City”) hereby adopts the following CEQA findings relating to the South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Project environmental review documents, including the 2014 Draft Environmental Impact Report (“Draft EIR”) and the Final Environmental Impact Report (“Final EIR”) certified by the City on _____, 2015. The Draft EIR and the Final EIR are collectively referred to herein as the “EIR”. II. General Findings The EIR was prepared in accordance with CEQA, Public Resources Code sections 21000-21178, and the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, title 14, sections 15000-15387, to address the environmental impacts associated with the project described above. As required by Section 15121 of the CEQA Guidelines, the EIR assesses the potential environmental impacts resulting from approval, construction, and operation of the Project, and identifies feasible means of minimizing potential adverse environmental impacts. The City is the lead agency for the environmental review of the Project and the EIR was prepared under the direction and supervision of the City. Public Resources Code Section 21002 provides that “public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]” The same statute states that the procedures required by CEQA “are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects.” Section 21002 goes on to state that “in the event [that] specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects thereof.” The mandate and principles announced in Public Resources Code Section 21002 are implemented, in part, through the requirement that agencies must adopt findings before approving projects for which an Environmental Impact Report is required. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21081, subd. (a); CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a).) For each significant environmental effect identified in an EIR for a proposed project, the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one or more of three permissible conclusions. The first such finding is that “[c]hanges or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a)(1).) The second permissible finding is that “[s]uch changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a)(2).) The third potential conclusion is that “[s]pecific economic, legal, social, technological, or other 9 considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a)(3).) Public Resources Code Section 21061.1 defines “feasible” to mean “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social and technological factors.” CEQA Guidelines Section 15364 adds another factor: “legal” considerations. (See also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 565 (Goleta II).) The concept of “feasibility” also encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative or mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project. (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417.) “’[F]easibility’ under CEQA encompasses ‘desirability’ to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.” (Ibid; see also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn.v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715.) CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where feasible, to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts that would otherwise occur. Project modification or alternatives are not required, however, where such changes are infeasible or where the responsibility for modifying the project lies with some other agency. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a), (b).) With respect to a project for which significant impacts are not avoided or substantially lessened, a public agency, after adopting proper findings, may nevertheless approve the project if the agency first adopts a statement of overriding considerations setting forth the specific reasons why the agency found that the project’s “benefits” rendered “acceptable” its “unavoidable adverse environmental effects.” (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15093, 15043, subd. (b); see also Pub. Resources Code, § 21081, subd. (b).) The California Supreme Court has stated, “[t]he wisdom of approving…any development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced.” (Goleta II, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 576.) These Findings constitute the City Council members’ best efforts to set forth the evidentiary and policy bases for its decision to approve the Project in a manner consistent with the requirements of CEQA. The City Council hereby adopts specific overriding considerations for the impacts listed below that are identified in the EIR as significant and unavoidable. The City Council believes that many of the unavoidable environmental effects identified in the EIR will be substantially lessened by mitigation measures adopted through project approval, including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the EIR. Even with mitigation, however, the City Council recognized that the implementation of the Project carries with it unavoidable adverse environmental effects as identified in the EIR. The City Council specifically finds that to the extent the identified adverse or potentially adverse impacts for the Project have not been mitigated to acceptable levels, there are specific economic, social, environmental, land use, and other considerations that support approval of the Project. III. Significant and Unavoidable Impacts 10 The following nine (9) significant impacts would not be mitigated to a less-than-significant level, even with the implementation of the identified mitigation measures. No mitigation is feasible that would mitigate these impacts to a less-than-significant level. The City has determined that the impacts identified below are acceptable because of overriding economic, social or other considerations, as described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations presented below. 1. Impact 4.2-1: Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Implementation of mitigation would reduce this impact, but not to a less-than- significant level. MM4.2-1: Construction emissions for all future development under the Specific Plan shall be quantified prior to the start of construction. For projects where construction emissions are anticipated to exceed the most recent City-adopted thresholds, in addition to the BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures, construction activities shall implement the BAAQMD Additional Construction Mitigation Measures to reduce construction emissions of criteria air pollutants to below significance criteria. Mitigation reductions shall be quantified through the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prior to the start of construction to demonstrate that adequate measures have been identified to reduce project emissions. The Additional Construction Mitigation Measures include the following: 1. All exposed surfaces shall be watered at a frequency adequate to maintain minimum soil moisture of 12 percent. Moisture content can be verified by lab samples or moisture probe. 2. All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 mph. 3. Wind breaks (e.g., trees, fences) shall be installed on the windward side(s) of actively disturbed areas of construction. Wind breaks should have at maximum 50 percent air porosity. 4. Vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast-germinating native grass seed) shall be planted in disturbed areas as soon as possible and watered appropriately until vegetation is established. 5. The simultaneous occurrence of excavation, grading, and ground-disturbing construction activities on the same area at any one time shall be limited. Activities shall be phased to reduce the amount of disturbed surfaces at any one time. 6. All trucks and equipment, including their tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving the site. 7. Site accesses to a distance of 100 feet from the paved road shall be treated with a 6- to 12- inch compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel. 8. Sandbags or other erosion control measures shall be installed to prevent silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than 1 percent. 9. Minimizing the idling time of diesel powered construction equipment to two minutes. 10.The project shall develop a plan demonstrating that the off-road equipment (more than 50 horsepower) to be used in the construction project (i.e., owned, leased, and subcontractor vehicles) would achieve a project wide fleet-average 20 percent NOX reduction and 45 percent PM reduction compared to the most recent California ARB fleet 11 average. Acceptable options for reducing emissions include the use of late model engines, low-emission diesel products, alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, after-treatment products, add-on devices such as particulate filters, and/or other options as such become available. 11.Use low-ROG coatings beyond the local requirements (i.e., Regulation 8, Rule 3: Architectural Coatings). 12.All construction equipment, diesel trucks, and generators shall be equipped with Best Available Control Technology for emission reductions of NOX and PM. 13.All contractors shall use equipment that meets California ARB’s most recent certification standard for off-road heavy-duty diesel engines. MM4.2-2: Prior to issuance of a building permit for future development projects under the Specific Plan, the applicant shall demonstrate implementation of recommended BAAQMD operational mitigation measures as necessary to reduce operational emissions of criteria air pollutants to below significance criteria. Operational emissions and mitigation reductions will be quantified prior to issuance of the building permit to demonstrate that adequate measures have been identified to reduce project emissions. The recommended measures include, but are not limited to, any of the following: 1. Increase on-street parking fees. 2. Daily parking charge for employees. 3. Provide a parking “cash-out” incentive for employees who use alternative transportation to commute. 4. Provide subsidized or free transit passes to employees. 5. Encourage alternative compressed work schedules and telecommuting. 6. Provide a ridesharing program. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. Construction and operations emissions of criteria air pollutants from the proposed project are considered a potentially significant impact. Implementation of mitigation measure MM4.2-2 has the potential to reduce operational emissions to a less-than-significant level; however, as it is unknown if each individual project developed under the Specific Plan would be able to implement mitigation to successfully reduce all criteria pollutant impacts to less-than-significant levels, as a conservative determination, this impact is considered potentially significant. While implementation of mitigation measure MM4.2-1 and MM4.2-2 have the potential to reduce air pollutant emissions from construction by requiring compliance with BAAQMD construction mitigation measures, and operation through the reduction of project-related trips, they cannot guarantee that emissions would be lessened to below a significance level. Therefore, even with implementation of mitigation, construction and operational emissions would be significant and unavoidable impacts. 2. Impact 4.2-2: Implementation of the proposed project would violate an air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. This is considered a 12 potentially significant impact. Implementation of mitigation would reduce this impact, but not to a less-than-significant level for construction activities. MM4.2-1: Construction emissions for all future development under the Specific Plan shall be quantified prior to the start of construction. For projects where construction emissions are anticipated to exceed the most recent City-adopted thresholds, in addition to the BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures, construction activities shall implement the BAAQMD Additional Construction Mitigation Measures to reduce construction emissions of criteria air pollutants to below significance criteria. Mitigation reductions shall be quantified through the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prior to the start of construction to demonstrate that adequate measures have been identified to reduce project emissions. The Additional Construction Mitigation Measures include the following: 1. All exposed surfaces shall be watered at a frequency adequate to maintain minimum soil moisture of 12 percent. Moisture content can be verified by lab samples or moisture probe. 2. All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 mph. 3. Wind breaks (e.g., trees, fences) shall be installed on the windward side(s) of actively disturbed areas of construction. Wind breaks should have at maximum 50 percent air porosity. 4. Vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast-germinating native grass seed) shall be planted in disturbed areas as soon as possible and watered appropriately until vegetation is established. 5. The simultaneous occurrence of excavation, grading, and ground-disturbing construction activities on the same area at any one time shall be limited. Activities shall be phased to reduce the amount of disturbed surfaces at any one time. 6. All trucks and equipment, including their tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving the site. 7. Site accesses to a distance of 100 feet from the paved road shall be treated with a 6- to 12- inch compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel. 8. Sandbags or other erosion control measures shall be installed to prevent silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than 1 percent. 9. Minimizing the idling time of diesel powered construction equipment to two minutes. 10.The project shall develop a plan demonstrating that the off-road equipment (more than 50 horsepower) to be used in the construction project (i.e., owned, leased, and subcontractor vehicles) would achieve a project wide fleet-average 20 percent NOX reduction and 45 percent PM reduction compared to the most recent California ARB fleet average. Acceptable options for reducing emissions include the use of late model engines, low-emission diesel products, alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, after-treatment products, add-on devices such as particulate filters, and/or other options as such become available. 11.Use low-ROG coatings beyond the local requirements (i.e., Regulation 8, Rule 3: Architectural Coatings). 12.All construction equipment, diesel trucks, and generators shall be equipped with Best Available Control Technology for emission reductions of NOX and PM. 13 13.All contractors shall use equipment that meets California ARB’s most recent certification standard for off-road heavy-duty diesel engines. MM4.2-2: Prior to issuance of a building permit for future development projects under the Specific Plan, the applicant shall demonstrate implementation of recommended BAAQMD operational mitigation measures as necessary to reduce operational emissions of criteria air pollutants to below significance criteria. Operational emissions and mitigation reductions will be quantified prior to issuance of the building permit to demonstrate that adequate measures have been identified to reduce project emissions. The recommended measures include, but are not limited to, any of the following: 1. Increase on-street parking fees. 2. Daily parking charge for employees. 3. Provide a parking “cash-out” incentive for employees who use alternative transportation to commute. 4. Provide subsidized or free transit passes to employees. 5. Encourage alternative compressed work schedules and telecommuting. 6. Provide a ridesharing program. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. Construction and operations emissions of criteria air pollutants from the proposed project are considered a potentially significant impact. Implementation of mitigation measure MM4.2-2 has the potential to reduce operational emissions to a less-than-significant level; however, as it is unknown if each individual project developed under the Specific Plan would be able to implement mitigation to successfully reduce all criteria pollutant impacts to less-than-significant levels, as a conservative determination, this impact is considered potentially significant. While implementation of mitigation measure MM4.2-1 and MM4.2-2 have the potential to reduce air pollutant emissions from construction by requiring compliance with BAAQMD construction mitigation measures, and operation through the reduction of project-related trips, they cannot guarantee that emissions would be lessened to below a significance level. Therefore, even with implementation of mitigation, construction and operational emissions would be significant and unavoidable impacts. 3. Impact 4.3-1: Implementation of the proposed project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Implementation of mitigation would reduce this impact, but not to a less-than-significant level. MM4.3-1: Prior to development activities that would demolish or otherwise physically affect buildings or structures 45 years old or older, the project applicant shall retain a cultural resource professional who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Architectural History to determine if the project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. The 14 investigation shall include, as determined appropriate by the cultural resource professional and the City of South San Francisco, the appropriate archival research, including, if necessary, an updated records search of the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System and a pedestrian survey of the proposed development area to determine if any significant historic-period resources would be adversely affected by the proposed development. The results of the investigation shall be documented in a technical report or memorandum that identifies and evaluates any historical resources within the development area and includes recommendations and methods for eliminating or reducing impacts on historical resources. The technical report or memorandum shall be submitted to the City of South San Francisco for approval. As determined necessary by the City, environmental documentation (e.g., CEQA documentation) prepared for future development within the project site shall reference or incorporate the findings and recommendations of the technical report or memorandum. The project applicant shall be responsible for implementing methods for eliminating or reducing impacts on historical resources identified in the technical report or memorandum. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. Substantial adverse changes in the significance of historical resources that may result from project implementation are considered a potentially significant impact. Implementation of mitigation measure MM4.3-1 would require a qualified professional to conduct site-specific historical resource evaluation for future developments within the study area that would demolish or otherwise physically affect buildings or structures 45 years old or older or would otherwise affect their historic setting. While the historic resource evaluation would include a general area overview on the history of the community, the evaluation need only evaluate the historic significance of the specific building being modified or demolished. Nonetheless, development within the study area could result in demolition or removal of significant historical resources, which would result in a significant impact. While implementation of site-specific mitigation measures, such as written and photographic documentation of significant historical resources, would reduce the magnitude of this impact, the impact would remain significant due to the potential for future physical demolition of a historical resource. Consequently, impacts on historical resources would be significant and unavoidable. 4. Impact 4.6-4: Implementation of the proposed project would result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels as a result of increased traffic in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Implementation of mitigation would reduce this impact, but not to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, the increase in traffic noise would be a significant and unavoidable impact. No feasible mitigation measures would be available. Finding: Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. Further, specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects on the environment. Typical sound mitigation for traffic noise consists of walls or other barriers that would attenuate noise to the sensitive receptors behind the barrier. 15 However, the feasibility of noise walls is restricted by access requirements for driveways, presence of local cross streets, underground utilities, other noise sources in the study area, and safety considerations. The study area is currently developed and driveways and cross-streets currently exist along Gateway Boulevard and South Airport Boulevard. A noise wall would be ineffective on the impacted segments in the study area due to necessary breaks in the wall to accommodate existing and potential new driveways or cross-streets. Additionally, noise barriers on surface streets inhibit the creation of a pedestrian-friendly streetscape by walling off businesses and public spaces from the public view and limiting pedestrian access, contradicting the goals of a transit-oriented development area. Therefore, installation of a noise wall along impacted segments may not be feasible. Where new and complete redevelopment is planned, noise walls or other appropriate noise barriers may be feasible and should be considered where appropriate. There are no other mitigation measures available to reduce roadway noise besides limiting/reducing residential or consumer traffic, which would contradict the TOD goals of the Specific Plan. Because no certain feasible mitigation is available to reduce this impact to a less- than-significant level, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. However, the benefits of the project such as the addition of new residential units, emphasis on multi-modal transportation, and strengthened economic opportunities outweigh the significant and unavoidable impacts on ambient noise levels. 5. Impact 4.10-1 Implementation of the Specific Plan could conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Implementation of mitigation would reduce impacts to most intersections to less-than-significant, but impacts would remain significant and unavoidable for four intersections:  #10: Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard;  #12: Baden Avenue/Linden Avenue;  #14: San Mateo Avenue/Produce Avenue/South Airport Boulevard; and  #15: South Airport Boulevard/Mitchell Avenue/Gateway Boulevard. MM4.10-1: A signal timing adjustment to redistribute green time to better serve future vehicle volumes would reduce delay at the intersection, and improve operations at #1 Miller Avenue/Linden Avenue. This would cause the intersection to operate at an acceptable LOS D in the PM peak hour. MM4.10-2: Convert one westbound through lane to a second westbound left-turn lane, and retime and optimize the traffic signal at E. Grand Avenue/Gateway Boulevard. MM4.10-3: Modify the eastbound approach to include one left-turn pocket and one through- right shared lane, and retime and optimize the traffic signal at Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard to reallocate green time. MM4.10-4: Add a southbound left-turn pocket by removing existing parking and retime and optimize the traffic signal at Baden Avenue/Linden Avenue to reallocate green time to better serve future volumes. MM4.10-5: Modify the westbound approach to add a left-turn pocket, modifying the approach to include three left-turn lanes, one through lane, and one right-turn lane, and optimize the traffic signal at San Mateo Avenue/Airport Boulevard to reallocate green time to better serve future volumes. 16 MM4.10-6: Include an additional westbound through lane, add a second southbound right-turn pocket, and retime and optimize the traffic signal at South Airport Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard to reallocate green time to better serve future traffic volumes. MM4.10-7: A signal timing adjustment to redistribute green time to better serve future vehicle volumes would reduce queuing at the southbound right-turn movement. This would cause the intersection to operate at an acceptable LOS D and with acceptable queue lengths during the PM peak hour. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. The mitigations necessary to reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels are incapable of being accomplished, given economic, environmental, legal and technological factors. The Planning Area and adjacent area is an urbanized area that is already fully developed with operating businesses. The acquisition of such property for additional travel lanes would be prohibitively costly given the expense associated with acquiring the land, costs of relocating businesses, and payment for loss of business good will. The widening of streets directly conflicts with the project’s vision, which is to make the area into a walkable, distinctive, mixed–use district. These mitigations would be contrary to the purpose of the proposed Plan, which is to create a vibrant, mixed use neighborhood that is pedestrian oriented and walkable. The LOS standard used in this analysis relates only to vehicular traffic and only takes into account the transportation system experience of automobile drivers. Widening approaches to increase LOS would benefit automobile drivers but often result in overly-wide streets and intersections that are difficult for pedestrians and bicyclists to cross, and could result in narrowing of sidewalks. These changes would potentially result in worsened conditions for pedestrians, bicyclists and transit users. Accordingly, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. 6. Impact 4.10-2 Implementation of the Station Area Plan would add traffic greater than 1 percent to the freeway segment volume and deteriorate LOS from E to F on two northbound segments and one southbound segment of US-101 and would add traffic greater than 1 percent to a freeway segment already operating at LOS F under No Project Conditions for one northbound segment and two southbound segments, resulting in a significant project contribution under Existing Plus Project Conditions. No feasible mitigation measures would be available. Finding: Widening of northbound US-101 mainline from four to five mixed-flow lanes from Airport Boulevard to Oyster Point Boulevard would expand roadway capacity, thus providing acceptable operations. However, this portion of the freeway is under the jurisdiction of Caltrans, which would be responsible for funding and approving this improvement. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. No additional feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce this impact. Therefore, this would be a significant and unavoidable impact. 17 7. Impact 4.10-4 Implementation of the Specific Plan could conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system under cumulative plus project conditions. This is a potentially significant impact. Implementation of mitigation would reduce impacts to most intersections to less-than- significant, but impacts would remain significant and unavoidable for five intersections:  #6: E. Grand Avenue/Gateway Boulevard;  #10: Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard;  #14: San Mateo Avenue/Produce Avenue/South Airport Boulevard;  #15: South Airport Boulevard/Mitchell Avenue/Gateway Boulevard; and  #16: US-101 Northbound/South Airport Blvd Off Ramp/South Airport Boulevard. MM4.10-9: Repurpose the eastbound and westbound approaches to include one left-turn pocket and one through-right shared lane, and retime and optimize the traffic signals at Miller Avenue/Linden Avenue. This lane modification would not require any additional right-of-way. MM4.10-10: A signal timing adjustment to optimize cycle length and redistribute green time to better serve future vehicle volumes would reduce delay at the Grand Avenue/E. Grand Avenue intersection, and improve operations at this intersection. MM4.10-11: A signal timing adjustment to redistribute green time to better serve future vehicle volumes would reduce delay at the E. Grand Avenue/Gateway Boulevard intersection, and improve operations at this intersection. This would cause the intersection to operate at an acceptable LOS D during the PM peak hour. MM4.10-12: Construct an additional northbound right-turn lane, southbound left-turn lane, southbound right-turn pocket, and retime and optimize the traffic signals at E. Grand Avenue/Gateway Boulevard. MM4.10-13: Convert the westbound approach to include one left-turn lane and one through- right shared lane. MM4.10-14: Modify the eastbound and westbound approach to each have one left-turn pocket and one through-right shared lane, and retime and optimize the traffic signals at Grand Avenue/Linden Avenue. MM4.10-15: Modify the eastbound approach to include one left-turn pocket, one through lane, and one right-turn pocket, and retime and optimize the traffic signals at Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard. This lane modification and signal timing adjustment would reduce vehicle delay at the intersection, and improve operations at #10 Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard. MM4.10-16: Retime and optimize the traffic signals at Baden Avenue/Linden Avenue. MM4.10-17: Construct an additional westbound left-turn lane, provide a northbound right-turn pocket, and retime and optimize the traffic signals at San Mateo Avenue/Airport Boulevard. MM4.10-18: Construct an additional northbound left-turn lane, and retime and optimize the traffic signals at So. Airport Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard. MM4.10-19: Modify the eastbound approach to include two left-turn lanes, one through-left shared lane, and one right-turn lane, and retime and optimize the traffic signal at US-101 NB/So. Airport Boulevard Off Ramp/So. Airport Boulevard to reallocate green time to better serve future volumes. 18 Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. Implementation of the Station Area Plan would result in the addition of project traffic (22 to 25 percent increase) to intersection #10 Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard, which would exacerbate unacceptable LOS F in the AM and PM peak hours under Cumulative Plus Project Conditions. Furthermore, the project would exacerbate the 95th percentile queues for several movements during the AM and PM peak hours. While Mitigation Measure MM4.10-15 would reduce queuing impacts and improve operations during the AM and PM peak hours, the intersection would continue to have unacceptable queue lengths and operate at an unacceptable LOS F during the AM and PM peak hours. The addition of several lanes is not typically recommended as an urban intersection treatment and would be in direct contrast to the proposed Project’s preference for multi-modal development with an emphasis on pedestrian and bicyclist safety; therefore, this impact would be considered significant and unavoidable during the AM and PM peak hours. Implementation of mitigation at identified intersections (#6, #10, #14, and #15) would potentially increase crossing distance for pedestrians, create greater pedestrian exposure, and increase delay to pedestrians. Pedestrian and bicycle impacts would be considered significant if the proposed project would alter existing facilities with a negative impact on pedestrians or is inconsistent with adopted plans and programs. Since implementation of this mitigation would likely increase crossing distance and delay for pedestrians, the cumulative impact would be significant and unavoidable at these four intersections. 8. Impact 4.10-5: Implementation of the Station Area Plan would add traffic greater than 1 percent to the freeway segment volume and deteriorate LOS from E to F on one northbound segment of US-101 and would add traffic greater than 1 percent of the freeway segment volume to a segment already operating at LOS F under No Project Conditions on five northbound segments and five southbound segments of US-101. No feasible mitigation is available to reduce this impact. Therefore, this impact would be significant and unavoidable under cumulative conditions. No feasible mitigation measures would be available. Finding: Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. Further, specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects on the environment. Widening of the US-101 mainline from four to five mixed-flow lanes from Airport Boulevard to Oyster Point Boulevard would expand roadway capacity. This improvement is not under the jurisdiction of the City, which is the agency making the finding; it is within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency — Caltrans. Such changes or alterations are neither planned nor funded, and not guaranteed to be implemented by Caltrans. In addition, this freeway improvement would likely be part of a larger, regional freeway improvement project. Such a project would be inconsistent with regional policies related to encouraging infill development and the encouragement of non-auto travel modes, which provide benefits that outweigh the impact on traffic. Since no other feasible 19 mitigation is available to reduce freeway segment conditions to acceptable levels, this impact would be significant and unavoidable. 9. Impact 4.10-6: Implementation of the Station Area Plan would add traffic greater than 1 percent of the freeway ramp volume and deteriorate LOS from E to F for one southbound US-101 ramp during the PM peak hour (on-ramp from Produce Avenue). No feasible mitigation within the jurisdiction of the City is available to reduce this impact. Therefore, the impact would be significant and unavoidable under cumulative conditions. No feasible mitigation measures would be available. Finding: Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. Further, specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects on the environment. Expanding US-101 on-ramps and off-ramp from one lane to two or from two lanes to three would expand roadway capacity, and thus provide acceptable operations. Such a project would be inconsistent with regional policies related to encouraging infill development and the encouragement of non-auto travel modes, which provide benefits that outweigh the impact on traffic. Such a project is neither planned nor funded and is under the jurisdiction of Caltrans. As such, changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. No additional feasible mitigation within the jurisdiction of the City is available to provide acceptable operations at these Caltrans facilities. Therefore, this impact is considered significant and unavoidable. IV. Less-Than-Significant Impacts With Mitigation The Final EIR determined that the project has potentially significant environmental impacts in the areas discussed below. The Final EIR identified feasible mitigation measures to avoid or substantially reduce some or all of the environmental impacts in these areas. Based on the information and analyses set forth in the Final EIR, and the entirety of the Record before it, including without limitation the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the City finds that for each of the following thirty-one (31) project impacts, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. As described in further detail below and in the Final EIR, the following thirty-one (31) impacts will be less-than-significant with identified feasible mitigation measures. 1. Impact 4.1-1: Implementation of the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. This would be a less-than-significant impact. No mitigation measures would be required. Finding: While findings are not legally required for insignificant impacts, they are included for informational purposes. Implementation of the Specific Plan would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. This impact would be less-than-significant, and no mitigation is required. 20 2. Impact 4.1-2: Implementation of the proposed project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. This would be a less-than-significant impact. No mitigation measures would be required. Finding: While findings are not legally required for insignificant impacts, they are included for informational purposes. Proposed policies and guidelines would protect historic buildings and their visual character within the study area. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not substantially damage scenic resources. This impact would be less-than-significant, and no mitigation is required. 3. Impact 4.1-3: Implementation of the proposed project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. This would be a less-than- significant impact. No mitigation measures would be required. Finding: While findings are not legally required for insignificant impacts, they are included for informational purposes. While new development under the Specific Plan would result in some change in the visual character of the study area, implementation of the Specific Plan would result in an overall improvement, rather than degradation, of the visual quality of the area. Implementation of the Specific Plan would be beneficial to the study area, as it will create new development opportunities, refresh and update the existing buildings, establish cohesive aesthetic themes, and overall make the study area more attractive to entice pedestrian and commercial activity. Therefore, implementation of the Specific Plan would not degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. This impact would be less-than-significant, and no mitigation is required. 4. Impact 4.2-3 Implementation of the proposed project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). This is considered a potentially significant impact. However, implementation of mitigation would reduce this impact to a less- than-significant level. MM4.2-2: Prior to issuance of a building permit for future development projects under the Specific Plan, the applicant shall demonstrate implementation of recommended BAAQMD operational mitigation measures as necessary to reduce operational emissions of criteria air pollutants to below significance criteria. Operational emissions and mitigation reductions will be quantified prior to issuance of the building permit to demonstrate that adequate measures have been identified to reduce project emissions. The recommended measures include, but are not limited to, any of the following: 1. Increase on-street parking fees. 2. Daily parking charge for employees. 21 3. Provide a parking “cash-out” incentive for employees who use alternative transportation to commute. 4. Provide subsidized or free transit passes to employees. 5. Encourage alternative compressed work schedules and telecommuting. 6. Provide a ridesharing program. Finding: The Bay Area Basin is considered “nonattainment” for ozone and PM 2.5 federal standards, and is considered “nonattainment” for state standards for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5. According to the BAAQMD, a project would be cumulatively significant if operational-related criteria pollutant emissions would exceed the lead agency’s significance thresholds for operational emissions. As shown in Table 4.2-8 (Operational Daily Maximum Emissions— Proposed Project), operation of the proposed project would have the potential to result in significant emissions of PM10. This is considered a potentially significant impact. However, implementation of mitigation measure MM4.2-2 would reduce this impact to less-than- significant by reducing operational emissions to below the significance thresholds. 5. Impact 4.2-4: Implementation of the proposed project would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. This is considered a potentially significant impact. However, implementation of mitigation would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. MM4.2-3: Siting Sensitive Receptors near Potential TAC Source. A Health Risk Assessment (HRA) shall be prepared by a qualified air quality professional for development of a project that would introduce new sensitive receptors in the study area within the siting distance for any use listed in ARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook Table 1 1 (reproduced here as Table 4.2 11 [Recommendations on Siting New Sensitive Land Uses]). Sensitive receptors include day care centers, schools, retirement homes, hospitals, medical patients in residential homes, or other facilities that may house individuals with health conditions that would be adversely impacted by changes in air quality. Such a project shall not be considered for approval until an HRA has been completed and approved by the City. The methodology for the HRA shall follow the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and BAAQMD guidelines for the preparation of HRAs. If a potentially significant health risk is identified, the HRA shall identify appropriate measures to reduce the potential health risk to below a significant level or the sensitive receptor shall be sited in another location. MM4.2-4: Siting of New Toxic Air Contaminant Sources Near Sensitive Receptors. Prior to approval of any project that includes potential sources of significant TAC emissions that is not subject to a BAAQMD permit, that is proposed in a close proximity to a sensitive receptor, a HRA shall be prepared by a qualified air quality professional. The land uses listed in ARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook Table 1 1 (reproduced above as Table 4.2 11 [Recommendations on Siting New Sensitive Land Uses]), shall be considered potentially significant sources of TAC emissions. Such a proposed project will be considered in close proximity to a sensitive receptor if it would be located within the siting distance outline for the use in Table 1- 1 of the ARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook. Sensitive receptors include day care centers, schools, retirement homes, hospitals, medical patients in residential homes, or other facilities that may house individuals with health conditions that would be adversely impacted by changes in air quality. Such a project shall not be considered for approval until an 22 HRA has been completed and approved by the City. The methodology for the HRA shall follow the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and BAAQMD guidelines for the preparation of HRAs. If a potentially significant health risk is identified, the HRA shall identify appropriate measures to reduce the potential health risk to below a significant level, or the proposed facility shall be sited in another location. Finding: According to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, common stationary sources of TAC emissions include gasoline stations, dry cleaners, and diesel backup generators, which are subject to BAAQMD permit requirements. Industrial operations may also result in permitted TAC emissions. However, the most common source of TACs in communities is diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions from on-road motor vehicles on freeways and roads such as trucks and cars, and off-road sources such as construction equipment, ships and trains. These sources of pollution are present in the Project area; however implementation of mitigation measures MM4.2 3 through MM4.2 5 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level because the HRA will identify measures to reduce potential health risks to below a significant level or require the facility to be located elsewhere. 6. Impact 4.2-5: Implementation of the proposed project would create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. This is considered a potentially significant impact. However, implementation of mitigation would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. MM4.2-5 Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for new industrial land uses identified in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines or ARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook as a typical source of odors, the applicant shall demonstrate implementation of best management practices to minimize odors. Best management practices vary by industrial type. In all cases, exhaust vents should be located as far from sensitive receptors as possible. Best management practices recommended by the BAAQMD in the CEQA Guidelines shall be implemented as applicable, and may include the following:  Vapor Recovery Systems  Injection of masking odorants into process streams  Thermal oxidation  Carbon absorption  Scrubbers  Catalytic oxidation Finding: With implementation of the Specific Plan, new industrial uses would be limited to the area south of Railroad Avenue and west of Airport Boulevard. This entire area may be located within one mile of odor sensitive receptors in residential and commercial areas. Not all industrial land uses produce objectionable odors. The only permitted industrial uses proposed in the Specific Plan for the Transit Orientated/R&D sub-district are “clean technology”, “handicraft/custom manufacturing”, and “research and development,” which do not generate excessive impacts more typical of industrial uses. Industrial and manufacturing land uses that would result in air emissions generally require permitting from the BAAQMD. However, permitting would generally cover emissions that present health risks and may not eliminate odors. Therefore, impacts related to industrial land uses would be potentially significant. 23 However, implementation of mitigation measure MM4.2 5 would reduce this impact to a less- than-significant level by reducing objectionable odors. 7. Impact 4.3-2: Implementation of the proposed project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. This is considered a potentially significant impact. However, implementation of mitigation would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. MM4.3-2: Prior to any earth-disturbing activities (e.g., excavation, trenching, grading) that could encounter previously undisturbed soils, the project applicant shall retain a City approved archaeologist to determine if the project could result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. The results of the cultural resources investigation shall be documented in a technical report or memorandum that identifies and evaluates any archaeological resources within the development area and includes recommendations and methods for avoiding impacts on archaeological resources or reducing impacts to a less-than-significant level. The technical report or memorandum shall be submitted to the City of South San Francisco for approval. The project applicant shall be responsible for implementing methods for avoiding or reducing impacts on archaeological resources identified in the technical report or memorandum. Projects under the Specific Plan that would not encounter previously undisturbed soils and would therefore not be required to retain an archaeologist shall demonstrate non-disturbance to the City through the appropriate construction plans or geotechnical studies prior to any earth-disturbing activities. Projects that would include any earth disturbance (disturbed or undisturbed soils) shall comply with mitigation measure MM4.3 3. MM4.3-3: If evidence of an archaeological site or other suspected historical resource as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, are discovered during any project-related earth-disturbing activities (including projects that would not encounter undisturbed soils), all earth-disturbing activity within 100 feet of the find shall be halted and the City of South San Francisco shall be notified. The project applicant shall retain a City-approved archaeologist to assess the significance of the find. Impacts to any significant resources shall be mitigated to a less-than- significant level through methods determined adequate by the archaeologist as approved by the City. MM4.3-4: Prior to start of construction, all construction personnel involved in ground-disturbing activities and the supervision of such activities will undergo worker environmental awareness training. The archaeological resources training components will be presented by a City-approved cultural resources consultant. The training will describe the types of archaeological resources that may be found in the proposed study area and how to recognize such resources; the protocols to be followed if archaeological resources are found, including communication protocols; and the laws relevant to the protection of archaeological resources and the associated penalties for breaking these laws. Additionally, prior to construction, City-approved archaeological resources consultants will meet with the applicant’s grading and excavation contractors to provide comments and suggestions concerning monitoring plans and to discuss excavation and grading plans. 24 Finding: The potential exists that construction activities associated with ground disturbance within the Specific Plan study area may unearth undocumented archaeological resources. This could result in a potentially significant impact. However, development projects under the Specific Plan would be required through mitigation measure MM4.3 2 through MM4.3 4, if applicable, to conduct preconstruction surveys of previously undisturbed soils; to retain an archaeologist to document any cultural resources within the development area; require that earth- moving activities by halted if an archeological resource is discovered; and require that all construction personnel receive environmental awareness training. Therefore, implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce this impact to less-than-significant. 8. Impact 4.3-3: Implementation of the proposed project could directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. This is considered a potentially significant impact. However, implementation of mitigation would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. MM4.3-4: Prior to start of construction, all construction personnel involved in ground-disturbing activities and the supervision of such activities will undergo worker environmental awareness training. The archaeological resources training components will be presented by a City-approved cultural resources consultant. The training will describe the types of archaeological resources that may be found in the proposed study area and how to recognize such resources; the protocols to be followed if archaeological resources are found, including communication protocols; and the laws relevant to the protection of archaeological resources and the associated penalties for breaking these laws. Additionally, prior to construction, City-approved archaeological resources consultants will meet with the applicant’s grading and excavation contractors to provide comments and suggestions concerning monitoring plans and to discuss excavation and grading plans. MM4.3-5: Prior to any earth-disturbing activities (e.g., excavation, trenching, grading) that could encounter undisturbed soils, the project applicant shall retain a professional paleontologist to determine if the project could directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. The results of the investigation shall be documented in a technical report or memorandum that identifies the paleontological sensitivity of the development area and includes recommendations and methods for avoiding or reducing impacts to a less-than-significant level for paleontological resources or unique geologic features. The technical report or memorandum shall be submitted to the City for approval. The project applicant shall be responsible for implementing methods for avoiding or reducing impacts on paleontological resources or unique geologic features identified in the technical report or memorandum. Projects that would not encounter undisturbed soils and would therefore not be required to retain a paleontologist shall demonstrate non-disturbance to the City through the appropriate construction plans or geotechnical studies prior to any earth-disturbing activities. Projects that would include any earth disturbance (disturbed or undisturbed soils) shall comply with mitigation measure MM4.3-6. MM4.3-6: Should paleontological resources (i.e., fossil remains) or unique geologic features be identified at a particular site during project construction, construction shall cease within 100 feet of the find and the City of South San Francisco shall be notified. The project applicant shall 25 retain a City approved paleontologist to assess the significance of the find. Impacts to any significant resources shall be mitigated to a less-than-significant level through methods determined adequate by the paleontologist, and as approved by the City. In considering any suggested mitigation proposed by the consulting paleontologist, the City of South San Francisco staff shall determine whether avoidance is necessary and feasible in light of factors such as the nature of the find, project design, costs, applicable regulations, policies and land use assumptions, and other considerations. If avoidance is unnecessary or infeasible, other appropriate measures (e.g., monitoring and/or data recovery) shall be instituted. Finding: Ground-disturbing construction activities from development projects under the proposed Specific Plan would have the potential to uncover and potentially destroy unknown paleontological resources or an unknown unique geologic feature. This is considered a potentially significant impact. However, implementation of mitigation measures MM4.3 5 and MM4.3-6, which require construction working training, preconstruction studies within areas containing previously undisturbed soils, and a halting of construction be should a paleontological deposit or unique geologic feature be discovered, would reduce this impact to less-than- significant. 9. Impact 4.3-4: Implementation of the proposed project could disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. This is considered a potentially significant impact. However, compliance with standard regulations would reduce this impact to a less-than- significant level. No mitigation measures would be required. Finding: While findings are not legally required for insignificant impacts, they are included for informational purposes. In the event of the inadvertent discovery or recognition of any human remains during future, project-related ground disturbing activities, California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that no further disturbances shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to the origin and disposition of the remains pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. PRC Section 5097.98 outlines the NAHC notification process and the required procedures if the County Coroner determines the human remains to be Native American. Compliance with this standard regulation would protect unknown and previously unidentified human remains, and impacts related to unknown human remains would be less-than-significant; and no mitigation would be required. 10. Impact 4.4-1: Implementation of the proposed project would generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. This is considered a potentially significant impact. However, implementation of mitigation would reduce this impact to less-than-cumulatively-significant. MM4.4-1: All construction projects shall incorporate, to the greatest extent feasible, the most recent Best Management Practices for Greenhouse Gas Emissions as indicated by the BAAQMD. Best Management Practices to reduce GHG emissions during construction may include, but are not limited to: 26  Use of alternative-fueled (e.g., biodiesel, electric) construction vehicles/equipment of at least 15 percent of the fleet  Using local building materials of at least 10 percent  Recycle at least 50 percent of construction waste or demolition materials MM4.4-2: Support Expansion of Public and Private Transit Programs to Reduce Employee Commutes (1.2). Employers within the study area shall subscribe to the South San Francisco TDM Ordinance such that a minimum of 25 percent of all employees are included. The South San Francisco TDM Ordinance requires that all nonresidential developments producing 100 average trips per day or more meet a 28 percent non-drive-alone peak hour requirement with fees assessed for noncompliance. MM4.4-3: Reduce Dependence on Autos through Smart Parking Policies (1.3). This measure would implement Smart Parking Policies, such as shared parking, to reduce available parking by 10 percent. MM4.4-4: Expand the Use of Alternative-Fuel Vehicles (2.1). Nonresidential and residential land uses can encourage the use of alternative-fueled vehicles by providing charging stations. In support of this measure, development within the study area shall ensure that a minimum of 60 electric vehicle chargers are installed within nonresidential land uses and within the residential units electric charging capabilities are available for a minimum of 200 vehicles. MM4.4-5: Reduce Emissions from Off-Road Vehicles and Equipment (2.2). In support of this measure, development within the study area shall ensure that a minimum of 25 percent of all lawnmowers and leaf blowers acquired/used within the study area would be electric. This requires that there be sufficient electrical outlets outside of all residential and nonresidential units to encourage the use of non-gas-fueled lawn maintenance equipment. MM4.4-6: Maximize Energy Efficiency in the Built Environment through Standards and the Plan Review Process (3.1). All new development within the study area shall, at a minimum, comply with the CALGreen Tier 1 standards and exceed 2013 Title 24 by a minimum of 10 percent. MM4.4-7: Address Heat Island Issues and Expand the Urban Forest (3.4). At a minimum, 322,000 square feet of all new nonresidential development and 75 new residential units shall address heat island effect issues by using high albedo surfaces and technologies identified in the voluntary CALGreen Standards. This is in addition to the requirements of all new development to plant trees in accordance with Zoning Code Chapter 13.30 with placement used to maximize building shading. MM4.4-8: Promote Energy Information Sharing and Educate the Community about Energy- Efficient Behaviors and Construction (3.5). Develop as part of the Specific Plan an educational information packet that will be distributed to residential and nonresidential land owners. These information packets shall detail potential behavioral changes that can be instituted to save energy, such as unplugging appliances, air-drying clothes, and daylighting strategies. 27 MM4.4-9: Energy Reduction (4.1). In addition to complying with MM4.4-6, the development within the study area shall include the use of solar panels such that a minimum of 35,000 square feet of nonresidential land use roof space is converted to solar panels, 205 residential units are equipped with solar hot water heaters, and the electricity of an additional 75 dwelling units is offset by solar panel arrays associated with the new residential development. MM4.4-10: Water Reduction (6.1). Nonresidential and residential land uses shall reduce per capita water consumption by 40 gallons per day. Measures to be implemented to reduce water consumption may include, but are not limited to:  Limiting turf area in commercial and multi-family projects  Restricting hours of irrigation to between 3:00 AM and 2 hours after sunrise (suggestion to be included in the energy information saving package)  Installing irrigation controllers with rain sensors  Landscaping with native, water-efficient plants  Installing drip irrigation systems  Reducing impervious surfaces  Installing high-efficiency, water-saving appliances Finding: This is considered a potentially significant impact. However, there are no numerical thresholds identified by the BAAQMD for construction related GHG emissions, therefore compliance with adopted state, regional, and local plans and policies are used to determine significance. Implementation of the General Plan and CAP policies along with mitigation measures MM4.4-1 through MM 4.4-10 would reduce this impact to less than cumulatively significant. Incorporation of the General Plan and CAP policies would reduce the generation of waste from construction activities, thereby reducing the emission of GHGs associated with waste disposal and decomposition. Implementation of mitigation measure MM4.4-1 would reduce GHG emissions associated with waste and would have the potential to reduce combustion-related GHG emission by reducing the amount or type of fuel utilized at construction sites. Implementation of mitigation measures MM4.4-2 through MM4.2-10 would reduce operational GHG emissions. 11. Impact 4.4-2: Implementation of the proposed project would conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. This is considered a potentially significant impact. However, implementation of mitigation would reduce this impact to less-than-cumulatively-significant. MM4.4-1 through MM4.4-10 would apply. Finding: As indicated in Impact 4.4 1, with implementation of mitigation, the proposed Specific Plan would result in per service population emissions of approximately 3.08 MT CO2e, the per service population goal identified in the City of South San Francisco’s CAP which is needed to reduce GHG emissions within the City to exceed the AB 32 goals moving past 2020. Therefore, the emissions of GHGs from new development within the Specific Plan would be consistent with both AB 32 and the CAP for the City. 28 Further, SB 375 requires that MPOs include sustainable communities strategies for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas emissions; aligning planning for transportation and housing; and creating specified incentives for the implementation of the strategies. SB 375 targets require a 7 to 8 percent reduction by 2020 and between 13 to 16 percent reduction by 2035 for each MPO. While the proposed Specific Plan is not specifically subject to reduction requirements under SB 375, VMT generated under the Specific Plan could further or hinder the region’s ability to achieve the SB 375 targets. With the implementation of the Specific Plan design features and mitigation measures MM4.4-2, MM4.4-3, and MM4.4-4, traffic within the Specific Plan is anticipated to be reduced by between 14 and 34 percent. Therefore, the implementation of the Specific Plan would further the goals of both the AB 32 and SB 375 legislative initiatives. This is considered a potentially significant impact. However, implementation of mitigation measures MM4.4-1 through MM4.4-10 would reduce this impact to less than cumulatively significant. 12. Impact 4.5-1: Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would adopt new standards and permit land uses not currently allowed within the study area. However, the proposed Specific Plan would not conflict with applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of mitigating an environmental effect. This impact would be less-than-significant. No mitigation measures would be required. Finding: While findings are not legally required for insignificant impacts, they are included for informational purposes. The proposed Specific Plan includes General Plan amendments, as implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would result in changes to the land use designations, density and development intensities, build-out population and employment tables, projected jobs to employment ratio table, and includes improvements to streets and bikeways systems. Additionally, implementation of the Specific Plan includes Zoning amendments to add the Downtown Specific Plan into Division III (Specific and Area Plan Districts); add a reference to the Specific Plan in District Purposes; include a map of the Specific Plan study area; update land use regulations to be consistent with the Specific Plan; and include the development and design regulations and standards. Once adopted, the Specific Plan would replace the General Plan land use designations and standards for the study area and would be the governing document for development in the study area. The proposed amendments to the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance would be considered and adopted at the same time as adoption of the Specific Plan. This impact would be less-than-significant. 13. Impact 4.6-1: Implementation of the Specific Plan could result in the 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. This is considered a potentially significant impact. However, implementation of mitigation would reduce the impact from operational noise sources to a less-than-significant level. MM4.6-1: HVAC Mechanical Equipment Shielding. Prior to the approval of building permits for non-residential development, the applicant shall submit a design plan for the project demonstrating that the noise level from operation of mechanical equipment will not exceed the 29 exterior noise level limits for a designated receiving land use category as specified in Noise Ordinance Section 8.32.030. Noise control measures may include, but are not limited to, the selection of quiet equipment, equipment setbacks, silencers, and/or acoustical louvers. MM4.6-2: Site-Specific Acoustic Analysis—Nonresidential Development. Prior to the approval of building permits for new non-residential land uses where exterior noise level exceeds 70 dBA CNEL, an acoustical analysis shall be performed to determine appropriate noise reduction measures such that exterior noise levels shall be reduced to be below 70 dBA CNEL, unless a higher noise compatibility threshold (up to 75 dBA CNEL) has been determined appropriate by the City of South San Francisco. The analysis shall detail the measures that will be implemented to ensure exterior noise levels are compatible with the proposed use. Measures that may be implemented to ensure appropriate noise levels include, but are not limited to, setbacks to separate the proposed nonresidential structure from the adjacent roadway, or construction of noise barriers on site. MM4.6-3: Site-Specific Acoustic Analysis—Multifamily Residences. Prior to the approval of building permits for the following uses, an acoustical analysis shall be performed to ensure that interior noise levels due to exterior noise sources shall be below 45 dBA CNEL:  Multifamily residences where exterior noise levels exceed 65 dBA CNEL or where noise contours identified in the General Plan Noise Element project a CNEL between 65 and 70 dBA  Multifamily residential units that are located within the same building as commercial development  Multifamily residential units located near a structure requiring an HVAC system  Building plans shall be available during design review and shall demonstrate the accurate calculation of noise attenuation for habitable rooms. For these areas, it may be necessary for the windows to be able to remain closed to ensure that interior noise levels meet the interior standard of 45 dBA CNEL. Consequently, based on the results of the interior acoustical analysis, the design for buildings in these areas may need to include a ventilation or air conditioning system to provide a habitable interior environment with the windows closed. Additionally, for new multifamily residences on properties where train horns and railroad crossing warning signals are audible, the acoustical analysis shall ensure that interior noise levels during crossing events do not exceed the Interior Noise Standards in Noise Ordinance Section 8.32.040. Finding: The proposed project has the potential to expose new development to stationary sources of noise and transportation noise levels that exceed the City’s normally acceptable compatibility standards. This is considered a potentially significant impact. However, implementation of mitigation measures MM4.6-1 through MM4.6-3 would reduce this impact to less-than-significant by requiring noise control measures that reduce noise impacts to below significance thresholds. 14. Impact 4.6-2: Construction of the proposed project would result in the exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. This is considered a potentially significant impact. However, implementation of mitigation would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. 30 MM4.6-4: Construction Vibration. For all construction activities within the study area, the construction contractor shall implement the following measures during construction:  The construction contractor shall provide, at least three weeks prior to the start of construction activities, written notification to all residential units and nonresidential tenants within 115 feet of the construction site informing them of the estimated start date and duration of vibration-generating construction activities.  Stationary sources, such as temporary generators, shall be located as far from off-site receptors as possible.  Trucks shall be prohibited from idling along streets serving the construction site. Finding: The main concerns related to groundborne vibration are annoyance and property damage to fragile buildings. Vibration-sensitive instruments and operations can also be disrupted at much lower levels. Potential vibration-sensitive uses in the proposed study area may include machinery in industrial uses, or research laboratory equipment. These land uses are located throughout the eastern portion of the study area. The primary sources of vibration within the project vicinity would be from operation of the freight and commuter rail and construction activities. Because the proposed land uses accommodated under the Specific Plan would be similar to existing land uses, vibration levels from operational activities would not be substantially different from existing conditions. Construction within approximately 25 feet of existing sensitive uses would exceed the 85 VdB threshold. With attenuation due to distance, construction activities occurring 30 feet or more away from an active construction site would not exceed 85 VdB. As there is the potential for construction to occur within 25 feet of existing sensitive receptors, there is the potential for groundborne vibration impacts to be significant without mitigation. This is considered a potentially significant impact. However, implementation of mitigation measure MM4.6-4 would reduce this impact to less-than-significant. 15. Impact 4.6-3: Operation of the proposed project would result in the exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. This is considered a potentially significant impact. However, implementation of mitigation would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. MM4.6-5: Rail Line Groundborne Vibration. Implement the current FTA and Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) guidelines, where appropriate, to limit the extent of exposure that sensitive uses may have to groundborne vibration from trains. Specifically, Category 1 uses (vibration-sensitive equipment) within 300 feet from the rail line, Category 2 uses (residences and buildings where people normally sleep) within 200 feet, and Category 3 uses (institutional land uses) within 155 feet of the rail line shall require a site-specific groundborne vibration analysis conducted by a qualified groundborne vibration specialist in accordance with the current FTA and FRA guidelines prior to obtaining a building permit. Vibration control measures deemed appropriate by the site-specific groundborne vibration analysis to meet 65 VdB, 72 VdB, and 75 VdB respectively for Category 1, Category 2, and Category 3 uses, shall be implemented by the project applicant and approved by the City prior to receiving a building permit. Finding: Mixed-use development is proposed within 0.25 mile of the rail line, which could include Category 1, 2, or 3 land uses. Therefore, the Specific Plan has the potential to locate new 31 land uses within the applicable screening distance of light-rail and freight lines. New development that is proposed within the screening distances would require further analysis to determine vibration-sensitive impacts. This is considered a potentially significant impact. However, implementation of mitigation measure MM4.6-5 would reduce this impact to less- than-significant by reducing groundborne vibrations or noise levels below thresholds of significance. 16. Impact 4.6-5: The proposed project would not result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. This would be a less-than-significant impact. No mitigation measures would be required. Finding: While findings are not legally required for insignificant impacts, they are included for informational purposes. As described in the Initial Study for the proposed project (Appendix A to this EIR), construction of future development would result in temporary increases in noise levels associated with operation of construction equipment. Construction of land uses accommodated by the study area would not take place all at once, and would be spread throughout the study area so that limited receptors would be exposed to construction noise at any given time. Under SSFMC Section 8.32.050(d), construction activities are limited to between the hours of 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM on weekdays, 9:00 AM to 8:00 PM on Saturdays, and 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM on Sundays and holidays, or as authorized by the construction permit. Construction noise that occurs during these hours is exempt from the noise level limits established in the City’s Noise Ordinance because these hours are outside of the recognized sleep hours for residents and outside of evening and early morning hours and time periods where residents are most sensitive to exterior noise. Consequently, the City considers impacts resulting from construction noise during these hours to be less-than-significant. Future construction under the Specific Plan would be required to comply with all applicable City ordinances, including limits on construction hours. Therefore, impacts related to construction noise would be less-than- significant, and no mitigation is required. 17. Impact 4.7-1: Implementation of the proposed project would not induce substantial population growth. This would be a less-than-significant impact. No mitigation measures would be required. Finding: While findings are not legally required for insignificant impacts, they are included for informational purposes. Utilizing an average person-per-household factor of 2.96, the Specific Plan could result in a population increase of 4,248 residents, which would result in a citywide population of 67,880 in 2035. The Specific Plan would only slightly exceed the population estimated for build-out of the City as a result of higher-density residential areas within the study area and increased employment opportunities, which would attract new residents to the area. However, that assumes no existing residents of the City would relocate to the Specific Plan area and that all new occupants of development under the Specific Plan would be new to the City. It also does not account for the lower person-per-household ratio for senior housing. It is reasonable to assume that at least a percentage of new occupants would be existing residents of 32 the City. Therefore, the direct increase in population as a result of the Specific Plan would be a less-than-significant impact. 18. Impact 4.7-2: Construction of development projects pursuant to the Specific Plan would not displace substantial numbers of people or existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. This would be a less-than-significant impact. No mitigation measures would be required. Finding: While findings are not legally required for insignificant impacts, they are included for informational purposes. Implementation of the Specific Plan would not displace significant numbers of residents or residential units necessitating construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Most new development would occur on commercial or vacant sites. Additionally, the Specific Plan would accommodate higher density residential development that could support any affordable housing units lost through redevelopment in the study area. The City has recommended several strategies to preserve existing, deed-restricted affordable housing and support regional or local efforts to study any displacement associated with new development with the Project area. In addition to these strategies, the Specific Plan includes a 20 to 25 percent density bonus for affordable and senior housing, which would encourage residential development that could accommodate any residents displaced by redevelopment in the study area. Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan would not displace substantial numbers of people or existing housing units necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. This impact would be less-than-significant, and no mitigation is required. 19. Impact 4.8-1: Implementation of the proposed project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or in the 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 fire protection and emergency response. This would be a less-than-significant impact. No mitigation measures would be required. Finding: While findings are not legally required for insignificant impacts, they are included for informational purposes. The current personnel-to-population ratio for the SSFFD is 1.33 firefighters per 1,000 residents. Based on the City’s 2.96 persons per household (pph) (U.S. Census Bureau 2013), during the planning horizon for the proposed project, the project could increase the City’s population by 4,248 residents. These additional residents would increase the City’s population to approximately 67,880 residents. To maintain the current ratio of 1.33 fire- fighters per 1,000 residents, SSFFD would need to provide an additional 5 firefighters for a total of 90 during the lifetime of the Specific Plan, which would not require new facilities to house the anticipated growth in firefighter ranks. It is not possible to specify the exact type, location, size, or timing of future development, due to the size and long-range nature of the proposed project. Instead, the Specific Plan prescribes the type and intensity of development that would be allowed to occur in identified zones. 33 The City has implemented a Public Safety Impact Fee (2012) for all new development. This fee is intended to fund improvements in public safety infrastructure or public safety services necessitated by new development. All development pursuant to the Specific Plan would be required to pay this fee. However, construction of new fire facilities is not expected to be necessary as a result of this project. Further, reducing impacts to fire services, all development pursuant to the Specific Plan would be required to comply with provisions of the California Building Code and Fire Code pertaining to fire protection systems and equipment, general safety precautions, and many other general and specialized fire safety requirements for new and existing buildings and premises, such as emergency access provisions (South San Francisco Municipal Code Sections 15.08.010 and 15.24.010) which further reduces the need for additional firefighters. This would be a less-than-significant impact. 20. Impact 4.8-2: Implementation of the proposed project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or in the 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 police protection. This would be a less-than-significant impact. No mitigation measures would be required. Finding: While findings are not legally required for insignificant impacts, they are included for informational purposes. Based on the City’s 2010 population of 63,632 residents (U.S. Census 2010), the current officer-to-population ratio is 1.24 officers per 1,000 residents. Based on the City’s population 2.96 pph (U.S. Census Bureau 2013), the project would increase the City’s population by up to 4,248 additional residents. These additional residents would increase the City’s population to approximately 67,880 residents. To maintain the existing ratio (which is considered an acceptable level of service, as noted, above) of 1.24 officers per 1,000 residents, SSFPD would need to provide 5 additional officers during the life of the Specific Plan, increasing the size of the SSFPD to a total of 84 officers, which would not require new facilities to house the anticipated growth in officer ranks.. In addition to increasing the residential population, implementation of the Specific Plan would increase the daytime civilian population, which currently rises to over 100,000 due to the growing workforce in the City of South San Francisco. Implementation of the Station Area Plan could increase the daytime population by 2,400 or more. The Specific Plan would result in only slightly more population growth (0.07 percent) than that identified in the General Plan but would be considered to be consistent with growth permitted under the General Plan and other land use plans. The future increase in the residential population would result in an increase in the number of police calls to the area compared to existing conditions. Due to the size and long-range nature of the proposed project, it is not possible to specify the exact type, location, size, or timing of future development. Instead, the Specific Plan prescribes the type and intensity of development that would be allowed to occur. This would be a less-than-significant impact. 21. Impact 4.8-3: Implementation of the proposed project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or in the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of 34 which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for schools. Impacts to school services would be less-than-significant. No mitigation measures would be required. Finding: While findings are not legally required for insignificant impacts, they are included for informational purposes. Due to the declining enrollment throughout the district in combination with the availability of multiple school locations that would be available to serve new students generated by implementation of the Specific Plan, new or physically altered school facilities are not expected to be required to serve future development, the construction of which could result in significant environmental impacts. If new schools are required in the future, the payment of fees collected under the authority of SB 50 would offset any additional increase in educational demand at the elementary schools, middle schools, and high schools serving future residential development in the Station Area Plan, and any physical impacts associated with future new school construction would be evaluated on a project-level basis. This impact would be less-than- significant. 22. Impact 4.8-4: Implementation of the proposed project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or in the 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 libraries. This would be a less-than- significant impact. No mitigation measures would be required. Finding: While findings are not legally required for insignificant impacts, they are included for informational purposes. Like all areas of the City, the study area is served by the South San Francisco Library system with a combined collection of 189,672 books and audio-visual materials. These library facilities currently provide more than the standard of 2.0 items per capita recommended by the California Library Association. There would, therefore, be no substantial increase in demand on library services with respect to the number of items available to South of San Francisco residents and the existing collection would accommodate the increased demand. In addition, the study area is also served by the Peninsula Library System’s consortium for the County of San Mateo. The South San Francisco Library system and the Peninsula Library System are accessible from all portions of the Specific Plan and can cater to the demands of future residents. In addition, due to the growing use of electronic resources, former service standards (e.g., a certain number of staff or volumes per thousand residents) no longer accurately reflect the needs of a municipal library. Therefore, increased development in the City does not necessarily equate to an increase in demand for volumes or square feet of library space; in addition the Specific Plan anticipates development of 25 percent of parcels in the study area over a 20-year timeframe. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project is not expected to require any new or physically altered library facilities to serve the project, the construction of which could result in significant environmental impacts. This impact would be less-than- significant. 35 23. Impact 4.9-1: Implementation of the proposed project would not 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. This impact would be less-than- significant. No mitigation measures would be required. Finding: While findings are not legally required for insignificant impacts, they are included for informational purposes. The existing parks-to-population ratio in the City is 3.4, which would appear to exceed the General Plan goal of 3.0 acres per 1,000 residents, although closer analysis reveals that only 1.2 acres per 1,000 residents of development parkland is actually available. Implementation of the Specific Plan could result in an increase in City residents up to 4,248 persons, further reducing the parks-to-population ratio. However, the Specific Plan would add a network of new open space opportunities, and new development within the study area may be required to pay in-lieu fees to support increases in population.. While the increased population would result in increased use of existing parks, the increase represents only 6.7 percent of total City population. Therefore, it would not be anticipated that this increase would result in substantial physical deterioration of existing park facilities. In addition to requirements for new residential development, the General Plan also includes park standards for new employees generated by proposed development. Given that the Specific Plan would generate approximately 2,400 new jobs, the General Plan requirement of 0.5 acre per 1,000 new employees would necessitate the provision of 1.2 acres of new parks and open space with implementation of the proposed Specific Plan. In general, it is expected that existing facilities serving the study area would satisfy most if not all of the park and open space needs generated by the Specific Plan. More specifically, Orange Memorial Park and Centennial Way, along with 218 total acres of parks and open space, averaging 3.4 acres per 1,000 residents provides a wide range of regional facilities available for the residents of the City. In addition to Orange Memorial Park and Centennial Way, there are a wide variety of City, County, educational, and private recreational facilities within the City, as detailed in Table 4.9-1. As part of the Specific Plan, open space would be provided in the form of parks, squares, paseos, courtyards and plazas to serve residents and employees within the study area. Also, per Specific Plan guidelines, developers of specific projects within the Specific Plan study area would utilize open space and streetscape improvements in the design of their projects. These improvements would include landscaped medians, sidewalks, pedestrian-oriented street lights, street furniture, trees, shrubs, groundcover, and other amenities. Additionally, the payment of park fees from new development could be allocated to fund the acquisition and/or development of future parks or facility renovations associated with increased use of public facilities. 24. Impact 4.9-2: Development pursuant to the Specific Plan could include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, but these specific components would not have an adverse physical effect on the environment not already included in the overall analysis of Specific Plan impacts. The impact for any recreational component would be less- than-significant. 36 No mitigation measures would be required. Finding: While findings are not legally required for insignificant impacts, they are included for informational purposes. Development under the Specific Plan could include recreational components such as gym facilities, parks, or other recreational amenities, the construction of which could result in adverse impacts. However, the analysis of project construction included in the technical sections of this document considers all potential types of development, including construction of recreational facilities. Therefore, on a program level, all impacts related to construction of projects implemented under the Specific Plan have been analyzed, and no separate impacts as a result of recreational facilities would occur. Future projects implemented under the proposed Specific Plan would be required to comply with applicable local regulations and all mitigation measures identified in this EIR. This would include completion of additional environmental review if impacts of a specific project are not adequately analyzed in this program-level EIR. However, as noted above, it is expected that existing parks and recreational facilities would be adequate to meet the needs generated by development in the study area. Therefore, this impact would be less-than-significant. 25. Impact 4.10-3: Implementation of the Station Area Plan would add traffic greater than 1 percent to the freeway ramp volume for the northbound US 101 off-ramp to East Grand Avenue/Poletti Way. Because recent improvements to this off-ramp have resulted in acceptable operations, the impact would be less-than-significant under Existing Plus Project Conditions. No mitigation measures would be required. Finding: While findings are not legally required for insignificant impacts, they are included for informational purposes. Recent improvements to the northbound US 101 off-ramp to East Grand Avenue/Poletti Way from one lane to two have been completed to expand roadway capacity and provide acceptable operations, thus reducing the impact to less-than-significant. No mitigation would be required. 26. Impact 4.11-1: There would be sufficient water supplies available to serve Specific Plan development from existing entitlements and resources, and new or expanded entitlements would not be necessary. This would be a less-than-significant impact. No mitigation measures would be required. Finding: While findings are not legally required for insignificant impacts, they are included for informational purposes. Water demand generated with implementation of the Specific Plan combined with demand generated by the current population would be within the water demand projections in the Water Supply Assessment (WSA) for this Specific Plan. Therefore, based on the supply and demand data in the WSA for Specific Plan area, Cal Water would have sufficient supplies to meet the projected demand generated by the Specific Plan. Since adequate water supplies would be available, new or expanded water entitlements would not be required and the impact would be less-than-significant. No mitigation would be required. 37 27. Impact 4.11-2: Implementation of the proposed project would not require or result in the construction of new water facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. This would be a less-than-significant impact. No mitigation measures would be required. Finding: While findings are not legally required for insignificant impacts, they are included for informational purposes. The City of South San Francisco is served by the Cal Water’s SSFD. Cal Water obtains water from a purchasing agreement with SFPUC, which is supplied by local surface water sources within its RWS, and from its own groundwater sources. Future area water supplies would be delivered through existing City supply facilities and new water infrastructure constructed for delivery into specific project sites, per the requirements of the City of South San Francisco. Implementation of the Specific Plan would potentially increase the demand for potable water in the study area. The Specific Plan would accommodate a net increase of 1,435 dwelling units, 0.8 million square feet (sf) of commercial uses, 21,000 sf of industrial uses, and 1.2 million sf of new office/research, as shown in Table 4.11 6. The SFPUC has planned for improvements to the water treatment system to improve system reliability and accommodate projected growth in its regional service area. Therefore the proposed project would not prompt a need to expand treatment facilities in order to meet its demands. In order to ensure proper distribution, SFPUC also manages the regional conveyance system used to transport potable water supplies to the wholesale water agencies. In addition, SFPUC manages and maintains all the Water Treatment Plants (WTP); any improvements or expansions are the responsibility of SFPUC and would not adversely affect Cal Water, the SSFD or any of the Specific Plan development. As such, no additional water treatment facilities are required to meet water demands associated with the proposed project and the project would not require the construction or expansion of water treatment facilities. Therefore, impacts of the Specific Plan implementation on water facilities would be less-than-significant. No mitigation would be required. 28. Impact 4.11-3: Implementation of the proposed project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). This would be a less-than-significant impact. No mitigation measures would be required. Finding: While findings are not legally required for insignificant impacts, they are included for informational purposes. The NPDES permit system requires that all existing and future municipal and industrial discharges to surface waters within the City be subject to specific discharge requirements. New development pursuant to implementation of the Specific Plan must to comply with all provisions of the NPDES program and other applicable waste discharge requirements, as enforced by the San Francisco Bay RWQCB and the State Water Resources Control Board. Therefore, implementation of the Specific Plan would not result in an exceedance of wastewater treatment requirements. Build-out of the Specific Plan study area would not result 38 in the discharge of wastewater to any surface water. Instead, operational discharges would be sent to the sewer system, which would ultimately be treated at the South San Francisco/ San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant (“WQCP”). As addressed in Impact 4.11-4, below, the WQCP has adequate capacity to treat wastewater generated by development under the Specific Plan. The wastewater reclamation plant is required to comply with associated Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) and any updates or new permits issued. WDRs set the levels of pollutants allowable in water discharged from a facility. Compliance with applicable WDRs would ensure that implementation of the Specific Plan would not exceed the applicable wastewater treatment requirements of the SFB RWQCB with respect to discharges to the sewer system. This would result in a less-than-significant impact. No mitigation measures are required. 29. Impact 4.11-4: Implementation of the proposed project would require additional wastewater to be treated, but would not require or result in the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities. The proposed project would not result in inadequate capacity by the wastewater treatment provider to serve the project’s projected demand. This is a less-than-significant impact. No mitigation measures would be required. Finding: While findings are not legally required for insignificant impacts, they are included for informational purposes. Based on current treatment levels and the design capacity, there would be ample capacity to treat the full increase in sewage attributable to growth anticipated under build-out of the Specific Plan. There are adequate wastewater treatment facilities with capacity to serve the proposed project, and the project would not require the construction or expansion of wastewater treatment facilities. Should the existing local wastewater collection lines adjacent to the study area not be adequate to serve the development, the project developer(s) would be responsible for constructing local mains and extensions to serve their respective project area. The final sewer line configuration would be approved by the City of South San Francisco. Additionally, air quality, traffic, and noise construction impacts associated with such off-site improvements would be assessed in each project’s CEQA document. Increased wastewater generation due to implementation of the Specific Plan will be accommodated by the existing treatment infrastructure; therefore, expansion of existing facilities would not be required. Given existing and anticipated future capacity at the treatment facilities and wastewater generation expected from the Specific Plan’s build-out, impacts to the wastewater treatment facilities associated with implementation of the Specific Plan would be less-than-significant. No mitigation is required. 30. Impact 4.11-5: The proposed project would be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs. This would be a less-than- significant impact. No mitigation measures would be required. Finding: While findings are not legally required for insignificant impacts, they are included for informational purposes. The Scavenger Company is contracted by the City of South San 39 Francisco as the sole hauler of solid waste and operator of recycling services for the City. The Scavenger Company transports all solid waste from the study area to the Blue Line MRF/TS. The MRF/TS has a permitted capacity of 1,200 tons per day, but currently receives an average of 600 to 700 tons per day. Once the useable materials have been separated at the MRF/TS, the remaining trash is then transported to the Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill. The Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill can accept up to 3,598 tons per day (CIWMB 2006a). As of 2000, the landfill has exceeded its permitted capacity of 37.9 million cubic yards by 6.7 million cubic yards (17.8 percent). However, the closure date is planned for 2018. While the Ox Mountain Landfill is currently anticipated to have capacity through 2018, Browing-Ferris Industries (BFI) is permitted until 2016 to either expand the Los Trancos Canyon landfill or to open and fill nearby Apanolio Canyon, which would ensure adequate capacity to support the buildout of the Specific Plan. As identified in Table 4.11- 10, the proposed Specific Plan would produce approximately 118,496 lb/day or approximately 21,625 tons/year, of solid waste. This would represent an approximately 5 percent and 1.63 percent of the permitted maximum amount accepted at the Blue Line MRF/TS and Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill, respectively. The remaining capacity of the MRF/TS would be able to accommodate the additional solid waste. Thus, the increase in waste generated under the Specific Plan would be sufficiently served by the MRF/TS and the Ox Mountain Landfill, and the impact would be less-than-significant. 31. Impact 4.11-6: Implementation of the proposed project would not require or result in the construction of new energy production or transmission facilities, or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause a significant environmental impact. This would be a less-than-significant impact. No mitigation measures would be required. Finding: While findings are not legally required for insignificant impacts, they are included for informational purposes. Implementation of the Specific Plan would increase the use of electricity within the study area, as electricity would be used to support future development in the study area. To determine the amount of electricity demanded by the proposed project, electricity demand factors provided by BAAQMD are applied to net growth under build-out of the Specific Plan, as presented in Table 4.11-11 (Electricity Demand from Existing Uses and Specific Plan Build-Out). The total annual electricity consumption in Climate Zone 5 of the BAAQMD is 13,775,505 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year. The total annual electricity consumption, including existing consumption and increased consumption that would result from projects developed under the Specific Plan is estimated to be approximately 38,815,340 kWh/year. The state is currently experiencing constraints related to energy delivery. These constraints are generally limited to peak demand days during the summer months, such that for the majority of the days during the year adequate energy supplies are reliably provided to consumers. Implementation of the Specific Plan would increase use of electricity within the study area; in particular, the demand for electricity to operate residential and commercial uses. On peak days, the incremental demand from the Specific Plan would contribute to electricity supply and delivery constraints. The Specific Plan would be required to comply with the energy conservation measures contained in 40 Title 24, which would reduce the amount of energy needed for the operation of any buildings constructed as a part of the Specific Plan. An adequate supply of electricity is anticipated to be available to serve the proposed project. According to PG&E, the existing infrastructure currently serving the project area is sufficient to serve the proposed project. Based on PG&E’s confirmation that existing energy supplies and infrastructure would be adequate to serve the Specific Plan, impacts to electricity would be less-than-significant. The total annual natural gas consumption by existing uses is estimated to be approximately 6,420,660 kBtu. The total annual natural gas consumption by projects developed under the Specific Plan is estimated to be approximately 37,459,530 kBtu. PG&E was contacted to determine the impact of this increase in natural gas demand. PG&E requires a natural gas survey in order to assess impacts on demand, and only allows evaluation of project-specific impacts at the time of project implementation due to variances in natural gas supplies over time. However, as PG&E declares itself a “reactive” utility that will provide natural gas as customers request its services, PG&E has indicated that an adequate supply of natural gas is currently available to serve the proposed project and that the natural gas level of service provided to the surrounding area would not be impaired by the proposed project. If new or extended natural gas lines are required to serve future development, such infrastructure would be located underground and would be constructed in accordance with the policies of PG&E and extension rules on file with the CPUC at the time contractual agreements are made. Because the natural gas demand projected for the proposed project would not exceed available or planned supply, new infrastructure would not be required to serve the study area. Therefore, this impact would be less-than-significant, and no mitigation is required. V. Findings Regarding Alternatives Public Resources Code Section 21002 provides that “public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]” The same section states that the procedures required by CEQA “are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects.” Where a lead agency has determined that, even after the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures, a project as proposed will still cause one or more significant environmental effects that cannot be substantially lessened or avoided, the agency, prior to approving the project as mitigated, must first determine whether, with respect to such impacts, there remain any project alternatives that are both environmentally superior and feasible within the meaning of CEQA. Although an EIR must evaluate this range of potentially feasible alternatives, an alternative may ultimately be deemed by the lead agency to be “infeasible” if it fails to fully promote the lead agency’s underlying goals and objectives with respect to the project (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417). “‘[F]easibility’ under CEQA encompasses ‘desirability’ to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors” (ibid.; see also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715). Thus, even if a project 41 alternative will avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant environmental effects of the project, the decision-makers may reject the alternative if they determine that specific considerations make the alternative infeasible. Chapter 6 of the Draft EIR discussed several alternatives to the Project in order to present a reasonable range of options. The alternatives evaluated included: Alternative 1: No Project/Reasonably Foreseeable Development (Continuation of City General Plan and Zoning) Alternative 2: Mixed-Use Village Plan The City Council finds that a good faith effort was made to evaluate all feasible alternatives in the EIR that are reasonable alternatives to the Project and could feasibly obtain the basic objectives of the Project, even when the alternatives might impede the attainment of the Project objectives and might be more costly. As a result, the scope of alternatives analyzed in the EIR is not unduly limited or narrow. The City Council also finds that all reasonable alternatives were reviewed, analyzed and discussed in the review process of the SEIR and the ultimate decision on the Project. (See Draft SEIR, Chapter VI.) A. No Project/Reasonably Foreseeable Development (Continuation of City General Plan and Zoning) Alternative As required by CEQA, this subsection analyzes a “No Project” Alternative (Alternative A). In this case, the No Project Alternative consists of a “No Project/No Build” alternative, which is defined as the circumstances under which the project would not proceed (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6(e)3)(B)). Evaluation of this alternative allows the City to compare the impact of approving the proposed project with the impacts of not approving the proposed project and maintenance of the existing environmental setting on the project site. The No Project Alternative would be a feasible alternative, but it would not meet the project objectives of focusing new residential and office development, coordinated in a pedestrian- friendly, mixed-use pattern, adjacent to major public transportation. Impacts: Implementation of the No Project Alternative would result in less cohesive, transit- oriented development, less residential use, as well as potentially greater levels of development of business commercial and commercial uses. No new R&D uses would be allowed. Because this alternative would not provide as much housing as the Project, it would not help the City meet its RHNA allocation to the same extent as the proposed Project, and because the City is completely built out, opportunities for residential development elsewhere in the City are few. Because the overall level of development under the General Plan would be less than under the Project for both residential and non-residential uses (approximately 2 million square feet [sf] for the Project compared to 1.1 million sf under the current General Plan), many of the impacts of the Project would be reduced, but likely not to a less-than-significant level. Air quality emissions during construction, while reduced compared to the Project, would be anticipated to still exceed BAAQMD thresholds, since the Bay Area is in nonattainment for criteria pollutants. The risk of 42 adverse effects on historic and cultural resources would remain significant and unavoidable as well, because although the amount of redevelopment under this alternative would likely be lower, any development in the study area could adversely affect historic and cultural resources. Similarly, the increase in ambient noise levels would likely remain significant given the existing high levels of ambient noise even without any additional development. Traffic impacts could be greater than under the Project, despite the lower level of development, because the different mix of uses would result in different trip generation rates that could result in a larger increase in area traffic because existing regulations do not encourage transit-oriented development. This would result in an increased impact on air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, as well as traffic noise, compared to the Project. Therefore, overall, continuation of the existing General Plan land use and zoning designations would generally reduce the impacts of the Project, but not to a less-than- significant level. Finding: The No Project Alternative would fail to meet most of the project objectives, as it would not provide the complementary mix of uses as under the proposed plan. It would not: provide for the community’s transition from its predominately low-intensity and fragmented development pattern into an attractive and desirable transit and pedestrian-oriented urban community containing distinct and quality mixed-use neighborhoods and districts with housing, office, retail, restaurants, personal services, hotels, community facilities, and parks; develop a mix and choices of use to enable residents and workers to meet their basic needs within Downtown South San Francisco; develop land uses and densities that maximize ridership and support public investment in transit facilities, while reducing regional traffic congestion, pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions; develop housing in the Downtown area for a variety of persons and households who choose to live in an active, urban environment; match new housing opportunities with jobs in the Downtown area, enabling residents to live close to where they work; allow for flexibility in the mix of land uses that responds to market conditions as they evolve over the next 20 years and beyond; provide opportunities for the development of uses that complement one another, such as the support of local businesses to keep Downtown unique; improve east/west connectivity and access to Downtown; remove truck traffic from Downtown, reduce traffic congestion on Grand Avenue and Airport Boulevard, increase the use of alternative travel modes establish zoning and design guidelines for ground floor uses and facades, streets, sidewalks, landscaping, lighting, and signage that facilitate pedestrian use; and the creation of safe and attractive pedestrian and bike routes to the Caltrain station. Additionally, the No Project Alternative is inconsistent with the City’s goals and policies related to the Downtown area. Under this scenario, General Plan policies related to land use, circulation, and economic development, including the attraction and retention of new businesses, improvements to the historic Grand Avenue corridor, and multi-modal transportation investments could not be achieved. Furthermore, the City’s adopted Climate Action Plan, Pedestrian Master Plan, and Bicycle Master Plan all encourage the type of development and enhancements proposed under the Project. The proposed Specific Plan contains numerous and specific goals intended to improve both the appearance and functionality of the Downtown area, and, importantly, provide for transit-oriented development in a pattern that promotes walkability and bicycle use, as well as direct access to the Caltrain station. Additionally, the Specific Plan includes a transit overlay zone to allow for transit-oriented uses, and also includes new residential development, which use is necessary to realize the full benefit of transit-oriented 43 development. Alternative 1 would not achieve these goals, and would not achieve the various community goals identified in the proposed plan. Accordingly, the City Council finds the No Project Alternative to be infeasible. B. Mixed-Use Village Plan This alternative would maintain modest building heights directly on Grand, while allowing taller buildings on the rear portions of Grand-facing blocks, as well as sites across the adjoining alleys: Tamarack Lane and Third Lane. Buildings directly fronting Grand would be limited in height to 45 feet, with heights transitioning up moving away from the street. Adjoining the core to the north and south, the Downtown Commercial Core would allow medium density residential uses at heights up to 60 feet. Allowed densities of development would be consistent with the current General Plan, ranging as high as 40 dwelling units per acre. Grand Avenue and its adjoining Downtown core thus would become the pedestrian-oriented, higher intensity focus of the West of 101 area. Beyond this core area, in the Downtown North and South neighborhoods, heights up to 50 feet and residential densities up to 40 dwelling units per acre would be allowed. A transition zone would be located along the edge of the Sign Hill Neighborhood, with densities up to 25 dwelling units per acre, as currently allowed. Along Airport Boulevard and north of Armour Avenue, a medium density mixed-use designation would encourage higher density residential (up to 40 dwelling units per acre) as well as business commercial at up to 0.5 FAR. The Business Commercial designation currently applied to the zone framed by US 101, the rail tracks, and Airport Boulevard would remain. These sites are difficult to access, serve a useful purpose now, and would not be suitable for residential development, given the area’s proximity to such a high volume of vehicular and rail traffic. This alternative would offer a mix of office, residential and retail uses in the East Neighborhood of the study area and would maintain the zoning of the Downtown Core per General Plan designations, which would result in very little change from current conditions. It should be noted that this alternative would include extension of the Caltrain station platform to the south and construction of a major undercrossing to provide access from Grand Avenue to the west to the station and East Grand in this neighborhood. This would allow easy access for area residents and employees to the amenities and services on Grand Avenue. Alternative 2 envisions the Eastern Neighborhood as a mixed-use neighborhood, with high density residential and employment uses, whereas the specific plan would allow only employment uses in this area. The Transit Core High Density Residential land use designation would be applied here, with allowable residential densities up to 120 dwelling units/acre. Office uses would be allowed at densities up to 3.5 FAR. This mixed-use neighborhood would thus include a robust mix of jobs and housing, creating a transition from the solely employment uses to the east and the Downtown core commercial and residential uses west of US 101. Impacts: The Mixed-Use Village Alternative would result in slightly fewer residential units, greater business commercial/commercial and office development, and no R&D uses. Compared to the Project’s 2 million sf of non-residential uses, the Mixed-Use Village Alternative would result in 1.5 million sf of non-residential uses. All of the mitigation measures and design standards in the Project would be implemented with this alternative. 44 Finding: The Mixed-Use Village Alternative provides some improvements that the Project proposes, but because this alternative does not implement all of the identified vision polices of the Project, or the guiding policies of the General Plan, Climate Action Plan, Pedestrian Master Plan, or Bicycle Master Plan and is therefore an inferior alternative and rejected. Because this alternative would provide slightly less housing than the Project, it would not help the City meet its RHNA allocation to the same extent as the proposed Project, and because the City is completely built out, opportunities for residential development elsewhere in the City are few. Because the overall level of development under this alternative would be less than under the Project for non-residential uses (approximately 2 million sf for the Specific Plan compared to 1.5 million sf under Mixed-Use Village Alternative), many of the impacts of the Project would be reduced, but likely not to a less-than-significant level. Air quality emissions during construction, while reduced compared to the Project, would be anticipated to still exceed BAAQMD thresholds, since the Bay Area is in nonattainment for criteria pollutants. While residential uses would be less than under the Project, because of the distribution of uses, this alternative would expose a greater number of sensitive receptors in the East of 101 area to TACs and higher noise levels due to proximity to US 101 than under the Specific Plan. The risk of adverse effects on historic and cultural resources would remain significant and unavoidable as well, because any development in the study area could adversely affect historic and cultural resources, and this impact would be substantially similar to that of the Project. Similarly, the increase in ambient noise levels would likely remain significant given the existing high levels of ambient noise even without additional development. Traffic generated under this alternative would be slightly less than under the Project (51,980 daily trips versus 53,860 trips), which would reduce air quality and greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles. The Mixed-Use Village alternative would reduce the impacts of the Project but not to a less-than-significant level; air quality and noise impacts would be potentially greater for residential uses adjacent to the US 101. With regard to other resources where the Mixed-Use Village Alternative would result in no impact or less-than-significant impacts, with or without mitigation, General Plan policies that address these resources would continue to be applied. The design standards articulated in the Project would be implemented under this alternative. Compared to the Project, however, the Mixed-Use Village alternative would not promote the more pedestrian-friendly, integrated mixed-use neighborhoods to the same extent as the Project, since the Downtown Core would remain as currently zoned, rather than becoming a dense residential neighborhood. Thus, implementation of the Mixed-Use Village alternative plan would likely result in greater impacts to aesthetics and visual quality, as this alternative would not provide the benefit of an integrated approach to future development in the study area that takes advantage of its proximity to the Caltrain station. Accordingly, the City Council finds the Mixed-Use Vilalge Alternative to be infeasible. C. Environmentally Superior Alternative The State CEQA Guidelines require that an environmentally superior alternative to the proposed project be selected. The State CEQA Guidelines also note “if the environmentally superior alternative is the ‘no project’ alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives” (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2)). In 45 general, the environmentally superior alternative minimizes adverse impacts to the environment, while still achieving the basic project objectives. Identification of the environmentally superior alternative is an informational procedure and the alternative selected may not be the alternative that best meets the goals or needs of the City. Based on the information provided, the Project is environmentally superior, on balance, than either of the alternatives given the Project’s consistency with the 2006 Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32) and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Regulations (SB 375), and the City’s adopted Climate Action Plan, Pedestrian Master Plan, Bicycle Master Plan and General Plan guiding policies. The proposed Project is designed to optimize the benefits of transit-orientated development along existing corridors and to maximize revitalization of the study area. The No Project/Continuation of Existing General Plan Alternative would not achieve any of the stated objectives and is therefore not superior in this regard. Of the project alternatives, the Mixed-Use Village is the environmentally superior alternative when compared to the No Project Alternative. The Mixed-Use Village Alternative would onl y achieve some of the Project objectives. Residential and commercial development could still occur, but at slightly lower densities and heights than envisioned by the Project. As an alternative to the Project, many of the Project’s stated objectives for density adjacent to the Caltrain station could be met with this alternative, but without the maximum development expectations of the Project, pedestrian infrastructure investments, and integrated mixed-use neighborhoods. Air quality emissions during construction would be reduced under this alternative and it would generate less traffic and greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles. Therefore, as an identified alternative to the Project, it would be the environmentally superior alternative. VI. Statement of Overriding Considerations Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco adopts this Statement of Overriding Considerations for those impacts identified as significant and unavoidable in the South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR (SCH No. 2013102001; Certified _____, 2015 by Resolution No. _____), as further identified and described in Section III of these Findings. The City Council has carefully considered each impact, has adopted all feasible mitigation measures, and has balanced the economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the Project against the significant and unavoidable impact associated with the Project. The City Council has also examined potentially feasible alternatives to the Project, none of which would both meet most of the project objectives and result in substantial reduction or avoidance of the Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts. The City Council finds that the project’s significant environmental impacts are acceptable in light of the project’s benefits. The City Council hereby adopts and makes the following Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding the significant and unavoidable impact of the Project and the anticipated economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the Project: 46  The Project will strengthen the City’s economic base by providing an additional 2,400 employees, many of which will be high-quality, long-term jobs, as well as shorter term construction jobs;  The Project will add 1,435 new residential units with up to 4,248 new residents to further support economic development and local business in the City as well as help the City meet its RHNA allocation;  The Project provides a strategy for a new neighborhood of thoughtful residential and commercial development, walking access to everyday amenities, new civic uses, and plazas, and gathering spaces for the entire South San Francisco community;  The Project improves multi-modal transportation, with new investments in pedestrian and bicycle facilities, as well as, circulation enhancements to reduce congestion and improve the quality of life for existing and future City residents by providing safe transportation alternatives;  The Project promotes new high-density, mixed-use development in the areas that are best poised to take advantage of improved access to the City's Caltrain Station and SamTrans bus routes, thus supporting vital transportation services for the City’s residents;  The Project provides improved connections to the East of 101 employment district to reestablish the critical connection between commercial businesses and major local employers;  The Project enacts the goals and policies of the Climate Action Plan, Pedestrian Master Plan, and Bicycle Master Plan; and  The Project supports the guiding policies of the General Plan related to infill construction, mixed-use development, economic development, and pedestrian, bicycle, and transit connection improvements; and  The Project is consistent with the policies of the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill 32), and the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (State Bill 375) to coordinate development with transportation investments to reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions. 2389976.1 47 EXHIBIT C MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 48 11-1 CHAPTER 11 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program SECTION 11.1 Introduction South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR SCH No. 2013102001 Final EIR January 2015 City of South San Francisco Economic and Community Development Department CHAPTER 11 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 11.1 INTRODUCTION The Final Environmental Impact Report for the South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Project (State Clearinghouse No. 2013102001 identified mitigation measures to reduce the adverse effects of the proposed project in the areas of air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, public services, recreation, and transportation/traffic. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that agencies adopting environmental impact reports ascertain that feasible mitigation measures are implemented, subsequent to project approval. Specifically, the lead or responsible agency must adopt a reporting or monitoring program for mitigation measures incorporated into a project or imposed as conditions of approval. The program must be designed to ensure compliance during applicable project timing, e.g. design, construction, or operation (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6). The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) will be used by City of South San Francisco staff responsible for ensuring compliance with mitigation measures associated with the proposed Plan. Monitoring will consist of review of appropriate documentation, such as plans or reports prepared by the party responsible for implementation or by field observation of the mitigation measure during implementation. 11.2 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MATRIX Table 11-1 (Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix) identifies the mitigation measures by resource area. The table also provides the specific mitigation monitoring requirements, including implementation documentation, monitoring activity, timing and responsible monitoring party. Verification of compliance with each measure is to be indicated by signature of the mitigation monitor, together with date of verification. 49 11 - 2 CH A P T E R 1 1 M i t i g a t i o n M o n i t o r i n g a n d R e p o r t i n g P r o g r a m SE C T I O N 1 1 . 2 M i t i g a t i o n M o n i t o r i n g a n d R e p o r t i n g P r o g r a m M a t r i x So u t h S a n F r a n c i s c o D o w n t o w n S t a t i o n A r e a S p e c i f i c P l a n E I R SC H N o . 2 0 1 3 1 0 2 0 0 1 Final EIR January 2015 City of South San Francisco Ec o n o m i c a n d C o m m u n i t y D e v e l o p m e n t D e p a r t m e n t Ta b l e 1 1 - 1 M i t i g a t i o n M o n i t o r i n g a n d R e p o r t i n g P r o g r a m M a t r i x Mi t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e Ac t i o n R e q u i r e d Mi t i g a t i o n T i m i n g Re s p o n s i b l e P a r t y Monitoring Agency or Party AIR QUA L I T Y MM 4 . 2 - 1 C o n s t r u c t i o n e m i s s i o n s f o r a l l f u t u r e d e v e l o p m e n t u n d e r t h e S p e c i f i c P l a n s h a l l b e qu a n t i f i e d p r i o r t o t h e s t a r t o f c o n s t r u c t i o n . Fo r p r o j e c t s w h e r e c o n s t r u c t i o n e m i s s i o n s a r e an t i c i p a t e d t o e x c e e d t h e m o s t r e c e n t C i t y - a d o p t e d t h r e s h o l d s , i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e B A A Q M D Ba s i c C o n s t r u c t i o n M i t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e s , c o n s t r u c ti o n a c t i v i t i e s s h a l l i m p l e m e n t t h e B A A Q M D Ad d i t i o n a l C o n s t r u c t i o n M i t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e s t o r e d u c e c o n s t r u c t i o n e m i s s i o n s o f c r i t e r i a a i r po l l u t a n t s t o b e l o w s i g n i f i c a n c e c r i t e r i a . M i t i g a t i o n r e d u c t i o n s s h a l l b e q u a n t i f i e d p r i o r t o t h e s t a r t of c o n s t r u c t i o n t o d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t a d e q u a t e m e a s u r e s h a v e b e e n i d e n t i f i e d t o r e d u c e p r o j e c t em i s s i o n s . T h e A d d i t i o n a l C o n s t r u c t i o n M i t i ga t i o n M e a s u r e s i n c l u d e t h e f o l l o w i n g : 1. A l l e x p o s e d s u r f a c e s s h a l l b e w a t e r e d a t a f r e q u e n c y a d e q u a t e t o m a i n t a i n m i n i m u m s o i l mo i s t u r e o f 1 2 p e r c e n t . M o i s t u r e c o n t e n t c a n b e v e r i f i e d b y l a b s a m p l e s o r m o i s t u r e p r o b e . 2. A l l e x c a v a t i o n , g r a d i n g , a n d / o r d e m o l i t i o n a c t i v i t i e s s h a l l b e s u s p e n d e d w h e n a v e r a g e w i n d sp e e d s e x c e e d 2 0 m p h . 3. W i n d b r e a k s ( e . g . , t r e e s , f e n c e s ) s h a l l b e i n s t a l l e d o n t h e w i n d w a r d s i d e ( s ) o f a c t i v e l y di s t u r b e d a r e a s o f c o n s t r u c t i o n . W i n d b r e a k s s h o u l d h a v e a t m a x i m u m 5 0 p e r c e n t a i r po r o s i t y . 4. V e g e t a t i v e g r o u n d c o v e r ( e . g . , f a s t - g e r m i n a t i n g n a t i v e g r a s s s e e d ) s h a l l b e p l a n t e d i n di s t u r b e d a r e a s a s s o o n a s p o s s i b l e a n d w a t e r e d a p p r o p r i a t e l y u n t i l v e g e t a t i o n i s es t a b l i s h e d . 5. T h e s i m u l t a n e o u s o c c u r r e n c e o f e x c a v a t i o n , g r a d i n g , a n d g r o u n d - d i s t u r b i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n ac t i v i t i e s o n t h e s a m e a r e a a t a n y o n e t i m e s h a l l b e l i m i t e d . A c t i v i t i e s s h a l l b e p h a s e d t o re d u c e t h e a m o u n t o f d i s t u r b e d s u r f a c e s a t a n y o n e t i m e . 6. A l l t r u c k s a n d e q u i p m e n t , i n c l u d i n g t h e i r t i r e s , s h a l l b e w a s h e d o f f p r i o r t o l e a v i n g t h e s i t e . 7. S i t e a c c e s s e s t o a d i s t a n c e o f 1 0 0 f e e t f r o m t h e p a v e d r o a d s h a l l b e t r e a t e d w i t h a 6 - t o 1 2 - in c h c o m p a c t e d l a y e r o f w o o d c h i p s , m u l c h , o r g r a v e l . 8. S a n d b a g s o r o t h e r e r o s i o n c o n t r o l m e a s u r e s s h a l l b e i n s t a l l e d t o p r e v e n t s i l t r u n o f f t o p u b l i c ro a d w a y s f r o m s i t e s w i t h a s l o p e g r e a t e r t h a n 1 p e r c e n t . 9. M i n i m i z i n g t h e i d l i n g t i m e o f d i e s e l p o w e r e d c o n s t r u c t i o n e q u i p m e n t t o t w o m i n u t e s . 10 . T h e p r o j e c t s h a l l d e v e l o p a p l a n d e m o n s t r a t i n g t h a t t h e o f f - r o a d e q u i p m e n t ( m o r e t h a n 50 h o r s e p o w e r ) t o b e u s e d i n t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n p r o j e c t ( i . e . , o w n e d , l e a s e d , a n d su b c o n t r a c t o r v e h i c l e s ) w o u l d a c h i e v e a p r o j e c t w i d e f l e e t - a v e r a g e 2 0 p e r c e n t N O X re d u c t i o n a n d 4 5 p e r c e n t P M r e d u c t i o n c o m p a r e d t o t h e m o s t r e c e n t C a l i f o r n i a A R B f l e e t av e r a g e . A c c e p t a b l e o p t i o n s f o r r e d u c i n g e m i s s i o n s i n c l u d e t h e u s e o f l a t e m o d e l e n g i n e s , lo w - e m i s s i o n d i e s e l p r o d u c t s , a l t e r n a t i v e f u e l s , e n g i n e r e t r o f i t t e c h n o l o g y , a f t e r - t r e a t m e n t Ve r i f i c a t i o n o f co n s t r u c t i o n p l a n Pr i o r t o i s s u a n c e o f gr a d i n g p e r m i t De v e l o p e r D e p a r t m e n t of Economic and Community Development 50 11 - 3 CH A P T E R 1 1 M i t i g a t i o n M o n i t o r i n g a n d R e p o r t i n g P r o g r a m SE C T I O N 1 1 . 2 M i t i g a t i o n M o n i t o r i n g a n d R e p o r t i n g P r o g r a m M a t r i x So u t h S a n F r a n c i s c o D o w n t o w n S t a t i o n A r e a S p e c i f i c P l a n E I R SCH No. 2013102001 Fi n a l E I R Ja n u a r y 2 0 1 5 Ci t y o f S o u t h S a n F r a n c i s c o Ec o n o m i c a n d C o m m u n i t y D e v e l o p m e n t D e p a r t m e n t Ta b l e 1 1 - 1 M i t i g a t i o n M o n i t o r i n g a n d R e p o r t i n g P r o g r a m M a t r i x Mi t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e Ac t i o n R e q u i r e d Mi t i g a t i o n T i m i n g Re s p o n s i b l e P a r t y Monitoring Agency or Party pr o d u c t s , a d d - o n d e v i c e s s u c h a s p a r t i c u l a t e f i l t e r s , a n d / o r o t h e r o p t i o n s a s s u c h b e c o m e av a i l a b l e . 11 . U s e l o w - R O G c o a t i n g s b e y o n d t h e l o c a l r e q u i r e m e n t s ( i . e . , R e g u l a t i o n 8 , R u l e 3 : Ar c h i t e c t u r a l C o a t i n g s ) . 12 . A l l c o n s t r u c t i o n e q u i p m e n t , d i e s e l t r u c k s , a n d g e n e r a t o r s s h a l l b e e q u i p p e d w i t h B e s t Av a i l a b l e C o n t r o l T e c h n o l o g y f o r e m i s s i o n r e d u c t i o n s o f N O X a n d P M . 13 . A l l c o n t r a c t o r s s h a l l u s e e q u i p m e n t t h a t m e e t s C a l i f o r n i a A R B ’ s m o s t r e c e n t c e r t i f i c a t i o n st a n d a r d f o r o f f - r o a d h e a v y - d u t y d i e s e l e n g i n e s . MM 4 . 2 - 2 P r i o r t o i s s u a n c e o f a b u i l d i n g p e r m i t f o r f u t u r e d e v e l o p m e n t p r o j e c t s u n d e r t h e Sp e c i f i c P l a n , t h e a p p l i c a n t s h a l l d e m o n s t r a t e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f r e c o m m e n d e d B A A Q M D op e r a t i o n a l m i t i g a t i o n m e a s u r e s a s n e c e s s a r y t o r e d u c e o p e r a t i o n a l e m i s s i o n s o f c r i t e r i a a i r po l l u t a n t s t o b e l o w s i g n i f i c a n c e c r i t e r i a . O p e r a t i o n a l e m i s s i o n s a n d m i t i g a t i o n r e d u c t i o n s w i l l b e qu a n t i f i e d p r i o r t o i s s u a n c e o f t h e b u i l d i n g p e r m i t t o d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t a d e q u a t e m e a s u r e s h a v e be e n i d e n t i f i e d t o r e d u c e p r o j e c t e m i s s i o n s . T h e r e c o m m e n d e d m e a s u r e s i n c l u d e , b u t a r e n o t li m i t e d t o , a n y o f t h e f o l l o w i n g : 1. I n c r e a s e o n - s t r e e t p a r k i n g f e e s . 2. D a i l y p a r k i n g c h a r g e f o r e m p l o y e e s . 3. P r o v i d e a p a r k i n g “ c a s h - o u t ” i n c e n t i v e f o r e m p l o y e e s w h o u s e a l t e r n a t i v e t r a n s p o r t a t i o n t o co m m u t e . 4. P r o v i d e s u b s i d i z e d o r f r e e t r a n s i t p a s s e s t o e m p l o y e e s . 5. E n c o u r a g e a l t e r n a t i v e c o m p r e s s e d w o r k s c h e d u l e s a n d t e l e c o m m u t i n g . 6. P r o v i d e a r i d e s h a r i n g p r o g r a m . Ve r i f i c a t i o n o f co n s t r u c t i o n p l a n Pr i o r t o i s s u a n c e o f gr a d i n g p e r m i t De v e l o p e r D e p a r t m e n t o f Economic and Community Development MM 4 . 2 - 3 Si t i n g S e n s i t i v e R e c e p t o r s n e a r P o t e n t i a l T A C S o u r c e . A H e a l t h R i s k A s s e s s m e n t (H R A ) s h a l l b e p r e p a r e d b y a q u a l i f i e d a i r q u a l i t y p r o f e s s i o n a l f o r d e v e l o p m e n t o f a p r o j e c t t h a t wo u l d i n t r o d u c e n e w s e n s i t i v e r e c e p t o r s i n t h e s t u d y a r e a w i t h i n t h e s i t i n g d i s t a n c e f o r a n y u s e li s t e d i n A R B A i r Q u a l i t y a n d L a n d U s e H a n d b o o k T a b l e 1 - 1 ( r e p r o d u c e d h e r e a s T a b l e 4 . 2 - 1 1 [R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s o n S i t i n g N e w S e n s i t i v e L a n d U s e s ] ) . S e n s i t i v e r e c e p t o r s i n c l u d e d a y c a r e ce n t e r s , s c h o o l s , r e t i r e m e n t h o m e s , h o s p i t a l s , m e d i c a l p a t i e n t s i n r e s i d e n t i a l h o m e s , o r o t h e r fa c i l i t i e s t h a t m a y h o u s e i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h h e a l t h c o n d i t i o n s t h a t w o u l d b e a d v e r s e l y i m p a c t e d b y ch a n g e s i n a i r q u a l i t y . S u c h a p r o j e c t s h a l l n o t b e c o n s i d e r e d f o r a p p r o v a l u n t i l a n H R A h a s be e n c o m p l e t e d a n d a p p r o v e d b y t h e C i t y . T h e m e t h o d o l o g y f o r t h e H R A s h a l l f o l l o w t h e O f f i c e of E n v i r o n m e n t a l H e a l t h H a z a r d A s s e s s m e n t a n d B A A Q M D g u i d e l i n e s f o r t h e p r e p a r a t i o n o f HR A s . I f a p o t e n t i a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t h e a l t h r i s k i s i d e n t i f i e d , t h e H R A s h a l l i d e n t i f y a p p r o p r i a t e me a s u r e s t o r e d u c e t h e p o t e n t i a l h e a l t h r i s k t o b e l o w a s i g n i f i c a n t l e v e l o r t h e s e n s i t i v e r e c e p t o r Pr e p a r a t i o n a n d ap p r o v a l o f H e a l t h Ri s k A s s e s s m e n t Pr i o r t o i s s u a n c e o f gr a d i n g p e r m i t De v e l o p e r D e p a r t m e n t o f Economic and Community Development 51 11 - 4 CH A P T E R 1 1 M i t i g a t i o n M o n i t o r i n g a n d R e p o r t i n g P r o g r a m SE C T I O N 1 1 . 2 M i t i g a t i o n M o n i t o r i n g a n d R e p o r t i n g P r o g r a m M a t r i x So u t h S a n F r a n c i s c o D o w n t o w n S t a t i o n A r e a S p e c i f i c P l a n E I R SC H N o . 2 0 1 3 1 0 2 0 0 1 Final EIR January 2015 City of South San Francisco Ec o n o m i c a n d C o m m u n i t y D e v e l o p m e n t D e p a r t m e n t Ta b l e 1 1 - 1 M i t i g a t i o n M o n i t o r i n g a n d R e p o r t i n g P r o g r a m M a t r i x Mi t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e Ac t i o n R e q u i r e d Mi t i g a t i o n T i m i n g Re s p o n s i b l e P a r t y Monitoring Agency or Party sh a l l b e s i t e d i n a n o t h e r l o c a t i o n . Ta b l e 4 . 2 - 1 1 R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s o n S i t i n g N e w S e n s i t i v e La n d U s e s So u r c e C a t e g o r y Ad v i s o r y R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s Fr e e w a y s a n d H i g h - Tr a f f i c R o a d s Av o i d s i t i n g n e w s e n s i t i v e l a n d u s e s w i t h i n 5 0 0 f e e t o f a f r e e w a y , ur b a n r o a d s w i t h 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 v e h i c l e s / d a y , o r r u r a l r o a d s w i t h 5 0 , 0 0 0 ve h i c l e s / d a y . Di s t r i b u t i o n C e n t e r s Av o i d s i t i n g n e w s e n s i t i v e l a n d u s e s w i t h i n 1 , 0 0 0 f e e t o f a d i s t r i b u t i o n ce n t e r ( t h a t a c c o m m o d a t e s m o r e t h a n 1 0 0 t r u c k s p e r d a y , m o r e t h a n 40 t r u c k s w i t h o p e r a t i n g t r a n s p o r t r e f r i g e r a t i o n u n i t s ( T R U s ) p e r d a y , or w h e r e T R U u n i t o p e r a t i o n s e x c e e d 3 0 0 h o u r s p e r w e e k ) Ta k e i n t o a c c o u n t t h e c o n f i g u r a t i o n o f e x i s t i n g d i s t r i b u t i o n c e n t e r s an d a v o i d l o c a t i n g r e s i d e n c e s a n d o t h e r n e w s e n s i t i v e l a n d u s e s ne a r e n t r y a n d e x i t p o i n t s . Ra i l Y a r d s Av o i d s i t i n g n e w s e n s i t i v e l a n d u s e s w i t h i n 1 , 0 0 0 f e e t o f a m a j o r se r v i c e a n d m a i n t e n a n c e r a i l y a r d . Wi t h i n 1 m i l e o f a r a i l y a r d , c o n s i d e r p o s s i b l e s i t i n g l i m i t a t i o n s a n d mi t i g a t i o n a p p r o a c h e s . Po r t s Av o i d s i t i n g n e w s e n s i t i v e l a n d u s e s i m m e d i a t e l y d o w n w i n d o f p o r t s in t h e m o s t h e a v i l y i m p a c t e d z o n e s . C o n s u l t l o c a l a i r d i s t r i c t s o r t h e AR B o n t h e s t a t u s o f p e n d i n g a n a l y s e s o f h e a l t h r i s k s . Re f i n e r i e s Av o i d s i t i n g n e w s e n s i t i v e l a n d u s e s i m m e d i a t e l y d o w n w i n d o f pe t r o l e u m r e f i n e r i e s . C o n s u l t l o c a l a i r d i s t r i c t s o r t h e A R B o n t h e st a t u s o f p e n d i n g a n a l y s e s o f h e a l t h r i s k s . Ch r o m e P l a t e r s Av o i d s i t i n g n e w s e n s i t i v e l a n d u s e s w i t h i n 1 , 0 0 0 f e e t o f a c h r o m e pl a t e r . 52 11 - 5 CH A P T E R 1 1 M i t i g a t i o n M o n i t o r i n g a n d R e p o r t i n g P r o g r a m SE C T I O N 1 1 . 2 M i t i g a t i o n M o n i t o r i n g a n d R e p o r t i n g P r o g r a m M a t r i x So u t h S a n F r a n c i s c o D o w n t o w n S t a t i o n A r e a S p e c i f i c P l a n E I R SCH No. 2013102001 Fi n a l E I R Ja n u a r y 2 0 1 5 Ci t y o f S o u t h S a n F r a n c i s c o Ec o n o m i c a n d C o m m u n i t y D e v e l o p m e n t D e p a r t m e n t Ta b l e 1 1 - 1 M i t i g a t i o n M o n i t o r i n g a n d R e p o r t i n g P r o g r a m M a t r i x Mi t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e Ac t i o n R e q u i r e d Mi t i g a t i o n T i m i n g Re s p o n s i b l e P a r t y Monitoring Agency or Party Dr y C l e a n e r s U s i n g Pe r c h l o r o e t h y l e n e Av o i d s i t i n g n e w s e n s i t i v e l a n d u s e s w i t h i n 3 0 0 f e e t o f a n y d r y cl e a n i n g o p e r a t i o n . F o r o p e r a t i o n s w i t h t w o o r m o r e m a c h i n e s pr o v i d e 5 0 0 f e e t . F o r o p e r a t i o n s w i t h t h r e e o r m o r e m a c h i n e s c o n s u l t wi t h t h e l o c a l a i r d i s t r i c t . Do n o t s i t e n e w s e n s i t i v e l a n d u s e s i n t h e s a m e b u i l d i n g w i t h pe r c h l o r o e t h y l e n e d r y c l e a n i n g o p e r a t i o n s . Ga s o l i n e Di s p e n s i n g Fa c i l i t i e s Av o i d s i t i n g n e w s e n s i t i v e l a n d u s e s w i t h i n 3 0 0 f e e t o f a l a r g e g a s st a t i o n ( d e f i n e d a s a f a c i l i t y w i t h a t h r o u g h p u t o f 3 . 6 m i l l i o n g a l l o n s pe r y e a r o r g r e a t e r ) . A 5 0 - f o o t s e p a r a t i o n i s r e c o m m e n d e d f o r t y p i c a l ga s d i s p e n s i n g f a c i l i t i e s . SO U R C E : C a l i f o r n i a A i r R e s o u r c e s B o a r d , Ai r Q u a l i t y a n d L a n d U s e H a n d b o o k : A Co m m u n i t y H e a l t h P e r s p e c t i v e ( A p r i l 2 0 0 5 ) . Th e s e r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s a r e a d v i s o r y . L a n d u s e a g e n c i e s h a v e t o b a l a n c e o t h e r co n s i d e r a t i o n s , i n c l u d i n g h o u s i n g a n d t r a n s p o r t a t i o n n e e d s , e c o n o m i c d e v e l o p m e n t pr i o r i t i e s , a n d o t h e r q u a l i t y o f l i f e i s s u e s . Re c o m m e n d a t i o n s a r e b a s e d p r i m a r i l y o n d a t a s h o w i n g t h a t t h e a i r p o l l u t i o n e x p o s u r e s ad d r e s s e d h e r e ( i . e . , l o c a l i z e d ) c a n b e r e d u c e d a s m u c h a s 8 0 % w i t h t h e re c o m m e n d e d s e p a r a t i o n . Th e r e l a t i v e r i s k f o r t h e s e c a t e g o r i e s v a r i e s g r e a t l y . T o d e t e r m i n e t h e a c t u a l r i s k n e a r a pa r t i c u l a r f a c i l i t y , a s i t e - s p e c i f i c a n a l y s i s w o u l d b e r e q u i r e d . R i s k f r o m d i e s e l P M w i l l de c r e a s e o v e r t i m e a s c l e a n e r t e c h n o l o g y p h a s e s i n . Th e s e r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s a r e d e s i g n e d t o f i l l a g a p w h e r e i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t e x i s t i n g fa c i l i t i e s m a y n o t b e r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e a n d a r e n o t d e s i g n e d t o s u b s t i t u t e f o r m o r e sp e c i f i c i n f o r m a t i o n i f i t e x i s t s . T h e r e c o mm e n d e d d i s t a n c e s t a k e i n t o a c c o u n t o t h e r fa c t o r s i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e a v a i l a b l e h e a l t h r i s k d a t a . Si t e - s p e c i f i c p r o j e c t d e s i g n i m p r o v e m e n t s m a y h e l p r e d u c e a i r p o l l u t i o n e x p o s u r e s a n d sh o u l d a l s o b e c o n s i d e r e d w h e n s i t i n g n e w s e n s i t i v e l a n d u s e s . Th i s t a b l e d o e s n o t i m p l y t h a t m i x e d r e s i d e n t i a l a n d c o m m e r c i a l d e v e l o p m e n t i n ge n e r a l i s i n c o m p a t i b l e . R a t h e r i t f o c u s e s o n k n o w n p r o b l e m s l i k e d r y c l e a n e r s u s i n g pe r c h l o r o e t h y l e n e t h a t c a n b e a d d r e s s e d w i t h r e a s o n a b l e p r e v e n t a t i v e a c t i o n s . 53 11 - 6 CH A P T E R 1 1 M i t i g a t i o n M o n i t o r i n g a n d R e p o r t i n g P r o g r a m SE C T I O N 1 1 . 2 M i t i g a t i o n M o n i t o r i n g a n d R e p o r t i n g P r o g r a m M a t r i x So u t h S a n F r a n c i s c o D o w n t o w n S t a t i o n A r e a S p e c i f i c P l a n E I R SC H N o . 2 0 1 3 1 0 2 0 0 1 Final EIR January 2015 City of South San Francisco Ec o n o m i c a n d C o m m u n i t y D e v e l o p m e n t D e p a r t m e n t Ta b l e 1 1 - 1 M i t i g a t i o n M o n i t o r i n g a n d R e p o r t i n g P r o g r a m M a t r i x Mi t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e Ac t i o n R e q u i r e d Mi t i g a t i o n T i m i n g Re s p o n s i b l e P a r t y Monitoring Agency or Party MM 4 . 2 - 4 Si t i n g o f N e w T o x i c A i r C o n t a m i n a n t S o u r c e s N e a r S e n s i t i v e R e c e p t o r s . P r i o r t o ap p r o v a l o f a n y p r o j e c t t h a t i n c l u d e s p o t e n t i a l s o u r c e s o f s i g n i f i c a n t T A C e m i s s i o n s t h a t i s n o t su b j e c t t o a B A A Q M D p e r m i t , t h a t i s p r o p o s e d i n a c l o s e p r o x i m i t y t o a s e n s i t i v e r e c e p t o r , a He a l t h R i s k A s s e s s m e n t ( H R A ) s h a l l b e p r e p a r e d b y a q u a l i f i e d a i r q u a l i t y p r o f e s s i o n a l . T h e la n d u s e s l i s t e d i n A R B A i r Q u a l i t y a n d L a n d U s e H a n d b o o k T a b l e 1 - 1 ( r e p r o d u c e d a b o v e a s Ta b l e 4 . 2 - 1 1 [ R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s o n S i t i n g N e w S e n s i t i v e L a n d U s e s ] ) , s h a l l b e c o n s i d e r e d po t e n t i a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t s o u r c e s o f T A C e m i s s i o n s . S u c h a p r o p o s e d p r o j e c t w i l l b e c o n s i d e r e d i n cl o s e p r o x i m i t y t o a s e n s i t i v e r e c e p t o r i f i t w o u l d b e l o c a t e d w i t h i n t h e s i t i n g d i s t a n c e o u t l i n e f o r th e u s e i n T a b l e 1 - 1 o f t h e A R B A i r Q u a l i t y a n d L a n d U s e H a n d b o o k . S e n s i t i v e r e c e p t o r s in c l u d e d a y c a r e c e n t e r s , s c h o o l s , r e t i r e m e n t h o m e s , h o s p i t a l s , m e d i c a l p a t i e n t s i n r e s i d e n t i a l ho m e s , o r o t h e r f a c i l i t i e s t h a t m a y h o u s e i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h h e a l t h c o n d i t i o n s t h a t w o u l d b e ad v e r s e l y i m p a c t e d b y c h a n g e s i n a i r q u a l i t y . S u c h a p r o j e c t s h a l l n o t b e c o n s i d e r e d f o r ap p r o v a l u n t i l a n H R A h a s b e e n c o m p l e t e d a n d a p p r o v e d b y t h e C i t y . T h e m e t h o d o l o g y f o r t h e HR A s h a l l f o l l o w t h e O f f i c e o f E n v i r o n m e n t a l H e a l t h H a z a r d A s s e s s m e n t a n d B A A Q M D gu i d e l i n e s f o r t h e p r e p a r a t i o n o f H R A s . I f a p o t e n t i a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t h e a l t h r i s k i s i d e n t i f i e d , t h e HR A s h a l l i d e n t i f y a p p r o p r i a t e m e a s u r e s t o r e d u c e t h e p o t e n t i a l h e a l t h r i s k t o b e l o w a si g n i f i c a n t l e v e l , o r t h e p r o p o s e d f a c i l i t y s h a l l b e s i t e d i n a n o t h e r l o c a t i o n . Pr e p a r a t i o n a n d ap p r o v a l o f H e a l t h Ri s k A s s e s s m e n t Pr i o r t o i s s u a n c e o f fi r s t b u i l d i n g p e r m i t De v e l o p e r D e p a r t m e n t o f Economic and Community Development MM 4 . 2 - 5 P r i o r t o i s s u a n c e o f a c e r t i f i c a t e o f o c c u p a n c y f o r n e w i n d u s t r i a l l a n d u s e s i d e n t i f i e d i n th e B A A Q M D C E Q A G u i d e l i n e s o r A R B A i r Q ua l i t y a n d L a n d U s e H a n d b o o k a s a t y p i c a l s o u r c e of o d o r s , t h e a p p l i c a n t s h a l l d e m o n s t r a t e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f b e s t m a n a g e m e n t p r a c t i c e s t o mi n i m i z e o d o r s . B e s t m a n a g e m e n t p r a c t i c e s v a r y b y i n d u s t r i a l t y p e . I n a l l c a s e s , e x h a u s t v e n t s sh o u l d b e l o c a t e d a s f a r f r o m s e n s i t i v e r e c e p t o r s a s p o s s i b l e . B e s t m a n a g e m e n t p r a c t i c e s re c o m m e n d e d b y t h e B A A Q M D i n t h e C E Q A G u i d e l i n e s s h a l l b e i m p l e m e n t e d a s a p p l i c a b l e , an d m a y i n c l u d e t h e f o l l o w i n g : ■ Va p o r R e c o v e r y S y s t e m s ■ In j e c t i o n o f m a s k i n g o d o r a n t s i n t o p r o c e s s s t r e a m s ■ Th e r m a l o x i d a t i o n ■ Ca r b o n a b s o r p t i o n ■ Sc r u b b e r s ■ Ca t a l y t i c o x i d a t i o n Ve r i f i c a t i o n o f im p l e m e n t a t i o n o f b e s t ma n a g e m e n t pr a c t i c e s t o c o n t r o l od o r s Pr i o r t o i s s u a n c e o f ce r t i f i c a t e o f oc c u p a n c y De v e l o p e r D e p a r t m e n t o f Economic and Community Development 54 11 - 7 CH A P T E R 1 1 M i t i g a t i o n M o n i t o r i n g a n d R e p o r t i n g P r o g r a m SE C T I O N 1 1 . 2 M i t i g a t i o n M o n i t o r i n g a n d R e p o r t i n g P r o g r a m M a t r i x So u t h S a n F r a n c i s c o D o w n t o w n S t a t i o n A r e a S p e c i f i c P l a n E I R SCH No. 2013102001 Fi n a l E I R Ja n u a r y 2 0 1 5 Ci t y o f S o u t h S a n F r a n c i s c o Ec o n o m i c a n d C o m m u n i t y D e v e l o p m e n t D e p a r t m e n t Ta b l e 1 1 - 1 M i t i g a t i o n M o n i t o r i n g a n d R e p o r t i n g P r o g r a m M a t r i x Mi t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e Ac t i o n R e q u i r e d Mi t i g a t i o n T i m i n g Re s p o n s i b l e P a r t y Monitoring Agency or Party CUL T U R A L RES O U R C E S MM 4 . 3 - 1 P r i o r t o d e v e l o p m e n t a c t i v i t i e s t h a t w o u l d d e m o l i s h o r o t h e r w i s e p h y s i c a l l y a f f e c t bu i l d i n g s o r s t r u c t u r e s 4 5 y e a r s o l d o r o l d e r , t h e p r o j e c t a p p l i c a n t s h a l l r e t a i n a c u l t u r a l r e s o u r c e pr o f e s s i o n a l w h o m e e t s t h e S e c r e t a r y o f t h e I n t e r i o r ’ s P r o f e s s i o n a l Q u a l i f i c a t i o n s S t a n d a r d s f o r Ar c h i t e c t u r a l H i s t o r y t o d e t e r m i n e i f t h e p r o j e c t w o u l d c a u s e a s u b s t a n t i a l a d v e r s e c h a n g e i n t h e si g n i f i c a n c e o f a h i s t o r i c a l r e s o u r c e a s d e f i n e d i n C E Q A G u i d e l i n e s S e c t i o n 1 5 0 6 4 . 5 . T h e in v e s t i g a t i o n s h a l l i n c l u d e , a s d e t e r m i n e d a p p r o p r i a t e b y t h e c u l t u r a l r e s o u r c e p r o f e s s i o n a l a n d th e C i t y o f S o u t h S a n F r a n c i s c o , t h e a p p r o p r i a t e a r c h i v a l r e s e a r c h , i n c l u d i n g , i f n e c e s s a r y , a n up d a t e d r e c o r d s s e a r c h o f t h e N o r t h w e s t I n f o r m a t i o n C e n t e r ( N W I C ) o f t h e C a l i f o r n i a H i s t o r i c a l Re s o u r c e s I n f o r m a t i o n S y s t e m a n d a p e d e s t r i a n s u r v e y o f t h e p r o p o s e d d e v e l o p m e n t a r e a t o de t e r m i n e i f a n y s i g n i f i c a n t h i s t o r i c - p e r i o d r e s o u r c e s w o u l d b e a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t e d b y t h e pr o p o s e d d e v e l o p m e n t . T h e r e s u l t s o f t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n s h a l l b e d o c u m e n t e d i n a t e c h n i c a l re p o r t o r m e m o r a n d u m t h a t i d e n t i f i e s a n d e v a l u a t e s a n y h i s t o r i c a l r e s o u r c e s w i t h i n t h e de v e l o p m e n t a r e a a n d i n c l u d e s r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s a n d m e t h o d s f o r e l i m i n a t i n g o r r e d u c i n g im p a c t s o n h i s t o r i c a l r e s o u r c e s . T h e t e c h n i c a l r e p o r t o r m e m o r a n d u m s h a l l b e s u b m i t t e d t o t h e Ci t y o f S o u t h S a n F r a n c i s c o f o r a p p r o v a l . A s d e t e r m i n e d n e c e s s a r y b y t h e C i t y , e n v i r o n m e n t a l do c u m e n t a t i o n ( e . g . , C E Q A d o c u m e n t a t i o n ) p r e p a r e d f o r f u t u r e d e v e l o p m e n t w i t h i n t h e p r o j e c t si t e s h a l l r e f e r e n c e o r i n c o r p o r a t e t h e f i n d i n g s a n d r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s o f t h e t e c h n i c a l r e p o r t o r me m o r a n d u m . T h e p r o j e c t a p p l i c a n t s h a l l b e r e s p o n s i b l e f o r i m p l e m e n t i n g m e t h o d s f o r el i m i n a t i n g o r r e d u c i n g i m p a c t s o n h i s t o r i c a l r e s o u r c e s i d e n t i f i e d i n t h e t e c h n i c a l r e p o r t o r me m o r a n d u m . Hi s t o r i c r e s o u r c e ev a l u a t i o n a n d r e p o r t Pl a n c h e c k D e v e l o p e r D e p a r t m e n t o f Economic and Community Development 55 11 - 8 CH A P T E R 1 1 M i t i g a t i o n M o n i t o r i n g a n d R e p o r t i n g P r o g r a m SE C T I O N 1 1 . 2 M i t i g a t i o n M o n i t o r i n g a n d R e p o r t i n g P r o g r a m M a t r i x So u t h S a n F r a n c i s c o D o w n t o w n S t a t i o n A r e a S p e c i f i c P l a n E I R SC H N o . 2 0 1 3 1 0 2 0 0 1 Final EIR January 2015 City of South San Francisco Ec o n o m i c a n d C o m m u n i t y D e v e l o p m e n t D e p a r t m e n t Ta b l e 1 1 - 1 M i t i g a t i o n M o n i t o r i n g a n d R e p o r t i n g P r o g r a m M a t r i x Mi t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e Ac t i o n R e q u i r e d Mi t i g a t i o n T i m i n g Re s p o n s i b l e P a r t y Monitoring Agency or Party MM 4 . 3 - 2 P r i o r t o a n y e a r t h - d i s t u r b i n g a c t i v i t i e s ( e . g . , e x c a v a t i o n , t r e n c h i n g , g r a d i n g ) t h a t c o u l d en c o u n t e r p r e v i o u s l y u n d i s t u r b e d s o i l s , t h e p r o j e c t a p p l i c a n t s h a l l r e t a i n a C i t y a p p r o v e d ar c h a e o l o g i s t t o d e t e r m i n e i f t h e p r o j e c t c o u l d r e s u l t i n a s u b s t a n t i a l a d v e r s e c h a n g e i n t h e si g n i f i c a n c e o f a n a r c h a e o l o g i c a l r e s o u r c e p u r s u an t t o C E Q A G u i d e l i n e s S e c t i o n 1 5 0 6 4 . 5 . T h e re s u l t s o f t h e c u l t u r a l r e s o u r c e s i n v e s t i g a t i o n s h a l l b e d o c u m e n t e d i n a t e c h n i c a l r e p o r t o r me m o r a n d u m t h a t i d e n t i f i e s a n d e v a l u a t e s a n y a r c h a e o l o g i c a l r e s o u r c e s w i t h i n t h e de v e l o p m e n t a r e a a n d i n c l u d e s r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s a n d m e t h o d s f o r a v o i d i n g i m p a c t s o n ar c h a e o l o g i c a l r e s o u r c e s o r r e d u c i n g i m p a c t s t o a l e s s - t h a n - s i g n i f i c a n t l e v e l . T h e t e c h n i c a l re p o r t o r m e m o r a n d u m s h a l l b e s u b m i t t e d t o t h e C i t y o f S o u t h S a n F r a n c i s c o f o r a p p r o v a l . T h e pr o j e c t a p p l i c a n t s h a l l b e r e s p o n s i b l e f o r i m p l e m e n t i n g m e t h o d s f o r a v o i d i n g o r r e d u c i n g im p a c t s o n a r c h a e o l o g i c a l r e s o u r c e s i d e n t i f i e d i n t h e t e c h n i c a l r e p o r t o r m e m o r a n d u m . P r o j e c t s un d e r t h e S p e c i f i c P l a n t h a t w o u l d n o t e n c o u n t e r p r e v i o u s l y u n d i s t u r b e d s o i l s a n d w o u l d th e r e f o r e n o t b e r e q u i r e d t o r e t a i n a n a r c h a e o l o g i s t s h a l l d e m o n s t r a t e n o n - d i s t u r b a n c e t o t h e Ci t y t h r o u g h t h e a p p r o p r i a t e c o n s t r u c t i o n p l a n s o r g e o t e c h n i c a l s t u d i e s p r i o r t o a n y e a r t h - di s t u r b i n g a c t i v i t i e s . P r o j e c t s t h a t w o u l d i n c l u d e a n y e a r t h d i s t u r ba n c e ( d i s t u r b e d o r u n d i s t u r b e d so i l s ) s h a l l c o m p l y w i t h m i t i g a t i o n m e a s u r e M M 4 . 3 - 3 . Ar c h a e o l o g i c a l re s o u r c e e v a l u a t i o n an d r e p o r t Pr i o r t o i s s u a n c e o f fi r s t b u i l d i n g p e r m i t De v e l o p e r D e p a r t m e n t o f Economic and Community Development MM 4 . 3 - 3 I f e v i d e n c e o f a n a r c h a e o l o g i c a l s i t e o r o t h e r s u s p e c t e d h i s t o r i c a l r e s o u r c e a s d e f i n e d by C E Q A G u i d e l i n e s S e c t i o n 1 5 0 6 4 . 5 , a r e d i s c o v e r e d d u r i n g a n y p r o j e c t - r e l a t e d e a r t h - di s t u r b i n g a c t i v i t i e s ( i n c l u d i n g p r o j e c t s t h a t wo u l d n o t e n c o u n t e r u n d i s t u r b e d s o i l s ) , a l l e a r t h - di s t u r b i n g a c t i v i t y w i t h i n 1 0 0 f e e t o f t h e f i n d s h a l l b e h a l t e d a n d t h e C i t y o f S o u t h S a n F r a n c i s c o sh a l l b e n o t i f i e d . T h e p r o j e c t a p p l i c a n t s h a l l r e t a i n a C i t y - a p p r o v e d a r c h a e o l o g i s t t o a s s e s s t h e si g n i f i c a n c e o f t h e f i n d . I m p a c t s t o a n y s i g n i f i c a n t r e s o u r c e s s h a l l b e m i t i g a t e d t o a l e s s - t h a n - si g n i f i c a n t l e v e l t h r o u g h m e t h o d s d e t e r m i n e d a d e q u a t e b y t h e a r c h a e o l o g i s t a s a p p r o v e d b y t h e Ci t y . Ce s s a t i o n o f co n s t r u c t i o n a c t i v i t i e s an d a r c h a e o l o g i c a l in v e s t i g a t i o n On g o i n g d u r i n g co n s t r u c t i o n De v e l o p e r / c o n t r a c t o r D e p a r t m e n t o f Economic and Community Development MM 4 . 3 - 4 P r i o r t o s t a r t o f c o n s t r u c t i o n , a l l c o n s t r u c t i o n p e r s o n n e l i n v o l v e d i n g r o u n d - d i s t u r b i n g ac t i v i t i e s a n d t h e s u p e r v i s i o n o f s u c h a c t i v i ti e s w i l l u n d e r g o w o r k e r e n v i r o n m e n t a l a w a r e n e s s tr a i n i n g . T h e a r c h a e o l o g i c a l r e s o u r c e s t r a i ni n g c o m p o n e n t s w i l l b e p r e s e n t e d b y a C i t y - ap p r o v e d c u l t u r a l r e s o u r c e s c o n s u l t a n t . T h e t r a i n i n g w i l l d e s c r i b e t h e t y p e s o f a r c h a e o l o g i c a l re s o u r c e s t h a t m a y b e f o u n d i n t h e p r o p o s e d s t u d y a r e a a n d h o w t o r e c o g n i z e s u c h r e s o u r c e s ; th e p r o t o c o l s t o b e f o l l o w e d i f a r c h a e o l o g i c a l r e s o u r c e s a r e f o u n d , i n c l u d i n g c o m m u n i c a t i o n pr o t o c o l s ; a n d t h e l a w s r e l e v a n t t o t h e p r o t e c t i o n o f a r c h a e o l o g i c a l r e s o u r c e s a n d t h e as s o c i a t e d p e n a l t i e s f o r b r e a k i n g t h e s e l a w s . A d d i ti o n a l l y , p r i o r t o c o n s t r u c t i o n , C i t y - a p p r o v e d ar c h a e o l o g i c a l r e s o u r c e s c o n s u l t a n t s w i l l m e e t w i t h t h e a p p l i c a n t ’ s g r a d i n g a n d e x c a v a t i o n co n t r a c t o r s t o p r o v i d e c o m m e n t s a n d s u g g e s t i o n s c o n c e r n i n g m o n i t o r i n g p l a n s a n d t o d i s c u s s ex c a v a t i o n a n d g r a d i n g p l a n s . Ve r i f i c a t i o n o f w o r k e r en v i r o n m e n t a l aw a r e n e s s t r a i n i n g Pr i o r t o co m m e n c e m e n t o f co n s t r u c t i o n a c t i v i t i e s De v e l o p e r / c o n t r a c t o r D e p a r t m e n t o f Economic and Community Development 56 11 - 9 CH A P T E R 1 1 M i t i g a t i o n M o n i t o r i n g a n d R e p o r t i n g P r o g r a m SE C T I O N 1 1 . 2 M i t i g a t i o n M o n i t o r i n g a n d R e p o r t i n g P r o g r a m M a t r i x So u t h S a n F r a n c i s c o D o w n t o w n S t a t i o n A r e a S p e c i f i c P l a n E I R SCH No. 2013102001 Fi n a l E I R Ja n u a r y 2 0 1 5 Ci t y o f S o u t h S a n F r a n c i s c o Ec o n o m i c a n d C o m m u n i t y D e v e l o p m e n t D e p a r t m e n t Ta b l e 1 1 - 1 M i t i g a t i o n M o n i t o r i n g a n d R e p o r t i n g P r o g r a m M a t r i x Mi t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e Ac t i o n R e q u i r e d Mi t i g a t i o n T i m i n g Re s p o n s i b l e P a r t y Monitoring Agency or Party MM 4 . 3 - 5 P r i o r t o a n y e a r t h - d i s t u r b i n g a c t i v i t i e s ( e . g . , e x c a v a t i o n , t r e n c h i n g , g r a d i n g ) t h a t c o u l d en c o u n t e r u n d i s t u r b e d s o i l s , t h e p r o j e c t a p p l i c a n t s h a l l r e t a i n a p r o f e s s i o n a l p a l e o n t o l o g i s t t o de t e r m i n e i f t h e p r o j e c t c o u l d d i r e c t l y o r i n d i re c t l y d e s t r o y a u n i q u e p a l e o n t o l o g i c a l r e s o u r c e o r si t e o r u n i q u e g e o l o g i c f e a t u r e . T h e r e s u l t s o f t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n s h a l l b e d o c u m e n t e d i n a te c h n i c a l r e p o r t o r m e m o r a n d u m t h a t i d e n t i f i e s t h e p a l e o n t o l o g i c a l s e n s i t i v i t y o f t h e de v e l o p m e n t a r e a a n d i n c l u d e s r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s a n d m e t h o d s f o r a v o i d i n g o r r e d u c i n g im p a c t s t o a l e s s - t h a n - s i g n i f i c a n t l e v e l f o r p a l e o n t o l o g i c a l r e s o u r c e s o r u n i q u e g e o l o g i c fe a t u r e s . T h e t e c h n i c a l r e p o r t o r m e m o r a n d u m s h a l l b e s u b m i t t e d t o t h e C i t y f o r a p p r o v a l . T h e pr o j e c t a p p l i c a n t s h a l l b e r e s p o n s i b l e f o r i m p l e m e n t i n g m e t h o d s f o r a v o i d i n g o r r e d u c i n g im p a c t s o n p a l e o n t o l o g i c a l r e s o u r c e s o r u n i q u e g e o l o g i c f e a t u r e s i d e n t i f i e d i n t h e t e c h n i c a l re p o r t o r m e m o r a n d u m . P r o j e c t s t h a t w o u l d n o t e n c o u n t e r u n d i s t u r b e d s o i l s a n d w o u l d th e r e f o r e n o t b e r e q u i r e d t o r e t a i n a p a l e o n t o l o g i s t s h a l l d e m o n s t r a t e n o n - d i s t u r b a n c e t o t h e Ci t y t h r o u g h t h e a p p r o p r i a t e c o n s t r u c t i o n p l a n s o r g e o t e c h n i c a l s t u d i e s p r i o r t o a n y e a r t h - di s t u r b i n g a c t i v i t i e s . P r o j e c t s t h a t w o u l d i n c l u d e a n y e a r t h d i s t u r ba n c e ( d i s t u r b e d o r u n d i s t u r b e d so i l s ) s h a l l c o m p l y w i t h m i t i g a t i o n m e a s u r e M M 4 . 3 - 6 . Pa l e o n t o l o g i c a l in v e s t i g a t i o n a n d re p o r t Pr i o r t o i s s u a n c e o f fi r s t b u i l d i n g p e r m i t De v e l o p e r D e p a r t m e n t o f Economic and Community Development MM 4 . 3 - 6 S h o u l d p a l e o n t o l o g i c a l r e s o u r c e s ( i . e . , f o s s i l r e m a i n s ) o r u n i q u e g e o l o g i c f e a t u r e s b e id e n t i f i e d a t a p a r t i c u l a r s i t e d u r i n g p r o j e c t c o n s t r u c t i o n , c o n s t r u c t i o n s h a l l c e a s e w i t h i n 1 0 0 f e e t of t h e f i n d a n d t h e C i t y o f S o u t h S a n F r a n c i s c o s h a l l b e n o t i f i e d . T h e p r o j e c t a p p l i c a n t s h a l l re t a i n a C i t y a p p r o v e d p a l e o n t o l o g i s t t o a s s e s s t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h e f i n d . I m p a c t s t o a n y si g n i f i c a n t r e s o u r c e s s h a l l b e m i t i g a t e d t o a l e s s - t h a n - s i g n i f i c a n t l e v e l t h r o u g h m e t h o d s de t e r m i n e d a d e q u a t e b y t h e p a l e o n t o l o g i s t , a n d a s a p p r o v e d b y t h e C i t y . In c o n s i d e r i n g a n y s u g g e s t e d m i t i g a t i o n p r o p o s e d by t h e c o n s u l t i n g p a l e o n t o l o g i s t , t h e C i t y o f So u t h S a n F r a n c i s c o s t a f f s h a l l d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r a v o i d a n c e i s n e c e s s a r y a n d f e a s i b l e i n l i g h t of f a c t o r s s u c h a s t h e n a t u r e o f t h e f i n d , p r o j e c t d e s i g n , c o s t s , a p p l i c a b l e r e g u l a t i o n s , p o l i c i e s an d l a n d u s e a s s u m p t i o n s , a n d o t h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . I f a v o i d a n c e i s u n n e c e s s a r y o r i n f e a s i b l e , ot h e r a p p r o p r i a t e m e a s u r e s ( e . g . , m o n i t o r i n g a n d / o r d a t a r e c o v e r y ) s h a l l b e i n s t i t u t e d . Ce s s a t i o n o f co n s t r u c t i o n a n d pa l e o n t o l o g i c a l in v e s t i g a t i o n On g o i n g d u r i n g co n s t r u c t i o n De v e l o p e r / c o n t r a c t o r D e p a r t m e n t o f Economic and Community Development 57 11 - 1 0 CH A P T E R 1 1 M i t i g a t i o n M o n i t o r i n g a n d R e p o r t i n g P r o g r a m SE C T I O N 1 1 . 2 M i t i g a t i o n M o n i t o r i n g a n d R e p o r t i n g P r o g r a m M a t r i x So u t h S a n F r a n c i s c o D o w n t o w n S t a t i o n A r e a S p e c i f i c P l a n E I R SC H N o . 2 0 1 3 1 0 2 0 0 1 Final EIR January 2015 City of South San Francisco Ec o n o m i c a n d C o m m u n i t y D e v e l o p m e n t D e p a r t m e n t Ta b l e 1 1 - 1 M i t i g a t i o n M o n i t o r i n g a n d R e p o r t i n g P r o g r a m M a t r i x Mi t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e Ac t i o n R e q u i r e d Mi t i g a t i o n T i m i n g Re s p o n s i b l e P a r t y Monitoring Agency or Party GRE E N H O U S E GAS EMI S S I O N S MM 4 . 4 - 1 A l l c o n s t r u c t i o n p r o j e c t s s h a l l i n c o r p o r a t e , t o t h e g r e a t e s t e x t e n t f e a s i b l e , t h e m o s t re c e n t B e s t M a n a g e m e n t P r a c t i c e s f o r G r e e n h o u s e G a s E m i s s i o n s a s i n d i c a t e d b y t h e BA A Q M D . 1 B e s t M a n a g e m e n t P r a c t i c e s t o r e d u c e G H G e m i s s i o n s d u r i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n m a y in c l u d e , b u t a r e n o t l i m i t e d t o : ■ Us e o f a l t e r n a t i v e - f u e l e d ( e . g . , b i o d i e s e l , e l e c tr i c ) c o n s t r u c t i o n v e h i c l e s / e q u i p m e n t o f a t le a s t 1 5 p e r c e n t o f t h e f l e e t ■ Us i n g l o c a l b u i l d i n g m a t e r i a l s o f a t l e a s t 1 0 p e r c e n t ■ Re c y c l e a t l e a s t 5 0 p e r c e n t o f c o n s t r u c t i o n w a s t e o r d e m o l i t i o n m a t e r i a l s Ve r i f i c a t i o n o f G H G be s t m a n a g e m e n t pr a c t i c e s Pr i o r t o i s s u a n c e o f fi r s t b u i l d i n g p e r m i t De v e l o p e r D e p a r t m e n t of Economic and Community Development MM 4 . 4 - 2 Su p p o r t E x p a n s i o n o f P u b l i c a n d P r i v a t e T r a n s i t P r o g r a m s t o R e d u c e E m p l o y e e Co m m u t e s ( 1 . 2 ) . E m p l o y e r s w i t h i n t h e s t u d y a r e a s h a l l s u b s c r i b e t o t h e S o u t h S a n F r a n c i s c o TD M O r d i n a n c e s u c h t h a t a m i n i m u m o f 2 5 p e r c e n t o f a l l e m p l o y e e s a r e i n c l u d e d . T h e S o u t h Sa n F r a n c i s c o T D M O r d i n a n c e r e q u i r e s t h a t a l l n o n r e s i d e n t i a l d e v e l o p m e n t s p r o d u c i n g 1 0 0 av e r a g e t r i p s p e r d a y o r m o r e m e e t a 2 8 p e r c e n t n o n - d r i v e - a l o n e p e a k h o u r r e q u i r e m e n t w i t h fe e s a s s e s s e d f o r n o n c o m p l i a n c e . Ve r i f i c a t i o n o f co m p l i a n c e w i t h T D M or d i n a n c e Pr i o r t o i s s u a n c e o f ce r t i f i c a t e o f oc c u p a n c y De v e l o p e r D e p a r t m e n t o f Economic and Community Development MM 4 . 4 - 3 Re d u c e D e p e n d e n c e o n A u t o s t h r o u g h S m a r t P a r k i n g P o l i c i e s ( 1 . 3 ) . T h i s m e a s u r e wo u l d i m p l e m e n t S m a r t P a r k i n g P o l i c i e s , s u c h a s s h a r e d p a r k i n g , t o r e d u c e a v a i l a b l e p a r k i n g by 1 0 p e r c e n t . Im p l e m e n t a t i o n o f Sm a r t P a r k i n g P o l i c i e s Pl a n c h e c k D e v e l o p e r D e p a r t m e n t o f Economic and Community Development MM 4 . 4 - 4 Ex p a n d t h e U s e o f A l t e r n a t i v e - F u e l V e h i c l e s ( 2 . 1 ) . N o n r e s i d e n t i a l a n d r e s i d e n t i a l l a n d us e s c a n e n c o u r a g e t h e u s e o f a l t e r n a t i v e - f u e l e d v e h i c l e s b y p r o v i d i n g c h a r g i n g s t a t i o n s . I n su p p o r t o f t h i s m e a s u r e , d e v e l o p m e n t w i t h i n t h e s t u d y a r e a s h a l l e n s u r e t h a t a m i n i m u m o f 6 0 el e c t r i c v e h i c l e c h a r g e r s a r e i n s t a l l e d w i t h i n n o n r e s i d e n t i a l l a n d u s e s a n d w i t h i n t h e r e s i d e n t i a l un i t s e l e c t r i c c h a r g i n g c a p a b i l i t i e s a r e a v ai l a b l e f o r a m i n i m u m o f 2 0 0 v e h i c l e s . Ve r i f i c a t i o n o f in c l u s i o n o f c h a r g i n g st a t i o n s Pl a n c h e c k D e v e l o p e r D e p a r t m e n t o f Economic and Community Development MM 4 . 4 - 5 Re d u c e E m i s s i o n s f r o m O f f - R o a d V e h i c l e s a n d E q u i p m e n t ( 2 . 2 ) . I n s u p p o r t o f t h i s me a s u r e , d e v e l o p m e n t w i t h i n t h e s t u d y a r e a s h a l l e n s u r e t h a t a m i n i m u m o f 2 5 p e r c e n t o f a l l la w n m o w e r s a n d l e a f b l o w e r s a c q u i r e d / u s e d w i t h i n t h e s t u d y a r e a w o u l d b e e l e c t r i c . T h i s re q u i r e s t h a t t h e r e b e s u f f i c i e n t e l e c t r i c a l o u t l e t s o u t s i d e o f a l l r e s i d e n t i a l a n d n o n r e s i d e n t i a l un i t s t o e n c o u r a g e t h e u s e o f n o n - g a s - f u e l e d l a w n m a i n t e n a n c e e q u i p m e n t . Ve r i f i c a t i o n o f el e c t r i c a l p l a n s Pl a n c h e c k D e v e l o p e r D e p a r t m e n t o f Economic and Community Development 1 A b o v e B M P s a r e s u b j e c t t o c h a n g e o v e r t i m e . B a y A r e a A i r Q u a li t y M a n a g e m e n t D i s t r i c t w i l l p o s t u p d a t e s t o t h i s l i s t a t w w w . b a a qm d . g o v . 58 11 - 1 1 CH A P T E R 1 1 M i t i g a t i o n M o n i t o r i n g a n d R e p o r t i n g P r o g r a m SE C T I O N 1 1 . 2 M i t i g a t i o n M o n i t o r i n g a n d R e p o r t i n g P r o g r a m M a t r i x So u t h S a n F r a n c i s c o D o w n t o w n S t a t i o n A r e a S p e c i f i c P l a n E I R SCH No. 2013102001 Fi n a l E I R Ja n u a r y 2 0 1 5 Ci t y o f S o u t h S a n F r a n c i s c o Ec o n o m i c a n d C o m m u n i t y D e v e l o p m e n t D e p a r t m e n t Ta b l e 1 1 - 1 M i t i g a t i o n M o n i t o r i n g a n d R e p o r t i n g P r o g r a m M a t r i x Mi t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e Ac t i o n R e q u i r e d Mi t i g a t i o n T i m i n g Re s p o n s i b l e P a r t y Monitoring Agency or Party MM 4 . 4 - 6 Ma x i m i z e E n e r g y E f f i c i e n c y i n t h e B u i l t E n v i r o n m e n t t h r o u g h S t a n d a r d s a n d t h e P l a n Re v i e w P r o c e s s ( 3 . 1 ) . Al l n e w d e v e l o p m e n t w i t h i n t h e s t u d y a r e a s h a l l , a t a m i n i m u m , c o m p l y wi t h t h e C A L G r e e n T i e r 1 s t a n d a r d s a n d e x c e e d 2 0 1 3 T i t l e 2 4 b y a m i n i m u m o f 1 0 p e r c e n t . Ve r i f i c a t i o n o f co m p l i a n c e Pl a n c h e c k D e v e l o p e r D e p a r t m e n t o f Economic and Community Development MM 4 . 4 - 7 Ad d r e s s H e a t I s l a n d I s s u e s a n d E x p a n d t h e U r b a n F o r e s t ( 3 . 4 ) . At a m i n i m u m , 32 2 , 0 0 0 s q u a r e f e e t o f a l l n e w n o n r e s i d e n t i a l d e v e l o p m e n t a n d 7 5 n e w r e s i d e n t i a l u n i t s s h a l l ad d r e s s h e a t i s l a n d e f f e c t i s s u e s b y u s i n g h i g h a l b e d o s u r f a c e s a n d t e c h n o l o g i e s i d e n t i f i e d i n th e v o l u n t a r y C A L G r e e n S t a n d a r d s . T h i s i s i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f a l l n e w de v e l o p m e n t t o p l a n t t r e e s i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h Z o n i n g C o d e C h a p t e r 1 3 . 3 0 w i t h p l a c e m e n t u s e d to m a x i m i z e b u i l d i n g s h a d i n g . Ve r i f i c a t i o n o f co m p l i a n c e Pl a n c h e c k D e v e l o p e r D e p a r t m e n t o f Economic and Community Development MM 4 . 4 - 8 Pr o m o t e E n e r g y I n f o r m a t i o n S h a r i n g a n d E d u c a t e t h e C o m m u n i t y a b o u t E n e r g y - Ef f i c i e n t B e h a v i o r s a n d C o n s t r u c t i o n ( 3 . 5 ) . D e v e l o p a s p a r t o f t h e S p e c i f i c P l a n a n e d u c a t i o n a l in f o r m a t i o n p a c k e t t h a t w i l l b e d i s t r i b u t e d t o r e s i d e n t i a l a n d n o n r e s i d e n t i a l l a n d o w n e r s . T h e s e in f o r m a t i o n p a c k e t s s h a l l d e t a i l p o t e n t i a l b e h a v i o r a l c h a n g e s t h a t c a n b e i n s t i t u t e d t o s a v e en e r g y , s u c h a s u n p l u g g i n g a p p l i a n c e s , a i r - d r y i n g c l o t h e s , a n d d a y l i g h t i n g s t r a t e g i e s . Ve r i f i c a t i o n o f co m p l i a n c e Pr i o r t o i s s u a n c e o f ce r t i f i c a t e o f oc c u p a n c y De v e l o p e r D e p a r t m e n t o f Economic and Community Development MM 4 . 4 - 9 En e r g y R e d u c t i o n ( 4 . 1 ) . In a d d i t i o n t o c o m p l y i n g w i t h M M 4 . 4 - 6 , t h e d e v e l o p m e n t wi t h i n t h e s t u d y a r e a s h a l l i n c l u d e t h e u s e o f s o l a r p a n e l s s u c h t h a t a m i n i m u m o f 35 , 0 0 0 s q u a r e f e e t o f n o n r e s i d e n t i a l l a n d u s e r o o f s p a c e i s c o n v e r t e d t o s o l a r p a n e l s , 2 0 5 re s i d e n t i a l u n i t s a r e e q u i p p e d w i t h s o l a r h o t w a t e r h e a t e r s , a n d t h e e l e c t r i c i t y o f a n a d d i t i o n a l 7 5 dw e l l i n g u n i t s i s o f f s e t b y s o l a r p a n e l a r r a y s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e n e w r e s i d e n t i a l d e v e l o p m e n t . Ve r i f i c a t i o n o f co m p l i a n c e Pl a n c h e c k D e v e l o p e r D e p a r t m e n t o f Economic and Community Development MM 4 . 4 - 1 0 Wa t e r R e d u c t i o n ( 6 . 1 ) . No n r e s i d e n t i a l a n d r e s i d e n t i a l l a n d u s e s s h a l l r e d u c e p e r ca p i t a w a t e r c o n s u m p t i o n b y 4 0 g a l l o n s p e r d a y . M e a s u r e s t o b e i m p l e m e n t e d t o r e d u c e w a t e r co n s u m p t i o n m a y i n c l u d e , b u t a r e n o t l i m i t e d t o : ■ Li m i t i n g t u r f a r e a i n c o m m e r c i a l a n d m u l t i - f a m i l y p r o j e c t s ■ Re s t r i c t i n g h o u r s o f i r r i g a t i o n t o b e t w e e n 3 : 0 0 AM a n d 2 h o u r s a f t e r s u n r i s e ( s u g g e s t i o n t o be i n c l u d e d i n t h e e n e r g y i n f o r m a t i o n s a v i n g p a c k a g e ) ■ In s t a l l i n g i r r i g a t i o n c o n t r o l l e r s w i t h r a i n s e n s o r s ■ La n d s c a p i n g w i t h n a t i v e , w a t e r - e f f i c i e n t p l a n t s ■ In s t a l l i n g d r i p i r r i g a t i o n s y s t e m s ■ Re d u c i n g i m p e r v i o u s s u r f a c e s ■ In s t a l l i n g h i g h - e f f i c i e n c y , w a t e r - s a v i n g a p p l i a n c e s Ve r i f i c a t i o n o f co m p l i a n c e Pl a n c h e c k De v e l o p e r Department of Economic and Community Development 59 11 - 1 2 CH A P T E R 1 1 M i t i g a t i o n M o n i t o r i n g a n d R e p o r t i n g P r o g r a m SE C T I O N 1 1 . 2 M i t i g a t i o n M o n i t o r i n g a n d R e p o r t i n g P r o g r a m M a t r i x So u t h S a n F r a n c i s c o D o w n t o w n S t a t i o n A r e a S p e c i f i c P l a n E I R SC H N o . 2 0 1 3 1 0 2 0 0 1 Final EIR January 2015 City of South San Francisco Ec o n o m i c a n d C o m m u n i t y D e v e l o p m e n t D e p a r t m e n t Ta b l e 1 1 - 1 M i t i g a t i o n M o n i t o r i n g a n d R e p o r t i n g P r o g r a m M a t r i x Mi t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e Ac t i o n R e q u i r e d Mi t i g a t i o n T i m i n g Re s p o n s i b l e P a r t y Monitoring Agency or Party NOI S E MM 4 . 6 - 1 HV A C M e c h a n i c a l E q u i p m e n t S h i e l d i n g . P r i o r t o t h e a p p r o v a l o f b u i l d i n g p e r m i t s f o r no n - r e s i d e n t i a l d e v e l o p m e n t , t h e a p p l i c a n t s h a l l s u b m i t a d e s i g n p l a n f o r t h e p r o j e c t de m o n s t r a t i n g t h a t t h e n o i s e l e v e l f r o m o p e r a t i o n o f m e c h a n i c a l e q u i p m e n t w i l l n o t e x c e e d t h e ex t e r i o r n o i s e l e v e l l i m i t s f o r a d e s i g n a t e d r e c e i v i n g l a n d u s e c a t e g o r y a s s p e c i f i e d i n N o i s e Or d i n a n c e S e c t i o n 8 . 3 2 . 0 3 0 . N o i s e c o n t r o l m e a s u r e s m a y i n c l u d e , b u t a r e n o t l i m i t e d t o , t h e se l e c t i o n o f q u i e t e q u i p m e n t , e q u i p m e n t s e t b a c k s , s i l e n c e r s , a n d / o r a c o u s t i c a l l o u v e r s . Ve r i f i c a t i o n o f co m p l i a n c e Pl a n c h e c k D e v e l o p e r D e p a r t m e n t o f Economic and Community Development MM 4 . 6 - 2 Si t e - S p e c i f i c A c o u s t i c A n a l y s i s — N o n r e s i d e n t i a l D e v e l o p m e n t . P r i o r t o t h e a p p r o v a l o f bu i l d i n g p e r m i t s f o r n e w n o n - r e s i d e n t i a l l a n d u s e s w h e r e e x t e r i o r n o i s e l e v e l e x c e e d s 7 0 d B A CN E L , a n a c o u s t i c a l a n a l y s i s s h a l l b e p e r f o r m e d t o d e t e r m i n e a p p r o p r i a t e n o i s e r e d u c t i o n me a s u r e s s u c h t h a t e x t e r i o r n o i s e l e v e l s s h a l l b e r e d u c e d t o b e b e l o w 7 0 d B A C N E L , u n l e s s a hi g h e r n o i s e c o m p a t i b i l i t y t h r e s h o l d ( u p t o 7 5 d B A C N E L ) h a s b e e n d e t e r m i n e d a p p r o p r i a t e b y th e C i t y o f S o u t h S a n F r a n c i s c o . T h e a n a l y s i s s h a l l d e t a i l t h e m e a s u r e s t h a t w i l l b e im p l e m e n t e d t o e n s u r e e x t e r i o r n o i s e l e v e l s a r e c o m p a t i b l e w i t h t h e p r o p o s e d u s e . M e a s u r e s th a t m a y b e i m p l e m e n t e d t o e n s u r e a p p r o p r i a t e n o i s e l e v e l s i n c l u d e , b u t a r e n o t l i m i t e d t o , se t b a c k s t o s e p a r a t e t h e p r o p o s e d n o n r e s i d e n t i a l s t r u c t u r e f r o m t h e a d j a c e n t r o a d w a y , o r co n s t r u c t i o n o f n o i s e b a r r i e r s o n s i t e . Co m p l e t i o n a n d ap p r o v a l o f a c o u s t i c a l an a l y s i s Pl a n c h e c k D e v e l o p e r D e p a r t m e n t o f Economic and Community Development 60 11 - 1 3 CH A P T E R 1 1 M i t i g a t i o n M o n i t o r i n g a n d R e p o r t i n g P r o g r a m SE C T I O N 1 1 . 2 M i t i g a t i o n M o n i t o r i n g a n d R e p o r t i n g P r o g r a m M a t r i x So u t h S a n F r a n c i s c o D o w n t o w n S t a t i o n A r e a S p e c i f i c P l a n E I R SCH No. 2013102001 Fi n a l E I R Ja n u a r y 2 0 1 5 Ci t y o f S o u t h S a n F r a n c i s c o Ec o n o m i c a n d C o m m u n i t y D e v e l o p m e n t D e p a r t m e n t Ta b l e 1 1 - 1 M i t i g a t i o n M o n i t o r i n g a n d R e p o r t i n g P r o g r a m M a t r i x Mi t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e Ac t i o n R e q u i r e d Mi t i g a t i o n T i m i n g Re s p o n s i b l e P a r t y Monitoring Agency or Party MM 4 . 6 - 3 Si t e - S p e c i f i c A c o u s t i c A n a l y s i s — M u l t i f a m i l y R e s i d e n c e s . P r i o r t o t h e a p p r o v a l o f bu i l d i n g p e r m i t s f o r t h e f o l l o w i n g u s e s , a n a c o u s t i c a l a n a l y s i s s h a l l b e p e r f o r m e d t o e n s u r e t h a t in t e r i o r n o i s e l e v e l s d u e t o e x t e r i o r n o i s e s o u r c e s s h a l l b e b e l o w 4 5 d B A C N E L : ■ Mu l t i f a m i l y r e s i d e n c e s w h e r e e x t e r i o r n o i s e l e v e l s e x c e e d 6 5 d B A C N E L o r w h e r e n o i s e co n t o u r s i d e n t i f i e d i n t h e G e n e r a l P l a n N o i s e E l e m e n t p r o j e c t a C N E L b e t w e e n 6 5 a n d 70 d B A ■ Mu l t i f a m i l y r e s i d e n t i a l u n i t s t h a t a r e l o c a t e d w i t h i n t h e s a m e b u i l d i n g a s c o m m e r c i a l de v e l o p m e n t ■ Mu l t i f a m i l y r e s i d e n t i a l u n i t s l o c a t e d n e a r a s t r u c t u r e r e q u i r i n g a n H V A C s y s t e m ■ Bu i l d i n g p l a n s s h a l l b e a v a i l a b l e d u r i n g d e s i g n r e v i e w a n d s h a l l d e m o n s t r a t e t h e a c c u r a t e ca l c u l a t i o n o f n o i s e a t t e n u a t i o n f o r h a b i t a b l e r o o m s . F o r t h e s e a r e a s , i t m a y b e n e c e s s a r y fo r t h e w i n d o w s t o b e a b l e t o r e m a i n c l o s e d t o e n s u r e t h a t i n t e r i o r n o i s e l e v e l s m e e t t h e in t e r i o r s t a n d a r d o f 4 5 d B A C N E L . C o n s e q u e n t l y , b a s e d o n t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e i n t e r i o r ac o u s t i c a l a n a l y s i s , t h e d e s i g n f o r b u i l d i n g s i n t h e s e a r e a s m a y n e e d t o i n c l u d e a v e n t i l a t i o n or a i r c o n d i t i o n i n g s y s t e m t o p r o v i d e a h a b i t a b l e i n t e r i o r e n v i r o n m e n t w i t h t h e w i n d o w s cl o s e d . A d d i t i o n a l l y , f o r n e w m u l t i f a m i l y r e s i d e n c e s o n p r o p e r t i e s w h e r e t r a i n h o r n s a n d ra i l r o a d c r o s s i n g w a r n i n g s i g n a l s a r e a u d i b l e , t h e a c o u s t i c a l a n a l y s i s s h a l l e n s u r e t h a t in t e r i o r n o i s e l e v e l s d u r i n g c r o s s i n g e v e n t s d o n o t e x c e e d t h e I n t e r i o r N o i s e S t a n d a r d s i n No i s e O r d i n a n c e S e c t i o n 8 . 3 2 . 0 4 0 . Co m p l e t i o n a n d ap p r o v a l o f a c o u s t i c a l an a l y s i s Pl a n c h e c k D e v e l o p e r D e p a r t m e n t o f Economic and Community Development MM 4 . 6 - 4 Co n s t r u c t i o n V i b r a t i o n . F o r a l l c o n s t r u c t i o n a c t i v i t i e s w i t h i n t h e s t u d y a r e a , t h e co n s t r u c t i o n c o n t r a c t o r s h a l l i m p l e m e n t t h e f o l l o w i n g m e a s u r e s d u r i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n : a. T h e c o n s t r u c t i o n c o n t r a c t o r s h a l l p r o v i d e , a t l e a s t t h r e e w e e k s p r i o r t o t h e s t a r t o f co n s t r u c t i o n a c t i v i t i e s , w r i t t e n n o t i f i c a t i o n t o a l l r e s i d e n t i a l u n i t s a n d n o n r e s i d e n t i a l t e n a n t s wi t h i n 1 1 5 f e e t o f t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n s i t e i n f o r m i n g t h e m o f t h e e s t i m a t e d s t a r t d a t e a n d du r a t i o n o f v i b r a t i o n - g e n e r a t i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n a c t i v i t i e s . b. S t a t i o n a r y s o u r c e s , s u c h a s t e m p o r a r y g e n e r a t o r s , s h a l l b e l o c a t e d a s f a r f r o m o f f - s i t e re c e p t o r s a s p o s s i b l e . c. T r u c k s s h a l l b e p r o h i b i t e d f r o m i d l i n g a l o n g s t r e e t s s e r v i n g t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n s i t e . Ve r i f i c a t i o n o f co m p l i a n c e Pr i o r t o i s s u a n c e o f fi r s t b u i l d i n g p e r m i t De v e l o p e r / c o n t r a c t o r D e p a r t m e n t o f Economic and Community Development 61 11 - 1 4 CH A P T E R 1 1 M i t i g a t i o n M o n i t o r i n g a n d R e p o r t i n g P r o g r a m SE C T I O N 1 1 . 2 M i t i g a t i o n M o n i t o r i n g a n d R e p o r t i n g P r o g r a m M a t r i x So u t h S a n F r a n c i s c o D o w n t o w n S t a t i o n A r e a S p e c i f i c P l a n E I R SC H N o . 2 0 1 3 1 0 2 0 0 1 Final EIR January 2015 City of South San Francisco Ec o n o m i c a n d C o m m u n i t y D e v e l o p m e n t D e p a r t m e n t Ta b l e 1 1 - 1 M i t i g a t i o n M o n i t o r i n g a n d R e p o r t i n g P r o g r a m M a t r i x Mi t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e Ac t i o n R e q u i r e d Mi t i g a t i o n T i m i n g Re s p o n s i b l e P a r t y Monitoring Agency or Party MM 4 . 6 - 5 Ra i l L i n e G r o u n d b o r n e V i b r a t i o n . I m p l e m e n t t h e c u r r e n t F T A a n d F e d e r a l R a i l r o a d Ad m i n i s t r a t i o n ( F R A ) g u i d e l i n e s , w h e r e a p p r o p r i a t e , t o l i m i t t h e e x t e n t o f e x p o s u r e t h a t s e n s i t i v e us e s m a y h a v e t o g r o u n d b o r n e v i b r a t i o n f r o m t r a i n s . S p e c i f i c a l l y , C a t e g o r y 1 u s e s ( v i b r a t i o n - se n s i t i v e e q u i p m e n t ) w i t h i n 3 0 0 f ee t f r o m t h e r a i l l i n e , C a t e g o r y 2 u s e s ( r e s i d e n c e s a n d bu i l d i n g s w h e r e p e o p l e n o r m a l l y s l e e p ) w i t h i n 2 0 0 f e e t , a n d C a t e g o r y 3 u s e s ( i n s t i t u t i o n a l l a n d us e s ) w i t h i n 1 5 5 f e e t o f t h e r a i l l i n e s h a l l r e q u i r e a s i t e - s p e c i f i c g r o u n d b o r n e v i b r a t i o n a n a l y s i s co n d u c t e d b y a q u a l i f i e d g r o u n d b o r n e v i b r a t i o n s p e c i a l i s t i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e c u r r e n t F T A an d F R A g u i d e l i n e s p r i o r t o o b t a i n i n g a b u i l d i n g p e r m i t . V i b r a t i o n c o n t r o l m e a s u r e s d e e m e d ap p r o p r i a t e b y t h e s i t e - s p e c i f i c g r o u n d b o r n e v i b r a t i o n a n a l y s i s t o m e e t 6 5 V d B , 7 2 V d B , a n d 75 V d B r e s p e c t i v e l y f o r C a t e g o r y 1 , C a t e g o r y 2 , a n d C a t e g o r y 3 u s e s , s h a l l b e i m p l e m e n t e d b y th e p r o j e c t a p p l i c a n t a n d a p p r o v e d b y t h e C i t y p r i o r t o r e c e i v i n g a b u i l d i n g p e r m i t . Co m p l e t i o n a n d ap p r o v a l o f gr o u n d b o r n e v i b r a t i o n an a l y s i s Pr i o r t o i s s u a n c e o f fi r s t b u i l d i n g p e r m i t De v e l o p e r D e p a r t m e n t o f Economic and Community Development TRA N S P O R T A T I O N /T RA F F I C MM 4 . 1 0 - 1 A s i g n a l t i m i n g a d j u s t m e n t t o r e d i s t r i b u t e g r e e n t i m e t o b e t t e r s e r v e f u t u r e v e h i c l e vo l u m e s w o u l d r e d u c e d e l a y a t t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n , a n d i m p r o v e o p e r a t i o n s a t # 1 M i l l e r Av e n u e / L i n d e n A v e n u e . T h i s w o u l d c a u s e t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n t o o p e r a t e a t a n a c c e p t a b l e L O S D i n th e P M p e a k h o u r . Co m p l e t i o n o f t i m i n g ad j u s t m e n t Pr i o r t o i s s u a n c e o f ce r t i f i c a t e o f oc c u p a n c y f o r p r o j e c t tr i g g e r i n g un a c c e p t a b l e d e l a y De v e l o p e r D e p a r t m e n t o f Public Works MM 4 . 1 0 - 2 C o n v e r t o n e w e s t b o u n d t h r o u g h l a n e t o a s e c o n d w e s t b o u n d l e f t - t u r n l a n e , a n d re t i m e a n d o p t i m i z e t h e t r a f f i c s i g n a l a t E . G r a n d A v e n u e / G a t e w a y B o u l e v a r d . Co m p l e t i o n o f s t r e e t im p r o v e m e n t s Pr i o r t o i s s u a n c e o f ce r t i f i c a t e o f oc c u p a n c y f o r p r o j e c t tr i g g e r i n g un a c c e p t a b l e d e l a y De v e l o p e r D e p a r t m e n t o f Public Works MM 4 . 1 0 - 3 M o d i f y t h e e a s t b o u n d a p p r o a c h t o i n c l u d e o n e l e f t - t u r n p o c k e t a n d o n e t h r o u g h - r i g h t sh a r e d l a n e , a n d r e t i m e a n d o p t i m i z e t h e t r a f f i c s i g n a l a t G r a n d A v e n u e / A i r p o r t B o u l e v a r d t o re a l l o c a t e g r e e n t i m e . Co m p l e t i o n o f s t r e e t im p r o v e m e n t s Pr i o r t o i s s u a n c e o f ce r t i f i c a t e o f oc c u p a n c y f o r p r o j e c t tr i g g e r i n g un a c c e p t a b l e d e l a y De v e l o p e r D e p a r t m e n t o f Public Works MM 4 . 1 0 - 4 A d d a s o u t h b o u n d l e f t - t u r n p o c k e t b y r e m o v i n g e x i s t i n g p a r k i n g a n d r e t i m e a n d op t i m i z e t h e t r a f f i c s i g n a l a t B a d e n A v e n u e / L i n d e n A v e n u e t o r e a l l o c a t e g r e e n t i m e t o b e t t e r se r v e f u t u r e v o l u m e s . Co m p l e t i o n o f s t r e e t im p r o v e m e n t s Pr i o r t o i s s u a n c e o f ce r t i f i c a t e o f oc c u p a n c y f o r p r o j e c t tr i g g e r i n g un a c c e p t a b l e d e l a y De v e l o p e r D e p a r t m e n t o f Public Works 62 11 - 1 5 CH A P T E R 1 1 M i t i g a t i o n M o n i t o r i n g a n d R e p o r t i n g P r o g r a m SE C T I O N 1 1 . 2 M i t i g a t i o n M o n i t o r i n g a n d R e p o r t i n g P r o g r a m M a t r i x So u t h S a n F r a n c i s c o D o w n t o w n S t a t i o n A r e a S p e c i f i c P l a n E I R SCH No. 2013102001 Fi n a l E I R Ja n u a r y 2 0 1 5 Ci t y o f S o u t h S a n F r a n c i s c o Ec o n o m i c a n d C o m m u n i t y D e v e l o p m e n t D e p a r t m e n t Ta b l e 1 1 - 1 M i t i g a t i o n M o n i t o r i n g a n d R e p o r t i n g P r o g r a m M a t r i x Mi t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e Ac t i o n R e q u i r e d Mi t i g a t i o n T i m i n g Re s p o n s i b l e P a r t y Monitoring Agency or Party MM 4 . 1 0 - 5 M o d i f y t h e w e s t b o u n d a p p r o a c h t o a d d a l e f t - t u r n p o c k e t , m o d i f y i n g t h e a p p r o a c h t o in c l u d e t h r e e l e f t - t u r n l a n e s , o n e t h r o u g h l a n e , a n d o n e r i g h t - t u r n l a n e , a n d o p t i m i z e t h e t r a f f i c si g n a l a t S a n M a t e o A v e n u e / A i r p o r t B o u l e v a r d t o r e a l l o c a t e g r e e n t i m e t o b e t t e r s e r v e f u t u r e vo l u m e s . Co m p l e t i o n o f s t r e e t im p r o v e m e n t s Pr i o r t o i s s u a n c e o f ce r t i f i c a t e o f oc c u p a n c y f o r p r o j e c t tr i g g e r i n g un a c c e p t a b l e d e l a y De v e l o p e r D e p a r t m e n t o f Public Works MM 4 . 1 0 - 6 I n c l u d e a n a d d i t i o n a l w e s t b o u n d t h r o u g h l a n e , a d d a s e c o n d s o u t h b o u n d r i g h t - t u r n po c k e t , a n d r e t i m e a n d o p t i m i z e t h e t r a f f i c s i g n a l a t S o u t h A i r p o r t B o u l e v a r d / G a t e w a y Bo u l e v a r d t o r e a l l o c a t e g r e e n t i m e t o b e t t e r s e r v e f u t u r e t r a f f i c v o l u m e s . Co m p l e t i o n o f s t r e e t im p r o v e m e n t s Pr i o r t o i s s u a n c e o f ce r t i f i c a t e o f oc c u p a n c y f o r p r o j e c t tr i g g e r i n g un a c c e p t a b l e d e l a y De v e l o p e r D e p a r t m e n t o f Public Works MM 4 . 1 0 - 7 A s i g n a l t i m i n g a d j u s t m e n t t o r e d i s t r i b u t e g r e e n t i m e t o b e t t e r s e r v e f u t u r e v e h i c l e vo l u m e s w o u l d r e d u c e q u e u i n g a t t h e s o u t h b o u n d r i g h t - t u r n m o v e m e n t . T h i s w o u l d c a u s e t h e in t e r s e c t i o n t o o p e r a t e a t a n a c c e p t a b l e L O S D a n d w i t h a c c e p t a b l e q u e u e l e n g t h s d u r i n g t h e PM p e a k h o u r . Co m p l e t i o n o f s t r e e t im p r o v e m e n t s Pr i o r t o i s s u a n c e o f ce r t i f i c a t e o f oc c u p a n c y f o r p r o j e c t tr i g g e r i n g un a c c e p t a b l e d e l a y De v e l o p e r D e p a r t m e n t o f Public Works MM 4 . 1 0 - 8 i n t e n t i o n a l l y o m i t t e d 2MM 4 . 1 0 - 9 R e p u r p o s e t h e e a s t b o u n d a n d w e s t b o u n d a p p r o a c h e s t o i n c l u d e o n e l e f t - t u r n po c k e t a n d o n e t h r o u g h - r i g h t s h a r e d l a n e , a n d r e t i m e a n d o p t i m i z e t h e t r a f f i c s i g n a l s a t M i l l e r Av e n u e / L i n d e n A v e n u e . T h i s l a n e m o d i f i c a t i o n w o u l d n o t r e q u i r e a n y a d d i t i o n a l r i g h t - o f - w a y . Co m p l e t i o n o f s t r e e t im p r o v e m e n t s Pr i o r t o i s s u a n c e o f ce r t i f i c a t e o f oc c u p a n c y f o r p r o j e c t tr i g g e r i n g un a c c e p t a b l e d e l a y De v e l o p e r D e p a r t m e n t o f Public Works MM 4 . 1 0 - 1 0 A s i g n a l t i m i n g a d j u s t m e n t t o o p t i m i z e c y c l e l e n g t h a n d r e d i s t r i b u t e g r e e n t i m e t o be t t e r s e r v e f u t u r e v e h i c l e v o l u m e s w o u l d r e d u c e d e l a y a t t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n , a n d i m p r o v e op e r a t i o n s a t t h i s i n t e r s e c t i o n . Co m p l e t i o n o f s t r e e t im p r o v e m e n t s Pr i o r t o i s s u a n c e o f ce r t i f i c a t e o f oc c u p a n c y f o r p r o j e c t tr i g g e r i n g un a c c e p t a b l e d e l a y De v e l o p e r D e p a r t m e n t o f Public Works MM 4 . 1 0 - 1 1 A s i g n a l t i m i n g a d j u s t m e n t t o r e d i s t r i b u t e g r e e n t i m e t o b e t t e r s e r v e f u t u r e v e h i c l e vo l u m e s w o u l d r e d u c e d e l a y a t t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n , a n d i m p r o v e o p e r a t i o n s a t t h i s i n t e r s e c t i o n . Th i s w o u l d c a u s e t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n t o o p e r a t e a t a n a c c e p t a b l e L O S D d u r i n g t h e P M p e a k h o u r . 2 M i t i g a t i o n m e a s u r e s M M 4 . 1 0 - 9 t h r o u g h M M 4 . 1 0 - 1 9 w e r e n o t r e n u m b e r e d i n t h e F i n a l E I R t o a c c o u n t f o r t h e e l i m i n a t i o n o f M M 4 . 1 0 - 8 s i n c e p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h e D E I R . 63 11 - 1 6 CH A P T E R 1 1 M i t i g a t i o n M o n i t o r i n g a n d R e p o r t i n g P r o g r a m SE C T I O N 1 1 . 2 M i t i g a t i o n M o n i t o r i n g a n d R e p o r t i n g P r o g r a m M a t r i x So u t h S a n F r a n c i s c o D o w n t o w n S t a t i o n A r e a S p e c i f i c P l a n E I R SC H N o . 2 0 1 3 1 0 2 0 0 1 Final EIR January 2015 City of South San Francisco Ec o n o m i c a n d C o m m u n i t y D e v e l o p m e n t D e p a r t m e n t Ta b l e 1 1 - 1 M i t i g a t i o n M o n i t o r i n g a n d R e p o r t i n g P r o g r a m M a t r i x Mi t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e Ac t i o n R e q u i r e d Mi t i g a t i o n T i m i n g Re s p o n s i b l e P a r t y Monitoring Agency or Party MM 4 . 1 0 - 1 2 C o n s t r u c t a n a d d i t i o n a l n o r t h b o u n d r i g h t - t u r n l a n e , s o u t h b o u n d l e f t - t u r n l a n e , so u t h b o u n d r i g h t - t u r n p o c k e t , a n d r e t i m e a n d o p t i m i z e t h e t r a f f i c s i g n a l s a t E . G r a n d Av e n u e / G a t e w a y B o u l e v a r d . MM 4 . 1 0 - 1 3 C o n v e r t t h e w e s t b o u n d a p p r o a c h t o i n c l u d e o n e l e f t - t u r n l a n e a n d o n e t h r o u g h - r i g h t sh a r e d l a n e . Co m p l e t i o n o f s t r e e t im p r o v e m e n t s Pr i o r t o i s s u a n c e o f ce r t i f i c a t e o f oc c u p a n c y f o r p r o j e c t tr i g g e r i n g un a c c e p t a b l e d e l a y De v e l o p e r D e p a r t m e n t o f Public Works MM 4 . 1 0 - 1 4 M o d i f y t h e e a s t b o u n d a n d w e s t b o u n d a p p r o a c h t o e a c h h a v e o n e l e f t - t u r n p o c k e t an d o n e t h r o u g h - r i g h t s h a r e d l a n e , a n d r e t i m e a n d o p t i m i z e t h e t r a f f i c s i g n a l s a t G r a n d Av e n u e / L i n d e n A v e n u e . Co m p l e t i o n o f s t r e e t im p r o v e m e n t s Pr i o r t o i s s u a n c e o f ce r t i f i c a t e o f oc c u p a n c y f o r p r o j e c t tr i g g e r i n g un a c c e p t a b l e d e l a y De v e l o p e r D e p a r t m e n t o f Public Works MM 4 . 1 0 - 1 5 M o d i f y t h e e a s t b o u n d a p p r o a c h t o i n c l u d e o n e l e f t - t u r n p o c k e t , o n e t h r o u g h l a n e , an d o n e r i g h t - t u r n p o c k e t , a n d r e t i m e a n d o p t i m i z e t h e t r a f f i c s i g n a l s a t G r a n d A v e n u e / A i r p o r t Bo u l e v a r d . T h i s l a n e m o d i f i c a t i o n a n d s i g n a l t i m i n g a d j u s t m e n t w o u l d r e d u c e v e h i c l e d e l a y a t th e i n t e r s e c t i o n , a n d i m p r o v e o p e r a t i o n s a t # 1 0 G r a n d A v e n u e / A i r p o r t B o u l e v a r d . Co m p l e t i o n o f s t r e e t im p r o v e m e n t s Pr i o r t o i s s u a n c e o f ce r t i f i c a t e o f oc c u p a n c y f o r p r o j e c t tr i g g e r i n g un a c c e p t a b l e d e l a y De v e l o p e r D e p a r t m e n t o f Public Works MM 4 . 1 0 - 1 6 R e t i m e a n d o p t i m i z e t h e t r a f f i c s i g n a l s a t B a d e n A v e n u e / L i n d e n A v e n u e . Co m p l e t i o n o f s t r e e t im p r o v e m e n t s Pr i o r t o i s s u a n c e o f ce r t i f i c a t e o f oc c u p a n c y f o r p r o j e c t tr i g g e r i n g un a c c e p t a b l e d e l a y De v e l o p e r D e p a r t m e n t of Public Works MM 4 . 1 0 - 1 7 C o n s t r u c t a n a d d i t i o n a l w e s t b o u n d l e f t - t u r n l a n e , p r o v i d e a n o r t h b o u n d r i g h t - t u r n po c k e t , a n d r e t i m e a n d o p t i m i z e t h e t r a f f i c s i g n a l s a t S a n M a t e o A v e n u e / A i r p o r t B o u l e v a r d . Co m p l e t i o n o f s t r e e t im p r o v e m e n t s Pr i o r t o i s s u a n c e o f ce r t i f i c a t e o f oc c u p a n c y f o r p r o j e c t tr i g g e r i n g un a c c e p t a b l e d e l a y De v e l o p e r D e p a r t m e n t o f Public Works MM 4 . 1 0 - 1 8 C o n s t r u c t a n a d d i t i o n a l n o r t h b o u n d l e f t - t u r n l a n e , a n d r e t i m e a n d o p t i m i z e t h e t r a f f i c si g n a l s a t S o . A i r p o r t B o u l e v a r d / G a t e w a y B o u l e v a r d . Co m p l e t i o n o f s t r e e t im p r o v e m e n t s Pr i o r t o i s s u a n c e o f ce r t i f i c a t e o f oc c u p a n c y f o r p r o j e c t tr i g g e r i n g un a c c e p t a b l e d e l a y De v e l o p e r D e p a r t m e n t o f Public Works 64 11 - 1 7 CH A P T E R 1 1 M i t i g a t i o n M o n i t o r i n g a n d R e p o r t i n g P r o g r a m SE C T I O N 1 1 . 2 M i t i g a t i o n M o n i t o r i n g a n d R e p o r t i n g P r o g r a m M a t r i x So u t h S a n F r a n c i s c o D o w n t o w n S t a t i o n A r e a S p e c i f i c P l a n E I R SCH No. 2013102001 Fi n a l E I R Ja n u a r y 2 0 1 5 Ci t y o f S o u t h S a n F r a n c i s c o Ec o n o m i c a n d C o m m u n i t y D e v e l o p m e n t D e p a r t m e n t Ta b l e 1 1 - 1 M i t i g a t i o n M o n i t o r i n g a n d R e p o r t i n g P r o g r a m M a t r i x Mi t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e Ac t i o n R e q u i r e d Mi t i g a t i o n T i m i n g Re s p o n s i b l e P a r t y Monitoring Agency or Party MM 4 . 1 0 - 1 9 M o d i f y t h e e a s t b o u n d a p p r o a c h t o i n c l u d e t w o l e f t - t u r n l a n e s , o n e t h r o u g h - l e f t sh a r e d l a n e , a n d o n e r i g h t - t u r n l a n e , a n d r e t i m e a n d o p t i m i z e t h e t r a f f i c s i g n a l a t U S - 1 0 1 NB / S o . A i r p o r t B o u l e v a r d O f f R a m p / S o . A i r p o r t Bo u l e v a r d t o r e a l l o c a t e g r e e n t i m e t o b e t t e r se r v e f u t u r e v o l u m e s . Co m p l e t i o n o f s t r e e t im p r o v e m e n t s Pr i o r t o i s s u a n c e o f ce r t i f i c a t e o f oc c u p a n c y f o r p r o j e c t tr i g g e r i n g un a c c e p t a b l e d e l a y De v e l o p e r D e p a r t m e n t o f Public Works 65 11 - 1 8 CH A P T E R 1 1 M i t i g a t i o n M o n i t o r i n g a n d R e p o r t i n g P r o g r a m SE C T I O N 1 1 . 2 M i t i g a t i o n M o n i t o r i n g a n d R e p o r t i n g P r o g r a m M a t r i x So u t h S a n F r a n c i s c o D o w n t o w n S t a t i o n A r e a S p e c i f i c P l a n E I R SC H N o . 2 0 1 3 1 0 2 0 0 1 Final EIR January 2015 City of South San Francisco Ec o n o m i c a n d C o m m u n i t y D e v e l o p m e n t D e p a r t m e n t [T H I S P A G E I N T E N T I O N A L L Y L E F T B L A N K ] 66 Attachment 2 Draft Specific Plan and General Plan Amendments Resolution Exhibit A Specific Plan Adoption (SP14-001) and errata sheet Exhibit B General Plan Amendments (GPA11-0003) and list of proposed changes 67 RESOLUTION NO._________ CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS AND APPROVING THE DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AND THE RELATED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) started the FOCUS Program in 2007 to work with local governments to create Priority Development Areas (PDA) where locally-identified, infill development opportunities can offer services and amenities to meet the day-to day needs of residents in a pedestrian-friendly environment served by transit; and WHEREAS, on July 8, 2009, the City Council for the City of South San Francisco (“City”) supported the designation of the Downtown area as a PDA to continue building on the City’s transit-oriented planning; and WHEREAS, the City identified an opportunity to analyze the potential for new commercial development and residential housing in the Downtown area (“Downtown”) in support of transit ridership; and WHEREAS the City was awarded a grant by MTC and ABAG in February of 2012 in support of this goal; and WHEREAS, future development adjacent to multiple transportation options is consistent with the policies of the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill 32), and the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (State Bill 375) to coordinate development with transportation investments to reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions; and WHEREAS, analysis of future change and improvements to the Downtown and adjoining areas could provide a framework for accommodating projected population growth and housing demand for the City; and WHEREAS, in an effort to collaboratively craft a blueprint for Downtown development, the City initiated a community input process that included public meetings and analysis with residents, business owners, commercial developers, interest groups and advocates; and WHEREAS, the draft Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (“Plan”) builds on other recent planning efforts, including the Climate Action Plan, Bicycle Master Plan, and Pedestrian Master Plan; and 68 WHEREAS, over the course of two years, there have been three formal community workshops for draft plan input and revisions, meetings with the Citizens Advisory Committee and Technical Advisory Committee for comments, and a public open house event to present the draft Plan; and WHEREAS, the City has utilized the expertise of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, Parking Place Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, Planning Commission and City Council for review and comments on the Downtown Plan; and WHEREAS, the City has prepared amendments to the City’s General Plan (“Amendments”) to modify Chapter sections, including text, tables, and figures, to remain consistent with adoption of the Plan; and WHEREAS, cumulatively, the Plan and the Amendments provide a policy framework for future development in the City’s downtown area; and WHEREAS, the City prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) for the South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, the DEIR was circulated for the required 45-day public comment period on October 10, 2014 and ended on November 24, 2014 at 5:00pm; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a lawfully noticed public hearing on November 6, 2014 to solicit public comment on the DEIR; and WHEREAS, three (3) oral and six (6) written comments were received on the document and a Final Environmental Impact Report/Response to Comments (“FEIR”) was prepared; and WHEREAS, on January 8, 2015 the Planning Commission for the City of South San Francisco held a lawfully noticed public hearing to solicit public comment and consider the information in the DEIR and FEIR (“EIR”), take public testimony, and by resolution, recommended that the City Council certify the EIR and adopt a statement of overriding considerations; and WHEREAS, on January 8, 2015 the Planning Commission for the City of South San Francisco held a lawfully noticed public hearing to solicit public comment and consider the Plan and Amendments, take public testimony, and made a recommendation to the City Council to adopt the Plan and Amendments; and WHEREAS, on January 28, 2015, the City Council for the City of South San Francisco held a lawfully noticed public hearing to solicit public comment and consider the proposed Plan and Amendments; and 69 WHEREAS, as required by State law and the South San Francisco Municipal Code, the City Council has independently reviewed the Plan, Amendments, and the EIR, and makes the findings contained herein in support of the Specific Plan and General Plan Amendments. 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 and General Plan EIR, including all amendments and updates thereto; the South San Francisco Municipal Code; the draft South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan, prepared by BMS Design Group; the draft South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan General Plan Amendment, prepared by BMS Design Group; the draft South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Zoning Map and Zoning Ordinance Amendment, the South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR, including the Draft and Final EIR, and all appendices thereto; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the City Council and Planning Commission Joint Study Session on October 15, 2014; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission’s duly noticed November 6, 2014 meeting; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission’s duly noticed December 18, 2014 meeting; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission’s duly noticed January 8, 2015 meeting; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the City Council’s duly noticed January 28, 2015 meeting; 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: SECTION 1 FINDINGS I. 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 proposed Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (Exhibit A), and the proposed Downtown Station Area Specific Plan General Plan Amendments (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. By separate Resolution, the City Council, exercising its independent judgment and analysis, has found that an EIR was prepared for the Plan in accordance with CEQA, 70 which EIR adequately discloses and analyzes the proposed Plan's potentially significant environmental impacts, its growth inducing impacts, and its cumulative impacts, and analyzed alternatives to the proposed Plan; the City Council has further found that the benefits of approving the Plan outweigh the Plan's significant and unavoidable impacts; accordingly, the City Council certifies the EIR for the Plan and adopts a statement of overriding considerations, in accordance with CEQA. II. Specific Plan Adoption Findings 1. The Specific Plan, referenced as Exhibit A, implements and is consistent with the General Plan, as proposed for amendment, because the Plan will reinforce many of the General Plan policies related to land use, specifically pedestrian-friendly mixed-use, infill development, and improved linkages to a transit center. Furthermore, the Plan does not conflict with any specific plans, and will remain consistent with the City’s overall vision for community development, economic vitality, and redevelopment in the downtown. None of the new vision goals, guiding principles, policies or new land use designations will conflict with or impede achievement of any of the goals, policies, or land use designations established in the General Plan; 2. The Specific Plan will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City because the Plan would provide for sufficient development, land use, and performance standards related to new development or alteration. More specifically, the Plan includes guiding policies and design standards to address land use and urban design, circulation and parking, and public infrastructure investment to remain consistent with the General Plan. Additionally, the Plan will further the public interest by focusing new commercial and residential development in the downtown core, adjacent to transit service and on infill sites, as recommended in the General Plan’s land use element and Downtown planning sub-area; 3. The Specific Plan area, as evaluated as part of both the CEQA process and analysis of demographics, including anticipated population and employment growth, identifies the downtown districts as physically suitable for the proposed land use designation(s) and the anticipated development since the area is well served by multi-modal transportation options, existing infrastructure and utilities, and other public services as identified for further investment as part of the Plan’s implementation; and 4. The proposed development will be superior to development otherwise allowed under conventional zoning classifications since the proposed Plan provides additional development and design standards to promote higher density, mixed-use and commercial development, and concurrently, proposes enhancements to circulation, parking, utilities, and public services to accommodate anticipated growth within the downtown districts. III. General Plan Amendments Findings 1. As described in Exhibits A and B, adoption of the proposed Plan will include amendments to the Land Use, Planning Sub-Areas, and Transportation Elements of the 71 South San Francisco General Plan. The amendments would include changes to the intensity of existing land use designations, although the changes would be consistent with the General Plan policies and designations to promote infill construction, mixed-use development, and pedestrian, bicycle and transit connection improvements. The amendments are primarily intended as minor alterations to the General Plan related to anticipated increases in population, jobs, and development related to the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan; and 2. As required under State law, the South San Francisco General Plan, and the South San Francisco Municipal Code, in support of the General Plan Amendments, the City Council finds that the proposed General Plan Amendments are otherwise consistent with the South San Francisco General Plan, do not obstruct or impede achievement of any General Plan policies, and furthers a number of important Guiding and Implementing Policies set forth in the Land Use, Planning Sub-Areas, and Transportation Elements, including without limitation: Guiding Policy 2-G-2: “Maintain a balanced land use program that provides opportunities for continued economic growth, and building intensities that reflect South San Francisco’s prominent inner bay location and excellent regional access.” Guiding Policy 2-G-5: “Maintain Downtown as the City’s physical and symbolic center, and a focus of residential, commercial, and entertainment activities.” Guiding Policy 3.1-G-1: “Promote Downtown’s vitality and economic well-being, and its presence as the city’s center.” Guiding Policy 3.1-G-2: “Encourage development of Downtown as a pedestrian-friendly mixed-use activity center with retail and visitor-orientated uses, business and personal services, government and professional offices, civic uses, and a variety of residential types and densities.” Guiding Policy 3.1-G-3: “Promote infill development, intensification, and reuse of currently underutilized sites.” Guiding Policy 3.1-G-4: “Enhance linkages between Downton and transit centers, and increased street connectivity with the surrounding neighborhoods.” The Downtown Station Area Specific Plan, including the proposed General Plan Amendments, furthers these policies and is therefore consistent with the City’s General Plan (as proposed for amendment). SECTION 2 RECOMMENDATION 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 adopts the 72 Downtown Station Area Specific Plan attached as Exhibit A, and the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan General Plan Amendments attached as Exhibit B. 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 a regular meeting held on the 28th day of January, 2015 by the following vote: AYES:________________________________________________________________ NOES:________________________________________________________________ ABSTENTIONS:________________________________________________________ ABSENT:______________________________________________________________ Attest:__________________________________ Krista Martinelli City Clerk 73 EXHIBIT A DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN SP14-0001   The Public Review Draft of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan has been previously distributed to the City Council and is available online at: http://www.ssfdowntownplan.org/background/. The errata sheet recommending changes to the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan is also incorporated as part of Exhibit A and attached.                                   74 Page 1 of 4   Exhibit A Errata Sheet Changes to the Draft Downtown Station Area Specific Plan 1. Page 2.2 – In the section on “Community-Identified Issues and Opportunities,” add the following bullets under “Land Use and Urban Design” as follows: i. “Need for housing opportunities: A healthy mix of housing options will ensure a diverse population of new and existing residents, as well as allowing local businesses and employers to attract and retain workers.” ii. “The build out of the Plan has the potential to result in hundreds of new construction and service jobs. Without adequate policies, regulations, and action steps, it is possible that these jobs may not pay fair wages, will be filled by a workforce from outside the region, and will not result in opportunities for job training for the local youth.” 2. Page 2.3 – In the section on “Vision for the Downtown Station Area,” add the “Vision Elements” text as follows: i. “ENSURE the build out of the Plan advances the social, cultural, environmental, and physical goals of the community and results in a series of community benefits that address the needs of existing and future Downtown residents.” ii. Modify the following Vision Element: “IMPROVE pedestrian and bicycle connections to Caltrain as well as the Downtown with the east employment area. Ridership at the Caltrain station will increase to be a major hub for visitors and commuters to and from Downtown South San Francisco.” iii. Update the text as follows: The overall vision for Downtown confirmed by the community has fourfive central elements that address area issues, opportunities and goals. The vision sets fourfive priorities for guiding new development and public improvements to enhance existing attributes of the Downtown and plan area while resolving connectivity, land use and urban design issues. 3. Page 3.2 – Update Policy LU-1: “Encourage the use of local workforce and local business sourcing for development in the plan area that generates quality construction and service jobs with career pathways, that provides job training opportunities for the local workforce, and that pays fair wages so that money in wages and materials used in the construction of these developments is invested in the local economy.” 4. Page 3.3 Figure 3.01: Land Use Plan: i. Add parcels APN 012-143-370, 012-143-360, and 012-143-350 to Linden Neighborhood Center (east side of Linden between Juniper and Ninth Lane). 75 Page 2 of 4   ii. Add parcel APN 012-338-140 to Downtown Transit Core (eastern triangle shaped parcel between Airport Boulevard and railway). 5. Page 3.4 – Update Policy LU-9: “Encourage the provision of affordable housing in the Specific Plan area, by working with non-profit housing developers to identify opportunity sites with high Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) competitiveness, and through inclusionary or in-lieu fee provisions.” 6. Page 3.4 – Add Policy LU-10: “Support regional and local efforts to examine displacement of affordable housing and lower-income households and consider programs to address identified housing needs.” 7. Page 3.4 – Add Policy LU-11: “Promote the collaboration and coordination among the economic development, workforce development, and planning departments to maximize the economic vitality of Downtown and benefits for existing and future residents.” 8. Page 3.5 Downtown Transit Core – modify map to include parcel APN 012-338-140 (eastern triangle shaped parcel between Airport Boulevard and railway). 9. Page 3.6 Downtown Residential Core - modify text as follows: The Downtown Residential Core designation allows up to 80 dwelling units per acre with a minimum of 40 units per acre. Densities up to 100 units per acre are allowed with an Incentive Program if specific criteria are met and public benefits are provided. Affordable Senior Housing projects may be allowed up to 125 units per acre. and for the inclusion of particular unit types such as senior housing. 10. Page 3.6 Linden Neighborhood Center – modify text as follows: Retail / commercial uses would be required at ground level within this zone. 11. Page 3.6 Linden Neighborhood Center – modify text as follows: The Linden Neighborhood Center is defined as the properties fronting Linden Avenue between California Avenue and Juniper Avenues Ninth Lane. 12. Page 3.6 Linden Neighborhood Center – modify map to include parcels APN 012-143-370, 012-143-360, and 012-143-350 to Linden Neighborhood Center (east side of Linden between Juniper and Ninth Lane). 13. Page 3.7 Linden Commercial Corridor – modify text as follows: Other requirements of the Downtown High Density Residential district will pertain: 20.125- 40 dwelling units per acre. 76 Page 3 of 4   14. Page 3.8 Table 3.01: Standards for Density and Development Intensity – update as follows: i. Add an asterisk (*) to the column headings “Maximum Residential Density with Discretionary Approval and Incentive-Based Bonuses” and “Maximum FAR with Discretionary Approval and Incentive-Based Bonuses” that reads: * Does not include density bonuses allowed per Chapter 20.390 Bonus Residential Density ii. Linden Commercial Corridor Residential Density should be 20.1-40 iii. Downtown Residential Core row text should be updated under the column “Maximum FAR with Discretionary Approval and Incentive-based Bonuses” to read as follows: “3.25 for qualifying affordable senior housing projects.” 15. Page 3.18 – Update Policy UD-11: “Improve Grand Avenue to be pedestrian- and bicycle- friendly with a scale similar to that of Grand Avenue in the Downtown (e.g., two travel lanes, protected or buffered bicycle lanes, parallel parking, and wide sidewalks).” 16. Page 3.20 – Update Policy UD-18: “Consider use of special paving that can be used to delineate the crosswalks for visibility; different materials will visually or with a different feel, make the crosswalks more evident to motorists.” 17. Page 3.28 – Under the section “Caltrain Plaza,” add text as follows: “The plaza should account for bicycle ingress and egress from the pedestrian and bicycle undercrossing to the bike lanes on Grand Avenue, East Grand Avenue and Airport Boulevard to ensure safety, visibility and clear paths for bicyclists out of the way of pedestrians.” 18. Page 3.35 – Update Policy UD-46: “Provide improvements commensurate with the future level of pedestrian activity and consistent with the goals of the Pedestrian Master Plan and Climate Action Plan objectives; on streets adjacent to Grand Avenue, provide a high level of improvement, including the full complement of streetscape furnishings.” 19. Page 3.35 – Add Policy UD-52: “Consider implementing a wayfinding program to more effectively manage travel on Grand Avenue and adjacent streets to provide visitors with parking information for short-term and long-term parking, and connections to transit. Wayfinding signage could also provide information for pedestrian and bicycle routes and networks with attention paid to major destinations, and include mileage or estimated times to encourage these modes of travel.” 20. Page 4.4 – Update Policy C-7: “Where possible, consider narrowing local streets and providing traffic calming devices to discourage through or speeding traffic and encourage other modes of transportation especially in residential neighborhoods.” 77 Page 4 of 4   21. Page 4.4 – Delete language: The northbound left turn lane onto Grand Avenue currently serves a minimal number of vehicles (<50 vehicles per hour) during peak hours. This traffic would be diverted to Miller Avenue for through traffic or to use the Miller Avenue parking garage. With elimination of southbound let turn lanes from East Grand Avenue onto Airport Boulevard South, traffic from the east of 101 area would be redirected to use gateway Boulevard and South Airport Boulevard to travel south. These capacity modifications will reduce the number of signal phases required, reducing delay, and reducing the number of vehicles using Airport Boulevard to access the southbound US-101 on-ramp at Produce Avenue. 22. Page 4.5 Street and Circulation Improvements – modify text as follows: The northbound left turn lane onto Grand Avenue currently serves a minimal number of vehicles (<50 vehicles per hour) during peak hours. This traffic would be diverted to Miller Avenue for through traffic or to use the Miller Avenue parking garage. With elimination of southbound left turn lanes from east Grand Avenue onto Airport Boulevard South, traffic from the East of 101 area would be redirected to use Gateway Boulevard and South Airport Boulevard to travel south. This capacity modification will reduce the number of signal phases required, reducing delay, and reducing the number of vehicles using Airport Boulevard to access the southbound US 101 on-ramp at Produce Avenue. 23. Page 4.13 – Update Policy P-9: “The City should encourage car sharing and ride sharing programs by working directly with car and ride share companies to bring these program into the Specific Plan area. Preferential on-street parking for car share vehicles, and coordination with major employers such as Genentech, may help support this program. The City will encourage Caltrain (Joint Powers Board) to explore the feasibility of the installation of preferential carshare pods at the SSF Caltrain Station. The City will explore future State and Federal funding opportunities for car sharing programs.” 24. Page 5.5 – Figure 5.02 Allowable Building Heights – modify figure with correct heights as follows: i. Downtown Transit Core district height limit is 85’-0” ii. Linden Commercial Corridor district height limit is 50’-0” between Railroad Ave and Second Lane 25. Page 7.6 – Table 7.01 Implementation Action Plan – modify table with specific departments responsible under “Lead Agency” wherever “City” is currently indicated. 26. Page 7.6 – Table 7.01 Implementation Action – modify table with additional anticipated infrastructure costs. 78 Im p l e m e n t a t i o n A c t i o n P l a n - S o u t h S a n F r a n c i s c o D o w n t o w n S p e c i f i c P l a n Co s t ( a ) Le a d A g e n c y Po t e n t i a l F u n d i n g In f r a s t r u c t u r e C o s t I t e m Ph a s e I ( 0 - 8 y e a r s ) P h a s e I I ( 8 - 1 5 y e a r s ) P h a s e I I I ( 1 5 + y e a r s ) T o t a l C o s t ( A l l P h a s e s ) Lo c a l S t r e e t s c a p e I m p r o v e m e n t s Ma j o r S t r e e t s G r a n d A v e n u e , w e s t o f 1 0 1 - M a i n S t r e e t $3 , 2 5 0 , 0 0 0 $3 , 2 5 0 , 0 0 0 Ci t y Pu b l i c W o r k s D e p a r t m e n t Co u n t y M e a s u r e A , G r a n t s , C I P A i r p o r t B o u l e v a r d ( s o u t h o f G r a n d A v e n u e ) $ 6 0 0 , 0 0 0 $ 6 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ci t y Pu b l i c W o r k s D e p a r t m e n t Co u n t y M e a s u r e A , G r a n t s , C I P G r a n d A v e n u e , e a s t o f 1 0 1 $1 , 3 9 0 , 0 0 0 $ 1 , 3 9 0 , 0 0 0 Ci t y Pu b l i c W o r k s D e p a r t m e n t Ea s t o f 1 0 1 T r a f f i c I m p a c t F e e Pl a z a s C i t y H a l l $ 9 8 0 , 0 0 0 $ 9 8 0 , 0 0 0 Ci t y Pu b l i c W o r k s D e p a r t m e n t Gr a n t s , C I P C a l t r a i n W e s t $ 4 1 0 , 0 0 0 $ 4 1 0 , 0 0 0 C a l t r a i n S B 1 4 2 C a l t r a i n E a s t $ 7 0 0 , 0 0 0 $ 7 0 0 , 0 0 0 C a l t r a i n S B 1 4 2 N e i g h b o r h o o d C e n t e r N o r t h ( L i n d e n , P i n e t o A s p e n ) $ 2 5 0 , 0 0 0 $ 2 5 0 , 0 0 0 Do w n t o w n N e i g h b o r h o o d S t r e e t s M a p l e A v e n u e , S e c o n d L a n e t o G r a n d A v e n u e $ 2 6 0 , 0 0 0 $ 2 6 0 , 0 0 0 Ci t y Pu b l i c W o r k s D e p a r t m e n t Gr a n t s , C I P M a p l e A v e n u e , G r a n d A v e n u e t o T a m a r a c k L a n e $ 2 6 0 , 0 0 0 $ 2 6 0 , 0 0 0 Ci t y Pu b l i c W o r k s D e p a r t m e n t Gr a n t s , C I P L i n d e n A v e n u e , R a i l r o a d A v e n u e t o S e c o n d L a n e $ 2 6 0 , 0 0 0 $ 2 6 0 , 0 0 0 Ci t y Pu b l i c W o r k s D e p a r t m e n t Gr a n t s , C I P L i n d e n A v e n u e , G r a n d A v e n u e t o T a m a r a c k L a n e $ 4 5 0 , 0 0 0 $ 4 5 0 , 0 0 0 Ci t y Pu b l i c W o r k s D e p a r t m e n t Gr a n t s , C I P L i n d e n A v e n u e , A s p e n A v e n u e t o A r m o u r A v e n u e $ 3 1 0 , 0 0 0 $ 3 1 0 , 0 0 0 Ci t y Pu b l i c W o r k s D e p a r t m e n t Gr a n t s , C I P C y p r e s s A v e n u e , B a d e n A v e n u e t o G r a n d A v e n u e $ 1 8 0 , 0 0 0 $ 1 8 0 , 0 0 0 Ci t y Pu b l i c W o r k s D e p a r t m e n t Gr a n t s , C I P C y p r e s s A v e n u e , G r a n d A v e n u e t o T a m a r a c k L a n e $ 2 7 0 , 0 0 0 $ 2 7 0 , 0 0 0 Ci t y Pu b l i c W o r k s D e p a r t m e n t Gr a n t s , C I P M i l l e r A v e n u e , S p r u c e A v e n u e t o C y p r e s s A v e n u e $ 1 , 1 4 0 , 0 0 0 $ 1 , 1 4 0 , 0 0 0 Ci t y Pu b l i c W o r k s D e p a r t m e n t Gr a n t s , C I P B a d e n A v e n u e , S p r u c e A v e n u e t o C y p r e s s A v e n u e $ 1 , 0 9 0 , 0 0 0 $ 1 , 0 9 0 , 0 0 0 Ci t y Pu b l i c W o r k s D e p a r t m e n t Gr a n t s , C I P Ne i g h b o r h o o d C o r e L i n d e n A v e n u e , S e c o n d L a n e t o G r a n d A v e n u e $ 2 6 0 , 0 0 0 $ 2 6 0 , 0 0 0 Ci t y Pu b l i c W o r k s D e p a r t m e n t Gr a n t s , C I P L i n d e n A v e n u e , G r a n d A v e n u e t o T a m a r a c k L a n e $ 2 6 0 , 0 0 0 $ 2 6 0 , 0 0 0 Ci t y Pu b l i c W o r k s D e p a r t m e n t Gr a n t s , C I P Pu b l i c A l l e y s T a m a r a c k L a n e $8 6 0 , 0 0 0 $ 8 6 0 , 0 0 0 Ci t y Pu b l i c W o r k s (w i t h B I D ) Gr a n t s , C I P , P r o p o s e d B I D F o u r t h L a n e $4 5 0 , 0 0 0 $ 4 5 0 , 0 0 0 Ci t y Pu b l i c W o r k s (w i t h B I D ) Gr a n t s , C I P , P r o p o s e d B I D T h i r d L a n e $8 4 0 , 0 0 0 $ 8 4 0 , 0 0 0 Ci t y Pu b l i c W o r k s (w i t h B I D ) Gr a n t s , C I P , P r o p o s e d B I D S e c o n d L a n e $9 0 0 , 0 0 0 $ 9 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ci t y Pu b l i c W o r k s (w i t h B I D ) Gr a n t s , C I P , P r o p o s e d B I D Lo c a l S t r e e t s c a p e I m p r o v e m e n t s S u b t o t a l $ 5 , 9 4 0 , 0 0 0 $ 4 , 9 9 0 , 0 0 0 $ 4 , 4 4 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 , 3 7 0 , 0 0 0 Ro a d w a y C o n n e c t i o n M o d i f i c a t i o n s In t e r s e c t i o n s / C r o s s w a l k s A i r p o r t / G r a n d $2 3 9 , 0 0 0 $2 3 9 , 0 0 0 Ci t y Pu b l i c W o r k s D e p a r t m e n t CI P G r a n d / L i n d e n $ 8 2 , 0 0 0 $ 8 2 , 0 0 0 Ci t y Pu b l i c W o r k s D e p a r t m e n t CI P G r a n d / M a p l e $ 8 2 , 0 0 0 $ 8 2 , 0 0 0 Ci t y Pu b l i c W o r k s D e p a r t m e n t CI P G r a n d / S p r u c e $ 8 2 , 0 0 0 $ 8 2 , 0 0 0 Ci t y Pu b l i c W o r k s D e p a r t m e n t CI P G r a n d / I n d u s t r i a l $ 8 2 , 0 0 0 $ 8 2 , 0 0 0 Ci t y Pu b l i c W o r k s D e p a r t m e n t CI P G r a n d / C y p r e s s $ 8 2 , 0 0 0 $ 8 2 , 0 0 0 Ci t y Pu b l i c W o r k s D e p a r t m e n t CI P G r a n d / W a l n u t $ 8 2 , 0 0 0 $ 8 2 , 0 0 0 Ci t y Pu b l i c W o r k s D e p a r t m e n t CI P B a d e n / A i r p o r t $8 2 , 0 0 0 $ 8 2 , 0 0 0 Ci t y Pu b l i c W o r k s D e p a r t m e n t CI P B a d e n / C y p r e s s $8 2 , 0 0 0 $ 8 2 , 0 0 0 Ci t y Pu b l i c W o r k s D e p a r t m e n t CI P B a d e n / L i n d e n $8 2 , 0 0 0 $ 8 2 , 0 0 0 Ci t y Pu b l i c W o r k s D e p a r t m e n t CI P B a d e n / M a p l e $8 2 , 0 0 0 $ 8 2 , 0 0 0 Ci t y Pu b l i c W o r k s D e p a r t m e n t CI P M i l l e r / A i r p o r t $8 2 , 0 0 0 $ 8 2 , 0 0 0 Ci t y Pu b l i c W o r k s D e p a r t m e n t CI P M i l l e r / C y p r e s s $8 2 , 0 0 0 $ 8 2 , 0 0 0 Ci t y Pu b l i c W o r k s D e p a r t m e n t CI P M i l l e r / L i n d e n $8 2 , 0 0 0 $ 8 2 , 0 0 0 Ci t y Pu b l i c W o r k s D e p a r t m e n t CI P M i l l e r / M a p l e $8 2 , 0 0 0 $ 8 2 , 0 0 0 Ci t y Pu b l i c W o r k s D e p a r t m e n t CI P L u x / L i n d e n $8 2 , 0 0 0 $ 8 2 , 0 0 0 Ci t y Pu b l i c W o r k s D e p a r t m e n t CI P C a l i f o r n i a / L i n d e n $8 2 , 0 0 0 $ 8 2 , 0 0 0 Ci t y Pu b l i c W o r k s D e p a r t m e n t CI P P i n e / L i n d e n $8 2 , 0 0 0 $ 8 2 , 0 0 0 Ci t y Pu b l i c W o r k s D e p a r t m e n t CI P A s p e n / L i n d e n $8 2 , 0 0 0 $ 8 2 , 0 0 0 Ci t y Pu b l i c W o r k s D e p a r t m e n t CI P Ro a d w a y s R a i l r o a d A v e n u e E x t e n s i o n ( E a s t o f R R t o E a s t G r a n d A v e n u e ) $ 7 , 7 7 6 , 0 0 0 $7 , 7 7 6 , 0 0 0 P u b l i c W o r k s D e p a r t m e n t Co u n t y M e a s u r e A , G r a n t s , C I P R a i l r o a d A v e n u e E x t e n s i o n ( L i n d e n t o W e s t o f R R ) $9 0 0 , 0 0 0 $ 9 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ci t y Pu b l i c W o r k s D e p a r t m e n t Co u n t y M e a s u r e A , G r a n t s , C I P S y l v e s t e r R o a d E x t e n s i o n ( G r a n d A v e n u e t o G a t e w a y B o u l e v a r d ) $ 2 , 5 6 5 , 0 0 0 $2 , 5 6 5 , 0 0 0 Ci t y Pu b l i c W o r k s D e p a r t m e n t Co u n t y M e a s u r e A , G r a n t s , C I P N e w R o a d ( S y l v e s t e r R d t o G a t e w a y B o u l e v a r d ) $1 , 3 8 7 , 0 0 0 $ 1 , 3 8 7 , 0 0 0 Ci t y Pu b l i c W o r k s D e p a r t m e n t Co u n t y M e a s u r e A , G r a n t s , C I P R a i l r o a d A v e n u e ( o v e r c r o s s i n g o f A i r p o r t a n d R R ) $2 0 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 $ 2 0 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ci t y Pu b l i c W o r k s D e p a r t m e n t Ea s t o f 1 0 1 T r a f f i c I m p a c t F e e , C o u n t y M e a s u r e A , G r a n t s , C I P Ro a d w a y C o n n e c t i o n M o d i f i c a t i o n s S u b t o t a l $ 7 3 1 , 0 0 0 $ 8 , 7 6 0 , 0 0 0 $ 2 4 , 8 5 2 , 0 0 0 $3 4 , 3 4 3 , 0 0 0 79 Im p l e m e n t a t i o n A c t i o n P l a n - S o u t h S a n F r a n c i s c o D o w n t o w n S p e c i f i c P l a n Co s t ( a ) Le a d A g e n c y Po t e n t i a l F u n d i n g In f r a s t r u c t u r e C o s t I t e m ( c o n t i n u e d ) Ph a s e I ( 0 - 8 y e a r s ) P h a s e I I ( 8 - 1 5 y e a r s ) P h a s e I I I ( 1 5 + y e a r s ) T o t a l C o s t ( A l l P h a s e s ) Bi c y c l e , P e d e s t r i a n , a n d P a r k i n g I m p r o v e m e n t s Gr a n d A v e n u e P e d e s t r i a n / B i c y c l e U n d e r c r o s s i n g $2 0 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 $2 0 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 C a l t r a i n Co u n t y M e a s u r e A , G r a n t s , C I P Ai r p o r t B o u l e v a r d B i k e L a n e s $2 2 6 , 0 0 0 $2 2 6 , 0 0 0 Ci t y Pu b l i c W o r k s D e p a r t m e n t Gr a n t s , C I P Bi k e S h a r i n g S t a t i o n s $1 , 4 4 0 , 0 0 0 $1 , 4 4 0 , 0 0 0 Ci t y Pu b l i c W o r k s D e p a r t m e n t Gr a n t s , C I P Pa r k i n g M e t e r T e c h U p g r a d e s ( n e w m e t e r s t o r e p l a c e o l d ) $3 5 4 , 0 0 0 $3 5 4 , 0 0 0 Ci t y Pu b l i c W o r k s D e p a r t m e n t Pa r k i n g D i s t r i c t Pa r k i n g D i s t r i c t E x p a n s i o n ( n e w m e t e r s w h e r e n o n e ) $3 9 6 , 0 0 0 $3 9 6 , 0 0 0 Ci t y Pu b l i c W o r k s D e p a r t m e n t Pa r k i n g D i s t r i c t Bi c y c l e , P e d e s t r i a n , P a r k i n g I m p r o v e m e n t s S u b t o t a l $ 2 0 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 $2 , 4 1 6 , 0 0 0 $0 $2 2 , 4 1 6 , 0 0 0 Ut i l i t y I n f r a s t r u c t u r e I m p r o v e m e n t s St o r m D r a i n M a s t e r P l a n $4 0 0 , 0 0 0 $4 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 $4 , 4 0 0 , 0 0 0 P u b l i c W o r k s D e p a r t m e n t St o r m w a t e r , C I P Se w e r M a s t e r P l a n $7 0 0 , 0 0 0 $1 0 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 $1 0 , 7 0 0 , 0 0 0 P u b l i c W o r k s D e p a r t m e n t Se w e r , C I P Re c y c l e d W a t e r S y s t e m F e a s i b i l i t y A n a l y s i s $4 0 0 , 0 0 0 $2 5 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 $2 5 , 4 0 0 , 0 0 0 P u b l i c W o r k s D e p a r t m e n t Se w e r , C I P Ut i l i t y I n f r a s t r u c t u r e I m p r o v e m e n t s S u b t o t a l $4 0 0 , 0 0 0 $1 , 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 $3 9 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 $4 0 , 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Pa r k s a n d R e c r e a t i o n I m p r o v e m e n t s Pa r k s , R e c r e a t i o n , O p e n S p a c e M a s t e r P l a n U p d a t e $1 6 0 , 0 0 0 TB D TB D $1 6 0 , 0 0 0 P a r k s a n d R e c r e a t i o n D e p a r t m e n t Ma s t e r P l a n u n d e r w a y a n d n o a d d i t o n a l f i n a n c i n g y e t i d e n t i f i e d Pa r k s a n d R e c r e a t i o n I m p r o v e m e n t s S u b t o t a l $1 6 0 , 0 0 0 $0 $0 $1 6 0 , 0 0 0 To t a l C o n s t r u c t i o n C o s t s $2 7 , 2 3 1 , 0 0 0 $1 7 , 2 6 6 , 0 0 0 $6 8 , 2 9 2 , 0 0 0 $1 1 2 , 7 8 9 , 0 0 0 De s i g n , S o f t C o s t s , M a p p i n g ( a t 1 5 % ) $4 , 0 8 4 , 6 5 0 $2 , 5 8 9 , 9 0 0 $1 0 , 2 4 3 , 8 0 0 $1 6 , 9 1 8 , 3 5 0 Ci t y Pu b l i c W o r k s D e p a r t m e n t Pe r p r o j e c t f u n d i n g s o u r c e s In s p e c t i o n , S t a k i n g , C / A ( a t 1 0 % ) $2 , 7 2 3 , 1 0 0 $1 , 7 2 6 , 6 0 0 $6 , 8 2 9 , 2 0 0 $1 1 , 2 7 8 , 9 0 0 Ci t y Pu b l i c W o r k s D e p a r t m e n t Pe r p r o j e c t f u n d i n g s o u r c e s Pr o j e c t M a n a g e m e n t ( a t 5 % ) $1 , 3 6 1 , 5 5 0 $8 6 3 , 3 0 0 $3 , 4 1 4 , 6 0 0 $5 , 6 3 9 , 4 5 0 Ci t y Pu b l i c W o r k s D e p a r t m e n t Pe r p r o j e c t f u n d i n g s o u r c e s TO T A L I N F R A S T R U C T U R E C O S T S $3 5 , 4 0 0 , 3 0 0 $2 2 , 4 4 5 , 8 0 0 $8 8 , 7 7 9 , 6 0 0 $1 4 6 , 6 2 5 , 7 0 0 Ec o n o m i c D e v e l o p m e n t C o s t I t e m ( b ) P h a s e I ( 0 - 8 y e a r s ) P h a s e I I ( 8 - 1 5 y e a r s ) P h a s e I I I ( 1 5 + y e a r s ) T o t a l C o s t ( A l l P h a s e s ) Do w n t o w n M a r k e t i n g a n d B u s i n e s s O u t r e a c h S t r a t e g y ( o n e - t i m e ) $ 4 0 , 0 0 0 NA $4 0 , 0 0 0 Ci t y EC D D e p a r t m e n t Ge n e r a l F u n d Do w n t o w n S h u t t l e S e r v i c e ( o n g o i n g ) $1 , 2 0 0 , 0 0 0 $1 , 2 0 0 , 0 0 0 On g o i n g $2 , 4 0 0 , 0 0 0 BI D / E C D D e p a r t m e n t Ma j o r e m p l o y e r s , B I D ( i f f o r m e d ) Do w n t o w n F a ç a d e I m p r o v e m e n t P r o g r a m ( o n g o i n g ) $2 0 0 , 0 0 0 $2 0 0 , 0 0 0 On g o i n g $4 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ci t y EC D D e p a r t m e n t Ge n e r a l F u n d Fe a s i b i l i t y S t u d y f o r D o w n t o w n B I D ( o n e - t i m e ) $2 5 , 0 0 0 NA $2 5 , 0 0 0 Ci t y EC D D e p a r t m e n t Ge n e r a l F u n d Ho m e l e s s O u t r e a c h P r o g r a m s ( o n g o i n g ) $8 0 , 0 0 0 $8 0 , 0 0 0 On g o i n g $1 6 0 , 0 0 0 Su c c e s s o r A g e n c y / E C D D e p t . Gr a n t s , C i t y H o u s i n g F u n d To t a l E c o n o m i c D e v e l o p m e n t C o s t s $1 , 5 4 5 , 0 0 0 $1 , 4 8 0 , 0 0 0 $3 , 0 2 5 , 0 0 0 No t e : (a ) I n f r a s t r u c t u r e c o s t e s t i m a t e s a r e f r o m B K F . (b ) C o s t s s h o w n f o r e a c h m u t i - y e a r p e r i o d i f a n n u a l / o n g o i n g 80 EXHIBIT B PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS GPA11-0003 81 Page 1 of 4 Exhibit B Changes to the General Plan Amendments to incorporate the DSASP Chapter 2 – Land Use Element Amendments 1. Modify the General Plan Land Use Diagram (p.30 Figure 2-1, Chapter 2) to reflect the land uses shown on Figure 4.01 (Land Use Plan) of the Specific Plan 2. Modify Tables 2.2-1 and 2.2-2 (p.31, 37, Chapter 2) (Standards for Density and Development Intensity) and land use classification text to reflect changes in intensity and density 3. Modify text, as applicable to remove Downtown Commercial designation 4. Modify Figure 2-3 (Special Area height Limitations) to reflect heights shown on Figure 5.02 of the Specific Plan 5. Modify Table 2.4-1 (Land Use Changes and Intensification; Combined approved and Additional Development Under the General Plan) to reflect additional development under the Specific Plan 6. Modify Table 2.4-2 (Buildout Population) to reflect additional build-out population 7. Modify Table 2.4-3 (existing and Buildout Employment by Land Use, 1997-Buildout) to reflect additional build-out employment 8. Modify Table 2.4-4 (Jobs/Housing Balance) to reflect updated projected Jobs/Employed Residents ratio 9. Modify Jobs/Employed Residents Balance; 1997 and Buildout bar chart 10. Modify Figure 2-7 (Specific Area Plans and Redevelopment Areas) to show the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan boundaries 11. Modify text within Section 2.5 (Area and Specific Plans) to include the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Chapter 3 – Planning Sub-Areas Element Amendments 12. Modify text within Section 3.1 (Downtown Planning Subarea) to incorporate Specific Plan policies by reference 82 Page 2 of 4 13. Modify Table 3.1-1 (Downtown Development, Population and Employment under the General Plan) to include build-out of Specific Plan 14. Modify map on Page 73 to include TO/RD Downtown sub-district 15. Modify Table 3.1-2 Permitted Intensities/Densities and Uses in Downtown 16. Add Guiding Policy 3-1-G-5: Implement the principles and policies of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan. (p.75) 17. Modify introductory text for Implementing Policies to include, by reference, the guiding policies of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan. (p. 75) Chapter 4 – Transportation Element Amendments 18. Add Guiding Policy 4.2-G-5: Use the South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan as a guide for detailed implementation of General Plan transportation policies for the Downtown Station Area. (Amended by City Council Resolution xx-2015, Adopted (date)). 19. Modify Guiding Policy 4.2-G-5 to become 4.2-G-6 and read: Use the South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan as a guide for General Plan policies for the Downtown Station Area.(Amended by City Council Resolution xx-2015, Adopted (date)). 20. Modify Guiding Policy numbering for 4.2-G section to account for introduction of new policies. 21. Modify Implementing Policy 4.2-I-2: Undertake street improvements identified in Figures 4- 1 and 4-2. (Amended by City Council Resolution 31-2002, Adopted April 24, 2002 & City Council Resolution xx-2015, Adopted (date)). 22. Modify Figure 4-2 to show new street facilities as part of the Downtown Station Area Plan. 23. Modify text on Page 4-23 to reflect newest parking lot counts. 24. Add Guiding Policy 4.3-G-4: Use the South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan as a guide for detailed implementation of General Plan alternative transportation system policies for the South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Area. (Amended by City Council Resolution xx-2015, Adopted (date)). 83 Page 3 of 4 25. Modify Guiding Policy numbering for 4.3-G section to account for introduction of new policies. 26. Update Figure 4-4 Bicycle Facilities to show new bicycle facilities as part of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan. 27. Modify Implement Policy 4.3-I-2: As part of the Bikeways Master Plan, include improvements identified in Figure 4-4 in the General Plan, in the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and the South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan and identify additional improvements that include abandoned railroad rights-of-way and other potential connections. (Amended by City Council Resolution 97-2011 and 99-2011, Adopted July 27, 2011, and City Council Resolution xx-201, Adopted (date)). 28. Add Improvements identified in the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan on Page 4-28. 29. Add Implementing Policy 4.3-I-13: Use the South San Francisco Downtown Station Specific Plan to identify, schedule, and implement pedestrian improvements for the South San Francisco Downtown Station Specific Plan Area. (Amended by City Council Resolution xx- 2015, Adopted (date)). 30. Modify Implementing Policy numbering for 4.3-I section to account for introduction of new policies. 31. Modify Implementing Policy 4.3-I-19 to become 4.3-I-20: Investigate opportunities for shared parking facilities whenever possible to reduce the number of new parking stalls required. Potential for this exists for the area near the South San Francisco BART Station and in the El Camino Real/Chestnut Area, and within the South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan. (Amended by City Council Resolution xx-2015, Adopted (date)). 32. Modify text on Page 4-34 to include anticipated Caltrain station improvements envisioned by the Downtown Station Area Plan: The Downtown Station Area Specific Plan furthered the concept of extending the Caltrain Station platforms to the south, opposite Grand Avenue and the Downtown. By lengthening the station platforms and reconfiguring the southern leg of Airport Boulevard at Grand Avenue, pedestrians and bicyclists will have convenient access from the Downtown to the station. With a well-designed, wide, well-lighted, and attractive undercrossing, access to the station will be greatly improved. The undercrossing will also connect the Downtown with Grand Avenue east of the freeway along the north edge of the Eastern Neighborhood. This extension can be a location for dining and other amenities that can serve workers in the area. An improved Grand Avenue here will provide a direct pedestrian and bicycle connection to the Downtown from the rest of the East of 101 area of the City. Plazas, configured with space for special events, art or other gateway elements, will 84 Page 4 of 4 be possible at either end of the undercrossing and will improve the image of Downtown to visitors. 33. Update Figure 4-5 Existing Transit Routes and Planned Improvements to reflect anticipated Caltrain station improvements. 34. Remove Figure 4-7 Caltrain Multimodal Station Preferred Concept to reflect that the existing figure does not reflect expectation for the future Caltrain Station improvements. No current graphic illustrating future changes is currently available and negotiations are ongoing with Caltrain’s Board of Directors to commit funding and design efforts for the altered station. 85 2 2-1 LAND USE This element of the General Plan outlines the framework that has guided land use decision-making, provides the General Plan land use classification system, and outlines citywide land use policies. Policies for each of the 14 individual sub-areas that comprise the General Plan Planning Area are in Chapter 3: Planning Sub- Areas. 2 Looking towards the bay from the western hillside. A wide variety of uses cover the city, from single-family residential neighborhoods in the west side of the city to tall office buildings in the East of 101 area. 86 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN 2-6 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN 1/4 Mile R a d i u s 1/4 M i l e R adius 1 /2 M ile Radius Encourage developments in this area to include employee-oriented ancillary or centralized commercial services Interchange/Intersection Study Area P r o p osed Exist i n g Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Downtown Low Density Residential Downtown Medium Density Residential Downtown High Density Residential Community Commercial Business Commercial Co astal Commercial e Mixed Industrial Business and Technology Park Transportation Center Public Park and Recreation Open Space Loft Overlay District Existing Regional/Arterial/Collector Proposed Street South SanFranciscoHigh School SpruceSchool ParkwayHeightsMiddleSchool MartinSchool HillsideSchool WestboroughMiddle School SerraVista School(closed) El CaminoHigh School PonderosaSchool SouthwoodSchool SunshineGardens School Alta LomaMiddle School Fox RidgeSchool(closed) Buri BuriSchool City Hall Orange MemorialPark Oyster Point Marina/Park Marina Marina LosCerritos School Colma San Br uno Pa cica San Francisco In terna tional Airport San Bruno Mountain County Park San Francisco Bay California Golf and Country Club Sign HillPark San Bruno Canal Hillsi d e B l v d Ch e s n u t Av e Grand A v e Sp r u c e A v e Sister C ities Blvd B ays ho re Blv d OysterPoint Blvd Gateway B l v d S o u t h A i r p o r t B l v d Lin d e n Av e SanMateo Av e E l C a m i n o R e al Orange Ave El Ca mino Real Hi c ke y Bl v d J u n i p e r o S e r r a B l v d S k y li n e B lv d S k y l i n e B l v d Gellert Blvd C alla n Blv d Air p o r t Blv d Missio n R d W e s t b o rough Blvd INTE R S T A T E 2 8 0 De l M o n t e A v e Felip e A v e A l t a Mesa Dr Arr oy o D r Carter Dr G reendale Dr Gal w a y Dr Sha n n o n Dr D onegal Ave Appian Way Avalo n D r AltaV i s t a Dr North w o od D r Roc k w o o d D r W ild wood D r Al i d a W a y W e s t Orange Ave H u n ti n g t o n A v e Victory Ave Lo w r i e A v e U. S . H I G H W AY 10 1 U tah Av e Mitchell Ave East Grand Ave EastGrand Ave Ha r b o r Wa y Gra ndvi e w Dr Eccle s Ave Fo r b e s Ave L i t t l e fi eld Ave Hills i d e B l v d Schoo l St Ar m our Ave Lind e n A v e Map l e Av e Ma g n o l i a A v e Park Way Miller A v e Baden A v e Commercial AveRailroad Ave Eu ca l y p t u s A ve Mill e r Av e Wil l o w A v e Holly Ave Ever g r een Dr C restw o o d D r Mo r n i n g s i d e Av e Mi s s i o n R d Clay A v e N e w m a n D r L o n g f o r d D r A rling t o n Dr Duva l D r Ser r a D r Cam aritas Ave L o m a D r C u e st a Dr P o nder o sa Rd Fairw ay Dr A S t B S tSouthwoodDr H azelw o o d D r R o s e w o o d V a lv e r d e D r Regional Commercial CalTrain Station San Bruno BART Station Noor A ve Shaw Rd Ma p l e Av e StarliteSt So.LindenA v e No.Canal Ave Rya n Way King Dr 11/40 MILES 1/2 10 Acres 2.5 Acres W exford Ave South San Francisco BART Figure 2-1 Land Use Diagram El Camino Real Mixed Use El Camino Real Mixed Use North, High Intensity El Camino Real Mixed Use North, Medium Intensity El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan Downtown Residential Core Downtown Transit Core Downtown Station Area Plan Transit Oce/R&D Core Linden Neighborhood Center Linden Commercial Corridor Grand Avenue Core 1/4 Mile R a d i u s StationCaltrain UPDATED PLAN 87 2: LAND USE 2-7 Table 2.2-1: Standards for Density and Development Intensity Land Use Designation Minimum Required FARResidential Density (units/net acre)Maximum Permitted FAR1 Maximum Permitted with Incentives and Bonuses Units/Net Acre FAR (See Table 2.2-2) Residential2,3 Low Density -up to 8.0 0.5 10.0 - Medium Density -8.1-18.0 1.0 22.5 - High Density -18.1-30.0 -37.5 - Downtown Downtown Commercial4 --3.0 -- Downtown Residential - Low Density -5.1-15.0 0.7 15.0 - Medium Density -15.1-25.0 1.25 31.3 - High Density -25.1-40.0 -50.03 - Downtown Transit Core 2.0 80.1-100.0 6.0 120.0 8.0 Grand Avenue Core 1.5 14.1-60.0 3.0 80.0/100.0 4.0 Linden Neighborhood Center 2.0 40.1-60.0 3.0 80.0 - Downtown Residential Core -40.1-80.0 3.0 100.0/125.04 3.254 Office --1.0 -2.55 Commercial Transit Office/R&D Core 1.5 -1.5-2.5 -3.5 Community Commercial --0.5 -- Business Commercial6 --0.5 -1.05 Hotel --1.2 -2.0 Coastal Commercial6 ----- Retail --0.5 -1.0 Office --1.0 -1.6 Hotel --1.6 -2.2 Mixed Use El Camino Real Mixed Use7 0.68 up to 60.09 2.510 up to 80.09 3.510 El Camino Real Mixed Use North, High Intensity 0.611 up to 80 2.0 up to 110 up to 3.0 El Camino Real Mixed Use North, Medium Intensity 0.611 up to 40 1.5 up to 60 up to 2.5 Industrial Business and Technology Park --0.5 -1.012 Mixed Industrial --0.4 -0.613 Business Commercial6 --0.5 -10.86 88 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN 2-8 Amended by City Council Resolutions 19-2010, Adopted February 10, 2010; Resolution 31, 2010, adopted March 24, 2010; Resolution 47-2011, Adopted March 23, 2011; and Resolutions */-2011 and 99-2011, adopted July 27, 2011 1 Including garages for residential development, but excluding parking structures for non-residential development, except for El Camino Real Mixed Use. 2 20 percent density bonus is available for development within ¼-mile of a fixed-guideway transit (CalTrain or BART station or City-designated ferry terminal). 3 25 percent bonus is available for projects with affordable housing, housing for elderly residents with specific amenities designed for residents, or housing that meets community design standards that may be speci- fied in the Zoning Ordinance. 4 Residential uses may be permitted on second and upper floors only and are subject to a use permit. 4 For qualifying affordable senior housing projects. 5 Required parking must be structured. 6 See Table 2.2-2. The Gateway Business Park Master Plan and the Oyster Point Specific Plan are permitted to develop up to a FAR of 1.25 with a TDM. 7 Frontage of a site along El Camino Real and other Arterial/Collector streets in the corridor is required to be devoted to active uses. Residential not permitted at ground level along El Camino Real except on the east side of El Camino Real between First Street and West Orange Avenue, subject to conditional use permit approval. 8 For sites larger than 20,000 square feet, the minimum FAR for all uses, exclusive of substantially above-grade structured parking, shall be 0.6, of which a minimum 0.3 FAR shall be active uses. The requirement for a minimum 0.3 FAR of active uses does not apply to projects where 30% of the units are restricted and affordable to low- or low-moderate-income households. 9 Included within FAR limit. 10 Includes residential and substantially above grade parking structures. Excludes surface parking. 11 A minimum 0.3 FAR of the required 0.6 shall be active uses. The requirement for a minimum 0.3 FAR of active uses does not apply to projects where 30% of the units are restricted and affordable to low- or low- moderate-income households. 12 Permitted for research and development uses with low employment intensity, or other uses providing structured parking. 13 Permitted for uses with low employment intensity, such as wholesaling, warehousing, and distribution. 89 2: LAND USE 2-9 DENSITY/INTENSITY STANDARDS The General Plan establishes density/intensity standards for each use classification. Residential density is expressed as housing units per net acre. Maximum permitted ratio of gross floor area to site area (FAR) is specified for non-residential uses. FAR is a broad measure of building bulk that controls both visual prominence and traf- fic generation. It can be clearly translated to a limit on building bulk in the Zoning Ordinance and is independent of the type of use occupying the building. FAR limitations are also shown for some residential land use classifications in order to relate housing size to lot size; both housing density and FAR standards shall apply in such instances. Building area devoted to structured or covered parking (if any) is not included in FAR calculations for non-residential developments. However, parking garages are included in the FAR limitations for residential uses. The Zoning Ordinance could provide specific exceptions to the FAR limitations for uses with low employment densities, such as research facilities, or low peak-hour traffic generation, such as a hospital. In addition to density/intensity standards, some land use classifications stipulate allowable building types (such as single- family residential) as well. The density/intensity standards do not imply that development projects will be approved at the maximum density or intensity specified for each use. Zoning regu- lations consistent with General Plan policies and/or site conditions may reduce development potential within the stated ranges. Airport-related height limits also restrict development, as shown in Figure 2-2. In addition, Figure 2-3 establishes height limitations in specific areas, including Downtown, the El Camino Real Corridor, and near BART stations; these limitations shall apply to all uses, and land use-based height limitations (in the Zoning Ordinance) shall not apply. For areas outside the ones shown in Figure 2-3, height limitations shall be in accordance with the use-based limitations specified in the Zoning Ordinance. These heights are partly based on a viewshed analysis for the Planning Area, which revealed that the south face of Sign Hill, the base of San Bruno Mountain, and the east face of Point San Bruno Knoll, are visible from most areas of the city, as shown in Figure 2-4. Gross density standards and assumed averages for residential categories are listed below. 90 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN 2-10 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN 161 FT 2 1 1 F T261F T311FT361FT 35 0 40 045 0 50 0 55 0 1 6 1 F T TR A N S I T I O N A L SU R F ACE SL O P E 7 : 1 TRAN S I T I O N A L SURF ACESLOP E 7 : 1 150 F T C O N I C A L S U R F A C E S L O P E 2 0 :1 He ight Limi t Figure 2-2 Airport-Related Height Limitations AP P R OACH SU R F ACE SL O P E 4 0 : 1 161 FT Hill s ide B l v d Ch e s n ut A v e Grand Ave Spru c e A v e Sister Cities Blvd B a yshor e Blv d OysterPoint Blvd Gateway B lv d S o u t h A i r p o r t B l v d Lin d en A v e San Mateo Ave E l C a m i n o R e al Orange Ave ElCamino Real H i c ke y B l v d J u n i p e r o S e r r a B l v d S k y li n e B lv d Gellert Blvd C alla n B lv d Air p o r t Blv d Missio n R d W e s t b o r o ugh Blvd INTER S T A TE 2 8 0 DelMon t e A ve Felipe Ave Alta M es aDr A rroyo D r Carter Dr G reendale Dr G a l w a y Dr Sha n n o n D r D onegal Ave Appian Way Avalo n D r AltaV i s t a D r North w o o d Dr Roc k w ood Dr W ildwo o d D r A li d a W a y W e s t O r angeAve H u n ti n g t o n A v e Victory A ve Lo w rie Ave U. S .H I G H W AY 1 01 Utah A v e Shaw Rd Mitchell Ave East Grand Ave EastGrand Ave Ha r b o r Wa y Grandvie w Dr Eccles A ve Forbe s Ave L i t t l e fi eld Ave H i l l s i d e B l v d Sc h o o l St Ar m o u r Ave Lind e n Ave Ma p l e A ve Ma g noli a A ve Park Way Miller Ave Baden A v e Commercial A v eRailroad A ve Eu c a l y p t u s A ve Mi l l e r Ave Wil l o w A v e Holly Ave Eve rgreen Dr Cr e s t w o o d D r Morni n g s i d e AveMi s s ion Rd Clay A v e N e w m a n D r L o n g f o r d D r Arlin g t o n D r Duval D r Serra D r Cam a r i t a s Ave L o m a Dr Cuesta D r P onde r osa Rd Fairway D r A S t B S t Hazel w o o d D r R o s e w o o d V a l v e r d e D r INTERSTATE 380 11/40 MILES 1/2 Source: San Ma teo County Ai rport Land Use Plan C olma San Br uno Pacica Daly Ci ty San franc isco Inter nat ional Air port San Bruno Mount ain County Pa rk San Fr ancisco Bay C alifor nia Golf and Count ry Cl ub Sign Hill Pa rk San Bruno Canal Colma C r eek 200 100 100 100 100 100 200 200 200 300 300 300 300 400 400 400 3 0 0400 500 600 500 400 300 200 200 300 400 200 200 200 4 0 0 200 200 200 300 400 500 500 600 600 500 40 0 40050 0 400 5 0 0 6 0 0 6 0 0 600 600 400 500 7 0 0 7 0 0 7 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 100 100 500 6 00 700 500 600 700 800 900 1000 500 600 700400 300 30 0 2 00 300 400 400 500 400 300 600 400 500 600 700 700 600 500 400 300 600 500 400 300 200 91 2: LAND USE 2-11 Figure 2-3 Special Area Height Limitations 50 FT Hill s i d e B l v d Che s n u t Av e Grand Ave Sp r u ce Av e Sister Cities B l v d B ays h o r e Blv d Oyster Point Blvd Gateway B lv d S o u t h A i r p o r t B l v d Lin d en Av e San Mate o Ave E l C a m i n o R e a l Orange Ave ElCamino Real H i c ke y B l v d J u n i p e r o S e r r a B l v d S k yl i n e B l v d Gellert Blvd C alla n Blv d Air p o r t Blv d Missi on R d W e s t b o r o ugh Blvd IN T E R S T A T E 2 8 0 De l M o nte Av e Felipe A v e Alta M e s a Dr A rr o y o D r Carter Dr G reendale Dr G a l w a y Dr Sha n n o n Dr D onegal Ave Appian Way Ava lo n Dr A lt a Vis ta Dr North w o od D r Roc k w ood D r W ild w o o d D r Al i d a W a y W e s t O r angeAve H u n t i n g t o n A v e Victory A v e Lo w r i e Av e U.S .H IG HW AY 1 01 U ta h A v e Shaw Rd Mitchell Ave East Grand Ave EastGrand Ave Ha r b o r Wa y Grand vie w Dr Eccles A v e Forbe s Ave L i t t l e fi eld Ave Hi l l s i d e B l v d Schoo l S t Ar m o u r Ave Lind e n Ave Ma ple Av e Ma g n o l i a Ave Park Way Miller A v e Baden A veCommercial AveRailroad A v e Euca ly p t u s A v e Mi l l e r Av e Will o w Ave Holly Ave Evergr e e n D r C r e s t w o o d D r Morni n g s i d e A v e Mi s s i o n R d Clay A v e N e w m a n D r L o n g f o r d D r Arlin g t o n D r Duval D r Se r r a Dr Cam a r i t a s Ave L o m a D r C u est a D r Pond e r o s a Rd Fairway Dr A S t B S t Ha zelwo o d D r R o s e w o o d V al v e r d e D r INTERSTATE 380 11/40 MILES 1/2 C olma San Br uno Pa cica Daly Ci ty San francisco International Airport San Bruno Mountain County Pa rk San Francisco Bay California Golf and Country Club Sign Hill Pa rk San Bruno Canal Colma Creek 2 00 100 100 100 100 100 200 2 00 200 300 30 0 30 0 3 00 400 400 400 30 0400 500 600 500 400 300 200 200 300 400 200 200 200 4 0 0 200 200 200 300 400 500 500 60 0 60 0 500 400 40050 0 400 5 0 0 6 0 0 6 0 0 600 600 400 5 0 0 70 0 7 0 0 7 00 2 0 0 1 0 0 100 100 500 6 0 0 700 500 600 700 800 900 1000 5 0 0 600 700400 300 30 0 2 00 300 400 400 500 400 300 600 400 500 600 700 700 600 500 400 300 600 500 400 300 200 80 FT 50 FT 50 80 FT 50 FT 80/120 FT 80/120 FT Base Height Limit/ Height Limit with Discretionary Approval Height Limits Note: Building height limitations for areas shown on this map shall be as indicated here, regardless of the underlying use. For areas outside of the areas shown on this map, building heights shall be in accordance with the development regulations for the use in the City’s Zoning Ordinance. For areas subject to airport-related height limitations, building heights must be in accordance with the limits indicated in the most recently adopted Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan. 50 FT 50 FT 50 FT El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan See Plan for Height Limitations Downtown Station Area Plan See Plan for Height Limitations 45 FT 50 FT 50 FT 65 FT 65 FT 85 FT 85 FT FAA 60 FT UPDATED PLAN 92 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN 2-12 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN Vi ewpoint Vi sible from at least one viewpoint Vi sible from two viewpoints Vi sible from all viewpoints Figure 2-4 Viewshed Hillsi d e Blvd Ch e s n u t A v e Grand A v e Sp r u c e Av e Sister Cities Blvd B a y s ho re B lv d Oyster Point Blvd Gateway B lv d S o u t h A i r p o r t B l v d Lin d e n A v e Sa n Mat eo AveE l C a m i n o R e a l Orange Ave ElCamino Real H i c k e y B l v d J u n i p e r o S e r r a B l v d S k y li n e B l v d Gell ert B l v d C a lla n B lv d Air p o r t B l v d Missi on R d W e s t b o rough Bl v d IN T E R S T A T E 2 8 0 Del M on t e A v e Felip e Ave A l t a Mesa Dr A rroyo D r C arter Dr G r e endale Dr Gal w a y Dr Sha n n o n Dr D onegal Ave Appian Way Avalo n D r AltaV i s ta D r North w o od D r Roc k w o o d D r Wildw o o d D r A li d a W a y W e s t O r angeAve H u n t i n g t o n A v e Victory A ve Lo w rie Av e U.S . H I G H W A Y 1 0 1 Utah Av e Shaw Rd Mitchell Ave E astGrand Ave EastGrand Ave Ha r b o r Wa y Grand vie w Dr Eccl e s A v e F o rb e s Ave L i t t l e field Ave Hi l l s i d e Bl v d Schoo l S t Ar m o u r A v e Lind e n A v e Ma p l e A v e Ma g n o lia Ave Park Way Miller Ave Baden AveComme r c i a l AveRailroad Ave Eu c a l y p t u s Av e Mi l l e r A v e Wil l o w A v e Holly Ave Eve r g r e en Dr Cr e s t w o o d D r Morn i n g sid e Av e Miss i o n R d Clay A v e N e w m a n D r L o n g f o r d D r Arlin g t o n Dr Duval D r Serra D r Camarita s Ave L o m a Dr Cue s t a D r Pond e r o s a Rd Fairway D r A S t B S t Haz elw o o d Dr R o s e w o o d V al v e r d e D r INTERSTATE 380 King Dr 11/40 MILES 1/2 Source: Dyett & Bhatia, derived from USGS Digital Elevation Mo del C olma San Br uno Pacica Daly Ci ty San franc isco Inter nat ional Ai rp or t San Bruno Mount ain County Pa rk San Fr ancisco Bay C alifor nia Golf and Count ry Cl ub Sign HillPark San Bruno Canal Colma Creek 93 2: LAND USE 2-13 Table 2.2-2: Standards for Density and Development Intensity Land Use Designation Minimum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Base Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Incentive-based FAR Bonuses Available Total Maximum FARMaximum Attainable FAR with Transportation Demand Man- agement (TDM) Program Other Specified Design Standards1 Downtown Transit Core 2.0 6.0 8.01 Grand Avenue Core 1.5 3.0 4.01 Linden Neighborhood Center 2.0 3.0 - Downtown Residential Core -3.0 3.258 Office -1.0 1.3 0.2 2.5 Transit Office/R&D Core 1.5 1.5-2.5 3.51 Business Commercial2 -0.5 0.4 0.1 1.0 El Camino Real Mixed Use3 0.64 2.55 0.5 0.5 3.55 El Camino Real Mixed Use North, High Intensity 0.66 2.0 0.5 0.5 3.0 El Camino Real Mixed Use North, Medium Intensity 0.66 1.5 0.5 0.5 2.5 Business & Technology Park -0.5 0.4 0.1 1.0 Hotels7 -1.2 0.6 0.2 2.0 Costal Commercial2 - Retail -0.5 0.4 0.1 1.0 Office -1.0 0.5 0.1 1.6 Hotel -1.6 0.4 0.2 2.2 1 Discretionary; based on criteria established in the Zoning Ordinance and upon conditional use permit approval. 2 The Gateway Business Park Master Plan and the Oyster Point Specific Plan are permitted to develop up to a FAR of 1.25 with a TDM. 3 Frontage of a site along El Camino Real and other Arterial/Collector streets in the corridor is required to be devoted to active uses. Residential not permitted at ground floor level along El Camino Real, except on the east side of El Camino Real between First Street and West Orange Avenue, subject to conditional use permit approval. 4 For sites larger than 20,000 square feet, the minimum FAR for all uses, exclusive of substantially above-grade structured parking, shall be 0.6, of which a minimum 0.3 FAR shall be active uses. The requirement for a minimum 0.3 FAR of active uses does not apply to projects where 30% of the units are restricted and affordable to low- or low-moderate-income households. 5 Includes residential and substantially above-grade parking structures. Excludes surface parking. 6 A minimum 0.3 FAR of the required 0.6 shall be active uses. The requirement for a minimum 0.3 FAR of active uses does not apply to projects where 30% of the units are restricted and affordable to low- or low-moderate-income households. 7 The Hotel FAR listed for Base, Maximum Attainable FAR with TDM, Other Specified Design Standards, and Total Maximum FAR is applicable for all hotels located in all General Plan designated areas that permit hotel uses. 8 For qualifying affordable senior housing projects. Amended by City Council Resolutions 19-2010, Adopted February 10, 2010,;Resolution 31, 2010, adopted March 24, 2010; and Resolution 47-2011, Adopted March 23, 201194 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN 2-14 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM The classifications in this section represent adopted City policy. They are meant to be broad enough to give the City flexibility in implementation, but clear enough to provide sufficient direction to carry out the General Plan. The City’s Zoning Ordinance contains more detailed provisions and standards. More than one zoning district may be consistent with a single General Plan land use classification. Residential Three residential land use classifications are established for areas outside of Downtown to provide for development of a full range of housing types (Downtown residential land use classifications are included later in this section). Densities are stated as number of housing units per net acre of developable land, excluding areas subject to physical, environmental, or geological constraints, and areas dedicated for creekside greenways or wetlands pro- tection, provided that at least one housing unit may be built on each existing legal parcel designated for residential use. Development would be required within the density range (both maximum and minimum) stipulated in the classification. Development standards established in the Zoning Ordinance may limit attainment of maximum densities. Second units permitted by local regulation, State-mandated density bonuses for provi- sion of affordable housing, and a 20 percent density bonus for residential developments located within a 1/4-mile of a fixed-guideway transit (BART or Caltrain) station are in addition to densities otherwise permitted. Assumed average densities listed are used to calculate probable housing unit and popula- tion holding capacity. Neither the averages nor the totals constitute General Plan policy. Housing types (which are included here for illustrative purposes only, and do not repre- sent adopted City policy) are shown in Figure 2-5. Low Density Residential Single-family residential development with densities up to 8.0 units per net acre. Typical lots would be 6,000 square feet, but the minimum would be 5,000 square feet, and smaller lots (4,500 square feet or less) may be permitted in neighborhoods meeting specified community design standards, subject to specific review requirements. This classification is mainly intended for detached single-family dwellings, but attached single-family units may be permitted, provided each unit has ground-floor living area and private outdoor open space. The Zoning Ordinance may include a separate district for estate-type or zero-lot-line developments. 95 2: LAND USE 2-15 Lot Size Dwelling Size Number of Floors Density (units/net acre) Ty pical Density Range for Housing Type General Plan Land Use Classication Housing TypeDetached (front loaded) Deta ched Zero- Lot Line (front loaded) Deta ched (front loaded) Tow nhouse (rear loaded) Townhouse (front loaded) Residential Over Parking And Commercial Podium 6,000 sq. ft. 1,800 sq. ft. 2 7 8 Low Density 2,500 sq. ft. 1,200 sq. ft. 2 17 18 Medium Density 2,500 sq. ft. 1,400 sq. ft. 2 15 16 Medium Density 2,500 sq. ft. 1,400 sq. ft. 2 15 12-25 Medium Density 2,000 sq. ft. 1,200 sq. ft. 2.5 22 15-30 Downtown Medium Density - 1,200 sq. ft. 2-3 over podium 40 30+ Downtown High Density 25 60 25 100 25(50) 100 35 72 60 100 Figure 2-5 Illustrative Housing Type s 96 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN 2-16 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN Medium Density Residential Housing at densities from 8.1 to 18.0 units per net acre, with a minimum of 2,250 square feet of net area (i.e. exclusive of streets, parks and other public rights-of- way) required per unit, and a minimum lot area of 6,750 square feet. Dwelling types may include attached or detached single-family housing, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, townhouses, apartments, and condominiums. Multifamily housing type is not permitted. (Amended by City Council Resolution 148-2000, Adopted November 21, 2000) High Density Residential Residential development, with densities ranging from 18.1 to 30.0 units per net acre. This designation would permit the full range of housing types, including single-family attached development subject to standards in the Zoning Ordinance, and is intended for specific areas where higher density may be appropriate. This designation within the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, as it applies to the 4.5-acre former San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (PUC) parcel between Mission Road and the Colma Creek canal, allows higher densities than elsewhere in the city, reflecting the area’s close proximity to the South San Francisco BART Station. Up to 120 units per acre are permitted and a minimum density of 80 units per acre is required. A maximum of 180 units per acre may be achieved for development meeting specified criteria. (Amended by Resolution 97-2011 and 99-2011, Adopted July 27, 2011) DOWNTOWN Downtown Commercial This designation provides for a wide range of uses in commercial core of down- town, including retail stores, eating and drinking establishments, commercial recreation, entertainment establishments and theaters, financial, business and personal services, hotels, educational and social services, and government offices. Residential uses may be permitted on second and upper floors only, and subject to a use permit. The maximum Floor Area Ratio for all uses and mixes (residen- tial and non-residential) is 3.0; the Zoning Ordinance may or may not establish maximum residential densities or minimum housing unit size for mixed-use developments. The Zoning Ordinance may also specify specific areas where retail or eating and drinking establishments would be required uses at the ground level. 97 2: LAND USE 2-17 Downtown Residential In addition to housing type and density standards stipulated below, the Zoning Ordinance may establish development standards and parking and other require- ments for downtown residential development different from residential develop- ment elsewhere in the City. Three categories are included and are shown on the General Plan Diagram: • Downtown Low Density Residential. Single-family (detached or attached) resi- dential development with densities ranging from 5.1 to 15.0 units per net acre. Multifamily development is not permitted. • Downtown Medium Density Residential. Residential development at densities ranging from 15.1 to 25.0 units per net acre. A full range of housing types is permitted. • Downtown High Density Residential. Residential development at densities ranging from 25.1 to 40.0 units per net acre for lots equal to or greater than H-acre (21,780 square feet) in area. For lots smaller than H acre, maximum density shall be 30.0 units per acre. A maximum of 25 percent density bonus may be approved for projects with afford- able housing, housing for elderly residents with specific amenities designed for residents, or housing that meets community design standards that may be specified in the Zoning Ordinance. Maximum density with all bonuses shall not exceed 50 units per net acre. Downtown Transit Core This designation applies to the area that lies within a 1/4 mile, or a five-minute walk, of the reconfigured Caltrain Station and undercrossing. It is bounded by Lux Avenue on the north, Second Lane on the south, Union Pacific Railroad/Caltrain tracks on the east, and properties on the west side of Linden Avenue on the west. The Downtown Transit Core is envisioned to be a vibrant, mixed-use area. Due to its proximity to the Caltrain Station and the relative abundance of developable sites, the Downtown Transit Core is the area most suitable for the highest intensi- ties of new development in the Downtown area. These higher intensities will help 98 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN 2-18 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN to support transit ridership since residential units will be within a short walk of the station. High-density housing will also provide the pedestrian activity needed to sup- port downtown businesses and will increase activity day and night, add street life and improve safety. As the Downtown Transit Core area evolves, it will enhance the image of the Downtown and frame Grand Avenue—the centerpiece of the Down- town. The Downtown Transit Core allows up to 100 dwelling units per acre; a minimum of 80 dwelling units per acre is required. A maximum of 120 dwelling units per acre would be allowed for development meeting specified criteria. Ground level retail uses will be encouraged throughout the area. Grand Avenue Core Grand Avenue will remain the historic retail center of the City. The Grand Avenue district extends from Airport Boulevard on the east to Spruce Avenue on the west. With a few exceptions, the district includes properties directly fronting on Grand Avenue. At the east end, Grand Avenue and Airport Boulevard form an important gateway to the City and the historic core; at the west end, the district transitions to the residential Downtown Neighborhood described in the General Plan. Historical- ly interesting buildings will be retained wherever possible. New mixed-use develop- ment of underutilized properties will be encouraged but guidelines will limit build- ing heights directly along Grand Avenue in order to respect the historic character of some existing buildings and to create a comfortable pedestrian environment. Off Grand Avenue, on the rear portions of Grand-facing lots, taller allowable heights will help accommodate new residential uses and increase development opportuni- ties. The Grand Avenue Core allows up to 60 dwelling units per acre and requires a mini- mum of 14 units per acre. If meeting specified criteria, residential densities can be up to 80 dwelling units per acre or 100 units per acre on corner sites or site over 1/2 acre in size. Retail is required on the ground floor. Downtown Residential Core Outside of the Grand Avenue Core and the Downtown Transit Core areas, the re- maining areas lying between Tamarack Lane and Second Lane are designated Down- 99 2: LAND USE 2-19 town Residential Core. This designation is intended to encourage somewhat higher densities than what is currently allowed but will still be compatible in scale with the remaining Downtown residential districts: Downtown High Density Residential and Downtown Medium Density Residential. The areas encompassed by this new designation are within two blocks of the Grand Avenue Core. With new residential development, these will become more active, pedestrian-oriented streets with day and night activity which will promote safety. The added residents will be important to the success of Grand Avenue businesses. The Downtown Residential Core designation allows up to 80 dwelling units per acre with a minimum of 40 units per acre. Densities up to 100 units per acre are allowed if specific criteria are met and public benefits are provided. Affordable sen- rior housing projects may be allowed up to 125 units per acre. Linden Neighborhood Center The Linden Neighborhood Center is defined as the properties fronting Linden Av- enue between California Avenue and Ninth Lane. The large zone of residential uses that lie north of Miller Avenue up to Armour Avenue and west of Maple have lim- ited neighborhood amenities that can help to meet daily needs; in addition, there is little public open space available in this area. The current small collection of re- tail uses along Linden Avenue between California and Juniper Avenues provide a starting point for a more robust neighborhood center that will be walkable for the surrounding residential areas and can be a supplement to the more citywide desti- nations that will locate along Grand Avenue. Retail/commercial uses are required at ground level within this zone. The Linden Neighborhood Center designation allows up to 60 dwelling units per acre with a minimum of 40 units per acre. Densities up to 80 units per acre are allowed if spe- cific criteria are met. Linden Commercial Corridor The Linden Commercial Corridor includes the properties fronting Linden Avenue from California Avenue to Sixth Lane and from Second Lane to Railroad Avenue. Linden Avenue throughout its length has historically been a location for a variety of commercial uses and today many of these remain and serve as resources for local residents and businesses. This designation apples to areas of Linden Avenue south 100 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN 2-20 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN of Aspen Avenue that do not otherwise fall into the Downtown Residential Core, Downtown Transit Core, or Grand Avenue Core districts. Commercial and mixed uses will continue to be allowed and encouraged on prop- erties within this corridor. While not required, commercial uses will provide op- portunities for local services for adjoining residential neighborhoods. As with other mixed use locations, improvements to the sidewalks and streetscape will be encour- aged to provide additional pedestrian amenities and accessibility especially for local residents. Retail use will be encouraged at ground level in this corridor. Other requirements of the Downtown High Density Residential district will pertain: 20.1-40 dwelling units per acre. OFFICE This designation is intended to provide sites for administrative, financial, business, professional, medical and public offices in locations proximate to BART or CalTrain stations. Support commercial uses are permitted, subject to limitations established in the Zoning Ordinance. Site planning and building design shall ensure pedestrian comfort, and streets shall be fronted by active uses. The maximum Floor Area Ratio is 1.0, but increases may be permitted up to a total FAR of 2.5 for development meeting specific transportation demand management (TDM), structured parking, off-site improvement, or specific design standards criteria. These bonus standards are shown in Table 2.2-2. The Planning Commission, at its discretion, may permit increase of base FAR in specific instances where existing buildings are rehabilitated for office use and are unable meet the structured parking or specified design stan- dard criteria. However, the maximums (with incentives, is stipulated in Table 2.2-2) shall not be exceeded. COMMERCIAL Transit Office / R&D Core The Transit Office/R&D area is bounded on the north by East Grand Avenue, on the east by Gateway Boulevard, on the south by South Airport Boulevard, and on the west by Industrial Way and the US 101 right-of-way. It is currently a mix of parking lots and low scale service and light industrial uses. This urban employment district would be characterized by a walkable street pattern, more like Downtown than the 101 2: LAND USE 2-21 suburban-style developments that dominate much of the East of 101 area. With the extension of the Caltrain Station and construction of the pedestrian/bicycle under- pass, this area will be well connected to the Downtown, providing an opportunity for a significant number of workers to easily access downtown amenities. Taller buildings are suitable here in conformance with the FAA height limitations. The area would lend itself to corporate office, hotels, and other major facilities due to its high visibility from US 101 and proximity to San Francisco International Airport, Downtown San Francisco and the various employment centers on the Peninsula. Along the extension of Grand Avenue to the east beyond the rail tracks undercrossing, limited retail and services may be feasible in the long run and to provide amenities for nearby employees. The allowable development intensity in the area would be 1.5 to 2.5 floor area ratio (FAR). A FAR up to 3.5 may be allowed if specific criteria are met. Community Commercial This category includes shopping centers, such as Westborough, and major com- mercial districts, such as El Camino Real, and regional centers along South Airport Boulevard. Retail and department stores, eating and drinking establish- ments, commercial recreation, service stations, automobile sales and repair ser- vices, financial, business and personal services, motels, educational and social services are permitted. An “R” designation on the General Plan Diagram indicates that the site is reserved for region-serving commercial uses. The maximum Floor Area Ratio is 0.5. Office uses are encouraged on the second and upper floors. Business Commercial This category is intended for business and professional offices, and visitor service establishments, and retail. Permitted uses include for administrative, financial, business, professional, medical and public offices, research and development faci- lites, and visitor-oriented and regional commercial activities. Regional commercial centers, restaurants and related services are permitted subject to appropriate stan- dards. This category is intended for the emerging commercial and hotel district along South Airport, Gateway, and Oyster Point boulevards, and South Spruce corridor. The maximum Floor Area Ratio is 0.5, but increases may be permitted up to a total FAR of 1.0 for uses such as research and development facilities, or for development meeting specific transportation demand management (TDM), off-site improvement, or specific design standards. The Gateway Business Park 102 2: LAND USE 2-22 Master Planb area, comprising several parcels on 22.6 acres at the southeast corner of Gateway Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard, is permitted to develop up to a FAR of 1.25Maximum FAR for hotel developments shall be 1.2, with increases to a maximum total FAR of 2.0 for development meeting specified criteria. The Oyster Point Specific Plan regulates uses and development intensities within the Specific Plan District. (Amended by City Council Resolution 19, 2010 adopted February 10, 2010 and Resolution 47-2011, adopted March 23, 2011) Coastal Commercial Business/professional services, office, convenience sales, restaurants, public mar- ketplace, personal/repair services, limited retail, research and development facili- ties, hotel/motel with a coastal orientation, recreational facilities, and marinas. Maximum FAR is 0.5 for retail, recreation facilities, research and development facilities, marinas, and eating and drinking establishments, 1.0 for offices, and 1.6 for hotels. All development will be subject to design review by the Planning Commission. Uses and development intensities at Oyster Point will be regulated by the Oyster Point Specific/Master Plan. (Amended by City Council Resolution 47-2011, adopted March 23, 2011) MIXED USE El Camino Real Mixed Use This designation is intended to accommodate high-intensity active uses and mixed- use development in the South El Camino Real area. Retail and department stores; eating and drinking establishments; hotels; commercial recreation; financial, busi- ness, and personal services; residential; educational and social services; and office uses are permitted. The frontage of a site along El Camino Real and other Arterial/Collector streets in the corridor is required to be devoted to active uses—uses that are accessible to the general public and generate walk-in pedestrian clientele and contribute to a high level of pedestrian activity. Uses that generate pedestrian activity include retail shops, restaurants, bars, theaters and the performing arts, commercial recreation and entertainment, personal and convenience services, hotels, banks, travel agen- cies, child care services, libraries, museums and galleries. For sites larger than 20,000 square feet, the minimum FAR for all uses, exclusive of substantially above-grade structured parking, shall be 0.6, of which a minimum 0.3 103 2: LAND USE 2-23 FAR shall be active uses. The requirement for a minimum 0.3 FAR of active uses does not apply to projects where 30% of the units are restricted and affordable to low- or low-moderate-income households. The maximum FAR for all uses, inclusive of housing and substantially above-grade structured parking shall be 2.5, with increases to a maximum total FAR of 3.5 for development meeting specified criteria. Residential density is limited to 60 units per acre, with increases to a maximum of 80 units per acre for development meeting specified criteria. For parcels on the east side of El Camino Real, between First Street and West Orange Avenue, either a mix of uses as permitted under this classification or residential use only (up to 40 units per acre) is permitted. (Mixed Use classification -Amended by City Council Resolution 19-2010, adopted February 10, 2010) El Camino Real Mixed Use North, High Intensity This designation is intended to accommodate high-intensity active uses and mixed-use development. Retail and department stores; eating and drinking estab- lishments; hotels; commercial recreation; financial, business, and personal services; residential; educational and social services; and office uses are permitted. The minimum FAR for all uses, exclusive of structured parking, shall be 0.6, of which a minimum 0.3 FAR shall be active uses. Active uses are those that are acces- sible to the general public, generate walk-in pedestrian clientele and contribute to a high level of pedestrian activity. Such uses include retail shops, restaurants, bars, theaters and the performing arts, commercial recreation and entertainment, per- sonal and convenience services, hotels, banks, travel agencies, childcare services, libraries, museums, and galleries. Within this designation, the ground floor frontage of a site along El Camino Real, Chestnut Avenue and Oak Avenue is required to be devoted to active uses. The maximum FAR for all uses, inclusive of residential but exclusive of structured park- ing, shall be 2.0, with increases to a maximum total FAR of 3.0 for development meeting specified criteria. Residential density (included within the overall FAR) is limited to a maximum of 80 units per acre, with increases to a maximum of 110 units per acre for development meeting specified criteria. (Section added by Resolution 97-2011 and 99-2011, Adopted July 27, 2011) 104 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN 2-24 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN El Camino Real Mixed Use North, Medium Intensity This designation is intended to accommodate high-intensity active uses and mixed-use development. Retail and department stores; eating and drinking establishments; hotels; commercial recreation; financial, business, and personal services; residential; educational and social services; and office uses are permitted. The minimum FAR for all uses, exclusive of structured parking, shall be 0.6, of which a minimum 0.3 FAR shall be active uses. Active uses are those that are acces- sible to the general public, generate walk-in pedestrian clientele and contribute to a high level of pedestrian activity. Such uses include retail shops, restaurants, bars, theaters and the performing arts, commercial recreation and entertainment, per- sonal and convenience services, hotels, banks, travel agencies, childcare services, libraries, museums, and galleries. Within this designation, the maximum FAR for all uses, inclusive of residential but exclusive of structured parking, shall be 1.5, with increases to a maximum total FAR of 2.5 for development meeting specified criteria. Residential density (included within the overall FAR) is limited to 40 units per acre, with increases to a maximum of 60 units per acre for development meeting specified criteria. (Section added by Resolution 97-2011 and 99-2011, Adopted July 27, 2011) INDUSTRIAL AND RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT Two categories are proposed: Business and Technology Park, for the East of 101 areas north of East Grand Avenue, and Mixed Industrial, for the areas south of East Grand Avenue in East of 101 and Lindenville. Business and Technology Park This designation accommodates campus-like environments for corporate head- quarters, research and development facilities, and offices. Permitted uses include incubator-research facilities, testing, repairing, packaging, publishing and printing, marinas, shoreline-oriented recreation, and offices, and research and development facilities. Warehousing and distribution facilities and retail are permitted as ancil- lary uses only. All development is subject to high design and landscape standards. Maximum Floor Area Ratio is 0.5, but increases may be permitted, up to a total FAR of 1.0 for uses such as research and development establishments, or for devel- opment meeting specific transportation demand management (TDM), off-site 105 2: LAND USE 2-25 improvement, or specific design standards. Mixed Industrial This designation is intended to provide and protect industrial lands for a wide range of manufacturing, industrial processing, general service, warehousing, stor- age and distribution, and service commercial uses. Industries producing substan- tial amounts of hazardous waste or odor and other pollutants are not permitted. Unrelated retail and service commercial uses that could be more appropriately located elsewhere in the city would not be permitted, except for offices, subject to appropriate standards. Small restaurants and convenience stores would be allowed as ancillary uses, subject to appropriate standards. The maximum Floor Area Ratio is 0.4, with an increase to a total FAR of 0.6 for development seeking an FAR bonus with TDM program as specified in the Zoning Ordinance. In addition to devel- opment standards, the Zoning Ordinance may include performance standards to minimize potential environmental impacts. PUBLIC/INSTITUTIONAL To provide for schools, government offices, transit sites, airport, and other facilities that have a unique public character. Religious facilities are not called out separately on the General Plan Diagram, but are instead shown with designations on adjoining sites; these facilities may be specifically delineated on the Zoning Map. PARKS Parks, recreation complexes, public golf courses, and greenways. OPEN SPACE This designation includes sites with environmental and/or safety constraints. Included are sites with slopes greater than 30 percent, sensitive habitats, wetlands, creekways, areas subject to flooding, and power transmission line corridors. Where otherwise not excluded by noise, aircraft safety or other environmental standards, residential development is generally permitted at a density not to exceed one hous- ing unit per 20 acres. 106 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN 2-26 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN Hill s ide Blvd Che s n u t A v e Grand A ve Sp r u c e Ave Sister Cities B l v d B ays h o r e Blv d OysterPoint Blvd Gateway B l v d S o u t h A i r p o r t B l v d Lin d e n A v e SanMate o Ave E l C a m i n o R e a l Orange Ave El Camino Real H i c k e y B l v d J u n i p e r o S e r r a B l v d S k yl i n e B l v d G e l l e r t Blvd C alla n Blv d Air p o r t Blv d Missi on R d W e s t b o r o u gh Blvd INTE R S TATE 2 80 DelMo n t e A v e Felip e A v e Alta M esa Dr A rr o yo D r Carter D r Greendale Dr Gal w ay Dr Sha n n o n Dr D onegal Ave Appian W ay Av alo n Dr AltaV i s t a D r N orth wo o d D r Roc k w o o d D r Wildw o o d D r Al i d a W a y W e s t O range Ave H u n ti n g t o n A v e Victory Av e Lo w r i e A v e U.S . H IG H WAY 1 0 1 U tah A v e Shaw Rd Mitchell Ave Eas t G r a n d AveHa r b o r Wa y Gran d vie w Dr Ecc l es A v e F o r b e s Ave L i t tl e field Ave Hi l l s i d e B l v d Sch o ol St Ar m o u r A v e Lind e n A v e Ma p l e A v e Mag n o l i a A v e Park Way Miller A v e Baden A v e Commercial Ave Railroad Ave Euc a l y p tu s A v e Mi l l e r A v e Wil l o w A v e Holly Ave Ever green D r C re s t w o o d D r Mo rni n gsi d e A v e Mi s s i o n Rd Clay A v e N e w m a n D r L o n g f o r d D r Arlin g t o n D r Duval D r Se r r a D r Cam a r i t a s A v e L o m a D r C u es ta Dr Pond e r o s a R d Fairway Dr A S t B S t Hazel w o o d D r R o s e w o o d V al v e r d e D r INTERSTATE 380 King Dr 11/40 MILES 1/2 Source: Dyett & Bhatia C olma San Br uno Pacica Daly Ci ty San franc isco Inter nat ional Air port San Bruno Mount ain County Pa rk San Fr ancisco Bay C alifor nia Golf and Count ry Cl ub Sign Hill Pa rk San Bruno Canal Colma Creek South Airport Figure 2-6 Planning Sub-Areas Planning Sub-Area 200 100 100 100 100 100 200 200 200 300 300 30 0 300 400 400 400 30 0400 500 600 500 400 300 200 200 300 400 200 200 200 400 200 200 200 300 400 500 500 600 600 500 4 00 400500 400 5 0 0 6 0 0 6 0 0 600 600 400 500 7 0 0 7 0 0 7 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 100 1 00 500 6 00 700 500 600 700 800 900 1000 500 600 700400 300 30 0 20 0 300 400 400 500 400 300 600 400 500 600 700 700 600 500 400 300 600 500 400 300 200 107 2: LAND USE 2-27 2.3 PLANNING SUB-AREAS Land use information presented in the section that follows is presented by 14 sub- areas, which have been collectively derived from analysis of land use and urban design patterns and the need for focused planning efforts and activities. These subareas are shown in Figure 2-6. In some cases, the City’s traditional neighbor- hood planning areas that are used for park and schools planning were aggregated where adjacent neighborhoods are very similar in terms of their land uses, age of development, and current activity level. The East of 101 area, which comprises a single City neighborhood planning area because there are no residents, is divided into four subareas for presenting planning information. The areas are: 1. Avalon 2. Downtown 3. East of 101 area 4. El Camino Real 5. Gateway 6. Lindenville 7. Orange Park 8. Oyster Point 9. Paradise Valley/Terrabay 10. Sign Hill 11. South Airport 12. Sunshine Gardens 13. Westborough 14. Winston-Serra Descriptions of these areas and detailed policies for each sub-area are included in Chapter 3. 108 2-28 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN 2.4 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT BUILDOUT Development consistent with the General Plan resulting from application of assumed average densities and intensities for the different land use classifications to vacant and sites with potential redevelopment/intensification opportunities is described in Table 2.4-1. The time at which full development (“buildout”) will occur is not specified in or anticipated by the Plan. Designation of a site for a cer- tain use does not necessarily mean that the site will be built/redeveloped with the designated use over the next 20 years, the horizon of the Plan. Table 2.4-1 shows by each of the 14 sub-areas described in Section 2.3: • Projects with Current Development Approvals. This includes about 1,150 housing units, more than half have been proposed in Terrabay, and about 3.4 million square feet of non-residential floor space. Hotels, with about 1.1 mil- lion square feet of space with approvals, and offices, with 0.9 million square feet of approved space, represent the primary non-residential uses. • Additional Development Under the General Plan. This results from applica- tion of average assumed densities/intensities (shown on the table) to vacant sites and sites/areas with potential redevelopment/intensification opportuni- ties. Potential residential increases include 2,4701 housing units, concentrated mainly in El Camino Real, Sunshine Gardens, and Downtown. Potential non- residential development includes 12 million square feet of new space; with an expected decrease of 3.3 million square of industrial space, the net increase will be 8.7 million square feet. About 5.9 million square feet (56 percent) of this net increase is expected to be in the four East of 101 sub-areas (East of 101 area, Gateway, Oyster Point, and South Airport). (Amended by City Council Resolution 19-2010, adopted February 10, 2010) • Combined Approved Development and Additional Development. This reflects the total of the two above categories, and represents the expected General Plan buildout. Buildout will result in an increase of 3,620 housing units and 12 mil- lion square feet of non-residential space to the city’s current inventory of an esti- mated 19,400 housing units and 18.1 million square feet of non-residential space. Amended by City Council Resolution 19-2010, adopted February 10, 2010) Population and Employment; 1997 and Buildout 57,600  39,100  69,810  78,500  ‐ 10,000  20,000  30,000  40,000  50,000  60,000  70,000  80,000  90,000  1997 Buildout 109 2: LAND USE 2-29 Table 2.4-1 Land Use Changes and Intensification; Approved Development RESIDENTIAL (housing units) NON-RESIDENTIAL (floor area in square feet) S u b a r e a L o w D e n s i t y Me d D e n s i t y Hi g h D e n s i t y Do w n t o w n El C a m i n o R e a l Mi x e d U s e El C a m i n o R e a l Mi x e d U s e N o r t h , (H i g h a n d M e d i u m In t e n s i t y ) To t a l R e s i d e n t i a l B u s i n e s s C o m m (H o t e l s ) B u s i n e s s Co m m ( O f f i c e s / Co m m e r c i a l ) C o a s t a l Co m m e r c i a l D o w n t o w n Co m m e r c i a l O f f i c e B u s / T e c h P a r k I n d u s t r i a l Co m m u n i t y Co m m e r c i a l El C a m i n o R e a l Mi x e d U s e El C a m i n o R e a l Mi x e d U s e N o r t h , (H i g h a n d M e d i u m In t e n s i t y ) To t a l N o n - r e s i d e n t i a l Avalon --------------- --- Downtown -------22,500 ------- --22,500 East of 101 ------------170,000 202,800 - --372,800 El Camino North 18030----210 -------147,000--147,000 South ----110 -110 -------13,0005,000 -18,000 Gateway -------246,000 ---516,000 176,000 ----938,000 Lindenville ------------ -- ---- Orange Park 150-----150 ----600 - -- --600 Oyster Point -------497,500 ---- 40,000 128,700 150,000 --816,200 Paradise Valley/ Terra Bay 600-----600 300,000 ---397,000 286,000 - 18,000 --1,001,000 Sign Hill ------------------ South Airport -------73,000 ---------73,000 Sunshine Gardens -------- ---------- Westborough -130-- --130 - ---------- Winston-Serra 60-----60 - ---------- Total 990160-- -110 1,260 1,139,000 ---913,600 672,000 331,500 328,000 --3,389,100 Amended by City Council Resolution 19-2010, Adopted February 10, 2010; Resolution 47-2011, Adopted March 23, 2011; Resolutions 97-2011 and 99-2011, adopted July 27, 2011 SEE EXCEL FILE 110 2-30 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN 2-30 Table 2.4-1 Land Use Changes and Intensification; Additional Development Under the General Plan RESIDENTIAL (housing units) NON-RESIDENTIAL (floor area in square feet) S u b a r e a L o w D e n s i t y @ 7 u n i t s / a c r e ( n e t ) Me d D e n s i t y @ 1 5 u n i t s / a c r e Hi g h D e n s i t y * Do w n t o w n R e s i d e n t i a l (I n t e n s i f i c a t i o n ) El C a m i n o R e a l M i x e d Us e El C a m i n o R e a l M i x e d Us e N o r t h , ( H i g h a n d Me d i u m I n t e n s i t y ) * To t a l R e s i d e n t i a l B u s i n e s s C o m m ( H o t e l s ) @ 0 . 9 F A R B u s i n e s s C o m m ( O f f i c e s / Co m m ) @ 0 . 5 F A R C o a s t a l C o m m @ 0 . 3 a v g . F A R D o w n t o w n C o m m e r c i a l (I n t e n s i f i c a t i o n ) O f f i c e @ 1 . 2 a v g . F A R B u s / T e c h P a r k @ 0 . 5 a v g . F A R I n d u s t r i a l @ 0 . 5 5 F A R Co m m u n i t y C o m m e r c i a l @ 0 . 3 F A R El C a m i n o R e a l M i x e d Us e El C a m i n o R e a l M i x e d Us e N o r t h , ( H i g h a n d Me d i u m I n t e n s i t y ) * To t a l N o n - r e s i d e n t i a l Avalon - ----------------- Downtown - --290 - -290 - 10,000 - 121,000 - - - - - -131,000 East of 101 - --- - -- - 246,000 59,000 - - 2,869,000 (1,867,000)104,500 - -1,411,500 El Camino - North - 10940 --1,0351,985 - - - - 134,000 - - 145,000- 294,400577,400 South - --- 730-730 - - - - - - - - 283,900 -283,900 Gateway - ------46,000 1,018,000 - - - - - - - -1,064,000 Lindenville - - 70 ---70 126,000 281,000 - - 2,307,000 - (1,519,000)457,000 - -1,652,000 Orange Park - 50 80 ---130 64,000 230,000 - - - - - 31,000 - -325,000 Oyster Point - ------ -2,095,0001,026,500 - - - (171,000)- - -2,955,000 Paradise Valley/ Terra Bay - ------ - - - - - - - - - -- Sign Hill 30 - - ---30 - - - - - - - - - -- South Airport - ------ 12,000 202,000 - - - - 216,000 - - -430,000 Sunshine Gardens 20 - 380 ---400 - - - - - - - 8,000 - -8,000 Westborough -40 - ---40 - - - - - - - 71,000 - -71,000 Winston-Serra140 - - ---140 - - - - - - - - - -- Total 1901001,4702907301,0353,815208,0004,082,0001,085,500121,000 2,441,000 2,869,000 (3,341,000)816,500 283,900298,4008,904,300 * The El Camino Real / Chestnut Avenue Area Plan is projected to accomodate 1,455 resdiential units and 298,400 square feet of non-residential uses. The planning horizon for the El Camino Real / Chestnut Avenue Area Plan is 2030, which exceeds the planning horizon of the General Plan; therefore Area Plan buildout may or may not occur within the General Plan Horizon. Amended by City Council Resolution 19-2010, Adopted February 10, 2010; Resolution 47-2011, Adopted March 23, 2011; Resolutions 97-2011 and 99-2011, adopted July 27, 2011 SEE EXCEL FILE 111 2: LAND USE 2-312-31 Table 2.4-1 Combined Approved and Additional Development Under the General Plan (General Plan Buildout) RESIDENTIAL (housing units) NON-RESIDENTIAL (floor area in square feet) S u b a r e a L o w D e n s i t y Me d D e n s i t y Hi g h D e n s i t y * Do w n t o w n El C a m i n o R e a l M i x e d Us e El C a m i n o R e a l M i x e d Us e N o r t h , ( H i g h a n d Me d i u m I n t e n s i t y ) * To t a l R e s i d e n t i a l B u s i n e s s C o m m ( H o t e l s ) B u s i n e s s C o m m ( O f f i c e s / Co m m e r c i a l ) C o a s t a l C o m m e r c i a l D o w n t o w n C o m m e r c i a l O f f i c e B u s / T e c h P a r k I n d u s t r i a l Co m m u n i t y C o m m e r c i a l El C a m i n o R e a l M i x e d Us e El C a m i n o R e a l M i x e d Us e N o r t h , ( H i g h a n d Me d i u m I n t e n s i t y ) * To t a l N o n - r e s i d e n t i a l Avalon ------- - - - - - - - - --- Downtown ---290--290 22,500 10,000 - 121,000 - - - - --153,500 East of 101 ------- - 246,000 59,000 - - 3,039,000 (1,664,200)104,500 --1,784,300 El Camino North 18040940-1,035-2,195 - - - - 134,000 - - 292,000- 298,400724,400 South ----840-840 - - - - - - - 13,000288,900-301,900 Gateway ------- 292,000 1,018,000 - - 516,000 176,000 - - --2,002,000 Lindenville --70---70 126,000 281,000 - - 2,307,000 - (1,519,000)457,000 --1,652,000 Orange Park 1505080---280 64,000 230,000 - - 600 - - 31,000 --325,600 Oyster Point ------- 497,500 2,095,0001,026,500 - - 40,000 (42,300)150,000 --3,766,700 Paradise Valley/ Terra Bay 600-----600 300,000 - - - 397,000 286,000 - 18,000 --1,001,000 Sign Hill 30-----30 - - - - - - - - --- South Airport ------- 85,000 202,000 - - - - 216,000 - --503,000 Sunshine Gardens 20-380---400 - - - - - - - 8,000 --8,000 Westborough -170----170 - - - - - - - 71,000 --71,000 Winston-Serra200-----200 - - - - - - - - --- Total 1,180 260 1,470 290 840 1,0355,075 1,337,000 4,082,000 1,085,500 121,000 3,354,600 3,541,000 (3,009,500)1,144,500 288,900 298,40012,293,400 * The El Camino Real / Chestnut Avenue Area Plan is projected to accomodate 1,455 resdiential units and 298,400 square feet of non-residential uses. The planning horizon for the El Camino Real / Chestnut Avenue Area Plan is 2030, which exceeds the planning horizon of the General Plan; therefore Area Plan buildout may or may not occur within the General Plan Horizon. Amended by City Council Resolution 19-2010, Adopted February 10, 2010; Resolution 47-2011, Adopted March 23, 2011; Resolutions 97-2011 and 99-2011, adopted July 27, 2011 SEE EXCEL FILE 112 2-32 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN 2-32 Additional development under the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan is projected for the El Camino Real subarea. Buildout will result in an increase of 1,455 residential units and 298,400 square feet of non-residential space. The plan- ning horizon for the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan is 2030, which exceeds the planning horizon of this General Plan. Table 2.4-1 shows additional development in the City if full buildout of the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan occurs within the General Plan horizon. (Amended by City Council Resolutions97-2011 and 99-2011, Adopted July 27, 2011) BUILDOUT POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT Population South San Francisco, at buildout, will accommodate a population of approximately 69,810, an increase of 18 percent over the estimated 1998 population of 59,200. Table 2.4-2 shows the current and projected populations for South San Francisco. If buildout were to occur over 20 years, South San Francisco will moderately increase its share of the San Mateo County population from 8.3 percent to 8.7 percent. Population growth rate over the plan horizon will be much slower than growth experienced by the city over the last ten years. The chart on the following page shows a graphic depiction of South San Francisco’s historical and projected population growth as well as its share of the County population. (Amended by City Council Resolution 19-2010, adopted February 10, 2010) Table 2.4-2 Buildout Population 19901998 1990-1998Buildout 1990-2020 PopulationPopulation Share of County Annual Growth Rate Population Share of County Annual Growth Rate South San Francisco(with El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan) 54,31259,2088.3%1.0%74,6009.3%1.1% San Mateo County 649,623715,382100%1.2%798,600 100%0.5% Amended by City Council Resolution 19-2010, Adopted February 10, 2010; Resolution 47-2011, Adopted March 23, 2011; Resolutions 97-2011 and 99- 2011, adopted July 27, 2011 SEE EXCEL FILE 113 2: LAND USE 2-332-33 Amended by City Council Resolution 19-2010, Adopted February 10, 2010; Resolution 47-2011, Adopted March 23, 2011; Resolutions 97-2011 and 99-2011, adopted July 27, 2011 Amended by City Council Resolution 19-2010, Adopted February 10, 2010; Resolution 47-2011, Adopted March 23, 2011; Resolutions 97-2011 and 99-2011, adopted July 27, 2011 Table 2.4-3 Existing and Buildout Employment by Land Use, 1997-Buildout Land Use Estimated 1997 Employment Increase to Buildout Buildout Employment Commercial/ Retail 10,400 3,200 13,600 Hotels/ Visitor Services 1,800 3,900 5,700 Office + Bus. Park (inc. Medical)5,700 29,600 35,300 El Camino Real Mixed Use North (High and Medium Intensity -600 600 Warehouse/Mixed Industrial 13,400 (3,200)10,200 Public and Schools 1,500 - 1,500 Construction and Miscellaneious 2,500 1,800 4,300 Others (including at home workers)3,800 3,200 7,000 Total 39,100 38,000 78,500 Table 2.4-4 Jobs/Housing Balance Estimated 1997 Employment Buildout Buildout (With El Camino Real/ Chestnut Avneue Area Plan) Jobs 39,100 77,900 78,500 Employed Residents 27,900 35,400 39,300 Jobs/ Employed Residents 1.4 2.2 2.0 The El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan will accommodate a popula- tion of approximately 4,800. If full buildout of the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan is to occur within the General Plan horizon, population will increase to 74,600, which would be an increase of 21 percent over the estimated 1998 population of 59,200. This would increase the city’s share of the San Mateo County population from 8.3 percent to 9.3 percent. (Amended by City Council Resolutions97-2011 and 99-2011, Adopted July 27, 2011) Employment While non-residential building space in South San Francisco will increase from an estimated current 18.1 million square feet to 30.1 million square feet at buildout (an increase of 66 percent), the General Plan at buildout will accommodate an employment increase from 39,100 currently to as much as 77,900 at buildout (an increase of 99 percent; including construction and at-home workers), primarily as sites with low-intensity warehousing and distribution uses (with an estimated aver- age 960 square feet per employee in South San Francisco) are succeeded by higher intensity office, retail, and other similar uses. This level of employment attain- ment will likely take place over a time-period that may extend beyond 20 years. Table 2.4-3 shows existing and buildout employment by broad land use categories. (Amended by City Council Resolution 19-2010, adopted February 10, 2010 and 47-2011, adopted March 23, 2011) REVISED BUILDOUT & GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT In 2001, the City Council adopted the General Plan Amendment and Transportation Demand Management Ordinance, which incorporates a revision to the approved land use buildout in the East of 101 area. The Amendment includes the following conclusions: • Total buildout will nearly double from existing development: 12.82 million square feet in 2001 to 23.32 million square feet in 2020, due mainly to the increase in Office and Office/R&D development. The revised East of 101 area buildout assumes a 0.9 FAR for new Office development. • The Amendment anticipates that the East of 101 area will support an addi- tional six million square feet, over the buildout that is projected in the South San Francisco General Plan (1999). The additional development was based on the major projects lists (2000-2001), the Gateway and Genentech development plans, and determining the likely properties that would convert from industrial to Office/R&D by 2020. SEE EXCEL FILE SEE EXCEL FILE 114 2-34 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN 2-34 • Employment in the East of 101 area will increase by 2.4 times, from 21,654 to 52,880. This increase is due to both increases in floor space in the East of 101 area and due to Office and Office/R&D uses having a much higher employ- ment intensity that industrial development. The projected employment is based on Commercial at 400 square feet/employee, Office/R&D at 450 square feet/employee, Office at 375 square feet/employee, Hotel at 420 square feet/ employee and Industrial at 955 square feet/employee. (Resolution 98-2001, Adopted September 26, 2001) JOBS/HOUSING BALANCE Where once the residential and commercial portion of South San Francisco was a company town for the “beef trust” packers on Point San Bruno, improved transpor- tation access and extensive growth in the 1940s-1960s turned South San Francisco into a commuter suburb. Today only 23 percent of employed residents work in the city, despite a surplus of jobs, indicating regional jobs-housing inter-dependencies. As Table 2.4-4 shows, the city has continued to add jobs at a faster rate than popula- tion for the last 15 years, and in 1995, there were 13,610 more jobs than employed residents in the city. In contrast, San Mateo County has a slight overall shortage of jobs; however, during the last 15 years, the overall jobs/employed residents ratio in San Mateo County has crept closer to balance. 1.4 2.2 2.0 (including  ECR/C Area Plan 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 Jobs/Employed Residents Balance; 1997 and Buildout Jobs Employed Residents SEE EXCEL FILE 115 2: LAND USE 2-352-35 Given that much of the land in the city—including all of the East of 101 area— is not suited for residential development, it is unlikely that a balance between jobs and housing can be attained. However, continued job growth in the city will pro- mote a greater regional balance between jobs and housing. As an inner Bay Area community well served by all modes of transit—including air and rail, and in the near future BART and ferry service—employment growth in the city will support regional transit as well. Nonetheless, availability of housing in South San Francisco serves not only regional interest, but is imperative to attracting high-technology and biotechnology jobs that the city seeks. Increased residential development with- in the city will help partly alleviate traffic impacts resulting from job growth, and provide residential opportunities to those that work in the city but live elsewhere. Thus, the General Plan seeks to maximize residential development opportunities on infill sites. 116 2-36 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN 2-36 2.5 DETAILED PLANS AND COORDINATION WITH OTHER JURISDICTIONS AREA AND SPECIFIC PLANS In addition to policies articulated in the General Plan, area, specific, and redevel- opment plans direct planning in certain parts of the city. Figure 2-6 2-7 shows area, specific, and redevelopment plan areas. These include: • The East of 101 Area Plan, which applies to all parts of the city east of U.S. 101 and includes a Design Element and policies; • Specific master plans for key development areas, including Genentech, Oyster Point, Terrabay, Bay West Cove (formerly Shearwater), Sierra Point; and • Redevelopment plans for many of the areas with the greatest potential for change, including Gateway, Downtown/Central and the El Camino Real Corridor. • El Camino Real / Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, adopted 2011 (Amended by City Council Resolution (97-2011, adopted July 27, 2011) • Downtown Station Area Specific Plan These plans will continue to play key roles in shaping areas of their geographic concern. Certain aspects of some of these plans may need to be modified to ensure consistency with the 1999 General Plan. PLANS AND PROGRAMS IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS External impacts from land uses and activities in surrounding cities and jurisdic- tions influence development in South San Francisco as well. By and large, none of the surrounding cities have planned uses that are likely to have a direct physical impact on South San Francisco. In its General Plan, the City of Brisbane outlines a development strategy for its bayside parcels similar to South San Francisco’s 117 2: LAND USE 2-372-37 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN Hill s i d e Blvd Ch e s n u t A v e Grand Ave Sp r uc e A v e Sister C i t i e s Blvd B ays h o re Blv d OysterPoint Blvd Gateway B l v d S o u t h A i r p o r t B l v d Lin d e n Ave SanMateo Ave E l C a m i n o R e a l Orange Ave ElCamino Real H i c k e y B l v d J u n i p e r o S e r r a B l v d S k y l i n e B l v d Gellert B l v d C a lla n Blv d Air p o r t Blv d Missio n R d W e s t b o r o ugh Blvd IN T E R S T A T E 2 8 0 DelM o n t e Ave Felip e A v e A l t a Mesa Dr A rr o yo D r Carter D r Greendale Dr G a l w a y Dr Sha n n o n D r D one g al Ave Appian Way Avalo n D r AltaV i s t a D r N orthw ood Dr R ock wo od Dr W ildwo o d Dr A li d a W a y W e s t O r a n g e A v e H u n ti n g t o n A v e Victory Ave Lo w r i e A v e U . S . H I G H W A Y 1 0 1 Utah A ve Shaw Rd Mitchell Ave E.G r and Ave EastGrand Ave Ha r b o r Wa y Gran d v i e w Dr Ecc l e s Ave Forbe s A v e L i t t l e field Ave Hi l l s i d e B l v d Schoo l St Ar m o u r Ave Lind e n A v e Ma p l e A v e Ma g n o l i a Av e Park Way Miller A v e Baden AveComme r cial Ave Railroad Ave Eu c a l y p t u s A v e Miller A v e Will o w A v e Holly Ave Evergr e e n D r Cr e s t w o o d D r Mornin g side Ave Mission Rd Clay A ve N e w m a n D r L o n g f o r d D r Arlin g t o n D r Duval Dr Se r r a Dr Cam a r i t a s A v e L o m a D r Cu e s t a Dr P onde r osa Rd A S t B S t Hazel w ood D r R o s e w o o d V a l v e r d e D r INTE R S TA TE 38 0 I N T E R S T A T E 2 8 0 King Dr F u t u r e B A R T Li n e East of 101 Oyster Po int Te rra Bay 11/40 MILES 1/2 Source: Ci ty of South San Fr ancisco Specic Plan Area East of 101 Area Plan Re development Area Figure 2-7 Specific and Area Plans and Redevelopment Areas C olma San Br uno Pacica Daly Ci ty San Franc isco Internat ional Airport San Bruno Mount ain County Pa rk San Fr ancisco Bay Califor nia Golf and Count ry Cl ub Sign HillPark San Bruno Canal Colma Creek 20 0 100 1 00 100 100 100 200 200 200 300 300 300 30 0 400 400 400 30 0400 500 600 500 400 300 200 200 300 400 200 200 200 400 200 200 200 300 400 500 500 600 600 500 4 00 400500 400 5 0 0 6 0 0 6 0 0 600 600 400 500 70 0 7 0 0 70 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 100 100 500 600 700 500 600 700 800 900 1000 500 600 700400 300 30 0 2 0 0 300 400 400 500 400 300 600 400 500 600 700 700 60 0 500 4 0 0 300 600 500 400 300 200 Gateway Shearwater Downtown/ Central El Camino Downtown/ Central Downtown/ Central Downtown/ Central Gateway El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan Downtown Station Area Plan UPDATED PLAN 118 119 120 121 122 Table 2.4-3 Existing and Buildout Employment by Land Use, 1997-Buildout; revised to include the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (SASP) Land Use Estimated 1997 Employment Increase to Buildout Buildout Employment Increased Employment with Downtown SASP New Buildout with Downtown SASP Commercial/ Retail 10,400 3,200 13,600 936 14,536 Hotels/ Visitor Services 1,800 3,900 5,700 5,700 Office + Bus. Park (inc. Medical)5,700 29,600 35,300 35,300 El Camino Real Mixed Use North (High and M -600 600 600 Warehouse/Mixed Industrial 13,400 -3,200 10,200 25 10,225 Public and Schools 1,500 - 1,500 1,500 Construction and Miscellaneious 2,500 1,800 4,300 4,300 Others (including at home workers)3,800 3,200 7,000 7,000 Office/R&D 1,439 1,439 Total 39,100 38,000 78,200 2,400 80,600 For Internal Use Downtown SASP Devt Potential Ratio Jobs per Land use 780,000 0.38981 935.5322 21,000 0.01049 25.1874 1,200,000 0.59970 1439.2804 2,001,000 2400 123 Table 2.4-4 Jobs/Housing Balance revised to include Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (SASP) Estimated 1997 Employment Buildout Buildout (with El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan) Buildout in 2035 (with Downtown SASP) Jobs 39,100 77,900 78,500 82,748 Employed Residents 27,900 35,400 39,300 41,374 Jobs/Employed Residents 1.4 2.2 2 2 For Internal Use Downtown SASP Jobs # calculated as El Camino Real + Downtown SASP. Employed Residents # calculated at 50% per El Camino Real precedence. 124 3 3-1 PLANNING SUB- AREAS ELEMENT This chapter established policies specific to individual planning sub-areas in the city. Policies in this element complement citywide policies included in the Land Use and other elements. The sub-areas, 14 in all, were collectively derived from analysis of land use and urban design patterns and existing and needed planning efforts and activities. In some cases, the city’s traditional neighborhood planning areas that are used for park and schools planning were aggregated where adjacent neighborhoods are very similar in terms of their land uses, age of development, and current activity level. The sub-areas are shown in Figure 2-6; these correspond with the sub-areas used for reporting land use information in Chapter 2: Land Use Element. The East of 101 area, which comprises a single city neighborhood planning area because there are no residents, represents an aggregation of four sub-areas in the Land Use Element. El Camino Real was defined as a single sub-area to reflect its distinctive use pattern and to facilitate future planning. Some of these sub-areas have detailed area plans, specific plans, or redevelopment plans; where appropriate, the General Plan provides guidance as to how these plans may need to be changed in order to conform to the policy direction provided by the General Plan. While most neighborhoods in the city are established and unlikely to experience great change as a result of the General Plan, others are either in transition, or require special emphasis in the City’s planning process. These areas are: • Downtown. This includes both the core commercial area, as well as downtown residential neighborhoods; • Lindenville. Located south of downtown, this is the city’s only large-scale industrial area west of U.S. 101; 3 125 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN 3-2 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN • South Spruce Corridor/San Bruno Bart Station Area. Traditionally considered a part of Lindenville, these areas are called out separately due to the potential created by extension of BART; • El Camino Real Corridor. Included here are policies addressing development in the almost three-mile long corridor along the old Peninsula highway; and • East of 101. This encompasses the entire area within City limits east of U.S. 101. Areas not expected to undergo major change are Avalon, Orange Park, Sign Hill, Sunshine Gardens, Westborough, and Winston-Serra. Development in the Terrabay portion of the Paradise Valley/Terrabay sub-area is likely to continue under the auspices of the Terrabay Specific Plan. 126 3: PLANING SUB-AREAS ELEMENT 3-3 3.1 DOWNTOWN Located in the geographic heart of the city, Downtown is the city’s most unique commercial center, and arguably contributes more to the city’s identity than any other district. It includes the oldest commercial and residential areas of the city – the Grand Avenue Commercial District and adjoining residential areas, extend- ing from Linden Avenue in the east to Chestnut Avenue in the west. Downtown also extends northward in roughly a quarter-mile width along Linden Avenue to Hillside Boulevard. The area within a half-mile radius of the Linden Avenue/Grand Avenue intersection, a small portion of which is in Lindenville, supports more than 8,500 jobs (20 percent of the city total) and 15 percent of the city’s residents. Downtown’s gridiron development pattern was established at the turn of the century. The orthogonal street pattern (completed in 1908) is 1.5-miles long and extends from the Union Pacific Railroad tracks in the east to Chestnut Avenue in the west. The pattern is 0.25-miles and four blocks wide from Railroad Avenue in the south to Miller Avenue in the north. Another 0.25-mile wide portion extends along Linden Avenue from Miller Avenue to the edge of Sign Hill and San Bruno Mountain to the north. The typical block dimension in Downtown is 1,300 x 300 feet, with 20-foot wide mid-block alleys. Resulting average lots are 140 feet deep and 50 feet wide, or 7,000 square feet in area. Half lots (25-feet wide) and other sizes exist as well. While the tallest building in Downtown is four stories in height, the majority of buildings, including those along Grand Avenue, are one- to two-stories tall. Almost all non-residential uses are built to the street. Older commercial buildings have side-parking, permitting a portion of the site to be built to the street. Stores in Downtown generally serve the adjacent residential neighborhoods, although some restaurants have a citywide draw. A wide range of housing types— from single-family detached residences to three-story apartment buildings with tuck-under parking—are represented. A handful of apartment buildings with three occupied floors also exist in the northern part of the area. Due to the small lot sizes, there had been little residential redevelopment activity, until very recently. Alley 30 0 f t 20 f t 1300 ft Downtown’s Gridiron Development Pattern Typical Downtown Block Dimensions 127 DRAFT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN 3-4 1/4 Mile R a d i u s 1/4 M i l e R adius 1 /2 M i le Radius Encourage developments in this area to include employee-oriented ancillary or centralized commercial services Interchange/Intersection Study Area Proposed Existing Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Downtown Low Density Residential Downtown Medium Density Residential Downtown High Density Residential Community Commercial Business Commercial Coastal Commercial e Mixed Industrial Business and Technology Park Transportation Center Public Park and Recreation Open Space Loft Overlay District Existing Regional/Arterial/Collector Proposed Street South San Francisco High School Spruce School Parkway Heights Middle School Martin School HillsideSchool Westborough Middle School Serra Vista School (closed) El CaminoHigh School Ponderosa School Southwood School Sunshine Gardens School Alta Loma Middle School Fox Ridge School (closed) Buri Buri School City Hall Orange Memorial Park Oyster Point Marina/Park Marina Marina Los Cerritos School Colma San Br uno Pacica San Francisco In terna tional Airport San Bruno MountainCounty Park San Fr ancisco Bay California Golf and Country Club Sign Hill Park San Bruno Canal Hillside Blvd Ch e s n u t Av e Grand A v e Sp r u c e A v e SisterCities Blvd B ays ho re Blv d O y s terPoint Blvd Gateway B l v d S o u t h A i r p o r t B l v d Lin d e n Av e SanMateo Av e E l C a m i n o R e a l Orange Ave El C a mino Real HickeyBlvd J u n i p e r o S e r r a B l v d S k y li n e B lv d S k y l i n e B l v d Gellert Blvd C alla n B lv d Air p o r t Blv d Missio n R d Westborough Blvd INTE R S T A T E 2 8 0 De l M o n t e A v e Felip e A v e A l t a Mesa Dr Arr o y o D r CarterDr GreendaleDr Gal w a y Dr Sha n n o n Dr D onegal Ave Appian Way Avalo n D r AltaV i s t a Dr North w o od D r Roc k w o o d D r W ild wood D r A l i d a W a y W e s t Orange Ave H u n ti n g t o n A v e Victory Ave Lo w r i e Av e U. S . H I G H W AY 10 1 U tah Av e Mitchell Ave East Grand Ave EastGrand Ave Ha r b o r Wa y Gra nd vi e w Dr Eccle s Ave Fo r b e s Ave L i t t l e fi eld Ave Hills i d e B l v d Schoo l St Ar m our Ave Lind e n A v e Map l e Av e Ma g n o l i a A v e Park Way Miller A v e Baden A v e Commercial AveRailroad A ve Eu ca l y p t u s A ve Mill e r A v e Wil l o w A v e Holly Ave Eve r g r een Dr Crestwood D r Morningside AveMission R d ClayAveN e w m a n D r L o n g f o r d D r Arlington Dr Duval D r Se r r a D r Cam aritas Ave L o m a D r Cuesta Dr P o nder o sa Rd Fairw ay Dr A S t B S tSouthwoodDr H azelw o o d D r R o s e w o o d V a l v e r d e D r Regional Commercial CalTrain Station San Bruno BART Station Noor A ve Shaw Rd Ma p l e Av e StarliteSt So.LindenA v e No.Canal Ave Rya n Way KingDr 11/40 MILES 1/2 10 Acres 2.5 Acres W exford Ave South San Francisco BART Figure 2-1 Land Use Diagram El Camino Real Mixed Use El Camino Real Mixed Use North, High Intensity El Camino Real Mixed Use North, Medium Intensity El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan Downtown Residential Core Downtown Transit Core Downtown Station Area Plan Transit Oce/R&D Core Linden Neighborhood Center Linden Commercial Corridor Grand Avenue Core 1/4 Mile R a d i u s Station Caltrain 1/4 MileR a d i u s 1/4 M i l e R adius 1 /2 M i le RadiusEncourage developmentsin this area to include employee-oriented ancillary orcentralized commercial services Interchange/Intersection Study Area P r o p osed Existi n g Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Downtown Low Density Residential Downtown Medium Density Residential Downtown High Density Residential Community Commercial Business Commercial Co astal Commercial e Mixed Industrial Business and Technology Park Transportation Center Public Park and Recreation Open Space Loft Overlay District Existing Regional/Arterial/Collector Proposed Street South SanFranciscoHigh School SpruceSchoolParkwayHeightsMiddleSchool MartinSchoolHillsideSchool Westborough Middle School SerraVistaSchool(closed)El CaminoHigh School PonderosaSchoolSouthwoodSchoolSunshineGardens SchoolAlta LomaMiddle School Fox RidgeSchool(closed) Buri BuriSchool City HallOrange MemorialPark Oyster Point Marina/ParkMarinaMarinaLosCerritosSchoolColma San Br uno Pa cica San Francisco In terna tional Airport San Bruno MountainCounty Park San Fr ancisco Bay California Golfand Country Club Sign HillPark San Bruno CanalHillside BlvdChesnut Ave Grand AveSpruce Ave SisterCities Blvd B ays ho re Blv d OysterPoint BlvdGatewayBlvdS o u t h A i r p o r t B l v d Linden Ave SanMateo AveElCamino R e a l Orange AveElCaminoRealHickeyBlvdJuniperoSerra BlvdSkyline B lv d Skyline Blvd Gellert Blvd Callan Blv d Airport BlvdMissionRd W e s t b o rough Blvd INTE R S T A T E 2 8 0 DelMonte AveFelipe AveAlta Mesa DrArroyoDrCarterDr G reendale Dr Galway Dr Sha n n o n Dr D onegal Ave Appian Way Avalo n D r AltaV i s t a Dr North w o od D r Roc k w o o d D r W ild wood D r Alida WayWestOrangeAve H u n ti n g t o n A v e Victory Ave Lo w r i e A v e U. S . H I G H W AY 10 1 U tah Av eMitchell AveEastGrand Ave EastGrand AveHarbor Way Gra nd vie w DrEccles AveFo rb e s Ave L i t t l e fi eld AveHillside BlvdSchool StArmour AveLinden AveMaple AveMagnolia AvePark WayMiller AveBaden AveCommercial AveRailroad AveEucalyptus AveMiller Ave Willow AveHollyAveEvergreen Dr Crestwood DrMorningside AveMission RdClayAveNewman DrLongford DrArlington DrDuval Dr Serra Dr Camaritas AveLomaDrCuestaDr P o ndero sa Rd FairwayDrA StB StSouthwoodDr H azelw o o d D r R o s e w o o d V a l v e r d e D r Regional Commercial CalTrain Station San Bruno BARTStation Noor A ve Shaw Rd Maple AveStarliteSt So.LindenA v e No.Canal AveRyan WayKingDr 11/40 MILES 1/2 10 Acres 2.5 Acres W exford Ave SouthSan FranciscoBART Figure 2-1 Land Use Diagram El Camino Real Mixed Use El Camino Real Mixed Use North, High Intensity El Camino Real Mixed Use North, Medium Intensity El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan Downtown Residential Core Downtown Transit Core Downtown Station Area Plan Transit Oce/R&D Core Linden Neighborhood Center Linden Commercial Corridor Grand Avenue Core 1/4 MileRadiusStationCaltrain 1/4 MileR a d i u s 1/4 M i l e R adius 1 /2 M i le Radius Encourage developments in this area to include employee-oriented ancillary or centralized commercial services Interchange/Intersection Study Area P r o p osed Existi n g Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Downtown Low Density Residential Downtown Medium Density Residential Downtown High Density Residential Community Commercial Business Commercial Coastal Commercial e Mixed Industrial Business and Technology Park Transportation Center Public Park and Recreation Open Space Loft Overlay District Existing Regional/Arterial/Collector Proposed Street South SanFranciscoHigh School SpruceSchoolParkwayHeightsMiddleSchool MartinSchoolHillsideSchool WestboroughMiddle School Serra VistaSchool(closed) El CaminoHigh School PonderosaSchool SouthwoodSchool SunshineGardens SchoolAlta LomaMiddle School Fox RidgeSchool (closed) Buri BuriSchool City Hall Orange MemorialPark Oyster Point Marina/ParkMarinaMarina LosCerritos School Colma San Br uno Pacica San Francisco In terna tional Airport San Bruno MountainCounty Park San Fr ancisco Bay California Golf and Country Club Sign HillPark San Bruno Canal Hillside Blvd Ch e s n u t Ave Grand A v e Sp r u c e A v e SisterCities Blvd B ays ho re Blv d OysterPoint Blvd Gateway B l v d S o u t h A i r p o r t B l v d Lin d e n Av e SanMateo Av e E l C a m i n o R e al Orange Ave ElCamino Real Hicke y Bl v dJunipero S e r r a B l v d S k y li n e B lv d S k y l i n e B l v d Gellert Blvd C alla n Blv d Air p o r t Blv d MissionRd Westborough Blvd INTE R S T A T E 2 8 0 DelMonte A v e Felip e A v e A l t a Mesa Dr A rr o yo D r CarterDr GreendaleDr Gal w a y Dr Sha n n o n Dr D onegal Ave Appian Way Avalo n D r AltaV i s t a Dr North w o od D r Roc k w o o d D r W ild wood D r Al i d a W a y W e s t Orange Ave H u n ti n g t o n A v e Victory Ave Lo w r i e A v e U. S . H I G H W AY 10 1 U tah Av e Mitchell Ave East Grand Ave EastGrand Ave Ha r b o r Wa y Gra nd vie w Dr Eccles Ave Fo rb e s Ave L i t t l e fi eld Ave Hillside BlvdSchool StArmour AveLinden AveMaple Ave Ma g n o l i a A v e Park Way Miller A v e Baden A v e Commercial AveRailroad A ve Eu ca l y p t u s A veMiller Ave Willow AveHollyAveEvergreen Dr Crestwood DrMorningside AveMission RdClayAveNewman D r Longford DrArlington DrDuval Dr Se r r a D r Camaritas Ave Loma Dr C u e st a Dr P o nder o sa Rd Fairw ay Dr A S t B S tSouthwoodDr H azelw o o d D r R o s e w o o d V a l v e r d e D r Regional Commercial CalTrainStation San BrunoBART Station Noor A ve Shaw Rd Ma p l e Av e StarliteSt So.LindenA v e No.Canal Ave Rya n Way KingDr 11/40 MILES 1/2 10 Acres 2.5 Acres W exford Ave SouthSan FranciscoBART Figure 2-1 Land Use Diagram El Camino Real Mixed Use El Camino Real Mixed Use North, High Intensity El Camino Real Mixed Use North, Medium Intensity El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan Downtown Residential Core Downtown Transit Core Downtown Station Area Plan Transit Oce/R&D Core Linden Neighborhood Center Linden Commercial Corridor Grand Avenue Core 1/4 Mile R a d i u s StationCaltrain 1/4 MileR a d i u s 1/4MileRadius 1 /2 M i le RadiusEncourage developmentsin this area to include employee-oriented ancillary orcentralized commercial services Interchange/Intersection Study Area Proposed Existing Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Downtown Low Density Residential Downtown Medium Density Residential Downtown High Density Residential Community Commercial Business Commercial Coastal Commercial e Mixed Industrial Business and Technology Park Transportation Center Public Park and Recreation Open Space Loft Overlay District Existing Regional/Arterial/Collector Proposed Street South SanFrancisco High School SpruceSchoolParkwayHeightsMiddleSchool MartinSchoolHillsideSchool WestboroughMiddle School SerraVistaSchool(closed)El CaminoHigh School PonderosaSchool SouthwoodSchool SunshineGardens SchoolAlta LomaMiddle School Fox RidgeSchool(closed) Buri BuriSchool City HallOrange MemorialPark Oyster Point Marina/ParkMarinaMarina LosCerritos School Colma San Bruno Pacica San Francisco In terna tional Airport San Bruno MountainCounty Park San Fr ancisco Bay California Golf and Country Club Sign HillPark San Bruno Canal Hillside BlvdChesnut Ave Grand Ave Sp r u c e A v e SisterCities Blvd B ays ho re Blv d O ysterPoint BlvdGatewayBlvd S o u t h A i r p o r t B l v d Lin d e n Av e SanMateo Av e E l C a m i n o R e al Orange AveElCaminoRealHickeyBlvdJuniperoSerra Blvd S k y li n e B lv d Skyline B l v d Gellert Blvd C alla n Blv d Air p o r t BlvdMissionRd Westborough Blvd INTE R S T A T E 2 8 0 DelMonte AveFelipe AveAltaMesaDr Arroyo Dr CarterDr GreendaleDr Gal w a y Dr Sha n n o n Dr D onegal Ave Appian Way Avalo n Dr AltaV i s t a Dr North w o od D r Roc k w o o d D r W ild wood D r Al i d a W a y W e s t Orange Ave H u n ti n g t o n A v e Victory Ave Lo w r i e A v e U. S . H I G H W AY 10 1 U tah Av e Mitchell Ave East Grand Ave EastGrand Ave Ha r b o r Wa y Gra nd vi e w DrEccles AveForb es Ave L i t t l e field Ave Hillside BlvdSchool StArmour AveLinden AveMaple AveMagnolia AvePark WayMiller AveBaden AveCommercial AveRailroad A ve Eucalyptus AveMiller AveWillow AveHollyAveEvergreen DrCrestwood DrMorningside AveMission RdClayAveNewman DrLongford DrArlington DrDuval DrSerra DrCamaritas AveLomaDr CuestaDr Ponder o sa Rd Fairw ay Dr A S t B S tSouthwoodDr H azelw o o d D r R o s e w o o d V a l v e r d e D r Regional Commercial CalTrainStation San BrunoBART Station Noor A ve Shaw Rd Ma p l e Av e StarliteSt So.LindenA v e No.Canal Ave Rya n Way KingDr 11/40 MILES 1/2 10 Acres 2.5 Acres W exford Ave SouthSan FranciscoBART Figure 2-1 Land Use Diagram El Camino Real Mixed Use El Camino Real Mixed Use North, High Intensity El Camino Real Mixed Use North, Medium Intensity El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan Downtown Residential Core Downtown Transit Core Downtown Station Area Plan Transit Oce/R&D Core Linden Neighborhood Center Linden Commercial Corridor Grand Avenue Core 1/4 MileRadiusStationCaltrain 1/4 Mile R a d i u s 1/4MileRadius 1 /2 M i le RadiusEncourage developmentsin this area to include employee-oriented ancillary orcentralized commercial services Interchange/Intersection Study Area Proposed Existing Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Downtown Low Density Residential Downtown Medium Density Residential Downtown High Density Residential Community Commercial Business Commercial Coastal Commercial e Mixed Industrial Business and Technology Park Transportation Center Public Park and Recreation Open Space Loft Overlay District Existing Regional/Arterial/Collector Proposed Street South San Francisco High School SpruceSchoolParkwayHeightsMiddleSchool MartinSchoolHillsideSchool Westborough Middle School SerraVistaSchool(closed)El CaminoHigh School Ponderosa School Southwood School SunshineGardens SchoolAlta LomaMiddle School Fox Ridge School (closed) Buri BuriSchool City HallOrange MemorialPark Oyster Point Marina/ParkMarinaMarina Los Cerritos School Colma San Br uno Pacica San Francisco In terna tional Airport San Bruno MountainCounty Park San Fr ancisco Bay Califor nia Golf and Country Club Sign HillPark San Bruno Canal Hillside BlvdChesnut Ave Grand Ave Sp r u c e A v e SisterCities Blvd B ays ho re Blv d O y s terPoint BlvdGatewayBlvd S o u t h A i r p o r t B l v d Lin d e n Av e Sa nMateo Av e E l C a m i n o R e a l Orange AveElCaminoRealHickeyBlvdJuniperoSerra Blvd S k y li n e B lv d Skyline Blvd Gellert Blvd C alla n Blv d Air p o r t BlvdMissionRd Westborough Blvd INTE R S T A T E 2 8 0 DelMonte AveFelipe AveAltaMesaDr Arroyo Dr CarterDr GreendaleDr Gal w a y Dr Sha n n o n Dr D onegal Ave Appian Way Avalo n D r AltaV i s t a Dr North w o od D r Roc k w o o d D r W ild wood D r A l i d a W a y W e s t Orange Ave H u n ti n g t o n A v e Victory Ave Lo w r i e A v e U. S . H I G H W AY 10 1 U tah Av e Mitchell Ave East Grand Ave EastGrand Ave Ha r b o r Wa y Gra nd vi e w DrEccles AveFo r b e s Ave L i t t l e fi eld Ave Hillside BlvdSchool StArmour AveLinden AveMaple AveMagnolia AvePark WayMiller AveBaden AveCommercial AveRailroad AveEucalyptus AveMiller Ave Willow AveHollyAveEvergreen Dr Crestwood DrMorningside AveMission RdClayAveNewman DrLongford DrArlington DrDuval DrSerra DrCamaritas AveLomaDr CuestaDr P o nder o sa Rd Fairw ay Dr A S t B S tSouthwoodDr H azelw o o d D r R o s e w o o d V a l v e r d e D r Regional Commercial CalTrain Station San Bruno BART Station Noor A ve Shaw Rd Ma p l e Av e StarliteSt So.LindenA v e No.Canal Ave Rya n Way KingDr 11/40 MILES 1/2 10 Acres 2.5 Acres W exford Ave SouthSan FranciscoBART Figure 2-1 Land Use Diagram El Camino Real Mixed Use El Camino Real Mixed Use North, High Intensity El Camino Real Mixed Use North, Medium Intensity El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan Downtown Residential Core Downtown Transit Core Downtown Station Area Plan Transit Oce/R&D Core Linden Neighborhood Center Linden Commercial Corridor Grand Avenue Core 1/4 MileRadiusStationCaltrain UPDATED PLAN 128 3: PLANING SUB-AREAS ELEMENT 3-5 Table 3.I.1 Downtown Development, Population and Employment Under the General Plan Approved Additional Total Population/Employment (Housing Units/Floor Area in Square Feet) Residential Downtown (Intensification)-290 -870 Total -290 -870 Non-residential Business Commercial (Hotels)22,500 -23,000 55 Business Commercial (Offices/Commercial)-10,000 10,000 26 Coastal Commercial ---- Downtown Commercial (Intensification)-121,000 121,000 448 Office ---- Business & Technology Park ---- Industrial ---- Community Commercial ---- Total 22,500 131,000 154,000 529 Hillsi d e Blvd Ch esnu t Av e Grand A ve Spruce A ve Sister Cities Blvd Baysh o re Blv d Oyster Point Blvd Gateway B l v d S o u t h A i r p o r t B l v d Lin den Av e SanMateo Av e El C a m i n o R e al Orange Ave ElCamino Real H i ckey B l v d J u n i p e r o S e r r a B l v d S k yl in e B l v d G e ll e rt Blvd C alla n Blv d Air p o r t Blv d Mission R d W e s t b o r ough Blvd INTERSTATE 2 80 DelMonte Ave Felip e Ave Alta Mesa Dr Arr oyo D r Carter D r Greendale Dr Galw ay Dr Sha n n o n Dr D onegal Ave Appian W ay A valon Dr Alta Vista Dr N orth wood Dr Rock w ood Dr W ildwo o d D r Ali d a W a y W e s t O range Ave H u n ti n g t o n A v e Victory Ave Lowrie Ave U.S . H I G H W A Y 1 0 1 Uta h A v e Shaw Rd Mitchell Ave Eas t G rand AveHa r b o r Wa y Grand vie w Dr Eccles Ave Fo r b e s Ave L it tlefield Ave Hillsid e Bl vd Schoo l St Ar m o u r Ave Linde n Ave Maple A v e Magnolia A ve Park Way Miller Ave Baden A v e Commercial AveRailroad A ve Euca l yptus Ave Mille r Ave Wil l o w A v e Holly Ave Evergreen Dr Cre st w oo d D r Morningside Ave Mi s s ion R d Clay A ve N e w m a n D r L o n g f o r d D r A rlington Dr Duval D r Serra Dr Camaritas Ave L o m a Dr C u e s t a Dr P onde r osa Rd Fairway Dr A S t B S t H azelw o o d D r R o s e w o o d V al v e r d e D r INTE R S TATE 3 8 0 King Dr 11/40 MILES 1/2 Colma San Bruno Pacica Daly City San francisco International Airport San Bruno Mountain County Park San Francisco Bay California Golf and Country Club Sign HillPark San Bruno Canal Colma Creek South Airport Planning Sub-Area UPDATED PLAN SEE EXCEL FILE 129 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN 3-6 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN Linkages While Downtown is well connected to the residential neighborhoods to the west and north, U.S. 101 and the Caltrain tracks to the east post barriers to integration with the eastern parts of the city. In addition, since there are few connecting streets through Lindenville, which lies south of Downtown, accessibility to El Camino Real and the soon-to-emerge San Bruno BART station area is limited. Topography in the area is undulating, and the straight streets permit distant views, such as of Sign Hill, from many parts. Traffic and Circulation While traffic flow within Downtown is generally smooth, access to downtown from U.S. 101, especially at the Grand Avenue ramp is constrained, particularly since trucks with destinations/origins in Lindenville use the same ramp. Traffic is also a problem at Baden Avenue/Airport Boulevard, which is used by trucks from Lindenville to the northbound U.S. 101 ramp at Grand Avenue. Further compound- ing these constraints is the fact that the only connections between the eastern and western parts of the city are through the two U.S. 101 interchanges. Additionally, in recognition of Downtown’s poor connection to the Caltrain Station, the City has been working to facilitate creation of a multi-modal transportation center with better pedestrian linkages to Downtown. Redevelopment A redevelopment plan for Downtown was adopted in 1989. The plan identifies a goal of making the different parts of the area work together as a multi-use hub, improving the commercial and industrial business environment, and upgrading housing. GUIDING POLICIES: DOWNTOWN 3.1-G-1 Promote Downtown’s vitality and economic well-being, and its pres- ence as the city’s center. 3.1-G-2 Encourage development of Downtown as a pedestrian-friendly mixed- use activity center with retail and visitor-oriented uses, business and Streets in Downtown, including Railroad Avenue, do not provide adequate linkages to other areas of the city, since U.S. 101 and the Caltrain tracks to the east post barriers to travel. The General Plan establishes new linkages to better connect Downtown to the surrounding neighborhoods. Small markets are mixed in with offices and other commer- cial uses, providing convenient services for Downtown residents. 130 3: PLANING SUB-AREAS ELEMENT 3-7 personal services, government and professional offices, civic uses, and a variety of residential types and densities. 3.1-G-3 Promote infill development, intensification, and reuse of currently underutilized sites. 3.1-G-4 Enhance linkages between Downtown and transit centers, and increased street connectivity with the surrounding neighborhoods. 3.1-G-5 Use the South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan as a guide for General Plan policies for the Downtown Station Area. (Amended by City Council Resolution xx-2015, Adopted (date). IMPLEMENTING POLICIES: DOWNTOWN See also policies related to transportation and specific street improvements in Downtown in Chapter 4: Transportation, and Chapter 7: Open Space and Environmental Conservation for historic and cultural preservation policies. See also policies in the adopted Downtown Station Area Specific Plan. 3.1-I-1 Maintain land uses and development intensities in Downtown in accor- dance with Table 3.1-2. 3.1-I-2 Prohibit manufacturing, warehouses, and marginal uses such as bars or adult entertainment, as well as additional single-room occupancy units in Downtown. 3.1-I-3 Do not permit any commercial and office uses in areas designated Downtown Residential. 3.1-I-4 Establish a height overlay zone in the Municipal Code correspond- ing to the standards depicted in Figure 2-3. Do not maintain separate height requirements tied to underlying land uses. This will help attain heights appropriate to individual corridors, rather Unique mid-block alleys in Downtown provide linkages and parking tucked away behind buildings. 131 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN 3-8 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN The Downtown street scape improvement program would include tree planting along Downtown avenues, similar to these trees along Grand Avenue in front of City Hall. City Hall, the Downtown’s most prominent landmark, was built in 1920. Table 3.I.2 Permitted Intensities/Densities and Uses in Downtown Residential Downtown Commercial High Density Medium Density Low Density Retail/Eating Establishments Yes (required on first floor) 1,2 No No No Office Yes No No No Hotels Yes No No No Residential Yes None on the first floor Yes Yes Yes Maximum FAR (residential and non- residential uses together) 3.0 - - - 40.0 25.0 15.0 Maximum Residential Density 3 (units per net acre) None (limited only by unit size requirements and development standards in the Municipal Code and total FAR limitations) (30.0 for lots less than one acre in size) Minimum Residential Density (units per net acre) 14.1 20.1 15.1 None Off-street Parking Required None 4 1.2 spaces per unit 1.5 spaces per unit 1.5 spaces per unit 1 The Municipal Code may allow with a use permit non-residential service-oriented establishments (such as banks, travel agencies, and real estate offices) on the first floor. Hotels may also be permitted on the first floor, provided a majority of street frontage is devoted to restaurants. 2 Residential uses permitted as a conditional use on ground floor south of Baden Avenue. 3 25 percent bonus is available for projects with affordable housing, housing for elderly residents with specific amenities designed for residents, or sites located within 1/4-mile of a fixed-guideway transit (Caltrain) station, or housing that meets community design standards that may be specified in the Zoning Ordinance. Bonus may not be double counted. 4 For properties located in the Downtown Parking District. SEE EXCEL FILE 132 3: PLANING SUB-AREAS ELEMENT 3-9 than reflecting the variation that will result from the application of height requirements tied to individual land uses. 3.1-I-5 Establish development standards in the Municipal Code to reinforce Downtown’s traditional development pattern. These should include: • Maximum set-backs or build-to lines for development in areas designated as Downtown Commercial; • Reduced set-back and open space requirements for Downtown Residential areas; • Increased minimum lot-size requirements for sites designated as Downtown High and Medium Density Residential; and • Reduced off-street parking standards. 3.1-I-6 Work with the Peninsula Joint Corridors Board and other agencies to develop a new multi-modal transportation hub on the southeast side of the Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard intersection. Encourage the inclusion of a child care facility near the multi-modal hub. See Figure 4-5 of Chapter 4 for a conceptual plan of the multi-modal hub. 3.1-I-7 Undertake a Downtown streetscape improvement program, which would include: • Signage or banners along the east side of Airport Boulevard to announce Downtown and the auto row from U.S. 101; • Signage for the new multi-modal transportation center at the southeast corner of Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard; • Tree planting, especially along Linden Avenue, Maple Avenue, and Spruce Avenue, and Miller, Grand, and Commercial avenues; and Magnolia Senior Center is one of the few locations with street trees in Downtown. The addition of trees and vegeta- tion in other locations would beautify the area. 133 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN 3-10 • Vegetation along Railroad Avenue to provide a buffer between Downtown residential uses and industrial areas to the south. 3.1-I-8 Improve pedestrian connections between the new multi-modal trans- portation center and Downtown through techniques such as sidewalk bulbing, lighting improvements, and signage. 3.1-I-9 Establish design and signage standards for development along Grand and Linden avenues. 3.1-I-10 Require all development in Downtown to either meet the established off-street parking requirements, or contribute an appropriate share to the Downtown Parking District to mitigate impacts associated with the development. Many recent developments in Downtown have neither provided off-street parking, nor contributed any monies to the Downtown Parking District, because findings that result in exemptions allowed in the City’s Zoning Ordinance have been easy to make. Section 20.74.080 the City’s Zoning Ordinance will need to be amended to conform to this policy. 3.1-I-11 Explore the feasibility of establishing Miller and Baden avenues as one-way couplets, for the extent between Airport Boulevard and Spruce Avenue. This effort should be coordinated with SamTrans, as both Miller and Baden avenues are bus routes. 3.1-I-12 Explore the feasibility of expanding the Downtown Central Redevelopment District boundaries to encompass sites designated Downtown Commercial, and Downtown High and Medium Density SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN If development does not meet the established off-street parking requirements, proponents would be required to contribute an appropriate share to the Downtown Parking District to mitigate impacts associated with the development. 134 135 136 3 4-1 TRANSPORTATION Transportation has long played a key role in shaping South San Francisco. Like much of the rest of San Mateo County, South San Francisco initially developed as a “railroad suburb” to San Francisco. The Caltrain service that now uses the Union Pacific (formerly Southern Pacific Railroad) tracks continues that early commute pattern; the earlier train route is paralleled by El Camino Real (State Route 82), the first highway and automobile route through the Peninsula. Since World War II, these early commute routes have been replaced by freeways – first, U.S. 101 (the Bayshore Freeway) east of El Camino Real and Caltrain and, later, I–280, which defines much of the western edge of the City. South San Francisco has extraordinary access to all transportation modes, includ- ing air, water, rail, bus, and automobiles, though capacity and access to the prin- cipal route—U.S. 101—is constrained. With the BART extension, the soon to be constructed Airport Rail Transit (ART) System, and ferry service on the horizon, access to the City has been enhanced even further in the last decade. (Amended by Resolution 26-2014. Adopted February 12, 2014) The Transportation Element includes policies, programs, and standards to enhance capacity and provide new linkages to further an integrated multi-modal transportation system that encourages transit and meets the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists, as well as programs to help reduce transportation demand. Issues from a citywide to a neighborhood- and block-level scale are addressed. The rela- tionship between the local and the regional system and agencies is also examined. The element contains policies to ensure that existing uses and neighborhoods are not unduly impacted as the city grows. The Transportation Element identifies future circulation needs for a long-range planning horizon. The City is implementing these long-range objectives through numerous near-term, strategic planning documents. The South San Francisco Bicycle Master Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan (PMP) are two examples, both providing detailed recommendations and concept plans that support General Plan 4 137 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN 4-12 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN 4.2-G-3 Where appropriate, use abandoned railroad rights-of-way and the BART right-of-way to establish new streets. 4.2-G-4 Use the El Camino Real/Chestnut Area Plan as a guide for detailed implementation of General Plan transportation policies for the El Camino Real/Chestnut Area 4.2-G-5 Use the South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan as a guide for detailed implementation of General Plan transportation policies for the Downtown Station Area. (Amended by City Council Resolution xx-2015, Adopted (date). 4.2-G-56 Use Figure 4-1: Street Classifications, to identify, schedule, and imple- ment roadway improvements. Use the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan to identify, schedule, and implement roadway improvements for the El Camino Real/Chestnut Area and the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan for the Downtown Station Area roadway improvements. (Amended by City Council Resolutions 97-2011 and 99-2011, Adopted July 27, 2011, and City Council Resolution xx-2015, Adopted (date). Hillside Connection 18,000 - - 5,800 0.32 Oak Avenue /Arroyo Drive Connection 18,000 - - 5,000 0.28 Collectors Greendale Drive Callan Boulevard to Gateway Drive 14,000 2,300 0.16 2,500 0.18 Baden Avenue Orange Avenue to Spruce Avenue 14,000 3,600 0.26 4,600 0.33 West of South Linden Avenue 14,000 13,400 0.96 10,400 0.74 Commercial Avenue Orange Avenue to Spruce 14,000 4,500 0.32 8,600 0.61 TABLE 4.2-2 (Continued) Roadway Segment Analysis Roadway Segment Capacity Existing Existing Projected Projected Volume V/C Volume V/C 138 4: TRANSPORTATION 4-13 4.2-G-67 Use the Bicycle Master Plan (refer to Figure 4-2) to identify, schedule, and implement roadway improvements that enhance bicycle access. (Amended by Resolution 26-2014. Adopted February 12, 2014) 4.2-G-78 Use the Pedestrian Master Plan (refer to Figure 4-3) to identify, sched- ule, and implement roadway improvements that enhance pedestrian access. (Amended by Resolution 26-2014. Adopted February 12, 2014) 4.2-G-89 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. 4.2-G-910 Coordinate local actions with regional agencies, and undertake active efforts to undertake transportation improvements. 4.2-G-1011 Provide fair and equitable means for paying for future street improve- ments including mechanisms such as development impact fees. (Amended by City Council Resolution 98-2001, Adopted September 26, 2001) Traffic Operations and Service Standards 4.2-G-1112 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. 4.2-G-1213 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. 4.2-G-1314 Exempt development within one-quarter mile of a Caltrain or BART station, or a City-designated ferry terminal, from LOS standards. 139 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN 4-14 IMPLEMENTING POLICIES: STREET SYSTEM AND STANDARDS OF SERVICE Street System and Improvements 4.2-I-1 Continue using the Capital Improvement Program to program and implement needed improvements to the street system. 4.2-I-2 Undertake street improvements identified in Figures 4-1 and 4-2. (Amended by City Council Resolution 31-2002, Adopted April 24, 2002 & City Council Resolution xx-2015, Adopted (date)) Improvements identified include: • Connection between Hillside Boulevard and El Camino Real near the BART station (see Chapter 3 for policies for pedestrian-orient- ed nature of the segment near the BART station). • Arroyo Drive/Oak Avenue connection. This short connection will relieve pressure off the Chestnut Avenue/El Camino Real intersec- tion. Signal coordination will help to ensure that El Camino Real traffic flow is not impeded. Use the El Camino Real/Chestnut Area Plan to guide the development of the Arroyo/Oak Avenue connec- tion. (Amended by City Council Resolution 97-2011 and 99-2011, Adopted July 27, 2011) • Mission Road extension from Chestnut Avenue to South Linden Avenue extension. This will be on the BART right-of-way. The General Plan proposes additional uses for the right-of-way—a bikeway and a linear park as well—a coordinated design strategy and joint efforts by the Public Works and Parks and Recreation departments will be needed. • Myrtle Avenue extension to South Linden Avenue. This will run parallel (on the north side) of the former Zellerbach Paper plant. Alignment study will be needed, and some small existing structures may need to be removed. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN 140 Hillside Blv d Ch esnut Av e Grand A v e Sp ruce Ave Sister C i t i e s B l v d B ays h o r e Blv d O yster Point Blvd Gateway B lv d S o u t h A i r p o r t B l v d Lin d e n Av e San Mat eo Ave E l C a m i n o R e al Orange Ave El C a mino Real Hi c k e y Bl v d J u n i p e r o S e r r a B l v d S k y l i n e B l v d King Dr G e l l ert Blvd C alla n Blv d Airp o r t Blv d Missio n R d W e s t b o r o ugh Blvd IN TERSTATE 2 8 0 DelMonte Ave Felip e Ave A l t a Mesa Dr A rr o yo D r C arter Dr G r e e ndale Dr Galw a y Dr Sha n n o n D r D onegal Ave Appian Way A valon D r A lt a Vista Dr N or t hw o o d D r Roc k w o o d D r W ild w o od D r Al i d a W a y W e s t OrangeAv H u n t i n g t o n A v e Victory Ave Lo wrie Ave U.S .H I G H W AY 10 1Shaw Rd Mitchell Ave East Grand Ave Ha r b o r Wa y Gran dvie w Dr Eccles Ave Forbe s Ave L i t t l e field Ave Hi l l s i d e Bl v d Schoo l S t Ar m o u r Ave Lind e n Ave Ma p l e A v e Ma g n olia Av e Park Way Miller Ave Baden A veCommercial AveRailroad Ave Eu c aly p tus A v e Mill e r Av e Will o w A v e Holly Ave Evergreen D r C r e st w o o d D r Morningsid e Ave Mission Rd Clay A v e N e w m a n D r L o n g f o r d D r Arlin g t o n Dr Duval Dr Se r r a Dr Cam a r i t a s Ave L o m a D r C u e s t a D r Pond e r osa Rd Fairway Dr A S t B S t H a zelw o od Dr R o s e w o o d V a l v e r d e D r INTERSTATE 380 Utah A v e F u t u r e B A R T L i n e 11/40 MILES 1/2 Source: Dyett & Bhatia C olma San Bruno Pacica Daly City San francisco Internat ional Airport San Bruno Mountain County Pa rk San Francisco Bay California Golf and Country Club Sign HillPark San Bruno Canal Colma Creek Figure 4-2 Major Street Improvements Street Improvements 200 100 100 100 100 100 200 200 200 300 30 0 30 0 3 0 0 400 400 400 30 0400 500 600 500 400 300 200 200 300 400 2 0 0 200 200 4 00 200 200 200 300 400 500 500 600 60 0 500 4 0 0 40050 0 400 5 0 0 6 0 0 6 0 0 600 600 400 5 00 7 0 0 7 0 0 70 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 100 1 00 500 600 700 500 600 700 800 900 1000 5 00 600 700400 300 3 00 20 0 300 400 400 500 400 300 600 400 500 600 700 700 600 500 400 3 0 0 600 500 400 300 200 4 Lanes Interhange/ Intersection Improvement 2 2 2 2 2 4 2 44 4 4 2 2 4: TRANSPORTATION 4-15 Figure 4-2 Street Improvements UPDATED PLAN 141 4: TRANSPORTATION 4-21 4.3 ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS AND PARKING See Section 4.5 for transit. Shuttle buses, vanpools, bicycle facilities, pedestrian facilities and informal car- pools also serve the travel needs of South San Francisco. These modes provide an alternative to the single-occupant automobile. These modes, plus programs to promote their use, are discussed in this section. BICYCLE FACILITIES Classification System Bicycle facilities include bike paths, bike lanes, and bike routes: • Bike Paths (Class I facilities) are paved facilities that are physically separated from roadways used by motor vehicles by space or a physical barrier and are designated for bicycle use. Bike Lanes (Class II facilities) are lanes on the outside edge of roadways reserved for the exclusive use of bicycles, so designated with special signing and pavement markings. • Bike Routes (Class III facilities) are roadways recommended for use by bicycles and often connect roadways with bike lanes and bike paths. Bike routes are designated with signs. Existing and Proposed Bikeways South San Francisco has few existing bicycle facilities within South San Francisco. Figure 4-4 depicts the locations of the existing and proposed bike lanes and bike paths. General Plan proposals include: Bike Path on linear park on the BART right-of-way, extending between the South San Francisco and San Bruno BART stations; paths or lanes along proposed Bay Trail; and Bike Lanes along the pro- posed Railroad Avenue extension. Additional facilities, including those connecting 142 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN 4-22 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN portions of the city on either side of El Camino Real, will be delineated as part of the City’s Bikeway Master Plan. Future bicycle facilities will focus on abandoned railroad tracks, located in the East of 101 area and throughout the city, which can be converted to bicycle paths as part of a rails-to-trails program. PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES Pedestrian facilities include sidewalks, paths, pedestrian bridges, crosswalks, pedestrian signals and resting areas. South San Francisco offers many great walk- ing environments. The Downtown area provides a well-connected street network complete with sidewalks, commercial activity, destinations, and public amenities. Shared multi-use paths run along the waterfront and connect San Bruno and South San Francisco BART stations. Many streets throughout the city and the Downtown have sidewalks, pedestrian signals and crosswalks to accommodate pedestrian cir- culation. (Amended by City Council resolution 26-2014, Adopted February 12, 2014) Pedestrian facilities include the following elements: • Pedestrian right-of-way (sidewalk, bulbout, curb ramp, median islands, etc.); • Traffic control measures (striping, signs, etc.); and • Amenities (benches, trash receptacles, water fountains, etc.). Many streets in the East of 101 area and in Lindenville do not have sidewalks. Busy, car-oriented streets such as El Camino Real, Junipero Serra, South Spruce, South Linden Avenue, Westborough Boulevard, and streets east of U.S. 101 have gaps in the sidewalk network. Pedestrian facility improvements will improve safety for pedestrians and also encourage the use of alternative modes throughout the com- munity. (Amended by City Council resolution 26-2014, Adopted February 12, 2014) SHUTTLE BUS SERVICE Another alternative mode is the shuttle bus system. The PCRA coordinates with SamTrans to ensure adequate funding for the shuttle buses. There are three shuttle 143 4: TRANSPORTATION 4-23 bus routes that serve employees of the East of 101 area: the Gateway/Genentech Shuttle, the Oyster Point Shuttle, and the Utah/Littlefield Shuttle The service is fixed-route, fixed schedule and is provided on weekdays during the commute periods. Currently, the shuttles carry 700 riders per workday. They are free to the riders. The operating costs are borne by the JPB, SamTrans, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and the City/County Association of Governments (75 percent) and sponsoring employers (25 percent). TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs are provided by employ- ers to reduce the amount of peak period traffic by encouraging their employees to use modes other than the single-occupant automobile for transportation to the workplace and to travel during non-peak times. According to PCMA, South San Francisco hosts the region’s largest employers and the best-developed TDM pro- grams. The largest increases in work-related trip diversion to alternative modes are likely to be through carpooling and employer shuttle programs, on which TDM efforts should be focused. While mandated requirements for TDM programs have been overturned in the State legislature,1 the General Plan establishes an incen- tives-based land use intensity program with bonuses for projects meeting identified TDM objectives (see Table 2.2-3) that does not discriminate between small and large employers. PARKING The City’s Zoning Ordinance has parking requirements to ensure that adequate numbers of parking spaces are provided on-site for most uses. Downtown has a parking district as well. Instead of individual property owners providing their own parking, parking is consolidated into 13 City-owned lots. These lots contain approximately 420 spaces, of which 270 are available for long-term employee park- ing. In general, the amount of parking in Downtown is sufficient; however, there are a few locations with capacity shortages. 1 Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s Regulation 13, Rule 1, requiring employers with over 100 employees to decrease the average vehicle ridership was overturned. However, the City can encourage TDM programs and require TDM measures as mitigation measures to transportation and air quality impacts. 144 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN 4-24 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN The industrial areas of the city experience on-street truck parking. The parked trucks and loading/unloading activities associated with many industrial uses inter- fere with vehicular circulation. GUIDING POLICIES: ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS 4.3-G-1 Develop a comprehensive and integrated system of bikeways that pro- mote bicycle riding for transportation and recreation. 4.3-G-2 Provide safe and direct pedestrian routes and bikeways between and through residential neighborhoods, and to transit centers. 4.3-G-3 Use the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan as a guide for detailed implementation of General Plan alternative transportation system policies for the El Camino Real / Chestnut Area. (Amended by City Council Resolution 97-2011 and 99-2011, Adopted July 27, 2011) 4.3-G-4 Use the South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan as a guide for detailed implementation of General Plan alternative transportation system policies for the South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Area. (Amended by City Council Resolution xx-2015, Adopted (date) 4.3-G-45 In partnership with employers, continue efforts to expand shuttle opera- tions. 4.3-G-56 In partnership with the local business community, develop a transpor- tation systems management plan with identified trip-reduction goals, while continuing to maintain a positive and supportive business envi- ronment. 145 4: TRANSPORTATION 4-25 TABLE 4.3-1 Bikeway Classifications Function Access Control Right-of-Way Bike Paths Provide exclusive right-of-way for Where crossing or access from Minimum of 8 feet for a two-way facility. (Class I facilities) bicyclists with cross flows by the bicycle path is required, the crossing The minimum paved width for a one-way motorists minimized. should be grade-separated or occur bike path is 5 feet. A minimum 2-foot wide at pedestrian crossings. Mid-block graded area shall be provided adjacent to crossings should assign right-of-way the pavement, but a 3-foot graded area through signing or signalization. is recommended. Where pedestrian activity is expected, a minimum of 12 feet for a two-way facility should be provided. Bike Lanes To provide preferential use of the Access is similar to that recommended Class II bike lanes are one-way facilities. (Class II facilities) paved area of roadway for bicyclists for roadways. At intersections where On roadways with parking, the bike lane by establishing specific lines of there is a bike lane and an actuated is located between the parking area and demarcation between areas signal, it is desirable to install the traffic lane with 5-foot minimums for the reserved for bicycles and motorists. bicycle-sensitive detectors. Push button bike lane. Where parking is permitted and detectors force the bicyclists to stop not marked, minimum width is 12 feet. On and actuate the push button. Because roadways where parking is prohibited, a most accidents for bicyclists occur at minimum of 5 feet is required, including intersections, clear bikeway design at a 2-foot gutter. intersections should be implemented through the use of signing and striping. Bike Routes Facilities shared with automobiles Access is similar to that recommended No exclusive right-of-way. (Class III facilities) and other vehicles. Roadways for roadways. demarcated by signage. 146 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN 4-26 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN (Amended by Resolution 23, 2011, Adopted February 9, 2011) Figure 4-4 Bicycle Facilities UPDATED PLAN 147 4: TRANSPORTATION 4-27 IMPLEMENTING POLICIES: ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS Bikeways 4.3-I-1 Prepare and adopt a Bikeways Master Plan that includes goals and objectives, a list or map of improvements, a signage program, detailed standards, and an implementation program. Once adopted, the Bicycle Master Plan shall be the guiding policy document regarding bicycling matters that are within the scope of the adopted Bicycle Master Plan. (Amended by City Council Resolution 23-2011, Adopted February 9, 2011) A Bikeways Committee that includes citizens, officials, and staff may be appointed for the purpose. The Bikeways Master Plan should be consistent with the General Plan; if necessary, the General Plan can be amended at the time of adoption of the Bikeway Master Plan to ensure this consistency. An approved Bikeway Master Plan is needed to be eligible for State and federal funding programs. 4.3-I-2 As part of the Bikeways Master Plan, include improvements identified in Figure 4-4 in the General Plan and in the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and the South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan identify additional improvements that include abandoned railroad rights-of-way and other potential connections. (Amended by City Council Resolution 97-2011 and 99-2011, Adopted July 27, 2011), and City Council Resolution xx-201, Adopted (date) Improvements identified on Figure 4-4 include: • Bike Path on linear park on the BART right-of-way, extending from the South San Francisco BART Station to the San Bruno BART station; • Paths or lanes along proposed Bay Trail, with continuous shoreline access; and • Bike Lane along the proposed Railroad Avenue extension, which would provide the first bikeway connection linking the eastern 148 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN 4-28 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN and western parts of the city and provide shoreline bikeway access from residential neighborhoods west of U.S. 101. Improvements identified in the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan include: (Amended by City Council Resolution 97-2011 and 99-2011, Adopted July 27, 2011) • Bike connections between Mission Road and El Camino Real; and • Bike connection between Camaritas Avenue and El Camino Real Improvements identified in the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan include: (Amended by City Council Resolution xx-2015, Adopted (date). • Gateway Boulevard bicycle lanes north of East Grand Avenue; • Colma Creek Canal Trail East-West Bikeway connecting western neighborhoods with east side employment and the waterfront; • Executive Drive bicycle path between Corporate Drive and Oyster Point Boulevard; • Railroad Avenue bicycle path extension to the west under the US101; and • Harbor Way bicycle boulevard south of East Grand Avenue. 4.3-I-3 Make bikeway improvements a funding priority by: • Continuing to consider financing bikeway design and construc- tion as part of the City’s annual construction and improvement fund; • Incorporating bikeway improvements as part of Capital Improvement Program; and • Pursuing regional funding and other sources for new bikeways to the extent possible under federal and State law. 4.3-I-4 Require provision of secure covered bicycle parking at all existing 149 4: TRANSPORTATION 4-29 and future multifamily residential, commercial, industrial, and office/ institutional uses. Secure parking means areas where bicycles can be secured to a non- movable rack to prevent theft. Pedestrian Circulation 4.3-I-5 Prepare, adopt, and maintain a PMP as a long-term vision for sup- porting and improving pedestrian access in South San Francisco, including goals, policies, and strategic near-term implementation measures that encourage pedestrian activity and prioritizes pedes- trian improvements for funding. (Amended by City Council Resolution 26-2014, Adopted February 26, 2014) 4.3-I-6 Expand pedestrian facilities in new development, using the PMP for pedestrian design guidelines and to identify other improvements that should be considered for projects proposed in areas that are identified in PMP concept plans. (Amended by City Council Resolution 26-2014, Adopted February 26, 2014) 4.3-I-7 Continue to work with the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (or other advisory committee) to monitor progress toward the City’s pedestrian objectives identified in the PMP, with annual reviews to evaluate progress, effectiveness of implementation, and the efficient use of local resources. (Amended by City Council Resolution 26-2014, Adopted February 26, 2014) 4.3-I-8 Track and implement pedestrian improvements through municipal projects and operations on an ongoing basis, including monitoring and updating of the PMP for project prioritization, funding opportu- nities, and project readiness. (Amended by City Council Resolution 26-2014, Adopted February 26, 2014) 4.3-I-9 Promote pedestrian safety and access through education, collabora- tion with C/CAG, and regular public awareness efforts that advocate walking. (Amended by City Council Resolution 26-2014, Adopted February 26, 2014) 150 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN 4-30 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN 4.3.I-10 As part of redesign of South Linden Avenue (see Section 3.2), provide continuous sidewalks on both sides of the street, extending through the entire stretch of the street from San Bruno BART Station to Downtown. 4.3-I-11 As part of any development in Lindenville or East of 101, require proj- ect proponents to provide sidewalks and street trees as part of frontage improvements for new development and redevelopment projects. 4.3-I-12 Use the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan to identify, sched- ule, and implement pedestrian improvements for the El Camino Real/ Chestnut Area. (Amended by City Council Resolution 97-2011 and 99-2011, Adopted July 27, 2011) 4.3-I-13 Use the South San Francisco Downtown Station Specific Plan to iden- tify, schedule, and implement pedestrian improvements for the South San Francisco Downtown Station Specific Plan Area. (Amended by City Council Resolution xx-2015, Adopted (date) 4.3-I-1314 Undertake a program to improve pedestrian connections between the rail stations—South San Francisco and San Bruno BART stations and the Caltrain Station—and the surroundings. Components of the pro- gram should include: • Installing handicapped ramps at all intersections as street improvements are being installed; • Constructing wide sidewalks where feasible to accommodate increased pedestrian use; • Providing intersection “bulbing” to reduce walking distances across streets in Downtown, across El Camino Real and Mission Road, and other high use areas; • Continuing with the City’s current policy of providing pedestrian facilities at all signalized intersections; and • Providing landscaping that encourages pedestrian use. 151 4: TRANSPORTATION 4-31 Transportation Demand Management 4.3-I-1415 Adopt a TDM program or ordinance which includes, but is not limited to, the following components: • Methodology to determine eligibility for land use intensity bonus- es for TDM programs identified in the Land Use Element • Procedures to ensure continued maintenance of measures that result in intensity bonuses • Requirements for off site improvements (such as bus shelters and pedestrian connections) that are directly necessary as a result of development • Establishment of baseline TDM requirements for all new projects generating more than 100 peak period trips. • Establishment of additional requirements for all new projects seek- ing a FAR bonus. • An ongoing monitoring and enforcement program to ensure TDM measures are actually implemented. • Reduce parking requirements for new projects implementing a TDM Program in proximity to fixed guide way transit or those with demonstrated measures that would reduce trip generation. (Amended by City Council Resolution 98-2001, Adopted September 26, 2001) 4.3-I-1516 Favor Transportation Systems Management programs that limit vehi- cle use over those that extend the commute hour. This would have added air quality benefits. 4.3-I-1617 Undertake efforts to promote the City as a model employer and further alternative transportation use by City employees by providing: • A designated commute coordinator/manager; 152 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN 4-32 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN • A carpool/vanpool match program; • Preferential parking for carpools and vanpools at City Hall; • Secure bicycle storage facilities; • On-site shower facilities at City Hall for employees; • A commitment to future shuttle service to BART stations; • Guaranteed ride home program; • Transit subsidies; • On-site transit pass sales; and • Incentives/educational program. Parking 4.3-I-1718 Establish parking standards to support trip reduction goals by: • Allowing parking reductions for projects that have agreed to implement trip reduction methods, such as paid parking, and for mixed use development. • Requiring projects larger than 25 employees to provide preferential parking for carpools and vanpools. (Amended by City Council Resolution 98-2001, Adopted September 26, 2001) 4.3-I-1819 Amend the Zoning Ordinance to reduce minimum parking require- ments for projects proximate to transit stations and for projects imple- menting a TDM program. Periodically examine these standards as transit service changes. Parking above a minimum amount should be allowed only if addi- 153 4: TRANSPORTATION 4-33 Parking is limited in many areas of the city - especially in industrial areas with auto repair facilities or freight for- warding. tional amenities for bicyclists, pedestrians, transit and/or landscaping are provided. (Amended by City Council Resolution 98-2001, Adopted September 26, 2001) 4.3-I-1920 Investigate opportunities for shared parking facilities whenever pos- sible to reduce the number of new parking stalls required. Potential for this exists for the area near the South San Francisco BART Station and in the El Camino Real/Chestnut Area, and within the South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan. (Amended by City Council Resolution xx-2015, Adopted (date). 4.3-I-2021 Establish off-street truck parking standards for industrial develop- ments. While the City maintains loading requirements for industrial and warehousing uses, truck parking on streets continues to be a problem in many areas. Some neighboring cities, such as Burlingame, maintain off-street truck parking standards. Stricter enforcement of on-street parking measures, especially during the peak hours, would also further mobility. 4.4 TRANSIT AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION Figure 4-5 shows existing and planned transit improvements in South San Francisco. SAMTRANS BUS SERVICE SamTrans operates six express routes and ten local bus routes in South San Francisco. The local bus routes have an average weekly ridership of approximately 3,220 people. These bus routes serve areas of South San Francisco west of U.S. 101. Areas east of U.S. 101 are not served by fixed bus-route service but by shuttle buses. SamTrans bus routes in South San Francisco will be modified to provide feeder bus service to the new BART station at Hickey Boulevard. This will improve accessibil- 154 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN 4-34 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN ity to the station and help reduce the amount of automobile traffic in the vicinity of the station, but may result in reduced service on local residential routes. Current plans do not include expanding fixed-route service to the East of 101 area. CALTRAIN The South San Francisco station is located on the east side of U.S. 101 on Dubuque Avenue, under the East Grand Avenue overpass. Caltrain, operated by the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB), has 68 weekday trains between San Francisco and San Jose/Gilroy. Currently, 55 trains serve the South San Francisco Station each weekday. Approximately 1,000 passengers use the station daily. Pedestrian and bicycle access to the station is difficult due to its location. SamTrans fixed bus route service does not serve the station, as the standard buses cannot negotiate the tight curve on the driveway from Dubuque Avenue to the station. Connection between Downtown and the station is extremely poor and there is also no direct eastern access to the station. In 1998, the City prepared a concept plan to move the station and the platforms further south, move track sidings, provide shuttle drop-off on the eastside and direct bus and pedestrian connection on the west (Figure 4-5). A detailed study by JPB is underway to examine the viability of the concept plan. The Downtown Station Area Specific Plan furthered the concept of extending the Caltrain Station platforms to the south, opposite Grand Avenue and the Downtown. By lengthening the station platforms and reconfiguring the southern leg of Airport Boulevard at Grand Avenue, pedestrians and bicyclists will have convenient access from the Downtown to the station. With a well-designed, wide, well-lighted, and attractive undercrossing, access to the station will be greatly improved. The undercrossing will also connect the Downtown with Grand Avenue east of the freeway along the north edge of the Eastern Neighborhood. This extension can be a location for dining and other amenities that can serve workers in the area. An improved Grand Avenue here will provide a direct pedestrian and bicycle con- nection to the Downtown from the rest of the East of 101 area of the City. Plazas, configured with space for special events, art or other gateway elements, will be pos- sible at either end of the undercrossing and will improve the image of Downtown to visitors. 155 4: TRANSPORTATION 4-35 BART EXTENSION The Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system provides rail service between San Francisco, East Bay locations, Daly City, and Colma. BART will be extended from its current terminus at the Colma Station to the San Francisco International Airport and Millbrae. The tracks will be underground through their stretch in South San Francisco. The South San Francisco Station will be located between El Camino Real and Mission Road to the south of the new Hickey Boulevard Extension. The San Bruno BART Station will also be within a few hundred feet of South San Francisco, and about a mile south of Downtown. ART SYSTEM An Airport Rail Transit (ART) System, to move people and luggage between buildings, terminals, major employment locations, and parking areas within San Francisco International Airport (SFO) is being designed as part of the current SFO Expansion Plan. The ART system would loop around the main terminal and garage area and extend approximately four miles north along McDonnell Road to the future rental car facility. Phase II will extend from McDonnell Road to South Airport Boulevard (near the United Airlines maintenance facility) and terminate along the North Access Road. Construction of Phase I started in September 1997. These routes are illustrated in Figure 4-6. The potential for extending ART to Downtown South San Francisco along Airport Boulevard was examined as part of the General Plan sketch planning process. Costs are prohibitive ($60 to $85 million for capital and $10 to $15 annually for operations), and currently not justifiable based on expected ridership. FERRY SERVICE While there is no scheduled ferry service to South San Francisco, potential for a terminal at Oyster Point Marina exists. The recently released Bay Ferry Plan by the Bay Area Council identifies Oyster Point as a site for a potential ferry terminal. GUIDING POLICIES: TRANSIT For policies related to shuttle service, see Section 4.3. 4.4-G-1 Promote local and regional public transit serving South San Francisco. 156 Hillside Blv d Ch esnu t Ave Grand A v e Sp r uce Av e Sister C i t i e s Blvd B a ysh o r e Blv d OysterPoint Blvd Gateway B lv d S o u t h A i r p o r t B l v d Lin d e n A v e SanMateo Ave E l C a m i n o R e a l Orange Ave El C a mino Real Hicke y B l v d J u n i p e r o S e r r a B l v d S k yli n e B l v d G ellert B l v d C alla n B l v d Air p o r t Blv d Missi o n W e s t b o r o ugh Blvd IN T E R S TATE 280 De l M o n t e A v e Felip e A v e Alt a M esa Dr Arroy o C a rter Dr Greendale G a lway Sha n n o n Dr Donegal Appian W a y Av al o n D r A lt a Vist a D r North w o o d D r Roc k w ood D r W ild wood D r Al i d a W a y W e s t O r a n H u n t i n g t o n Victory Ave Lo wrie A ve U.S .H I G H W AY 1 01 U ta h A v e Shaw Rd Mitchell Ave E a st Grand EastGrand Ha r b o r Wa y Gran d v i e w Eccles A v e F o r b es Littlefield Hi l l s i d e B l v d Schoo l S t Ar m o u r Ave Lind e n Ave Ma p l e A ve Mag n olia Ave P ark W ay Miller A v e Baden AveCommercial AveRailroad Ave Eu c a l y p t us A ve Mill e r A v e Will o w Av e HollyEvergre e n D r Cr e s t w o od D r Mo r n ingsi d e Ave Mission Rd Clay A v e N e w m a n D r L o n g f o r d D r Arlin g t o n Dr Duval D r Serra Dr Cam a r i t a s A v e L o m a Dr C u e s t a D r Pond e r osa Rd Fairw ay A S t B S t Southw o o d H az elwo o d D r R o s e w o o d V a l v e r d e INT E R S T ATE 3 80 11/40 MILES 1/2 Source: City of South San Francisco, Fehr & Peers C olma San Bruno Pacica Daly City San francisco Internat ional Airport San Bruno Mountain County Pa rk San Francisco Bay California Golf and Country Club Sign HillPark San Bruno Canal Colma Creek Figure 4-4 Existing Transit Routes and Planned Improvements Future BART Extension CalTrain SamTrans Bus Route BART Station Future BART Station Existing CalTrain Station Potential CalTr ain Station 200 100 10 0 100 100 100 200 200 200 300 30 0 30 0 300 400 400 400 30 0400 500 600 500 400 300 200 200 300 400 20 0 200 200 4 00 200 200 200 300 400 500 50 0 60 0 60 0 500 4 0 0 40050 0 400 5 0 0 6 0 0 6 0 0 600 600 400 5 0 0 7 0 0 7 0 0 7 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 100 1 0 0 500 6 0 0 700 500 600 700 800 900 1000 500 600 700400 300 3 0 0 20 0 300 400 400 500 400 300 600 400 500 600 700 700 600 500 400 3 0 0 600 500 400 300 200 CalTrain Station Potentia CalTrain Station l 4-36 Figure 4-5 Existing Transit Routes and Planned Improvements UPDATED PLAN 157 Attachment 3 Draft Ordinance - Zoning Map and Text Amendments implementing DSASP Exhibit A Draft Chapter 20.280 Downtown Station Area Specific Plan District 158 ORDINANCE NO. ________ CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO STATE OF CALIFORNIA AN ORDINANCE ADDING CHAPTER 20.280 (“DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN DISTRICT”) TO THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE, AMENDING CHAPTERS 20.100, 20.330, 20.490 AND 20.620 OF THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE, AND AMENDING THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO ZONING MAP TO COLLECTIVELY ALLOW AND ESTABLISH REGULATIONS FOR TRANSIT ORIENTED MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT IN THE DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN DISTRICT AREA WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) started the FOCUS Program in 2007 to work with local governments to create Priority Development Areas (PDA) where locally-identified, infill development opportunities can offer services and amenities to meet the day-to day needs of residents in a pedestrian-friendly environment served by transit; and WHEREAS, on July 8, 2009, the City Council for the City of South San Francisco (“City”) supported the designation of the Downtown area as a PDA to continue building on the City’s transit-oriented planning; and WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco (“City”) identified an opportunity to analyze the potential for new commercial development and residential housing in the Downtown area (“Downtown”) in support of transit ridership; and WHEREAS the City was awarded a grant by MTC and ABAG in February of 2012 in support of this goal; and WHEREAS, future development adjacent to multiple transportation options is consistent with the policies of the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill 32), and the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (State Bill 375) to coordinate development with transportation investments to reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions; and WHEREAS, analysis of future change and improvements to the Downtown and adjoining areas could provide a framework for accommodating projected population growth and housing demand for the City; and WHEREAS, in an effort to collaboratively craft a blueprint for Downtown development, the City initiated a community input process that included public meetings and analysis with residents, business owners, commercial developers, interest groups and advocates; and 159 WHEREAS, the draft Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (“Plan”) builds on other recent planning efforts, including the Climate Action Plan, Bicycle Master Plan, and Pedestrian Master Plan; and WHEREAS, over the course of two years, there have been three formal community workshops for draft plan input and revisions, meetings with the Citizens Advisory Committee and Technical Advisory Committee for comments, and a public open house event to present the draft Plan; and WHEREAS, the City has utilized the expertise of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, Parking Place Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, Planning Commission and City Council for review and comments on the Downtown Plan; and WHEREAS, the City has prepared amendments to the City’s Zoning Map (“Rezone”) and Zoning Ordinance (“Ordinance”), including adding a new Chapter 20.280 to adopt the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan and modifying sections of the existing Ordinance, including text, tables, and figures, to remain consistent with and implement the policies of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, the City has also prepared amendments to the City’s General Plan to modify Chapter sections, including text, tables, and figures, to remain consistent with adoption of the Plan; and WHEREAS, cumulatively, the Plan, the General Plan text amendments , the Rezone, and Ordinance amendments provide a policy and zoning framework for future development in the City’s downtown area; and WHEREAS, the City prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) for the South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, the DEIR was circulated for the required 45-day public comment period on October 10, 2014 and ended on November 24, 2014 at 5:00pm; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a lawfully noticed public hearing on November 6, 2014 to solicit public comment on the DEIR; and WHEREAS, three (3) oral and six (6) written comments were received on the document and a Final Environmental Impact Report/Response to Comments (“FEIR”) was prepared; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and carefully considered the information in the DEIR and FEIR (“EIR”), and by separate resolution, recommended that the City Council certify the EIR; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and carefully considered the proposed Zoning Amendment, Rezone, and General Plan Amendment, and by separate resolution, recommended that the City Council adopt these General Plan and Zoning Amendments; and 160 WHEREAS, on January 28, 2015 the City Council for the City of South San Francisco held a lawfully noticed public hearing to solicit public comment and consider the EIR and the proposed Amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED that based on the entirety of the Record before it, as described below, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby ORDAIN as follows: SECTION I. FINDINGS. Based on the entirety of the record as described above, the City Council for the City of South San Francisco hereby makes the following findings: I. General Findings. 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Ordinance. 2. The Record for these proceedings, and upon which this Ordinance is based, includes without limitation, Federal and State law; 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 and General Plan EIR, including all amendments and updates thereto; the South San Francisco Municipal Code; the draft South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan, prepared by BMS Design Group; the draft South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan General Plan Amendments, prepared by BMS Design Group; the draft South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Zoning Map and Text Amendments, the South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR, including the Draft and Final EIR, and all appendices thereto; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the City Council and Planning Commission Joint Study Session on October 15, 2014; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission’s duly noticed November 6, 2014 meeting; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission’s duly noticed December 18, 2014 meeting; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission’s duly noticed January 8, 2015 meeting; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the City Council’s duly noticed January 28, 2015 meeting; and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e) and §21082.2) 3. Exhibit A attached to this Ordinance is incorporated by reference and made a part of this Ordinance, as if set forth fully herein. 4. By separate Resolution, the City Council, exercising its independent judgment and analysis, has found that an EIR was prepared for the Plan in accordance with CEQA, which includes the proposed Ordinance, and which EIR adequately discloses and analyzes the proposed Plan's potentially significant environmental impacts, its growth inducing impacts, and its cumulative impacts, and analyzed alternatives to the proposed 161 Plan; the City Council has further found that the benefits of approving the Plan outweigh the Plan's significant and unavoidable impacts; accordingly, the City Council certifies the EIR for the Plan and adopts a statement of overriding considerations, in accordance with CEQA. 5. 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. II. Zoning Map and Text Amendments Findings 1. As described in more detail in Exhibit A, and as illustrated on Page 7 of Exhibit A as Figure 20.280.003, adoption of the proposed Plan will include amendments to the South San Francisco Zoning Map and Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, to ensure consistency between the General Plan and the Zoning Map Zoning Ordinance, and to implement the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan. The Zoning Map will be amended to add the Downtown Transit Core Zoning District (DTC), Grand Avenue Core Zoning District (GAC), Downtown Residential Core Zoning District (DRC), Transit Office/Research and Development Core Zoning District (TO/RD), Linden Neighborhood Center Zoning District (LNC), and Linden Commercial Core Zoning District (LCC). The Zoning Ordinance will be amended to identify allowable land uses and establish standards for development of property within these new districts. 2. The proposed Rezone and Ordinance Amendments are consistent with the General Plan, as proposed for amendment, because the Rezone and Ordinance amendments will reinforce many of the General Plan policies related to land use, specifically pedestrian- friendly mixed-use, infill development, and improved linkages to a transit center. Further the Rezone and Ordinance Amendments do not conflict with any specific plans, and will remain consistent with the City’s overall vision for community development, economic vitality, and redevelopment in the downtown. None of the new or revised definitions, tables, figures and land uses will conflict with or impede achievement of any of the goals, policies, or land use designations established in the General Plan. 3. The subject property is suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed Downtown Station Area Specific Plan zoning districts in terms of access, size of parcel, relationship to similar or related uses, and other considerations deemed relevant by the Planning Commission and City Council because the introduction of the Rezone and Ordinance Amendments will allow for a more robust array of development and land uses in the downtown. Although specific parcels would be affected as part of the Rezone and Ordinance Amendments, the impact would be beneficial since property owners would have a wider set of standards to improve or develop upon their property and new zoning regulations would guide the development and performance of properties within the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan. The Rezone and Ordinance Amendments are consistent with General Plan policies, specifically those policies related to community development, economic vitality, and redevelopment in the downtown. The Rezone and Ordinance Amendments will also provide the City a mechanism to continue to meet state 162 requirements related to housing development, multi-modal transportation investment, and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. 4. The proposed Rezone and Ordinance Amendments, with adoption of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan, is not detrimental to the use of land in any adjacent zone because the Rezone and Ordinance amendments would provide for sufficient development, land use, and performance standards related to new development or alteration. More specifically, the Rezone and Ordinance Amendments include regulations to address multi-modal transportation infrastructure (sidewalks, bicycle parking), community gathering space with new plazas and public open space, and community benefits opportunities including local hire, public art, sustainable green building and others to preserve the economic vitality of surrounding residential and commercial areas not included in the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan. Finally, the proposed Rezone and Ordinance Amendments will not be detrimental to the public interest, convenience, or welfare of the City or land within the City; instead, the Rezone and Ordinance amendments will bolster the public interest by focusing new commercial and residential development in the downtown core, adjacent to transit service and on infill sites, as recommended in the General Plan’s land use element and Downtown planning sub-area. SECTION II. AMENDMENTS. The City Council hereby amends the following sections of the South San Francisco Municipal Code to read as follows (with text in strikeout indicating deletion and double underline indicating addition). Sections and subsections that are not amended by this Ordinance are not included below, and shall remain in full force and effect. A. Add a new Chapter 20.280, titled “Downtown Station Area Specific Plan District,” as set forth in Exhibit A. B. Revise Chapter 20.100 Downtown districts to read as follows: 1. Revise Section 20.100.001 Purpose to reference the Downtown Station Area Plan Specific Plan District and remove the “Downtown Core” Zoning District and references, which will be replaced by Chapter 20.280. The purposes of the Downtown districts are to: A. Promote and maintain Downtown’s historic role as the City’s center by developing a pedestrian-friendly mixed-use core surrounded by a variety of residential types and densities consistent with the policies of the General Plan and complementary to the goals and policies of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan District (Chapter 20.280); B. Improve the quality and mix of retail uses in the Downtown districts to make the area attractive to residents, businesses, and visitors; C. Expand housing choices in the Downtown districts while protecting and enhancing the character and liveability of the Downtown residential neighborhoods; 163 D. Promote infill development, intensification, and reuse of currently underused sites consistent with the General Plan; E. Establish design standards to ensure that the scale and design of new development and alterations to existing structures maintains the Downtown’s districts’ traditional development pattern; and F. Provide sites for public and semi-public land uses such as parks, libraries, and religious assembly uses that will serve City residents and will complement surrounding residential development. Additional purposes of each Downtown District: DC Downtown Core. This district is intended to maintain the pedestrian-oriented environment in the heart of South San Francisco’s Downtown with a focus on ground-level commercial uses and pedestrian-oriented development that encourages pedestrian activity. The maximum FAR for nonresidential development and mixed use development is 3.0. Residential development has a minimum density of 14.1 units per acre. The maximum residential density is limited by the FAR and development standards. This district is consistent with the General Plan’s Downtown Commercial designation. DMX Downtown Mixed-Use. This district is intended to provide for a mix of residential development, retail, and office uses as well as hotels and other commercial uses oriented toward a more regional market. The maximum base FAR is 1.5 and the maximum density is 40 units per acre. This district conforms to the Downtown Mixed Use area designated in the General Plan. DRL Downtown Residential Low. This district is for detached and attached single-unit residential development with densities from 5.1 to 15 units per acre as well as care facilities, family day care, park and recreation facilities, and civic and institutional uses such as schools and places for community assembly that may be appropriate in a residential environment. Retail and office development and hotels are not permitted consistent with the General Plan. DRM Downtown Residential Medium. This district is to provide for a full range of housing types at densities ranging from 15.1 to 25 units per acre. Consistent with the General Plan, there is a minimum residential density of 15.1 units per acre; retail and office develo pment and hotels are not permitted. DRH Downtown Residential High. This district is for multi-unit development at densities from 25.1 to 40 units per acre with a maximum of 30 units for lots smaller than a half acre. Retail and office development and hotels are not permitted. 2. Update Table 20.100.002 – Land Use Regulations, Downtown Districts, as indicated below to remove the Downtown Core (DC) Sub-district: 164 TABLE 20.100.002: LAND USE REGULATIONS—DOWNTOWN DISTRICTS Use Classification DC DMX DRL DRM DRH Additional Regulations Residential Uses Single-Unit Dwelling See sub-classifications below Single Unit Detached (1) (1) P P C Second Unit (1) (1) P P P See Section 20.350.033 Second Dwelling Units Single Unit Semi-Attached (1) (1) P P P Single-Unit Attached (1) MUP(2) P P P Multiple-Unit Residential See sub-classifications below Duplex (1) MUP(2) P P P Multi Unit C(3) P/MUP(4) P P P Senior Citizen Residential C(3) P/MUP(4) P P P Domestic Violence Shelter P(3)(5) P(5) P(5) P(5) P(5) See Section 20.350.015 Domestic Violence Shelter Family Day Care Home See sub-classifications below Large MUP(3) MUP P P P See Section 20.350.018 Family Day Care, Large Small (1) P P P P Group Residential - MUP - - C See Section 20.350.020 Group Residential Facilities Residential Care Facilities See sub-classifications below General MUP(3) C C C C See Section 20.350.020 Group Residential Facilities Limited (1) C(6) P(6) P(6) P(6) Senior C(3) MUP C C MUP See Section 20.350.020 Group Residential Facilities Single Room Occupancy (1) (1) - - (1) Public and Semi-Public Uses Colleges and Trade Schools, Public or Private C P - - C Community Assembly, 2000 Square Feet or Less - C MUP MUP MUP See Section 20.350.012 Community Assembly Facilities Community Assembly, More Than 2000 Square Feet - C C C C See Section 20.350.012 Community Assembly Facilities Community Garden MUP P P P P Cultural Institutions C C C C C 165 TABLE 20.100.002: LAND USE REGULATIONS—DOWNTOWN DISTRICTS Use Classification DC DMX DRL DRM DRH Additional Regulations Day Care Centers P P C C C See Section 20.350.014 Day Care Centers Government Offices P(3) P - - C Hospitals and Clinics See sub-classifications below Clinics MUP(7) MUP(7) - - - See Section 20.350.012 Clinics in Downtown Core Park and Recreation Facilities, Public P P P P P Social Service Facilities MUP MUP C C C See Section 20.350.034 Social Service Facilities Commercial Uses Animal Care, Sales and Services See sub-classifications below Pet Stores P P - - - See Section 20.350.005 Animal Care, Sales, and Services Veterinary Services C(3) C - - - See Section 20.350.005 Animal Care, Sales, and Services Automobile/Vehicle Sales and Services See sub-classifications below Automobile/Vehicle Rentals. - C - - - See Section 20.350.006 Automobile Rental Facilities in Hotels Automobile/Vehicle Sales and Leasing. - C - - - See Section 20.350.008 Automobile/Vehicle Sales and Leasing Service Station - C - - - See Section 20.350.007 Automobile/Vehicle Service Stations and Washing and Section 20.350.013 Convenience Market Banks and Financial Institutions See sub-classifications below Banks and Credit Unions MUP(3) MUP - - - Business Services P(3) P - - - Commercial Entertainment and Recreation See sub-classifications below Amusement Arcade - MUP - - - Indoor Entertainment C C - - - 166 TABLE 20.100.002: LAND USE REGULATIONS—DOWNTOWN DISTRICTS Use Classification DC DMX DRL DRM DRH Additional Regulations Indoor Sports and Recreation C C - - C Eating and Drinking Establishments See sub-classifications below Coffee Shops/Cafes P P - - - See Section 20.350.029Outdoor Seating Restaurants, Full Service P P - - - See Section 20.350.029Outdoor Seating Restaurants, Limited Service MUP C - - - See Section 20.350.029Outdoor Seating Food and Beverage Retail Sales P P - - - Convenience Market C C - - - See Section 20.350.013Convenience Market Funeral Parlors and Mortuaries - C - - - Live-Work Units P(8) P - - - See Section 20.350.023Live- Work Units Lodging See sub-classifications below Bed and Breakfast MUP(11) MUP MUP MUP MUP See Section 20.350.010Bed and Breakfast Lodging Hotels and Motels C(9) C - - - Maintenance and Repair Services P P - - - Offices See sub-classifications below Business and Professional MUP(3) P - - - Medical and Dental MUP(3) P - - - Walk-In Clientele MUP P - - - Personal Services See sub-classifications below General Personal Services P P - - - Section 20.350.030Personal Services Retail Sales See sub-classifications below General Sales P P - - - Second Hand Store C C - - - Employment Uses Recycling Facilities See sub-classifications below Collection Facility - P - - - See Section 20.350.032Recycling Facilities 167 TABLE 20.100.002: LAND USE REGULATIONS—DOWNTOWN DISTRICTS Use Classification DC DMX DRL DRM DRH Additional Regulations Transportation and Utilities Uses Light Fleet-Based Services - C - - - See Section 20.350.036Taxi and Limousine Services Utilities, Major C C C C C Utilities, Minor P P P P P Other Applicable Use Regulations Accessory Uses See Section 20.300.002 Accessory Buildings and Structures Home Occupations P P P P P See Section 20.350.021Home Occupations Nonconforming Use See Chapter 20.320 Nonconforming Uses, Structures, and Lots Temporary Use See Chapter 20.340 Temporary Uses Limitations: 1. Permitted if existing. New units not allowed. 2. Limited to sites with a maximum gross site area of 4,000 square feet. 3. Prohibited on the ground floor except residential uses located south of Baden Avenue, banks, and walk -in offices which are subject to approval of a Use Permit. 4. Permitted if retail, restaurants, personal services, or other active pedestrian-oriented use is located on the ground floor, otherwise Minor Use Permit is required. Minor Use Permit may only be approved if the Review Authority first finds that, based on information in the record, it is infeasible to locate retail, restaurants, personal services, or other active pedestrian-oriented use on the ground floor. 5. Limited to facilities serving a maximum of 10 victims and may not be located within 300 feet of any other domestic violenc e shelter. 6. Subject to state licensing requirements. 7. Clinic uses may not occupy the ground floor, except along Grand Avenue, west of Maple Avenue, which are subject to the approv al of a Conditional Use Permit. 8. Living space may not occupy ground floor. 9. Limited to upper stories unless at least 50 percent of ground floor street frontage is occupied by food service use. 10. Limited to Single-Family Detached units. 3. Update Table 20.100.003 – Development Standards, Downtown Districts as indicated below to remove the Downtown Core (DC) Sub-district: TABLE 20.100.003: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS—DOWNTOWN DISTRICTS Standard DC DMX DRL DRM DRH Additional Standards Lot and Density Standards Minimum Lot Size (sq ft) 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 Corner Lot 5,000 5,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 Minimum Lot Width (sq ft) 50 50 50 50 50 Corner Lot 50 50 60 60 60 168 TABLE 20.100.003: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS—DOWNTOWN DISTRICTS Standard DC DMX DRL DRM DRH Additional Standards Minimum Lot Depth (sq ft) n/a n/a 80 80 80 Minimum Density (units/net acre) 14.1 14.1 5.1 15.1 20.1 Maximum Density (units/net acre) No max, FAR applies to combined residential and non-residential 40, 21.8 on lots less than 10,000 sq ft 15 (A) 25 (A) 40, 30 on lots less than 1 acre (A) See Chapter 20.390 Bonus Residential Density Building Form and Location Maximum Height (ft) Main Building 60 50 28 (B) 35 50 (C) See Section 20.300.006Height and Height Exceptions Accessory Building 20 20 12 (D) 12 (D) 12 (D) See Section 20.300.006Height and Height Exceptions Maximum Number of Stories n/a n/a 2 3 (E) 4 Minimum Yards Front 0 0 15 15 15 See Section 20.300.011Projections into Required Yards Interior Side 0, 10 when abutting an R district (F) 0, 10 when abutting an R district 5 5 5 for the first two stories, 10 thereafter (C) See Section 20.300.011Projections into Required Yards Street Side 0 0 10 10 10 See Section 20.300.011Projections into Required Yards Rear 0, 10 when abutting an R district (F) 0, 10 when abutting an R district 20 (F) 20 (F) 10 for the first two stories, 15 thereafter (C) See Section 20.300.011Projections into Required Yards Maximum Yards Front or Street Side 0 (G) 10 (H) n/a n/a n/a Interior Side 0, 10 when abutting an R district (G) n/a n/a n/a n/a 169 TABLE 20.100.003: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS—DOWNTOWN DISTRICTS Standard DC DMX DRL DRM DRH Additional Standards Maximum Lot Coverage (% of lot) 100 50 80 90 90 See Chapter 20.040 Rules of Measurement Maximum Floor Area (FAR) 3.0 n/a .70 or to allow 2,000 sq ft, whichever is greater (I) 1.25 n/a See Chapter 20.040 Rules of Measurement Additional Standards Usable Open Space (sq ft per residential unit) 100 100 n/a n/a n/a See Supplemental Regulations20.100.004 (D)(10) Minimum Private Open Space (sq ft per residential unit) n/a n/a 100 100 80 Minimum Common Open Space (sq ft per residential unit) n/a n/a 100 100 100 Minimum Amount of Landscaping (% of site) n/a 10 n/a 10 10 See Section 20.300.007Landscaping 4. Update Section 20.100.003 – Development Standards to remove Downtown Core (DC) Sub-district references and read as follows: Additional Downtown Development Standards A. Density Bonuses. 1. 20 percent for residential developments located within a ¼ mile of a fixed -guideway transit (BART or Caltrain station or City-designated transit corridor). 2. Additional density up to a maximum of 50 units per acre for a senior citizen housing development as defined in Sections 51.3 and 51.12 of the State Civil Code. B. Increased Height. Allowable height may be increased to a maximum of 35 feet with Minor Use Permit approval only if the following findings can be made: 1. The height of the proposed structure does not exceed the average height of structures on adjoining lots; 2. The proposed structure will not substantially interfere with solar access or privacy available to residences to the side, rear, or directly across the street; 170 3. The design includes architectural details, articulation, and other features to minimize the visual impact of the additional bulk created by the increased height; and 4. The height, bulk, and mass of the proposed structure is comparable to that of the surrounding neighborhood. C. Transitional Standards. Where a DRH district is near an RL or DRL district, the following standards apply: 1. The maximum height within 40 feet of an RL or DRL district is 30 feet. The maximum height within 50 feet of an RL or DRL district is 40 feet. 2. The building setback from the RL or DRL district boundary shall be 10 feet for interior side yards and 15 feet for rear yards. 3. A landscaped planting area, a minimum of five feet in width, shall be provided along all RL or DRL district boundaries. A tree screen shall be planted in this area with trees planted at a minimum interval of 15 feet. Figure 20.100.003(C): Transitional Standards (Image to remain but removed for Ordinance formatting) D. Accessory Building Height. The average height between the floor slab plate and ridge pole is limited to 12 feet. If floor joist type of construction is used, the height limit may be increased to 15 feet. E. Limitations on Third-Story Structures. Third stories in the DRM district are subject to the following standards: 1. Any third story must be either set back a minimum of 10 feet from all interior lot lines or located inside a pitched roof with a slope of at least 1:3. 2. Dormers are permitted on third stories, provided that they do not exceed 15 feet in width and do not occupy more than 20 percent of the total roof area. F. Reduced Setbacks. 1. Existing Structures. When the existing rear yard setback is less than 20 feet, additions to such structures may conform to the existing setback, provided that the addition is located no closer than 15 feet to the rear property line. 2. Through Lots. On a through lot with the rear yard abuts a lane, required rear yard setback may be reduced to 15 feet for a residential structure oriented toward the lane. 3. Downtown Core. The required interior side and rear setbacks in the DC district may be reduced through a Use Permit if the Review Authority finds that the project has been designed and sited to be compatible with adjacent residential uses. G. DC District—Maximum Setbacks and Use of Setbacks. 1. Front and Street Side Setback. Buildings shall be constructed to the front and street side property lines. However, buildings may be constructed up to five feet from the front or street side property line if the area between building and property line is: a. Paved for public use so that it functions as part of a wider public sidewalk; and/or 171 b. Directly accessible from the public sidewalk and improved with pedestrian amenities such as benches. c. If a setback is created, the property owner shall grant a public acc ess easement for the setback area. Landscaping may be included in the setback area, but shall not exceed a depth — generally two feet—that prevents pedestrian access up to building windows or detracts from a pedestrian-oriented street frontage. 2. Interior Side Setback. Buildings shall be constructed to the side property line and no interior side setback shall be created, unless the property abuts a Residential district or unless: a. The side setback will be utilized for active outdoor uses, including but not limited to outdoor dining; b. The proposed setback does not exceed 30 percent of the length of the lot frontage; and c. Interior side walls visible from the street exhibit some articulation, maintaining a consistent look with the front of the building. H. Building Frontage. In the DMX District, buildings shall be located between zero and 10 feet from street-facing property lines for at least 70 percent of the linear street frontage. Figure 20.100.003(H) Building Frontage (Image to remain but removed for Ordinance formatting) I. Small Lots. In the DRL District, maximum floor area ratio (FAR) on lots less than 3,000 square feet in size is increased to allow a minimum of 1,800 square feet of living area and a 200 square foot garage, for a total floor area of 2,000 square feet. C. Revise Chapter 20.330 On-site Parking and Loading to read as follows: 1. Revise Section 20.330.006 On-site Parking and Loading, Parking Reductions as follows: A. Transit Station Areas. For any land use except residential single-unit and duplex development, if any portion of the lot is located within ¼ mile of a BART or Caltrain station, the number of required parking spaces may be reduced by 25 percent of the normally required number of spaces stated in Table 20.330.004 with Conditional Use Permit approval. 1. Transit Village (TV) District Exception. This parking reduction does not apply in the TV District. Parking in the TV District is subject to the requirements and reductions in Subsection 20.250.004(N) (“Required Parking”). 2. Downtown District Exception. This parking reduction does not apply in the Downtown Districts. Parking in the Downtown Districts is subject to the requirements and reductions in Section 20.330.007 (“Downtown Parking”). 2. Revise Section 20.330.007 On-site Parking and Loading, Downtown Parking, Required Parking as follows: 172 A. Required Parking. Each land use in the a Downtown District shall be provided at least the number of on-site parking spaces stated in Table 20.330.007. The parking requirement for any use not listed in Table 20.330.007 shall be the same as required for the land use in any other district as stated in Table 20.330.004. 3. Update Table 20.330.007 – Required Parking Spaces, Downtown Districts: Land Use Classification Required Parking Spaces Single-Unit, Detached or Attached Less than 900 sq ft and less than 3 bedrooms 1 space per dwelling unit, 2 spaces maximum per unit General Requirements for all Single-Unit Residential Parking: For new construction, required parking up to 2 spaces must be within a garage. For existing development, all existing garage spaces, up to a maximum of two spaces, must be maintained. A carport shall not be substituted for a required garage except for existing dwellings on lots adjacent to a lane. 900 to 2,500 sq ft or 3 or 4 bedrooms 2 spaces per dwelling unit, minimum and maximum per unit 2,501 sq ft or more than 4 bedrooms 3 spaces per dwelling unit, minimum and maximum per unit Second Unit 1 space for each. See Section 20.350.033 Second Dwelling Units Multi-Unit Residential Studio and less than 500 sq ft 1 space per unit maximum General Requirements for all Multi-Unit Residential Parking: One covered space shall be designated for each unit. One additional guest parking space must be provided for every 4 units for projects greater than 10 units. One-bedroom or 500 to 800 sq ft 1 space minimum, 1.5 spaces maximum per unit Two-bedroom or 801 to 1,100 sq ft 1.5 spaces minimum, 1.8 spaces maximum per unit Three or more bedrooms and 1,101 sq ft or larger 2 plus an additional .5 space for each additional sleeping room over 3 1.5 spaces minimum, 2 spaces maximum per unit Lodging Hotels and Motels 3 for every 5 units. Additional parking required for ancillary uses, such as restaurants, according to the parking requirements for the ancillary use. Eating and Drinking Establishments * Bars/Night Clubs/Lounges 1 per 100 sq. ft. of customer seating area. Coffee Shops/Cafes 1 per 150 sq. ft. of customer seating area. Restaurants, Full Service 1 per 100 sq. ft. of customer seating area. Restaurants, Limited Service 1 per 150 sq. ft. of customer seating area Food and Beverage Retail Sales * 1 per 400 sq. ft. of floor area 173 Land Use Classification Required Parking Spaces Offices Business and Professional 1 per 400 sq. ft. of floor area. Medical and Dental 1 per 300 sq. ft. of floor area. Walk-In Clientele 1 per 400 sq. ft. of floor area. Personal Services 1 per 400 sq. ft. of floor area. Retail Sales * 1 per 400 sq. ft. of floor area. 1 per 750 sq. ft. of floor area for appliance and furniture stores. Clean Technology 2 per 1000 sq. ft. minimum, 2.5 per 1000 sq. ft. maximum Research and Development 2 per 1000 sq. ft. minimum, 2.5 per 1000 sq. ft. maximum * No parking required for the first 1,500 sq. ft. of customer seating area, or floor area, as applicable 4. Revise Section 20.330.007 On-site Parking and Loading, Downtown Parking to add a Shared Parking subsection as follows: D. Shared Parking. Where a shared parking facility serving more than one use will be provided, the total number of required parking spaces may be reduced up to 50 percent with a Conditional Use Permit, if the Planning Commission finds that all of the following are true: 1. The peak hours of use will not overlap or coincide to the degree that peak demand for parking spaces from all uses will be greater than the total supply of spaces; 2. The adequacy of the quantity and efficiency of parking provided will equal or exceed the level that can be expected if parking for each use were provided separately; 3. If the Chief Planner requires a parking demand study, the study shall be prepared by an independent traffic engineering professional approved by the City supports the proposed reduction; and 4. In the case of a shared parking facility that serves more than one property, a parking agreement has been prepared consistent with the provisions of Off-Site Parking Facilities. D. Revise Section 20.490.004 Use Permit Required Findings as follows: 20.490.004 Required Findings The review authority must make all of the following findings in the affirmative in order to approve or conditionally approve a Use Permit application. The inability to make one or more of the findings in the affirmative is grounds to deny an application. A. The proposed use is allowed within the applicable zoning district and complies with all other applicable provisions of this Ordinance and all other titles of the South San Francisco Municipal Code; B. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan; 174 C. 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; D. The proposed use complies with any design or development standards applicable to the zoning district or the use in question as may be adopted by a resolution of the Planning Commission and/or the City Council; E. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed activity would be compatible with the existing and reasonably foreseeable future land uses in the vicinity; F. The site is physically suitable for the type, density, and intensity of use being proposed, including access, utilities, and the absence of physical constraints; and G. An environmental determination has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. H. If the proposal includes a request for increased density or FAR pursuant to the provisions of SSFMC Section 20.280.004(A), in addition to any other findings this chapter requires, the decision-making body must also make the following findings: 1. The proposal would result in a project whose proposed public benefits and requested development incentives are suitable to the site and relate appropriately to adjacent uses and structures. 2. The proposed project would be consistent with the accepted list of public benefits outlined in SSFMC Section20.280.004A1, and such benefits would not otherwise result through provisions of the City’s policies, ordinances or other requirements. 3. The proposal reflects a fair financial balance of costs and benefits to the applicant and the City. E. Revise Section 20.620.005 “Handicraft/Custom Manufacturing” definition (Employment Use Classifications) as follows: 20.620.004 Commercial Use Classifications Handicraft/Custom Manufacturing. Manufacture of a wide range of products to serve niche or specialty markets. Includes the manufacture of crafts, art, sculpture, stained glass, jewelry, apparel, and similar items using hand tools and small mechanical devices electronic components, medical instrumentation or devices, nanotechnology components and similar at a smaller scale than Industry sub-classifications. Custom manufacturing facilities may use innovative technology such as advanced robotics, artificial intelligence, 3-D printing, automation, and sustainable and green processes and typically require only a small amount of raw materials, area and power. These facilities do not generate excessive noise, particulate matter, vibration, smoke, dust, gas fumes, odors, vehicle traffic or other nuisances. SECTION III. 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 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 175 irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be held unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable. SECTION IV. 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 28th day of January, 2015. Adopted as an Ordinance of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting of the City Council held the _____ day of _____________, 2015 by the following vote: AYES:_______________________________________________________________________ NOES:_______________________________________________________________________ ABSTENTIONS:_______________________________________________________________ ABSENT:_____________________________________________________________________ Attest:__________________________________ Krista Martinelli, City Clerk As Mayor of the City of South San Francisco, I do hereby approve the foregoing Ordinance this _____ day of _____________, 2015. Mayor 176 EXHIBIT A CHAPTER 20.280 DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN DISTRICT 177 1 Chapter 20.280 DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN DISTRICT Sections: 20.280.001 Purpose 20.280.002 Sub-Districts 20.280.003 Land Use Regulations 20.280.004 Development Standards 20.280.005 Additional Development Standards 20.280.006 Supplemental Regulations – Downtown 20.280.007 Supplemental Regulations – Eastern Neighborhood 20.280.008 Design Review 20.280.001 Purpose This chapter establishes regulations for the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (DSASP) Zoning District. The Downtown Station Area Specific Plan District applies to land within the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan. This district is intended to establish the use regulations, standards and development review procedures needed to implement the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan. For purposes of design review, the Design Guidelines in the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan shall be used. 20.280.002 Sub-Districts The following sub-districts are established within the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan District. Sub-district boundaries are shown on the official Zoning Map. The sub-districts west of US 101 are referred to as the “Downtown” and the sub-districts located east of US 101 are referred to as the “Eastern Neighborhood.” The purpose of each sub-district is as follows: A. Downtown Transit Core (DTC). The Downtown Transit Core sub-district is focused within a ¼ radius of a point just east of US 101 at East Grand Avenue. This location corresponds to the planned extension of the Caltrain Station and accompanying pedestrian/bicycle rail undercrossing. It is intended to provide sites for mixed-use development at high intensities in proximity to the Caltrain Station. It encourages active ground floor uses and high intensity development that will generate pedestrian traffic in the area. The Downtown Transit Core sub-district flanks the Grand Avenue Core sub-district which will be the epicenter of Downtown commercial uses. The Downtown Transit Core District, will provide additional population and activities to support Grand Avenue uses, increase Caltrain transit ridership, and provide housing with high amenity value for new residents. B. Grand Avenue Core (GAC). The Grand Avenue Core sub-district extends along Grand Avenue from Airport Boulevard on the east to Spruce Avenue on the west. It is intended to be the “main street” of the Downtown. This sub-district will build on the history and layout of the old Downtown while providing additional capacity for residential and commercial uses. Located directly west of the relocated Caltrain Station, the rail undercrossing, and the East of 101 Office/R&D District, the Grand Avenue Core sub-district will benefit from improved accessibility to employment east of the rail line as well as increased residential populations in the Downtown. The Grand Avenue Core sub-district is intended to provide a nearly continuous retail frontage with high density residential above, although at somewhat lower densities than the adjoining Downtown Transit Core district. C. Downtown Residential Core (DRC). The Downtown Residential Core sub-district is located in the Downtown in the remainder of the Pedestrian Priority Zone not defined as Grand Avenue Core or 178 2 Downtown Transit Core. This sub- district is defined by Tamarack Lane on the north, Second Lane on the south, Spruce Avenue on the west, and Airport Boulevard on the east. This district is intended to provide for high density residential neighborhoods near the center of Downtown and within about ½ mile of the Caltrain Station. This sub-district allows, but does not require commercial uses on the ground floor. This sub-district will provide additional residential opportunities within an area that will have significant pedestrian and bicycle improvements to allow easy access to Caltrain and the employment center east of US 101. D. Transit Office / R&D Core (TO/RD). The Transit Office/R&D Core sub-district is located just east of the Caltrain tracks in an area bounded by East Grand Avenue on the north, Gateway Boulevard on the east, Poletti Way and US 101 on the west, and S. Airport Boulevard on the south. This sub-district is intended to provide a location for the highest intensity office or R&D uses. Suited to headquarters or other office type uses that do not include significant manufacturing, the sub-district offers the opportunity for locating high intensity uses in immediate proximity to the Caltrain Station. In addition, with the relocation of the Caltrain Station and construction of a pedestrian and bicycle rail undercrossing, this sub- district will provide convenient access to Grand Avenue and the surrounding areas and will support commercial revitalization. E. Linden Neighborhood Center (LNC). The Linden Neighborhood Center is located north of Grand Avenue on Linden Avenue between Ninth Lane and California Avenue. This sub-district includes some existing local-serving businesses which will form the foundation for a cluster of retail, services and amenities that can serve the surrounding residential neighborhoods. The Linden Neighborhood Center designation will encourage mixed use development, with retail uses at the ground floor and residential above. F. Linden Commercial Corridor (LCC). The Linden Commercial Corridor lies north of Grand Avenue between California Avenue and Sixth Lane, and south of Grand Avenue between Second Lane and Railroad Avenue. This sub-district will allow but will not require ground level mixed use, neighborhood-serving and retail uses within otherwise residential or commercial areas. G. Other Downtown Districts. See Downtown Districts chapter (20.100) and Employment Districts (20.110) for information on unchanged land use districts found in the Specific Plan and the larger Downtown area, including Downtown Residential High, Downtown Mixed Use, Downtown Residential Medium, Downtown Residential Low, Business Commercial, and Mixed Industrial. 20.280.003 Land Use Regulations Table 20.280.003 below prescribes the land use regulations for “Downtown Station Area Specific Plan” sub-districts. The regulations for each sub-district are established by letter designations as follows: “P” designates permitted uses. “MUP” designates use classifications that are permitted after review and approval of a Minor Use Permit by the Chief Planner. “C” designates use classifications that are permitted after review and approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission. “(#)” numbers in parentheses refer to specific limitations listed at the end of the table. “-” designates uses that are not permitted. Use classifications are defined in Chapter 20.620 (“Use Classifications”). In cases where a specific land use or activity is not defined, the Chief Planner shall assign the land use or activity to a classification that is substantially similar in character. Use classifications and subclassifications not listed in the table or not found to be substantially similar to the uses below are prohibited. The table also notes additional 179 3 use regulations that apply to various uses. Section numbers in the right hand column refer to other sections of this title. 180 4 Table 20.280.003 Land Use Regulations Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Sub-Districts Uses Permitted DTC GAC DRC TO/RD LCC LNC Additional Regulations Residential Use Classifications Single-Unit Dwelling See sub-classifications below Single Unit Detached (1) (1) (1) - (1) (1) Second Unit (1) (1) (1) - (1) (1) See Section 20.350 Second Dwelling Units Single Unit Semi-Attached (1) (1) (1) - (1) (1) Single-Unit Attached (1) (1) (1) - (1) (1) Multiple-Unit Residential See sub-classifications below Duplex (1) - (1) - (1) (1) Multi-Unit P P (3) P (3) - P (3) P (3) Senior Citizen Residential P - P - P (3) P (3) Domestic Violence Shelter - - P (2) - - - See Section 20.350 Domestic Violence Shelter Family Day Care Home See sub-classifications below Large - - P - - - See Section 20.350 Family Day Care, Large Small P - P - P P Group Residential - - C - - - See Section 20.350 Group Residential Facilities Residential Care Facilities See sub-classifications below General C (4) - C (4) - - - See Section 20.350 Group Residential Facilities Limited C (4) (1) C (4) - (1) (1) Senior MUP (4) (1) MUP (4)- C (3) C (3) See Section 20.350 Group Residential Facilities Single Room Occupancy (1) (1) (1) - (1) (1) Public and Semi-Public Use Classifications Colleges and Trade Schools, Public or Private C C C C C (3) C (3) Community Assembly, 2000 Square Feet or Less - - C - C (3) C (3) See Section 20.350 Community Assembly Facilities Community Assembly, More Than 2000 Square Feet - - - - C (3) C (3) See Section 20.350 Community Assembly Facilities Community Garden - - P - P P Cultural Institutions C C C C C C Day Care Centers P - P C - - See Section 20.350 Day Care Centers Government Offices P P P P P P 181 5 Uses Permitted DTC GAC DRC TO/RD LCC LNC Additional Regulations Public and Semi-Public Use Classifications (cont’d) Hospitals and Clinics See sub-classifications below Clinics - MUP (7)- - MUP MUP See Section 20.350 Clinics in Downtown Core Park and Recreation Facilities, Public P P P P P P Public Safety Facilities P P P P P P Social Service Facilities P (6) - - - P (6) P (6) See Section 20.350 Social Service Facilities Commercial Use Classifications Animal Care, Sales and Services See sub-classifications below Pet Stores P P P - P P See Section 20.350 Animal Care, Sales, and Services Veterinary Services C - C - C C See Section 20.350 Animal Care, Sales, and Services Artists Studios P P C - P P Banks and Financial Institutions See sub-classifications below Banks and Credit Unions P MUP - P MUP MUP Business Services P P (3) - P P P Commercial Entertainment and Recreation See sub-classifications below Indoor Entertainment MUP C - - C C Indoor Sports and Recreation MUP C (4) - C C C Eating and Drinking Establishments See sub-classifications below Coffee Shops/Cafés P P P P P P See Section 20.350 Outdoor Seating Restaurants, Full Service P P C P P P See Section 20.350 Outdoor Seating Restaurants, Limited Service P P P P P P Subject to approved Trash Management Plan Convenience Market P P P P P P See Section 20.350 Convenience Market Grocery Store P P C - P P Supermarket P - - - C C Funeral Parlors and Mortuaries - - - - - - Lodging See sub-classifications below Bed and Breakfast - MUP (5)C - MUP MUP See Section 20.350 Bed and Breakfast Lodging Hotels and Motels C C (5) - C - - Maintenance and Repair Services P - - - P P 182 6 Uses Permitted DTC GAC DRC TO/RD LCC LNC Additional Regulations Commercial Use Classifications (cont’d) Offices See sub-classifications below Business and Professional P P (3) MUP P P (3) P (3) Medical and Dental P P (3) MUP P P (3) P (3) Walk-In Clientele P P (3) MUP P P P Parking, Public or Private P - P P P P Personal Services See sub-classifications below General Personal Services P P P P P P Section 20.350 Personal Services Retail Sales See sub-classifications below General Sales P P P P P P Secondhand Store C C P - P P Employment Use Classifications Clean Technologies MUP - - P - - Handicraft/Custom Manufacturing MUP - - P - - Research and Development MUP - - P - - Transportation, Communication, and Utilities Use Classifications Utilities, Major - - - C - - Utilities, Minor P P P P P P Other Applicable Use Regulations Accessory Uses [See Section 20.300.002 Accessory Buildings and Structures] Home Occupations P P P - P P See Section 20.350 Home Occupations Nonconforming Use See Chapter 20.320 Nonconforming Uses, Structures and Lots Temporary Use See Chapter 20.340 Temporary Uses Limitations: 1. Permitted if existing. New units not allowed. 2. Limited to facilities serving a maximum of 10 victims and may not be located within 300 feet of any other domestic violence shelter. 3. Prohibited on the ground floor except residential uses located south of Baden Avenue, banks and walk-in offices which are subject to approval of a Use Permit. 4. Subject to licensing requirements. 5. Limited to upper stories unless at least 50 percent of the ground floor street frontage is occupied by food service uses. 6. Must be located at least 1,000 feet from any other social service facility. 7. Clinic uses may not occupy the ground floor along Grand Avenue, except on properties located west of Maple Avenue, which are subject to the approval of a conditional use permit. 183 7 Figure 20.280.003 Land Use Designations for Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Sub-Districts 20.280.004 Development Standards Tables 20.280.004-1 through 3 prescribe the development standards for the Downtown Station Area sub-districts. Additional regulations are denoted in the right-hand column. Section numbers in this column refer to other sections of this title, while individual letters refer to subsections that follow the tables, under Section 20.280.005 “Additional Development Standards.” 184 8 Table 20.280.004-1 Lot, Density, and FAR Standards - Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Sub-districts Standard DTC GAC DRC TORD LCC LNC Additional Standards Minimum Lot Size (sq ft) 5,000 5,000 5,000 10,000 5,000 5,000 ` Minimum Lot Width (sq ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 Minimum Lot Depth (sq ft) n/a n/a 80 n/a 80 n/a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Minimum FAR 2.0 1.5 n/a 1.5 n/a 2.0 Maximum FAR 6.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 n/a 3.0 Exclusive of structured parking Maximum FAR with Incentive Program 8.0 4.0 3.25 (1) 3.5 n/a n/a Exclusive of structured parking Residential Density (units per acre; included within FAR above) Minimum Density 80 14 40 n/a 20.1 40 Maximum Density 100 60 80 n/a 40 60 Maximum Density with Incentive Program. Does not include density bonuses allowed per Chapter 20.390 Bonus Residential Density 120 (A) 80 (A) / 100 (2)(A) 100 (A) / 125 (1)(A) n/a n/a 80 (A) Limitations: 1. For qualifying affordable Senior Housing projects 2. For developments on corner parcels or lots greater than one (1) acre 185 9 Table 20.280.004-2 Building Form and Location Standards – Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Sub-districts Standard DTC GAC DRC TORD LCC LNC Additional Standards Height (ft) Maximum Building Height 85 45-65 (1)(2) 65 FAA allowed 50 50 See Section 20.300 Height and Height Exceptions Minimum Ground Floor Height for non-residential uses 15; 12 min clearance 15; 12 min clearance 15; 12 min clearance 15;12 min clearance 15; 12 min clearance See above and Section 20.280.005(B)(1) Maximum Finished Floor Height (residential) 5 n/a 5 n/a 5 See above Yards (ft) Grand Avenue (east and west) Frontage n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a Pedestrian Priority Zone Street Frontage At property line or 10 feet from curb (whichever is greater) n/a At property line or 10 feet from curb (whichever is greater) n/a n/a Eastern Neighborhood Streets except Grand Avenue Frontage n/a n/a n/a 20 n/a Interior Side 0; 10 when abutting residential district 0 0; 10 when abutting residential district n/a n/a Rear 0, 10 when abutting an R district (F) 0 20 (F) 10 for the first two stories, 15 thereafter (C) Maximum Lot Coverage (% of lot) 100 100 90 85 75 90 See Chap. 20.040 Rules of Measurement 186 10 Limitations: 1. Height break would occur a minimum of 30 feet from the front of the building 2. Corner properties may be exempt from this requirement, subject to evaluation by the decision-making authority in the review process and consistent with the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan design guidelines Figure 20.280.004-2 Building Height Table 20.280.004-3 Open Space and Landscaping Standards - Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Sub-districts Standard DTC GAC DRC TORD LCC LNC Additional Standards Minimum Usable Open Space (sq ft per res. unit) 100 100 100 Refer to Section 20.280.00 7(K) 150 See Supplemental Regulations 20.100.004(D)(10) Minimum Amount of Landscaping (% of site) n/a n/a n/a 15 10 See Section 20.300.007 Landscaping 20.280.005 Additional Development Standards A. Increased Density and FAR Incentive Program. An increase to the Maximum FAR or Maximum Density as referenced in Table 20.280.004-1 may be permitted for buildings with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit through the satisfaction of a combination of the following public benefits. 187 11 1. To be eligible for an increase to the Maximum FAR or Density incentives under this subsection, the public benefits that are included as part of a development project must demonstrate a positive contribution that is above and beyond the minimum required impact fees and other requirements of the particular project. The following preferences for public benefits to the Downtown community and the City may be considered as eligible to allow increased density and FAR standards for a project pursuant to this subsection: a. Local Hire Program; b. Public Art; c. Funding or construction of local streetscape enhancements as identified in the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan; d. Funding for enhanced public spaces; e. Funding for public safety facilities, community meeting rooms, child care or similar; f. Tenant space for local businesses or existing businesses in need of relocation; g. Provision of green building measures over and above the applicable green building compliance threshold required pursuant to Title 15 (“Building and Construction”) of the South San Francisco Municipal Code; h. Transit subsidy or other incentives for residents and/or employees; and i. Other developer proposed incentives achieving a similar public benefit. 2. For projects seeking either an increase to the Maximum FAR or Maximum Density pursuant to this subsection, the following shall apply: a. Applicant shall submit financial evaluation and analysis, information, and evidence to allow for a reasonable assessment of the value of the benefits offered relative to the incentives being sought, including the proposed public benefits as outlined above. b. Applicant shall provide an assessment of the economic and/or intrinsic value of the proposed public benefit as compared with the economic value of the proposed development incentives requested by the applicant. The City may request an independent third party review, by a qualified appraisal expert, hired by the City at the applicant’s expense, to validate the valuation submitted by the applicant. This requirement is not intended to imply a need for the applicant to provide or disclose a complete project pro forma. Only the marginal costs of the proposed public benefit and incentive are required to be disclosed in the analysis. c. Applicant shall provide an explanation as to the way in which the proposed amenities will further the City’s goals and objectives as outlined in the SSF Downtown Station Specific Plan, and conformance of the proposed project with the General Plan, Specific Plan provisions and Zoning Ordinance, and that a reasonable nexus exists between the public benefit provided and the incentive granted. B. Heights and Building Setbacks. 1. Ground Floor Height. The minimum ground floor height for buildings with nonresidential uses at the ground level is 15 feet, with a minimum 12-foot clearance from floor to ceiling. For residential buildings, a ground floor garage may be exempt from this requirement, subject to evaluation by the decision-making authority in the review process. 2. Finished Floor Height for Residential Uses. The maximum finished floor height for ground floor residential uses is five feet above grade. 188 12 C. Build-to Line. Buildings shall be constructed at the required setback for at least 65 percent of linear street frontage. Build-to-Line criteria for locations within the sub-districts include: 1. Along the east and west extents of the GAC sub-district, no setback is allowed; 2. Within the Pedestrian Priority Zone, in the LNC sub-district, and in the LCC sub-district, buildings should be built to the property line or 15 feet from the curb, whichever is greater. 3. In the TO/RD sub-district on Sylvester Road and other new roads that may be constructed, setbacks up to 20 feet are allowed. These should be used to accommodate a primary building entry plaza, seating or signage, as well as generous site landscaping. 4. Standards pertaining to other DRC and DTC sub-districts apply as appropriate. Figure 20.280.004(C) Build-to Line D. Corner Build Area. Buildings must be located in accordance with the required setbacks within 30 feet of every corner. Public plazas may be at the street corner provided buildings are built to the edge of the public plaza. Figure 20.280.004(D) Corner Build Area 189 13 E. Residential Usable Open Space. A minimum of 100 square feet of usable open space is required per residential unit and may be provided as common or private open space, or a combination. Private areas typically consist of balconies, decks, patios, fenced yards, and other similar areas outside the residence. Common areas typically consist of landscaped areas, patios, swimming pools, barbeque areas, playgrounds, turf, or other such improvements as are appropriate to enhance the outdoor environment of the development; these can be in the form of courtyards at the ground level or terraces over parking podiums or on rooftops. 1. Minimum Dimensions. a. Private Open Space. Private open space located on the ground level (e.g., yards, decks, patios) shall have no dimension less than 10 feet. Private open space located above ground level (e.g., balconies) shall have no dimension less than six feet. b. Common Open Space. Minimum dimension of 20 feet. 2. Usability. A surface shall be provided that allows convenient use for outdoor living and/or recreation. Such surface may be any practicable combination of lawn, garden, flagstone, wood planking, concrete, or other serviceable, dust-free surfacing. Slope shall not exceed 10 percent. a. Accessibility. i. Private Open Space. The space shall be accessible to only one living unit by a doorway to a habitable room or hallway. ii. Common Open Space. The space shall be accessible to the living units on the lot. It shall be served by any stairway or other access way qualifying as an egress facility from a habitable room. F. Private Storage Space. Each residential unit shall have at least 200 cubic feet of enclosed, weather-proofed, and lockable private storage space with a minimum horizontal dimension of four feet. G. Required Parking. Parking shall be required in accordance with Chapter 20.330 for Downtown Districts. H. Limitations on Curb Cuts. Curb cuts shall be minimized and located where least likely to impede pedestrian circulation. Curb cuts shall be located at least 10 feet from any intersection curb return or pedestrian crosswalk. I. Truck Docks, Loading, and Service Areas. Truck docks, loading areas, and service areas must be located at the rear or interior side of buildings and be screened so as not to be visible from public streets. Refer to Section 20.330.009 for specific requirements. J. Required Bicycle Parking. Bicycle parking will be provided on-site where public bicycle parking on sidewalks or in plaza and park spaces is not available. A reduction in short-term bicycle 190 14 parking for commercial businesses will be considered based on contribution into a consolidated public bicycle parking amenity. Refer to Section 20.330.008 for specific requirements. 4 20.280.006 Supplemental Regulations - Downtown A. Required Active Frontage. 1. Grand Avenue. A minimum of 75 percent of the frontage of a site along Grand Avenue in the Downtown shall be devoted to active uses; in the Eastern Neighborhood a minimum of 35 percent of the frontage of a site along E. Grand Avenue shall be devoted to active uses. 2. Pedestrian Priority Zone. Properties within the Pedestrian Priority Zone, as shown in Figure 20.280.006(A), are encouraged to consider retail sales and/or eating and drinking establishment uses along the frontage of the site. Eastern Neighborhood streets besides Grand Avenue, such as Sylvester Road, are exempted from this requirement. 3. Linden Avenue in the Linden Neighborhood Center. A minimum of 65 percent of the frontage of a site along Linden Avenue in this area shall be devoted to active uses. 4. Exceptions. The Chief Planner may approve a reduction in these standards (not to exceed 25 percent of the standard) to allow for fire access, driveways, and for efficient site layout and site configuration. Exceptions beyond that are subject to Planning Commission approval. Figure 20.280.006(A) Pedestrian Priority Zone B. Building Transparency and Required Openings. Exterior walls facing and within 20 feet of a front or street side property line shall include windows, doors, or other openings for at least 60 percent of the building wall area located between 2.5 and 7 feet above the level of the sidewalk. No wall may run in a continuous plane for more than 20 feet without an opening. Openings fulfilling this requirement shall 191 have transparent glazing and provide views into work areas, sales areas, lobbies, or similar active spaces, or into window displays that are at least 18 inches deep. They shall not provide views into parking or vehicle circulation areas. 1. Exceptions. The building transparency requirement for a project may be reduced by the Chief Planner to address operational characteristics with which providing the required windows and openings is incompatible, such as in the case of a cinema or theater. Walls of street-facing buildings will exhibit architectural relief and detail, and/or will be screened with attractive landscaping, in such a way as to create visual interest at the pedestrian level. Figure 20.280.006(B) Building Transparency and Required Openings C. Architectural Articulation. Buildings shall include sufficient architectural design features to create visual interest and avoid a large-scale, bulky or “box-like” appearance. Different ways that this requirement may be met include but are not limited to those listed below; compliance with this requirement shall be evaluated by the decision-making authority in the review process. 1. Variety in Wall Plane. Exterior building walls vary in depth and/or direction. Building walls exhibit offsets, recesses, or projections with significant depth, or a repeated pattern of offsets, recesses, or projections of smaller depth. 2. Variety in Height or Roof Forms. Building height is varied so that a significant portion of the building has a noticeable change in height; or roof forms are varied over different portions of the building through changes in pitch, plane, and orientation. 3. Façade Design Incorporates Architectural Detail. The building façades incorporate details such as window trim, window recesses, cornices, belt courses, changes in material, or other design elements in an integrated composition. The use of materials, textures, and colors enhance architectural interest and emphasize details and changes in plane. Some of the architectural features of the front façade are incorporated into the rear and side elevations. 4. Balconies, Bay Windows, and other such Projections or Recesses. The building incorporates balconies, bay windows, entry porches or other projections and recesses in a pattern that creates architectural interest across the length of the façade. This method for achieving architectural articulation is most typically found on buildings that include residential uses. 192 16 Figure 20.280.006(C) Architectural Articulation 193 17 D. Blank Walls. Walls facing streets shall not run in a continuous plane for more than 20 feet without an opening. Openings fulfilling this requirement shall have transparent glazing and provide views into work areas, display areas, sales areas, lobbies, or similar active spaces, or into window displays that are at least 18 inches deep. 1. Exceptions. a. The maximum length of a blank wall may be 40 feet if it includes artwork approved by the City through the design review process as required by Chapter 20.480. b. The maximum length of a blank wall may be 30 feet for retail establishments with a gross floor area of 25,000 square feet or greater. c. The blank wall restrictions for a project may be reduced by the Chief Planner to address operational characteristics with which providing the required windows and openings is incompatible, such as in the case of a cinema or theater. Walls of street-facing buildings will exhibit architectural relief and detail, and/or will be screened with attractive landscaping, in such a way as to create visual interest at the pedestrian level. Figure 20.280.006(D) Blank Walls E. Exterior Building Materials and Colors. Refer to the guidelines in Chapter 5 of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan and consider the following: 1. A unified palette of materials shall be used on all sides of buildings and structured parking. 2. Use high quality, durable materials and finishes that provide a sense of permanence. 3. Give preference to sustainable materials, building systems and technologies. 4. Exterior materials may include stone, porcelain tile, brick, wood, stucco and other materials suited to commercial, mixed use, and residential construction. 5. In all cases, materials located at or near ground level should be high-quality, sturdy and visually interesting . 6. Materials must be approved by the City as part of the project review process. F. Building Orientation and Entrances. 1. Buildings shall be oriented to face public streets. Residential development adjacent to public spaces or connections shall be oriented facing onto the public space. 2. Building entrances shall be emphasized with small entry plazas, vertical massing, and architectural elements such as awnings, arcades, or porticos. 194 18 3. Entrances located at corners shall generally be located at a 45 degree angle to the corner and shall have a distinct architectural treatment to create interest at the intersection and facilitate pedestrian flow around the corner. Different treatments may include angled or rounded corners, arches, and other architectural elements. All building and dwelling units located in the interior of a site shall have entrances from the sidewalk that are designed as an extension of the public sidewalk and connect to a public sidewalk. 4. In residential mixed-use developments, entrances to residential units shall be physically separated from the entrances to the commercial uses and clearly marked with a physical feature such as a recess or projection incorporated into the building or appropriately scaled element applied to the façade. 5. All ground floor residential units shall have the primary entrance, either individual or shared, facing the public street or a pedestrian connection and shall incorporate a projection (e.g., porch or stoop) or recess at least 40 square feet in area, with a minimum depth of 5 feet. Alternative entry designs that cface the street, such as a trellis or a landscaped courtyard entry, may be approved by the Chief Planner or Design Review Board. G. Unbundling Parking from Residential Uses. For residential condominium or other multi-family ownership projects, parking in excess of one space per unit may be sold or rented separate from the residential unit. For apartment developments, 50 percent of the required parking may be unbundled. All spaces shall be reserved for residential tenants within the development. H. Limitations on Location of Parking. 1. General a. Share access drives and cross access easements to parking facilities wherever feasible in order to minimize curb cuts and potential conflicts with pedestrians b. Minimize the number of vehicular access points from the following streets to reduce the total number of curb cuts: i. Miller Avenue ii. Baden Avenue iii. Linden Avenue c. No curb cuts shall be allowed along Grand Avenue unless no other access is feasible: 2. Surface Parking Lots a. Locate surface parking lots away from street edges or behind buildings and provide decorative, landscaped, or other screening. b. Landscape a minimum 5 feet perimeter setback area around parking lots. 3. Private or Shared Garages a. Organize at-grade garages for lower density residential development (i.e., rowhouses, townhouses) in well-landscaped parking lanes and parking courts leading to individual garages. 4. Parking Structures a. Parking structures should be located away from primary pedestrian walkways, unless otherwise approved by the Chief Planner.. b. Pedestrian entries and stairwells for parking structures should be located adjacent to public streets and along major pedestrian connections. c. Pedestrian entries should be located to minimize conflicts between pedestrians, bicycles and vehicles. I. Maximum Block Length. Existing block configurations shall remain intact. Blocks shall not be consolidated. Wherever possible, mid-block pedestrian connections and alleys are encouraged especially where blocks exceed 300 feet in length. 195 19 20.280.007 Supplemental Regulations – Eastern Neighborhood A. Building Bulk. Buildings in the Eastern Neighborhood must be designed to avoid a large-scale, bulky or monolithic appearance. This may be accomplished through building set-backs at upper levels, through changes in materials or color, or other means (See subsection D. below). B. Required Active Frontage. 1. E. Grand Avenue. In the Eastern Neighborhood a minimum of 35 percent of the frontage of a site along Grand Avenue shall be devoted to active uses. 2. Exceptions. The Chief Planner may approve a reduction in these standards (not to exceed 25 percent of the standard) to allow for fire access, driveways, and for efficient site layout and site configuration. Exceptions beyond that are subject to Planning Commission approval. C. Building Transparency and Required Openings. Exterior walls along Grand Avenue in the Eastern Neighborhood shall include windows, doors, or other openings for at least 60 percent of the building wall area located between 2.5 and 7 feet above the level of the sidewalk. No wall may run in a continuous plane for more than 20 feet without an opening. Openings fulfilling this requirement shall have transparent glazing and provide views into work areas, sales areas, lobbies, or similar active spaces, or into window displays that are at least 18 inches deep. They shall not provide views into parking or vehicle circulation areas. 1. Exceptions. The building transparency requirement for a project may be reduced by the Chief Planner to address operational characteristics with which providing the required windows and openings is incompatible. Walls of street-facing buildings will exhibit architectural relief and detail, and/or will be screened with attractive landscaping, in such a way as to create visual interest at the pedestrian level. D. Architectural Articulation. Buildings shall include sufficient architectural design features to create visual interest and avoid a large-scale, bulky or “box-like” appearance. Different ways that this requirement may be met include, but are not limited to those listed below; compliance with this requirement shall be evaluated by the decision-making authority in the review process. Refer to the guidelines in Chapter 5 of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan and consider the following: 1. Variety in Wall Plane. Exterior building walls vary in depth and/or direction. Exterior walls exhibit offsets, recesses, or projections with significant depth, or a repeated pattern of offsets, recesses, or projections of smaller depth. 2. Variety in Height or Roof Forms. Building height is varied so that a significant portion of the building has a noticeable change in height; or roof forms are varied over different portions of the building through changes in pitch, plane, and orientation. 3. Façade Design Incorporates Architectural Detail. The building façades incorporate details such as window trim, window recesses, cornices, belt courses, changes in material, or other design elements in an integrated composition. The use of materials, textures, and colors enhance architectural interest and emphasize details and changes in plane. Some of the architectural features of the front façade are incorporated into the rear and side elevations. E. Blank Walls. Walls facing Grand Avenue in the Eastern Neighborhood shall not run in a continuous plane for more than 20 feet without an opening. Openings fulfilling this requirement shall have transparent glazing and provide views into work areas, display areas, sales areas, lobbies, or similar active spaces, or into window displays that are at least 18 inches deep. On streets other than E. Grand Avenue, ground level facades should generally be glazed with the ability to see into lobbies, offices, cafeterias, or other active uses. 1. Exceptions. 196 20 a. The maximum length of a blank wall may be 40 feet if it includes artwork approved by the City through the design review process. as required by Chapter 20.480 b. The maximum length of a blank wall may be 30 feet for retail establishments with a gross floor area of 25,000 square feet or greater. c. The blank wall restrictions for a project may be reduced by the Chief Planner to address operational characteristics with which providing the required windows and openings is incompatible, such as in the case of a cinema or theater. Walls of street-facing buildings will exhibit architectural relief and detail, and/or will be screened with attractive landscaping, in such a way as to create visual interest at the pedestrian level. F. Exterior Building Materials and Colors. Refer to the guidelines in Chapter 5 of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan and consider the following: 1. A unified palette of materials shall be used on all sides of buildings and structured parking. 2. Use high quality, durable materials and finishes that provide a sense of permanence. 3. Give preference to sustainable materials, building systems and technologies. 4. Exterior materials in the Eastern Neighborhood may include those suited to mid- and high-rise construction, including metal panels, glass curtain walls, and stone or similar wall systems. 5. In all cases, materials located at or near ground level should be high-quality, sturdy and visually interesting. 6. Materials must be approved by the City as part of the project review process. G. Building Orientation and Entrances. 1. Buildings should generally be oriented such that the primary building entry faces the public street. Secondary entries, such as those from a parking structure or from a pedestrian/service alley, may be on an alley or at the rear of the building. 2. Building entrances shall be emphasized with entry plazas, special landscaping, vertical massing, and architectural elements such as canopies, arcades, or porticos. 3. Entrances should generally not be located at corners but rather in a middle portion of the building. H. Limitations on Location of Parking. 1. Parking in the Eastern Neighborhood is encouraged to be provided with parking structures, limiting onsite parking lots. 2. Parking structure access stairs must directly access a sidewalk or pedestrian alley and must be well-lit and secure. 3. Parking access shall be provided from a side street or alley wherever possible. Curb cuts shall be minimized and located in areas least likely to impede pedestrian circulation. 4. Surface parking shall be located behind buildings or at the side, but not in front of a building along the street. Where lots are located at the side of a building, screening through fencing, hedges or other plantings will be employed to screen cars from view. 5. Surface parking may not be located within 40 feet of a street facing property line 6. Surface parking lots and individual spaces must be separated from on-site buildings by a minimum distance of six feet, which may be occupied by landscaping or required walkways. I. Maximum Block Length. . 1. 300 feet is the preferred block length. Maximum block length is 600 feet. . 2. Where blocks exceed 300 feet in length, mid-block alleys or pedestrian lanes must be provided to allow more convenient movement by pedestrians and bicyclists. J. Pedestrian Access. On-site pedestrian circulation and access must be provided according to the following standards. 197 21 1. Internal Connections. A system of pedestrian walkways shall connect all buildings on a site to each other, to on-site automobile and bicycle parking areas, and to any on-site open space areas or pedestrian amenities. 2. To Street and Open Space Network. Regular connections between on-site walkways and the public sidewalk, public open space, and other pedestrian areas shall be provided. 3. To Transit. Safe and convenient pedestrian connections shall be provided from transit stops to building entrances. Sidewalk “bulb-outs” or bus “pullouts” may be required at potential bus stops. 4. Interior Pedestrian Walkway Design. a. Walkways shall be a minimum of five feet wide, shall be hard-surfaced, and paved with permeable materials. b. Where a required walkway crosses driveways, parking areas, or loading areas, such crossing must be clearly identifiable through the use of a raised crosswalk, a different paving material, or similar method. c. Where a required walkway is parallel and adjacent to an auto travel lane, it must be raised or separated from the auto travel lane by a raised curb at least four inches high, bollards, or other physical barrier. K. Public Open Space. For new development in the Eastern Neighborhood on lots larger than 15,000 square feet, a minimum of 5 percent of the lot shall be set aside for open space. Such open space shall be usable by the public and employees of the development. Such open space shall be located on the primary street frontage of the lot and shall be in addition to any courtyard or other building-related open spaces. These public open spaces may take the form of entry plazas or seating areas, such as near transit stops, as a way of creating activity along the street, encouraging pedestrian use, and providing amenities for the district. No dimension of the open space shall be less than 20 feet. 20.280.008 Design Review All development shall be subject to design review, pursuant to Chapter 20.480 (“Design Review”). Design guidelines for the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan District, adopted as part of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan, shall be used. 2368634.1 198 Attachment 4 Planning Commission CEQA Resolution 2756-2015 199 RESOLUTION NO. 2756-2015 PLANNING COMMISSION, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT FINDINGS AND CERTIFY THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, INCLUDING ADOPTION OF THE STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco (“City”) Planning Division staff and the City’s consultant, BMS Design Group, have prepared the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (collectively, “Area Plan” or “Plan”), to guide the City in its planning efforts to create a vibrant, transit-supportive, diverse Downtown and incorporating approximately thirty-five blocks within a half mile radius of the City’s Caltrain commuter rail station, with a focus on creating pedestrian-oriented, high density mixed-use development, with a range of commercial, residential, and civic uses, including parks, plazas, and gathering spaces for the community, which Area Plan includes specific proposed amendments to the South San Francisco General Plan, amendments to the South San Francisco Zoning Map and Text amendments to the South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the City determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was required to evaluate the impacts of the proposed Plan; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Preparation was originally issued on October 1, 2013 and a draft environmental impact report was prepared and circulated for public review from October 10, 2014 to November 24, 2014; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission participated in a joint study session with the City Council on the Plan at a meeting on October 15, 2014, and held a duly noticed meeting during the review period on November 6, 2014 to take public comment on the DEIR; and WHEREAS, the City prepared written responses to comments received on the DEIR and prepared a FEIR for circulation, which consists of the DEIR (incorporated by reference), all comments received on the DEIR, written responses to comments received on the DEIR, and revisions to the DEIR; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and carefully considered the information in the Draft EIR and the Final EIR (collectively, “EIR”) at a duly noticed public hearing held on January 8, 2015, made the findings attached to this Resolution, and recommends certification of the EIR, as an objective and accurate document that reflects the independent judgment of the City in the identification, discussion and mitigation of the Plan’s environmental impacts; and WHEREAS, where feasible, mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Project to reduce identified impacts to a level of less than significant; and 200 WHEREAS, no feasible mitigation exists for certain significant and unavoidable air quality, cultural resources, noise and traffic/transportation impacts that would reduce the impacts to a less-than-significant level; and WHEREAS, the Plan cannot be approved unless a Statement of Overriding Considerations is adopted which evaluates the benefits of the proposed Plan against its unavoidable impacts, and an earlier Statement of Overriding Considerations was made by the City and also applies to the Plan as follows: 1. The City of South San Francisco approved an update to its General Plan and Environmental Impact Report in October 1999. The City Council made a statement of overriding considerations in its approval of the General Plan update, because the measures identified to mitigate for traffic congestion along US 101 and regional air pollution would not be sufficient to reduce the impacts to less than significant levels; 2. The Plan, due to increased population and employment growth, could affect air quality, cultural resources, noise, and cause an increase in traffic that would cause intersection LOS standard established by the South San Francisco General Plan to be exceeded. The impacts would be significant and unavoidable on segments of northbound and southbound US-101, and six intersections (#6: E. Grand Avenue/Gateway Boulevard, #10: Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard, #12: Baden Avenue/Linden Avenue, #14: San Mateo Avenue/Produce Avenue/South Airport Boulevard, #15: South Airport Boulevard/Mitchell Avenue/Gateway Boulevard, #16: US 101 Northbound/South Airport Boulevard Off Ramp/South Airport Boulevard); 3. Therefore, the Statement of Overriding Considerations that was made for approval of the General Plan would also apply to decision-making on the Plan by the City; and 4. Additionally, the Plan offers specific benefits as stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Plan (attached as Exhibit B and incorporated herein). 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 and General Plan EIR, including all amendments and updates thereto; the South San Francisco Municipal Code; the draft South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan, prepared by BMS Design Group; the draft South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan General Plan Amendments, prepared by BMS Design Group; the draft South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Zoning Map and Zoning Ordinance Amendments, the South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR, including the Draft and Final EIR, and all appendices thereto; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the City Council and Planning Commission Joint Study Session on October 15, 2014; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission’s duly noticed November 6, 2014 meeting; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission’s duly noticed December 18, 2014 meeting; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission’s duly noticed January 8, 2015 meeting 201 and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e) and §21082.2), the Planning Commission 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 Environmental Impact Report for the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (attached as Exhibit A), the CEQA Findings, including the Statement of Overriding Considerations (attached as Exhibit B), and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (attached as Exhibit C), are each incorporated by reference as 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 Final EIR for the project was prepared and completed in compliance with Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq. and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15000 et seq. 5. Based on the Planning Commission’s independent judgment and analysis, the Planning Commission makes the findings regarding the Plan's significant and unavoidable impacts, potentially significant impacts, and less than significant impacts; makes the findings regarding the proposed mitigation measures, and the Project alternatives; and recommends adoption of the Statement of Overriding Considerations, finding that the benefits of the Project outweigh the Project’s significant and unavoidable environmental impacts, for the reasons set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated by reference. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco hereby recommends that the City Council make the CEQA Findings and adopt the Statement of Overriding Considerations, attached as Exhibit B, adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, attached as Exhibit C, and certify the EIR for the South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (EIR 11-0003) attached as Exhibit A. 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 Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco at the special meeting held on the 8th day of January, 2015 by the following vote: AYES:Chairperson Martin, Vice Chairperson Wong, Commissioner Giusti, Commissioner Khalfin, Commissioner Ruiz and Commissioner Zemke 202 NOES:________________________________________________________________ ABSTENTIONS:________________________________________________________ ABSENT:______________________________________________________________ Attest: /s/Susy Kalkin Susy Kalkin Secretary to the Planning Commission 203 Attachment 5 Planning Commission Entitlements Resolution 2757-2015 204 RESOLUTION NO. 2757-2015 PLANNING COMMISSION, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AND THE RELATED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS AND ZONING MAP AND TEXT AMENDMENTS, TO COLLECTIVELY ALLOW AND ESTABLISH REGULATIONS FOR TRANSIT ORIENTED MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT IN THE DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN DISTRICT AREA WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) started the FOCUS Program in 2007 to work with local governments to create Priority Development Areas (PDA) where locally-identified, infill development opportunities can offer services and amenities to meet the day-to day needs of residents in a pedestrian-friendly environment served by transit; and WHEREAS, on July 8, 2009, the City Council for the City of South San Francisco (“City”) supported the designation of the Downtown area as a PDA to continue building on the City’s transit-oriented planning; and WHEREAS, the City identified an opportunity to analyze the potential for new commercial development and residential housing in the Downtown area (“Downtown”) in support of transit ridership; and WHEREAS the City was awarded a grant by MTC and ABAG in February of 2012 in support of this goal; and WHEREAS, future development adjacent to multiple transportation options is consistent with the policies of the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill 32), and the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (State Bill 375) to coordinate development with transportation investments to reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions; and WHEREAS, analysis of future change and improvements to the Downtown and adjoining areas could provide a framework for accommodating projected population growth and housing demand for the City; and WHEREAS, in an effort to collaboratively craft a blueprint for Downtown development, the City initiated a community input process that included public meetings and analysis with residents, business owners, commercial developers, interest groups and advocates; and 205 WHEREAS, the draft Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (“Plan”) builds on other recent planning efforts, including the Climate Action Plan, Bicycle Master Plan, and Pedestrian Master Plan; and WHEREAS, over the course of two years, there have been three formal community workshops for draft plan input and revisions, meetings with the Citizens Advisory Committee and Technical Advisory Committee for comments, and a public open house event to present the draft Plan; and WHEREAS, the City has utilized the expertise of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, Parking Place Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, Planning Commission and City Council for review and comments on the Downtown Plan; and WHEREAS, the City has prepared amendments to the City’s Zoning Map (“Rezone”) and Zoning Ordinance (“Ordinance”), including adding a new Chapter 20.280 to adopt the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan and modifying sections of the existing Ordinance, including text, tables, and figures, to remain consistent with and implement the policies of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, the City has also prepared amendments to the City’s General Plan to modify Chapter sections, including text, tables, and figures, to remain consistent with adoption of the Plan; and WHEREAS, cumulatively, the Plan, the General Plan text amendments, the Rezone, and Ordinance amendments provide a policy and zoning framework for future development in the City’s downtown area; and WHEREAS, the City prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) for the South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, the DEIR was circulated for the required 45-day public comment period on October 10, 2014 and ended on November 24, 2014 at 5:00pm; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a lawfully noticed public hearing on November 6, 2014 to solicit public comment on the DEIR; and WHEREAS, three (3) oral and six (6) written comments were received on the document and a Final Environmental Impact Report/Response to Comments (“FEIR”) was prepared; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and carefully considered the information in the DEIR and FEIR (“EIR”), and by separate resolution, recommended that the City Council certify the EIR; and 206 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and carefully considered the proposed Zoning Amendment, Rezone, and General Plan Amendment, and recommended that the City Council adopt these General Plan and Zoning Amendments; and WHEREAS, on December 18, 2014 the Planning Commission for the City of South San Francisco held a lawfully noticed public hearing to solicit public comment and consider the proposed entitlements, take public testimony, and continue the item to a date certain; and WHEREAS, on January 8, 2015 the Planning Commission for the City of South San Francisco held a lawfully noticed public hearing to solicit public comment and consider the EIR and the proposed entitlements, take public testimony, and make a recommendation to the City Council on the project. 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 and General Plan EIR, including all amendments and updates thereto; the South San Francisco Municipal Code; the draft South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan, prepared by BMS Design Group; the draft South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan General Plan Amendment, prepared by BMS Design Group; the draft South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Zoning Map and Zoning Ordinance Amendment, the South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR, including the Draft and Final EIR, and all appendices thereto; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the City Council and Planning Commission Joint Study Session on October 15, 2014; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission’s duly noticed December 18, 2014 meeting; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission’s duly noticed January 8, 2015 meeting and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e) and §21082.2), the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco hereby finds as follows: SECTION 1 FINDINGS I. 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 proposed Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (Exhibit A), the proposed Downtown Station Area Specific Plan General Plan Amendments (Exhibit B); and the proposed Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Zoning Ordinance Amendment which includes the proposed Rezone (Exhibit C), are each incorporated by reference and made a part of this Resolution, as if set forth fully herein. 207 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 separate Resolution, the Planning Commission, exercising its independent judgment and analysis, has found that an EIR was prepared for the Plan in accordance with CEQA, which EIR adequately discloses and analyzes the proposed Plan's potentially significant environmental impacts, its growth inducing impacts, and its cumulative impacts, and analyzed alternatives to the proposed Plan; the Planning Commission has further found that the benefits of approving the Plan outweigh the Plan's significant and unavoidable impact; accordingly, the Planning Commission has recommended that the City Council certify the EIR for the Plan and adopt a statement of overriding considerations, in accordance with CEQA II. Specific Plan Adoption Findings 1. The Specific Plan, referenced as Exhibit A, implements and is consistent with the General Plan, as proposed for amendment, because the Plan will reinforce many of the General Plan policies related to land use, specifically pedestrian-friendly mixed-use, infill development, and improved linkages to a transit center. Furthermore, the Plan does not conflict with any specific plans, and will remain consistent with the City’s overall vision for community development, economic vitality, and redevelopment in the downtown. None of the new vision goals, guiding principles, policies or new land use designations will conflict with or impede achievement of any of the goals, policies, or land use designations established in the General Plan; 2. The Specific Plan will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City because the Plan would provide for sufficient development, land use, and performance standards related to new development or alteration. More specifically, the Plan includes guiding policies and design standards to address land use and urban design, circulation and parking, and public infrastructure investment to remain consistent with the General Plan. Additionally, the Plan will bolster the public interest by focusing new commercial and residential development in the downtown core, adjacent to transit service and on infill sites, as recommended in the General Plan’s land use element and Downtown planning sub-area; 3. The Specific Plan area, as evaluated as part of both the CEQA process and analysis of demographics, including anticipated population and employment growth, identifies the downtown districts as physically suitable for the proposed land use designation(s) and the anticipated development since the area is well served by multi-modal transportation options, existing infrastructure and utilities, and other public services as identified for further investment as part of the Plan’s implementation; and 208 4. The proposed development will be superior to development otherwise allowed under conventional zoning classifications since the proposed Plan provides additional development and design standards to promote higher density, mixed-use and commercial development, and concurrently, proposes enhancements to circulation, parking, utilities, and public services to accommodate anticipated growth within the downtown districts. III. General Plan Amendments Findings 1. As described in Exhibits A and B, adoption of the proposed Plan will include amendments to the Land Use, Planning Sub-Areas, and Transportation Elements of the South San Francisco General Plan. The amendments would include changes to the intensity of existing land use designations, although the changes would be consistent with the General Plan policies and designations to promote infill construction, mixed-use development, and pedestrian, bicycle and transit connection improvements. The amendments are primarily intended as minor alterations to the General Plan related to anticipated increases in population, jobs, and development related to the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan; and 2. As required under State law, the South San Francisco General Plan, and the South San Francisco Municipal Code, in support of the General Plan Amendments, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed General Plan Amendments are otherwise consistent with the South San Francisco General Plan, do not obstruct or impede achievement of any General Plan policies, and furthers a number of important Guiding and Implementing Policies set forth in the Land Use, Planning Sub-Areas, and Transportation Elements, including without limitation: Guiding Policy 2-G-2: “Maintain a balanced land use program that provides opportunities for continued economic growth, and building intensities that reflect South San Francisco’s prominent inner bay location and excellent regional access.” Guiding Policy 2-G-5: “Maintain Downtown as the City’s physical and symbolic center, and a focus of residential, commercial, and entertainment activities.” Guiding Policy 3.1-G-1: “Promote Downtown’s vitality and economic well-being, and its presence as the city’s center.” Guiding Policy 3.1-G-2: “Encourage development of Downtown as a pedestrian-friendly mixed-use activity center with retail and visitor-orientated uses, business and personal services, government and professional offices, civic uses, and a variety of residential types and densities.” Guiding Policy 3.1-G-3: “Promote infill development, intensification, and reuse of currently underutilized sites.” Guiding Policy 3.1-G-4: “Enhance linkages between Downton and transit centers, and increased street connectivity with the surrounding neighborhoods.” 209 The Downtown Station Area Specific Plan, including the proposed General Plan Amendments, furthers these policies and is therefore consistent with the City’s General Plan (as proposed for amendment). IV Zoning Map and Text Amendments Findings 1. As described in more detail in Exhibit C, and as illustrated on Page 7 of Exhibit C as Figure 20.280.003, adoption of the proposed Plan will include amendments to the South San Francisco Zoning Map and Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, to ensure consistency between the General Plan and the Zoning Map Zoning Ordinance, and to implement the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan. The Zoning Map will be amended to add the Downtown Transit Core Zoning District (DTC), Grand Avenue Core Zoning District (GAC), Downtown Residential Core Zoning District (DRC), Transit Office / Research and Development Core Zoning District (TO/RD), Linden Neighborhood Center Zoning District (LNC), Linden Commercial Core Zoning District (LCC). The Zoning Ordinance will be amended to identify allowable land uses and establish standards for development of property within these districts. 2. The proposed Rezone and Ordinance Amendments are consistent with the adopted General Plan, as proposed for amendment, because the Rezone and Ordinance amendments will reinforce many of the General Plan policies related to land use, specifically pedestrian-friendly mixed-use, infill development, and improved linkages to a transit center. Further the Rezone and Ordinance Amendments do not conflict with any specific plans, and will remain consistent with the City’s overall vision for community development, economic vitality, and redevelopment in the downtown. None of the new or revised definitions, tables, figures and land uses will conflict with or impede achievement of any of the goals, policies, or land use designations established in the General Plan. 3. The subject property is suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed Downtown Station Area Specific Plan zoning districts in terms of access, size of parcel, relationship to similar or related uses, and other considerations deemed relevant by the Planning Commission and City Council because the introduction of the Rezone and Ordinance Amendments will allow for a more robust array of development and land uses in the downtown. Although specific parcels would be affected as part of the Rezone and Ordinance Amendments, the impact would be beneficial since property owners would have a wider set of standards to improve or develop upon their property and new zoning regulations would guide the development and performance of properties within the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan. Staff has determined that the Rezone and Ordinance Amendments are consistent with General Plan policies, specifically those policies related to community development, economic vitality, and redevelopment in the downtown. Adopting the Rezone and Ordinance Amendments would also provide the City a mechanism to continue to oblige state requirements related to housing development, multi-modal transportation investment, and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. 210 4. The proposed Rezone and Ordinance Amendments with adoption of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan is not detrimental to the use of land in any adjacent zone because the Rezone and Ordinance amendments would provide for sufficient development, land use, and performance standards related to new development or alteration. More specifically, the Rezone and Ordinance Amendments include regulations to address multi-modal transportation infrastructure (sidewalks, bicycle parking), community gathering space with new plazas and public open space, and community benefits opportunities including local hire, public art, sustainable green building and others to preserve the economic vitality of surrounding residential and commercial areas not included in the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan. Finally, the proposed Rezone and Ordinance Amendments will not be detrimental to the public interest, convenience, or welfare of the City or land within the City; instead, the Rezone and Ordinance amendments will bolster the public interest by focusing new commercial and residential development in the downtown core, adjacent to transit service and on infill sites, as recommended in the General Plan’s land use element and Downtown planning sub-area. SECTION 2 RECOMMENDATION NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco hereby makes the findings contained in this Resolution, and recommends that the South San Francisco City Council approve and adopt the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan attached as Exhibit A, the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan General Plan Amendments attached as Exhibit B, and adopt an ordinance adopting the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Zoning Map and Text Amendments, attached as Exhibit C. 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 Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco at a special meeting held on the 8th day of January, 2015 by the following vote: AYES:_ Chairperson Martin, Vice Chairperson Wong, Commissioner Giusti, Commissioner Khalfin, Commissioner Ruiz and Commissioner Zemke NOES:________________________________________________________________ 211 ABSTENTIONS:________________________________________________________ ABSENT:______________________________________________________________ Attest:_ /s/Susy Kalkin Susy Kalkin Secretary to the Planning Commission 212 Attachment 6 Planning Commission Staff Reports (without attachments) for December 18, 2014 and January 8, 2015 213 Planning Commission Staff Report DATE: December 18, 2014 TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: Downtown Station Area Specific Plan – Consideration of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan and the related General Plan Amendments, Zoning Map and Text Amendments to allow and establish regulations for transit orientated, mixed-use development in the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan District Area in accordance with South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapters 20.460, 20.530, 20.540, and 20.550. Case Nos.: P11-0097: EIR 11-0003, GPA11-0003, RZ11-0004, ZA11-0008, SP14-0001 RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing, receive the draft Downtown Station Area Specific Plan and the related General Plan Amendments, Zoning Map and Text Amendments, receive public testimony, provide staff with input and continue the public hearing to a date certain. BACKGROUND In 2012, the City embarked on development of an area wide plan, named the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan, to create a successful and vibrant downtown. Goals include, but are not limited to:  Promoting new high-density, mixed-use development in the areas that are best poised to take advantage of improved access to the City’s Caltrain Station and SamTrans bus routes;  Affirming the historic Grand Avenue Corridor as the focus of the community; and  Providing improved connections to the East of 101 employment district to reestablish the critical connection between local businesses and local employers. The Plan proposes pedestrian- and bicycle- friendly upgrades, landscaped green spaces, widened sidewalks, new streets and mass transit connections designed to invigorate walkability and quality of life. The Downtown area has been the subject of in-depth study and analysis, as discussed below under Planning Context, and the Plan builds on all these efforts. The result is a downtown strategy that envisions a new neighborhood of thoughtful residential and commercial development, walking access to everyday amenities, new civic uses, multi-modal transportation investments, and parks, plazas, and gathering spaces for the entire South San Francisco community. Planning Context Over the past decade, the City has pursued a long-term and comprehensive effort to find effective solutions to housing, employment, economic development, transportation, and environmental sustainability 214 Staff Report Subject: Downtown Station Area Specific Plan and EIR Date: December 18, 2014 Page 2 of 10 challenges. These planning efforts have allowed the City to respond to state mandates requiring a balance between creating jobs and housing, and to position the City to develop denser, walkable housing opportunities for a new generation of residents. The context of future housing and commercial development is clear – the City must respond to the demand for residential and commercial development near transit routes to reduce vehicular travel and greenhouse gas emissions from daily driving. Below is a brief overview of some of the state and regional requirements that have informed the development of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan. AB 32, SB 375 - Reducing Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions California’s two major initiatives for reducing climate change and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are the 2006 Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32) & Greenhouse Gas Emissions Regulations (SB375). AB 32 aims at reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 – which is a reduction of approximately 30 percent by 2020, and then an 80 percent reduction below 1990 levels by 2050. SB 375 focuses on reducing harmful GHG emissions through better land use planning. Making local planning decisions related to transportation, housing, and jobs is a fundamental part of compliance with AB 32 and SB 375, and helps to reshape communities into more sustainable, walkable communities, with alternative transportation options and an increased quality of life. Priority Development Area Grant Award As part of the effort to meet the mandates of AB 32 and SB 375, the Association for Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) awarded the City a grant in 2012 to evaluate how the downtown area, which is already identified as a Priority Development Area (PDA), and which is capable of meeting the region’s housing and transit accessibility needs could be improved to enhance density, walkability, and development opportunities. This allocation of grant funding has enabled the City to evaluate its existing policies and develop a blueprint for future change with the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan. Climate Action Plan, Pedestrian Master Plan, and Bicycle Master Plan In 2014, the City adopted the Climate Action Plan and companion Pedestrian Master Plan, which provide goals, policies and actions designed to reduce GHG emissions, adapt to climate change, and guide pedestrian programs and improvements that will support safe walking citywide. Additionally, the City has an adopted Bicycle Master Plan (2011) to designate future investment in bicycle infrastructure citywide. The Downtown Station Area Specific Plan area will reaffirm the vision of these plans given the crucial connection that Grand Avenue provides between the regional transit providers BART, Caltrain and SamTrans and the focus on housing and office density near alternative transportation options. South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element The Housing Element, updated in June 2009, and currently under review for the next cycle (2015-2023) contains an analysis of the community’s housing needs, resources, constraints, and opportunities. The draft Housing Element identifies several housing sites within the Plan area and estimates that these sites can accommodate approximately 358 new housing units at the existing zoning and development standards but up to 438 housing units for the cycle under the proposed Downtown Station Area Specific Plan and related zoning changes. Given the City’s next housing cycle allocation has identified a need for South San Francisco to zone for 1,864 new units, the downtown area will play a critical role in meeting the City’s anticipated population growth. 215 Staff Report Subject: Downtown Station Area Specific Plan and EIR Date: December 18, 2014 Page 3 of 10 DISCUSSION Plan Vision The Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (“Plan”) outlines policies related to land use, circulation, design, utilities and public services to guide growth and strategic, sustainable development within the Plan Area. Additionally, the Plan includes an implementation strategy that lists specific action items, a detailed list of infrastructure needs, conceptual cost estimates, responsible agencies, and potential funding sources. The Plan area, shown below, encompasses roughly 35 blocks within a half-mile of the Caltrain station. Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Area Map The Plan area extends from just past Spruce Avenue to the west, to Gateway Boulevard on the eastern side of US 101. The area is bounded north to south at its furthest points along Linden Avenue, between Juniper Avenue at the north and Railroad Avenue at the south. The properties included in the area east of US 101 are generally bound by E. Grand Avenue to the north and S. Airport Blvd to the south. The Plan area is separated into sub-districts, with each sub-district primarily intended for mixed-use, residential, or employment development but with varying bulk, height, and density standards, as detailed in the zoning standards. The criteria for each sub-district were informed by community input, urban design best practices, and citywide recognition of the historic fabric of Grand Avenue and a desire to safeguard that scale and form. Highlights of the Plan vision are summarized in the following sections. New Housing, and Commercial and Office Development within Sub-districts Compared to development under the City’s current General Plan, the proposed Plan would yield greater amounts of new residential and employment uses within the Plan area, estimated at approximately 1,400 dwelling units and up to 4,200 new residents, 800,000 Square Feet (SF) of commercial uses, 21,000 SF of industrial uses, and 1.2 million SF of new office/research and development space. The Plan focuses intensification in those areas closest to the Caltrain Station (1/4 mile distance) and immediately surrounding Grand Avenue. The Plan area includes a significant number of underutilized or vacant parcels where the highest intensities of new development would be best suited. A summary of sub-districts is included below: 216 Staff Report Subject: Downtown Station Area Specific Plan and EIR Date: December 18, 2014 Page 4 of 10  Downtown Transit Core – Flanks Grand Avenue and Airport Boulevard and is intended to allow parcels within ¼ mile of the Caltrain station to develop as mixed-use office and residential at the highest intensities given its close proximity to transit;  Grand Avenue Core – Extends along Grand Avenue and would preserve the City’s “main street” feel with building stepbacks and reduced heights relative to the rest of the Plan area;  Downtown Residential Core – Covers the remaining Plan area along surrounding Grand Avenue and primarily designated for high-density residential development and does not require mixed-uses;  Transit Office/R&D Core – Located east of US 101, this area will be best suited for high intensity office or R&D development, clean technology, or custom manufacturing and is immediately adjacent to the transit;  Linden Neighborhood Center – Located north of Grand Avenue and primarily neighborhood- serving businesses with retail, services and amenities, as well as mixed-use housing opportunities complementary to the surrounding residential areas; and  Linden Commercial Corridor – Located just north and south of Grand Avenue to promote diverse commercial uses and housing development. Additionally, the Plan introduces additional density and FAR bonuses for developments if certain incentives are met. The adoption of zoning to include the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan details these incentive requirements and is discussed in the “Zoning Map and Text Amendments” section of this staff report. Streetscape and Caltrain Station Enhancements Without a vibrant pedestrian experience and a safe, accessible transit station, the Plan’s anticipated development would not be well served. Accordingly, the Plan envisions street and intersection improvements as a cornerstone to create a safe, attractive, and accessible environment for all pedestrians. Widened sidewalks, street trees and pedestrian lighting are included, and intersection safety improvements would be prioritized within this area. Three (3) public plaza areas with special paving and design would balance the scale of anticipated development and would be located adjacent to City Hall, in the Linden Neighborhood, and at the reimagined Caltrain station. Both the City Hall and Linden Neighborhood plazas would function at most times as a normal city block but on occasion, could be transformed into a venue for special events or celebrations and closed to vehicular traffic. In order to ensure accessibility to the train station, the Plan incorporates Caltrain’s plan to reconfigure the station to extend the platform south to Grand Avenue and construct a below-grade pedestrian/bicycle underpass at the southeast corner of Grand Avenue and Airport Boulevard to access the train platform from either side of US 101. The planned Caltrain Plaza would be located at the intersection of Airport Boulevard and Grand Avenue and would lead to the anticipated pedestrian and bicycle undercrossing. Commitments to upgrade the station have been made by the Caltrain Board of Directors; however, finalized plans are still underway to incorporate high speed rail improvements. New residential and office density adjacent to the existing station could play an encouraging role in the Caltrain station’s contemplated upgrades. 217 Staff Report Subject: Downtown Station Area Specific Plan and EIR Date: December 18, 2014 Page 5 of 10 Multi-Modal Circulation and Parking The Plan recommends implementation of a variety of circulation improvements throughout the plan area to balance travel modes, improve access between downtown and the Eastern Neighborhood (identified as the Plan area parcels immediately east of US 101 and roughly bounded by East Grand Avenue on the north, Gateway Boulevard on the east, Poletti Way and US 101 on the west, and S. Airport Boulevard on the south), improve street connectivity, reduce impacts from regional traffic, and provide transit enhancements from downtown to BART and the South San Francisco ferry terminal. These improvements are informed and consistent with the City’s adopted Climate Action Plan, Pedestrian Master Plan, Bicycle Master Plan and General Plan policies. Angled parking would be replaced by parallel parking to accommodate new bicycle lanes along Grand Avenue (reducing on-street parking from 163 to 141 spaces), Airport Boulevard would be reconfigured to eliminate left turns onto Grand Avenue so that a pedestrian crossing refuge could be constructed for safe passage, and Miller and Baden Avenues would become important streets to move vehicular traffic east to west while preserving the pedestrian scale of Grand Avenue. A variety of strategies are also proposed to manage parking and ensure an adequate supply while at the same time focusing on reducing demand and promoting alternative travel modes. The Plan has a heavy focus on improving pedestrian and bicycle connections to the Caltrain Station, as well as throughout the Plan area. The development of a Pedestrian-Priority Zone, which encompasses Grand Avenue, Miller Avenue, Baden Avenue, and portions of Linden Avenue, Maple Avenue, Cypress Avenue and Airport Boulevard would regulate future development and public right-of-way improvements. Community Outreach, Public Review and Revisions to the Plan The proposed Plan is the culmination of over two years of public meetings and analysis, and includes input from residents, business owners, developers, interest groups and others in a concerted effort to improve the downtown business district and surrounding neighborhoods. Over the course of the Plan development there have been three formal community workshops, as well as several Citizens Advisory Committee and Technical Advisory Committee meetings. The Plan has been reviewed by the Parking Place Commission, the Design Review Board, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee and the Parks and Recreation Commission. Additionally, the City hosted an Open House event on July 24, 2014 to present the draft Plan to the community and held a joint Planning Commission and City Council Study Session in June 2013 and most recently on October 15, 2014. On November 6, 2014, the Planning Commission also held a required public hearing for comments on the Draft EIR (DEIR). The level of interest in the Plan has been substantial, and resulted in numerous submitted comments to improve the vision for downtown. Many of the changes to the guiding principles and policies of the Plan were directly informed by the suggestions of residents, advocates, other governmental agencies and the City Council and Planning Commission. A collection of all submitted comments, as well as suggested changes to the draft Downtown Station Area Specific Plan, is included as an attachment to this staff report. Many of the comments have been included into the plan, and some of those changes are highlighted below:  New vision statement for the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan to "ENSURE the build out of the Plan advances the social, cultural, environmental, and physical goals of the community and 218 Staff Report Subject: Downtown Station Area Specific Plan and EIR Date: December 18, 2014 Page 6 of 10 results in a series of community benefits that address the needs of existing and future Downtown residents";  Updating Land Use Policy LU-1 to “Encourage the use of local workforce and local business sourcing for development in the plan area that generates quality construction and service jobs with career pathways, that provides job training opportunities for the local workforce, and that pays fair wages so that money in wages and materials used in the construction of these developments i s invested in the local economy”;  Adding Land Use Policy LU-10 to “Support regional and local efforts to examine displacement of affordable housing and lower-income households and consider programs to address identified housing needs”;  Adding Land Use Policy LU-11 to "Promote the collaboration and coordination among the economic development, workforce development, and planning departments to maximize the economic vitality of Downtown and benefits for existing and future residents";  Clarifying that additional density or FAR bonuses are eligible with an Incentive Program, so long as public benefits are provided (with zoning to provide specific requirements);  Adding Urban Design Policy UD-52 to “Consider implementing a wayfinding program to more effectively manage travel on Grand Avenue and adjacent streets to provide visitors with parking information for short-term and long-term parking, and connections to transit. Wayfinding signage could also provide information for pedestrian and bicycle routes and networks with attention paid to major destinations, and include mileage or estimated times to encourage these modes of travel”;  Updating Circulation Policy C-7 to “Where possible, consider narrowing local streets and providing traffic calming devices to discourage through or speeding traffic and encourage other modes of transportation especially in residential neighborhoods”; and  Implementing more zoning flexibility to allow custom manufacturing and other clean technology/R&D uses into the downtown properties west of US 101. An errata sheet of complete suggested changes, based on comments, is included as an attachment to this staff report. General Plan Amendments to incorporate the Specific Plan With adoption of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan, figures, tables, and text within the General Plan would need to be updated to remain consistent and notably, reflect new housing, population, and employment statistics, as well new guiding policies related to the Land Use, Planning Sub-Areas, and Transportation Elements. All of the suggested revisions are included as an attachment to the staff report and broadly summarized below: With adoption of the proposed changes to the zoning map and ordinance, the General Plan’s existing Land Use Diagram would be altered to remove the “Downtown Commercial” designation and substitute the specific plan’s “Grand Avenue Core” and four other sub-districts. In addition, the Eastern Neighborhood would replace the current Business Commercial designation for the Specific Plan parcels located east of US 101. Several tables related to standards for density and development intensity would also be updated to reflect the Plan’s anticipated buildout impacts on density, population and employment and the relatively 219 Staff Report Subject: Downtown Station Area Specific Plan and EIR Date: December 18, 2014 Page 7 of 10 flat impact to the job/housing balance for the City. Furthermore, reference to the guiding policies of the proposed plan related to the Downtown Planning Sub-Area would be incorporated into the General Plan to ensure consistency with this new vision for South San Francisco’s downtown area. Given so many streetscape improvements related to circulation and multi-modal transportation are also envisioned by the Plan, the Transportation Element of the General Plan also requires modification. Those changes include incorporation of the guiding policies, anticipated roadway improvements, updated figures showing new roadways in the Eastern Neighborhood, Railroad Avenue extension, new bicycle facilities and the proposed Caltrain Station configuration. Zoning Map and Text Amendments When General Plan amendments result in inconsistency between the General Plan and zoning, the zoning must be amended to re-establish consistency. In addition, as zoning is one of the tools used to implement an area plan such as the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan, the Zoning Ordinance must also be consistent with the proposed specific plan. Therefore, adoption of the proposed Plan will include amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to ensure consistency between the Zoning Ordinance and amended General Plan and proposed specific plan. The Zoning Map will also be amended to reflect the changes in Zoning designations. The vast majority of zoning changes are related to the proposed amendment to Division III: Specific and Area Plan Districts of the Zoning Ordinance. The amendment includes a new chapter titled “Chapter 20.280 Downtown Station Area Specific Plan District.” The new Downtown Station Area Specific Plan District establishes the following six (6) sub-districts with land use and development regulations:  Downtown Transit Core (DTC);  Grand Avenue Core (GAC);  Downtown Residential Core (DRC);  Transit Office / R&D Core (TO/RD);  Linden Neighborhood Center (LNC); and  Linden Commercial Corridor (LCC). Chapter 20.280 establishes the use regulations, standards and development review procedures needed to implement the proposed Downtown Station Area Specific Plan. The proposed land use regulations establish uses that are permitted, permitted after review and permitted with approval of a Minor Use Permit by the Chief Planner, and permitted after review and approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission. In addition, the proposed District includes development standards such as lot size and width, FAR, density, height, setbacks, building form, open space, active frontage, and parking and loading that will apply to development within the Specific Plan. Finally, figures identifying changes to the zoning map and illustrative of concepts such as setbacks, height standards, and the Pedestrian Priority Zone are included. The entire proposed Chapter 20.280 is included in the staff report as part of the draft City Council Ordinance attachment (Attachment 1c) but it is worth highlighting Section 20.280.005(A) as a potential interest to the 220 Staff Report Subject: Downtown Station Area Specific Plan and EIR Date: December 18, 2014 Page 8 of 10 Planning Commission since it details how additional density or FAR would be administered as part of the incentive program. To be eligible for maximum Density or FAR, subject to a Conditional Use Permit, a potential project must consider a list of identified community benefits informed by the public review process and propose improvements above and beyond minimum standards. This could entail inclusion of a local hire program, public art, streetscape enhancements and public spaces, sustainable construction, transit subsidies or other similar benefits. The text amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to reflect the Plan are listed below, and include new required findings for the Planning Commission to consider with any incentive program proposal. The adoption of the new Downtown Station Area Specific Plan District will also require changes and clarifications to the existing Zoning Ordinance to fulfill the vision of the Plan and remain consistent with proposed regulations in Chapter 20.280. The zoning map and text amendments propose to:  Revise Chapter 20.100 Downtown Districts in several locations to remove the “Downtown Core” and references;  Revise Chapter 20.330 On-site Parking and Loading to reduce parking requirements for three (3) bedroom multi-unit residential buildings in recognition of transit accessibility, and introduce parking standards for “Clean Technology” and “Research and Development” into the required parking standards for Downtown Districts;  Revise Chapter 20.330 On-site Parking and Loading to add subsection 20.330.007(D) to allow shared parking provisions for mixed-use development, consistent with the proposed draft Plan;  Revise Section 20.490.004 Use Permit Required Findings to introduce Planning Commission required findings related to the Plan’s Incentive Program for density or FAR bonuses; and  Revise Section 20.620.005 (Definitions) to add flexibility to “Handicraft/Custom Manufacturing” to allow a range of small-scale, custom manufacturing uses in the Plan area that are aligned with advanced technology. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY Any change to the Zoning Ordinance must be consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plans. In this case, adoption of the Specific Plan, as well as the Zoning Map and Text Amendments, would require changes to the intensity of existing General Plan land use designations and related figures and tables, but would be consistent with the General Plan policies to promote infill construction, mixed-use development, and pedestrian, bicycle and transit connection improvements. The amendments to the General Plan, as introduced in the “Discussion” section of the staff report, are primarily intended as minor alterations to the General Plan related to anticipated increases in population, jobs, and development related to the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan. As such, a recommendation by the Planning Commission to adopt the proposed General Plan Amendments would ensure consistency between the subject Specific Plan, Zoning Map and Text Amendments, and the General Plan. 221 Staff Report Subject: Downtown Station Area Specific Plan and EIR Date: December 18, 2014 Page 9 of 10 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW A notice of preparation (NOP) was issued by the City on October 1, 2013 to inform agencies and the general public that an Environment Impact Report (EIR) was being prepared and to invite comments on the scope and content of the document. A scoping meeting was held on October 16, 2013. During the environmental review process, NOP comment letters were received from various parties who raised issues of concern regarding the following:  Traffic impacts to local, county, and state facilities;  Impacts to trails and recreational facilities;  Cultural resource issues, including tribal consultation per SB18 and potential for buried cultural resources;  Impacts to population and housing, including displacement of existing affordable housing and local businesses;  Impacts to air quality; and  Conflicts with an active railroad right-of-way (ROW). A Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was prepared for the Plan and was published on October 10, 2014. The DEIR was circulated for the mandatory 45-day public review and the public comment period closed on Monday, November 24, 2014. Both written and oral comments were received on the document and City staff is currently working with the environmental consultant to respond to the comments and publish a Final EIR (FEIR) Response to Comments document. It is anticipated that once the FEIR is published it will be distributed to the Planning Commission for review and consideration. A staff recommendation will also accompany the FEIR. CONCLUSION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission provide input on the proposed Downtown Station Area Specific Plan, proposed General Plan Amendments, and proposed Zoning Map and Text Amendments, and continue the public hearing to a date certain. By: ____________________ Tony Rozzi, AICP Senior Planner AG/JR/SK/tr 222 Staff Report Subject: Downtown Station Area Specific Plan and EIR Date: December 18, 2014 Page 10 of 10 ATTACHMENT: 1. Draft Entitlements Resolution a. Exhibit A - Specific Plan Adoption (SP14-001) and errata sheet proposing changes to the draft DSASP b. Exhibit B - General Plan Amendments (GPA11-0003) c. Exhibit C - Zoning Map and Text Amendments (RZ11-0004, ZA11-0008) attached as City Council draft Ordinance with Exhibits 2. Public Comments submitted 2371365.1 223 Planning Commission Staff Report DATE: January 8, 2015 TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: Downtown Station Area Specific Plan – Consideration of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan and related Environmental Impact Report (Draft and Final), and the related General Plan Amendments, Zoning Map and Text Amendments to allow and establish regulations for transit oriented, mixed-use development in the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan District Area in accordance with South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapters 20.460, 20.530, 20.540, and 20.550. Case Nos.: P11-0097: EIR11-0003, GPA11-0003, RZ11-0004, ZA11-0008, SP14-0001 RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission: 1. Adopt a resolution, including findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, recommending that the City Council certify EIR11-0003; and 2. Adopt a resolution, including findings, recommending that the City Council approve the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (SP14-0001), General Plan Amendments (GPA11-0003), and Zoning Map and Text Amendments (RZ11-0004, ZA11-0008). BACKGROUND On December 18, 2014, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to review the draft Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (Plan), proposed revisions to the Plan based on public input, and related revisions to the General Plan, Zoning Map, and Zoning Ordinance to incorporate the proposed Plan vision (December 18, 2014 staff report attached). At that time, the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) package was not yet complete and the item was continued to a special meeting on January 8, 2015. DISCUSSION Environmental Review The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is a program EIR that examines the potential effects resulting from implementing designated land uses and policies in the proposed Plan. As a programmatic document, the EIR does not assess site-specific impacts. A notice of preparation (NOP) was issued by the City on October 1, 2013 to inform agencies and the general public that an Environment Impact Report was being prepared and to invite comments on the scope and content of the document. A scoping meeting was held o n October 16, 2013. 224 Staff Report Subject: Downtown Station Area Specific Plan and EIR Date: January 8, 2015 Page 2 of 5 The DEIR was prepared for the Plan, published on October 10, 2014, and circulated for the mandatory 45- day public review. The public comment period closed on Monday, November 24, 2014. During that time, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 6, 2014 for comments. Three (3) oral comments and six (6) written comments were received on the document during the circulation period. The consultant prepared the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), which addresses the public comments made at the November 6, 2014 public hearing and the written correspondence. The DEIR and FEIR with response to comments represent the complete EIR The EIR identifies nine (9) significant and unavoidable impacts related to Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Noise, and Traffic/Transportation that could not be mitigated to a less-than-significant level, even with the implementation of identified mitigation measures. Detailed findings for each significant and unavoidable impact, with suggested mitigation measures are included in Attachment 1, Exhibit B. City staff has also prepared a Statement of Overriding Considerations as part of the CEQA Resolution (Attachment 1, Exhibit B), which identifies specific economic, legal, social, technological, land use, and other benefits that support approval of the Plan and outweigh the identified significant and unavoidable impacts. Approval of the Statement of Overriding Considerations is required in order for the City to certif y the EIR. Response to Public Input at the December 18, 2014 Public Hearing Since the Planning Commission reviewed and continued the item from the December 18, 2014 public hearing, staff has provided follow-up to the Planning Commission’s request for additional information related to public comments. Jasneet Sharma, representing the San Mateo County Health System’s Public Health, Policy and Planning Division, identified concerns about Downtown access to public park facilities and potential displacement of residents in the surrounding area related to new development anticipated with the Plan. To follow-up on the park facilities request, staff has identified relevant provisions of the Plan that should partially address this issue. The Plan identifies three (3) potential plaza developments in the study area at City Hall, on Linden Avenue and at the Caltrain platform extension at Grand Avenue and Airport Boulevard. Although these spaces would not provide open parks space, they do provide flexibility for events and activities. Additionally, the Eastern Neighborhood of the Plan would require new developments to provide publically-accessible open space. Proposed zoning for the Transit Office / R&D Core (located in the Eastern Neighborhood) would require that any new development on lots larger than 15,000 SF provide a minimum of 5% of the lot as open space, and such open space shall be usable by the public. Finally, the Plan identifies an unused rail spur in the Eastern Neighborhood near the intersection of Gateway Boulevard and South Airport Boulevard as a potential linear park with pedestrian and bicycle improvements. Although these efforts do not provide for a vast network of new park space in the Downtown area, the City remains well-served by existing park and recreation facilities. The Plan is intended to focus new infill development downtown, consistent with the State’s goals for reduced automobile emissions and higher transit use. The Plan attempts to balance this important goal with the desire to see additional green space, but the Downtown area is much better suited to dense development than infill park space that does not take advantage of transit options, new height limits, and density standards. 225 Staff Report Subject: Downtown Station Area Specific Plan and EIR Date: January 8, 2015 Page 3 of 5 The commenter’s concern about potential displacement of existing residents due to new development pressures has been stated by several advocacy groups and in comments on both the Plan and EIR. The priority for most advocates is that the City considers rent-stabilization (rent control) and just-cause eviction requirements (additional requirements beyond the State’s current 30 day notice requirement for tenants in good standing) that could mitigate rent increases and instability for some residents. Alternatively, this commenter and others suggest revisions to the Plan’s policies that at a minimum, commit the City to study displacement and implement measures to prevent its occurrence. Although staff has worked with these commenters, including Ms. Sharma, to identify existing templates for studying the loss of non-deed- restricted housing (e.g. naturally affordable rental housing), there is limited information. No San Mateo County cities other than East Palo Alto have rent control and just-cause eviction policies in place, so staff’s ability to identify other local efforts to address displacement are limited. Many San Mateo County cities, as part of their own Specific Plans or Housing Element updates, however, have included guiding policies that support any local or regional efforts to study displacement and consider any identified programs to mitigate displacement. The Housing Leadership Council (HLC) provided staff with sample language from the City of San Mateo that was ultimately incorporated into the new land use policy LU-10: “Support regional and local efforts to examine displacement of affordable housing and lower- income households and consider programs to address identified housing needs.” In some ways, the request to study and prevent displacement has become a moving target for staff to adequately address. Daly City recently adopted sample language for their Housing Element that addresses potential displacement and commits the City to evaluate and adopt mitigating programs within two years. That approach is now preferred by groups such as HLC and recommended to participating San Mateo County cities. Staff believes that the current language (policy LU-10) provides a good start for the City to guide its action in the Plan area and support monitoring efforts as they are developed regionally. There is no doubt that the current real estate conditions have tightened the rental housing market and displaced some residents; because this is a 20 year plan and change is expected to occur slowly, however, staff believes that committing to a specific timeline for a new monitoring program is unnecessary and currently, infeasible given City resources and lack of similar programs in the Bay Area. Ultimately, how the City addresses the concern about displacement is a policy decision for the City Council, informed by the Planning Commission and this language could be adjusted prior to adoption. Eddie Pang and Larry Wang, representing 211 Airport Boulevard, requested that the Planning Commission consider a revision to the 15’-0” minimum ground floor height for non-residential uses to allow residential garages. Staff believes that this is a reasonable request and the intent of the proposed Plan zoning (Chapter 20.280) was to require this height for commercial uses to achieve pedestrian scale and sense of place. Requiring a 15’-0” height for ground floor garages could substantially impact overall residential density, however, given height limits and floor plate designs. Staff has made a minor modification to the proposed zoning text, included as Attachment 2c - Exhibit A in Section 20.280.005(B)(1), and detailed below: B. Heights and Building Setbacks. 1. Ground Floor Height. The minimum ground floor height for buildings with nonresidential uses at the ground level is 15 feet, with a minimum 12-foot clearance from floor to ceiling. For residential buildings, a ground floor garage may be exempt from this requirement, subject to evaluation by the decision-making authority in the review process. 226 Staff Report Subject: Downtown Station Area Specific Plan and EIR Date: January 8, 2015 Page 4 of 5 GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY Any change to the Zoning Ordinance must be consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plans. In this case, adoption of the Specific Plan, as well as the Zoning Map and Text Amendments, would require changes to the intensity of existing General Plan land use designations and related figures and tables, but would be consistent with the General Plan policies to promote infill construction, mixed-use development, and pedestrian, bicycle and transit connection improvements. The amendments to the General Plan are primarily intended as minor alterations to the General Plan related to anticipated increases in population, jobs, and development related to the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan. As such, a recommendation by the Planning Commission to adopt the proposed General Plan Amendments would ensure consistency between the subject Specific Plan, Zoning Map and Text Amendments, and the General Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW As discussed, adoption of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan and related entitlements would require certification of the Environmental Impact Report and a Statement of Overriding Considerations since there are identified significant and unavoidable impacts anticipated. City staff has prepared a Statement of Overriding Considerations as part of the CEQA Resolution (Attachment 1, Exhibit B), which identifies specific economic, legal, social, technological, land use, and other benefits that support approval of the Plan and outweigh the identified significant and unavoidable impacts. CONCLUSION The Downtown Station Area Specific Plan represents a community vision for new development and economic sustainability. The Plan attempts to balance the demand for new housing and commercial office space with strategic public investments to improve pedestrian, bicycle and transit facilities and support alternative transportation. The Plan should revitalize, promote, and improve the historic Downtown core and provide a blueprint that provides benefits for the City’s existing and future residents. Accordingly, staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1. Adopt a resolution, including findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, recommending that the City Council certify EIR11-0003; and 2. Adopt a resolution, including findings, recommending that the City Council approve the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (SP14-0001), General Plan Amendments (GPA11-0003), and Zoning Map and Text Amendments (RZ11-0004, ZA11-0008). By: ____________________ Tony Rozzi, AICP Senior Planner AG/JR/SK/tr 227 Staff Report Subject: Downtown Station Area Specific Plan and EIR Date: January 8, 2015 Page 5 of 5 ATTACHMENT: 1. Draft CEQA Resolution a. Exhibit A – Environmental Impact Report for the SSF Downtown Station Area Specific Plan b. Exhibit B – CEQA Findings including Statement of Overriding Considerations c. Exhibit C – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 2. Draft Entitlements Resolution a. Exhibit A – Specific Plan Adoption (SP14-001) and errata sheet b. Exhibit B – General Plan Amendments (GPA11-0003) and list of proposed changes c. Exhibit C – Zoning Map and Text Amendments (RZ11-0004, ZA11-0008) attached as City Council draft Ordinance with Exhibits 3. Planning Commission staff report for December 18, 2014 4. Planning Commission draft minutes excerpt for December 18, 2014 5. Public Comments submitted 228 Attachment 7 Planning Commission draft minutes excerpt for December 18, 2014 and January 8, 2015 229 Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 18, 2014 Downtown Station Area Specific Plan & EIR City of South San Francisco - Owner/Applicant P11-0097: GPA11-0003, ZA11-0008, RZ11-0004, SP14-0001 & EIR11-0003 Consideration of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan and the related General Plan Amendments, Zoning Map and Text Amendments to allow and establish regulations for transit oriented, mixed-use development in the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan District Area in accordance with South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 20.460, 20.530, 20.540, and 20.550. Chairperson Martin opened the public hearing and called for the staff report. Senior Planner Rozzi gave a presentation explaining that the proposed Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (Plan), changes to the General Plan, and necessary Zoning Text Amendments to implement the Plan would be highlighted to familiarize the Planning Commission with the entitlement process. The Plan represents the culmination of a two-year visioning process for the Downtown area. He stated it has been led by the City with very active community participation to identify and achieve sustainable economic growth in the Downtown area for the long term. The 20-year Plan is funded by an MTC/ABAG grant and guides the future of development within a 1/2 mile radius of Caltrain station. It has been reviewed by many entities and those comments are included in the draft Plan. Senior Planner Rozzi highlighted some comments that directly reflect changes in the Plan. A new Vision statement has been included; there is a proposed change to policy LU-1 which deals with fair wages for future construction and service jobs; new policy LU-10 supports and coordinates regional and local efforts to examine the impacts of new development on existing home affordability within and in the surrounding areas of the Specific Plan; and new policy LU-11 touches on the desire to see tangible community benefits as part of the adoption of the Plan. Additionally, there are required General Plan Amendments and Zoning Map and Text Amendments to implement the proposed Plan. Lastly, Senior Planner Rozzi gave a brief overview of the CEQA process, explaining that the Final Environmental Impact Report, with response to all submitted comments, would be published prior to a special hearing by the Planning Commission. Staff recommended that the Commission take public comments and continue the item to a special meeting on January 8, 2015, at which time the CEQA document would also be considered for recommendation to the City Council. Chairperson Martin asked if there were any speakers. 230 Jasneet Sharma, San Mateo County Department of Public Health, Planning and Policy, stated that the Downtown Plan was particularly well-focused on mixed-use, transit-oriented development with pedestrian and bicycle improvements but does not adequately address future need for park space or potential for affordable housing displacement in the surrounding area. Ms. Sharma requested that the Plan have policies in place to monitor potential displacement and implement programs, as necessary. Eddie Pang / Larry Wang, representing development interest in 211 Airport Boulevard, expressed concern about the City’s consideration of a park in-lieu fee revision that may apply the fee to rental housing, rather than just for-sale construction. Additionally, they identified a concern in the proposed zoning that requires a minimum height of 15’-0” for the ground floor and how that would impact their proposed ground floor garage. Pedro Gonzalez, representing HOTHRA, identified concerns about parking congestion in the “Old Town” area and specifically explained that large delivery trucks often illegally park on Linden and Maple Avenues and the Police Department should increase enforcement activity. Mr. Gonzalez also requested that the City allow residents to park along red-curb zones since on-street parking is limited. Lastly, Mr. Gonzalez asked that the community be notified of any new construction in the area so that they can provide input. Lucille Gutierrez, resident of Railroad Avenue, asked if the plan proposed an extension of Railroad Avenue between Airport Boulevard and Gateway Boulevard. An unidentified resident of California/Linden Avenue expressed concern about future development impacts on on-street parking and available surface parking lots. Assistant City Attorney Rosenberg directed Chairperson Martin to keep the public hearing open so that once the Commission is done with their discussion, the public hearing could be continued to January 8, 2015. Chairperson Martin stated that the public hearing was still open. Commission comments/questions:  Commission expressed concern regarding the importance of the Caltrain Station improvements and whether the discussions are happening with Caltrain and what can be done to move that along. 231  Commission inquired about compliance with all or some of the incentive programs, as proposed in the new zoning. Senior Planner Rozzi responded that the concept is that the public benefit provided would be commensurate with the benefit the developer would gain from additional FAR or Density Bonus. He further explained that there are proposed required findings for the Planning Commission to make when considering an Incentive Program request, since a Conditional Use Permit would be required.  Commission expressed appreciation for Jasneet Sharma's suggestions regarding parks/open space and how to improve tracking of displacement and would like any available information from the San Mateo County Health Department. Senior Planner Rozzi informed the Commission that the Parks and Recreation Department is currently in the process of a Parks Master Plan to get to the strategy for an improved ratio of park space to residents, and that the Parks and Recreation Department is also analyzing their Park-in-lieu fee calculation and applicability standards.  Commission asked staff if the rezoning would increase the value of property within the Plan area and expressed concern that this could trigger property tax increases. Assistant City Attorney Rosenberg stated that any increased value of the property would only be assessed consistent with Proposition 13.  Commission wanted to stress that the public comment which included a plan laid out in Google maps and the creation of a museum for the airport were appreciated.  Commission reiterated that this is a blueprint and a 20-year plan which will be a slow process with change over a long period.  Commission expressed concern with on-going parking issues in the Downtown area.  Commission inquired about streets where the City would not want heavy truck traffic. Chief Planner Kalkin responded that there is currently a study underway reviewing the diversion of truck traffic away from downtown and identified as a policy in the plan as well.  Commission inquired whether there was anything in the plan to support the BART station or the Ferry Terminal as the plan is very Caltrain focused. Senior Planner Rozzi stated the Plan’s anticipated bike lane improvements and shuttle recently implemented will help strengthen Downtown’s connection to the BART station. A shuttle connecting downtown to the East of 101 area is also being considered and recommended in the Plan to help bolster Ferry Terminal ridership.  Commission inquired about the City's vision of types of businesses in the downtown area. Senior Planner Rozzi stated the plan is trying to create flexibility and the Economic and Community Department is currently working on a sector 232 analysis to identify where South San Francisco strengths are for business attraction. Part of this will be a study of the opportunities around custom manufacturing that supports the Biotechnology sector.  Commission inquired about the mitigation measures in place to address the parking concerns. Senior Planner Rozzi informed the Commission that there are existing multi-family residential parking requirements for Downtown, adopted in 2010 and generally appropriately sized. The plan proposes to also create a cap on the number of parking spaces that can be provided, in recognition of the multi- modal transportation options in Downtown. The City utilized Fehr + Peer’s for parking analysis for the proposed Plan and their recommended parking requirement ranges are appropriately captured by the City’s current and proposed parking standards.  Commission expressed concern with potential displacement, as mentioned in the public comments. Senior Planner Rozzi stated that the Plan’s land use policies represent City support for any regional effort to study displacement and consider programs to help. Staff has been working with the Housing Leadership Council to identify what templates are available to study existing affordable housing that isn't deed restricted and specifically tracked through State affordable housing guidelines, and in summary, there are no methodologies in place in San Mateo County that can inform the Plan. The City is addressing and reviewing other resources and happy to review any information that the San Mateo County Health Department has available. Motion--Vice Chairperson Wong/Second--Commissioner Ruiz to continue this item to a Special Meeting on January 8, 2015. Approved by unanimous roll call vote (7-0). 233 EXCERPT FROM 01-08-15 PC MINUTES Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Downtown Station Area Specific Plan City of South San Francisco - Owner/Applicant P11-0097: EIR11-0003, GPA11-0003, RZ11-0004, ZA11-0008, SP14-0001 Downtown Station Area Specific Plan - Consideration of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan and related Environmental Impact Report (Draft and Final), and the related General Plan Amendments, Zoning Map and Text Amendments to allow and establish regulations for transit oriented, mixed-use development in the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan District Area in accordance with South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapters 20.460, 20.530, 20.540, and 20.550. Chairperson Martin noted the public hearing remained open from the last meeting and called for the staff report. Senior Planner Rozzi presented the staff report, and explained that Atkins Environmental would present an overview of the EIR. He noted that due to minor textual errors identified in the EIR document, an errata sheet/package with a slightly revised CEQA resolution and changes within the EIR was distributed to the Commission. Alison Rondoni, Atkins, gave a presentation, noting there were six submitted comment letters in addition to three oral comments at the November 6, 2014 hearing pertaining to air quality, GHG, Parks and Recreation issues and residential and small business displacement. She further explained that the errata sheet is for clarification and the additional revision did not give rise to new information or new significant impacts and does not trigger recirculation. Michael Hawkins, Fehr & Peers, discussed the significant and unavoidable impacts to transportation. Senior Planner Rozzi stated that where an EIR identifies significant unavoidable impacts, a public agency is required to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations setting specific reasons why there are project benefits that outweigh the potential environmental impacts. He went over the benefits including the addition of new jobs and new residential units in the downtown area; adding amenities such as plazas, streetscape enhancements and investments to the roads for vehicles, bicyclists, pedestrians; and improved connections to East of 101. Speakers Tracy Choi, San Mateo County Housing Leadership Council, noted her appreciation of the efforts staff has put into coming up with a policy to support a regional effort to study the risk of displacement but has seen in other cities that as downtown areas are being developed, low income families are pushed out of the downtown area and businesses have difficulty retaining their service worker staff who are unable to live in an affordable community. 234 Clarissa Cabansagan, Transform, congratulated the City on receipt of a bronze level award as a bicycle community and then expressed concern that where low income workers live matters and it is moderate income residents who are benefiting, and asked the City to address this disconnect. Alondra noted she resides in a 2-bedroom apartment in the downtown area with 10 others, and questioned who is being accommodated with this plan. She supports public transportation and feels the plan should include community centers and jobs for low-income youths. She also asked the City to support the people already living in the downtown area. Kirsten Spalding, Community Coalition, wondered how the plan is going to benefit the lowest income people who live in the downtown area. She stated that her take on the CEQA response was an overall impression that their comments were speculative, addressing socio-economic concerns that were not really the technical purpose of CEQA. She asked that the City take a bigger perspective and think who the City is building for. Jobs being created have an impact on the environment and health and well-being of the community. She further stressed the need to make sure the homes can serve the people who need them the most. Hermes Monzon stated his excitement about the downtown project but expressed concern with the statement about the biotech industry people living here rather than commuting. He thinks the number of people who will buy here is minimal, but investors will benefit. He would like to keep the green areas. Diana Reddy, veteran leader with Peninsula Interfaith Action, affiliated with National network PECO, working on social justice issues throughout the country, noted she has been an affordable housing advocate and expressed concern about small business owners having a difficult time retaining staff, with teachers concerned about the loss of families and affordable housing pressure on rental units in the communities. She suggested that LU-10 had vague language and encouraged that it be replaced with strong language that will protect current residents. Edwin Law, developer of 221 Airport Blvd., stated he is a small developer and has included low-income housing units in Millbrae voluntarily with a Density Bonus. He suggested looking into ordinances to address displacement. He further stated he chose to purchase property for development in South San Francisco because he believes in the specific plan and wants to be a leader in developing under it. He commended the City for the foresight of setting the stage for redeveloping downtown over the next 20 years. 235 There being no more speakers the public hearing closed. Commission comments/questions:  Commission asked for clarification of the monitoring on displacement. Senior Planner Rozzi stated that the proposed land use policy committed the city to support regional or local efforts to monitor and address displacement but did not have timelines or commit the City to be the lead agency in addressing. The primary reason is that the data necessary is unavailable and a monitoring template doesn't exist yet. The City is taking a cautionary approach so as not to commit to deadlines that the City is unable to meet. Senior Planner Rozzi stated that the City has a proven track record for getting affordable housing built, however.  Commission expressed concern with the reduction of parking requirements. Senior Planner Rozzi stated the reduced parking is consistent with an analysis by Fehr+Peers for the DSASP and provides flexibility for new development.  Commission noted concern about demolition of existing buildings relative to hazardous impacts to air quality and noise. Alison Rondoni stated that was addressed in the Hazardous section of the EIR. She clarified that the removal and disposal of materials is regulated by state law and all new development would need to meet those requirements  Commission asked if there are time constraints with the businesses regarding hours of operation. Senior Planner Rozzi stated that the plan doesn’t address hours of operation but zoning regulations would do so, as appropriate. Chief Planner Kalkin stated that unusual hours of operation would be handled on a case by case basis.  Commission inquired whether cameras/security systems were considered for safety as a downtown amenity. Senior Planner Rozzi stated that was not included in the plan.  Commission asked about bus stop shelters. Senior Planner Rozzi stated that was under the discretion of SamTrans.  Commission stated that WiFi in the downtown is a good amenity.  Commission asked if staff has a subcommittee actively addressing this displacement issue on a regional basis. Chief Planner Kalkin stated that displacement is a bigger issue than just this downtown plan. This topic is also included in the housing element, so it will be addressed again and the City is taking it seriously.  Commission stated the objective is to make South San Francisco the best place to live for every member of the community no matter what socio-economic status. This plan will assist with that by getting more people in downtown, creating more transit demand and adding more housing options to drive down housing prices. By pushing forward with this plan, the City invests in the community.  Commission recognizes the displacement issue and stated that this conversation between the City and the public needs to continue. 236 Motion—Commissioner Zemke/ Second—Vice Chairperson Wong: to adopt a resolution including Findings and a Revised Statement of Overriding Considerations recommending that the City Council certify EIR11-0003 including all proposed revisions as discussed. Approved by unanimous roll call vote (6-0). Motion- Commissioner Giusti/Second Vice Chairperson Wong: to adopt a resolution including Findings recommending the City Council approve the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (SP14-0001) including the General Plan amendments, Zoning Map and Text amendments including the revisions/errata. Approved by unanimous roll call vote (6-0). 237 Attachment 8 Public Comments submitted Section A Emails from Community Members Section B Comments from Internal City Offices Section C Comments from Non-Governmental Organizations Section D Comments from Outreach Events 238 Section A Emails from Community Members 239 From: Kevin Dare <kevindare@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 3:37 PM To: Barber, Catherine Cc: Kevin Louie Subject: 150 Airport Blvd Attachments: 150 Airport Blvd - Parcel Map.pdf; 150-Airport-Blvd- Sale.pdf Catherine Nice speaking with you today. Attached is the parcel map for 150 Airport Blvd and the broker's marketing flyer. As we discussed, it is not currently contemplated as part of the Downtown Specific Plan. The property is currently on the market for sale and is being marketed as a industrial / food processing plant. We believe this property is integral to the Downtown and should be included in the Downtown Specific Plan with a designation of Downtown Transit Core zoning; this is one of the largest parcels in the downtown, near the proposed Caltrain platform and is a gateway feature into the downtown. If this building is re-tenanted as an industrial use, the downtown will be significantly impaired. Thank you for your consideration to include this property into the Downtown Specific Plan. We believe that encouraging the property owner or any buyer to redeveloped the property to align with the City's vision for a high quality downtown is very important. Regards Kevin 240 From: Paul Stewart <paul@samcar.org> Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 3:35 PM To: SSF Downtown Plan Subject: Comments/Recommendations for SSF Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Thank you for the opportunity to provide our input regarding the city’s Downtown Station Area Specific Plan. You are to be commended for your far-sightedness in addressing the issues which will create and shape this region of South San Francisco. Our comments stem from the guiding principle to encourage variety in new housing development. The draft plan notes, “Diversity in housing type and occupancy will reinforce the character of the Downtown and support a range of amenities and services. Much of today’s housing in the Downtown is relatively affordable; maintaining and enhancing the supply of affordable housing will ensure a healthy and diverse downtown population. Efforts to avoid displacement of existing affordable residential units will also be required.” In actuality, that last phrase should read “... will also be encouraged. Displacement of some existing housing may have to occur for the greater good of the plan to be achieved. However, our recommendations are focused on the following land use principles: SAMCAR supports and endorses LU-8: “Encourage a mix of housing types including ownership, rental, family, and senior housing, and also encourage provision of units accessible to persons with disabilities.” However, there are concerns with LU-9: “Encourage the provision of affordable housing in the Specific Plan area, by working with non-profit housing developers and through inclusionary or in-lieu fee provisions.” Why must everything that “encourages” (a misnomer in this case) the provision of affordable housing (much less housing across all spectrums) be by government fiat? The need to provide more affordable housing opportunities is ongoing and there are two primary methods to achieving this goal: incentive programs or punitive mandates. To achieve additional options for the provision of housing in the city’s Downtown Station Area Specific Plan, the following should be incorporated into the plan: 241 >Allow fee waivers for affordable rehabilitation: Consider amendment to the Master Fee Schedule to allow for waiver of permit fees for rehabilitation of affordable housing. >Implement a Homeownership Goal: The City of Hayward amended its Housing Element a decade ago to increase the percentage of households who become homeowners from 51% to 70%. In the intervening years, the City Council has adopted amendments that included new policies and programs to help increase the City’s homeownership rate while simultaneously reducing regulation and cost, thereby assisting median income households become homebuyers since, without such assistance, these families would be excluded from ownership. Creating a larger pool of potential homebuyers to purchase moderately priced homes also helps open up additional housing opportunities. >Re-Evaluation of Vacant and Underutilized Property: While the city’s Downtown Station Area Specific Plan does a superior job in this area, we would emphasize the goal of creating more affordable housing. To maintain the fiscal viability of any given jurisdiction means having a sufficient supply of land available for economic development and job growth. Vacant parcels, long zoned for other uses, may no longer be viable for said use given growth and development patterns. For example, when done in conjunction with a re-evaluation of underutilized property, it allows a city to, for example, look at land next to freeways for mini-storage facilities, thereby freeing up land elsewhere zoned for that same purpose but which can now be made available for affordable housing. >True Density Bonus Programs: Density bonuses are a zoning tool that that permits developers to build more housing units, taller buildings, or more floor space than normally allowed, in exchange for provision of a defined public benefit, such as a specified number or percentage of affordable units included in the development. However, the density bonus program must be structured to provide a true density bonus and not just to offset the provision of affordable units, thereby making the project economically feasible. Density bonus programs encourage developers to create affordable dwelling units in areas 242 where a need has been identified for affordable, low- and moderate-income housing. Density bonuses can also be used to entice development to specific neighborhoods or zones. Two areas of caution: A.) It will take a commitment on the part of local government to approve said density bonuses as such incentives often provoke residents to protest the bonus and/or the project itself. B.) Relying on projects that are transit-oriented (the current popular planning maxim) often leads to exactions such as including open space (or park in- lieu fees) or other costs which negate the effects of the density bonus. The affordable housing density bonus will apply to and supersede any regulation on any property located within the boundaries of a Certified Local Coastal Plan. >Density Bonus Set Aside Provisions: If a project can work financially, targeting specific ‘set asides’ refines the provision of affordable housing. Downside is that, for example, a project can qualify for a 20% density bonus, if they provide the following tenant set-asides for a period of at least 30 years, as established by state Law: • 5% of the dwelling units for Very Low Income households, earning no more than 50% of the AMI and paying no more in rent than the amount established for households earning up to 50% of the median income, OR • 10% of the dwelling units for Lower Income households, earning no more than 80% of the AMI and paying no more in rent than the amount established for households earning up to 80% of the median income, OR • 10% of the dwelling units for Moderate Income households, earning no more than 120% of the AMI and paying no more in rent than the amount established for households earning up to 120% of the median income. Projects may qualify for an additional density bonus to a maximum of 35% provided the number of set-aside units are increased as follows: • For each 1% increase in the percentage of Very Low Income affordable units, projects will receive an additional 2.5% density bonus up to a maximum of 35%. • For each 1% increase in the percentage of Lower Income affordable units, projects will receive an additional 2% density bonus up to a maximum of 35%. 243 Projects qualify for an additional 10% density bonus up to a maximum of 35% if they are located on or near a transit corridor or major employment center (see By- Right Incentives, below). >Senior Housing Projects State law provides an automatic 20% density bonus for housing projects where units are set- aside 100% of the housing for senior citizens. There are no income or rent restrictions for this bonus. As an incentive to provide affordable housing for seniors, senior housing projects that set aside at least 10% of the units for Lower Income seniors or 5% of the units for Very Low Income seniors will qualify for an additional 15% density bonus, for a total density bonus of 35%. All senior housing projects are required to sign a covenant with the Housing Department assuring that the units are restricted to seniors for a period of 30 years. >For-Sale Condominium Developments Condominium developments that set-aside 10% of the dwelling units for buyers who meet the criteria of Moderate Income households will qualify for a density bonus of 20%. For each additional 1% set-aside, the developer may receive an additional 1% density bonus up to a maximum of 35%. It is the intent of this program that these units will be owner-occupied. The owner of the set-aside unit can sell that unit any time at an unrestricted price. The County can recoup affordable housing funds by receiving 25% of difference between the initial sale price and the fair market value of the home at the time of the initial sale. These funds are to be used within three years for the construction, rehabilitation, or preservation of affordable housing by the County or they revert to the Moderate Income seller. >Broad Distribution of Affordable Housing Funding Sources: The costs for ‘affordable housing’ are not broadly distributed and in fact, tend to be centered on new residential development. By comparison, an increase in baseline property tax rates would spread the costs of affordable units across all households, current and new. The nexus though is that affordable housing is a community-wide need and should therefore, be spread on a community-wide basis… not placed on the backs of individuals who happen to be able to buy a home. 244 >Streamlined Review Processes: Most jurisdictions have utilized some form of ‘fast track’ processing when it comes to affordable housing projects. Setting up a true “One Stop Shop’ will assist. Coordinating the departments responsible for reviewing housing projects (for example, planning, public works, parks, police, and fire) such that they ALL meet with the project proponents for review sessions, thereby avoiding the A-to-B-to-C review scenario as often occurs, will expedite that process. In addition, establish specific time frames for review and approval of projects that include affordable housing components and/or give staff the authority to do so. >Land banking: Vacant, abandoned or underutilized properties are a challenging problem for any community. By viewing these properties as potential housing assets, rather than barriers to revitalization, affordable housing advocates (such as SAMCAR) can foresee this as a new way to reinvest in once-neglected neighborhoods. In terms of meshing with the city’s Downtown Station Area Specific Plan, this tact should perhaps be approached on a citywide basis. Land banks are public authorities created to acquire, hold, manage and develop vacant properties. The concept behind a land banks is to convert vacant/underutilized properties that have been bypassed by the open market (or by local government in its review of housing inventory needs) into additional and for housing. A land bank acquires title to vacant, underutilized and abandoned properties via the fair market; eliminates barriers to redevelopment; and, transfers property to a new owner in a way that supports affordable housing needs and priorities. As such, land banks often provide marketable title to properties previously impossible to develop. One of the most well-known land banks is the Genesse County Land Bank in Flint, MI. The Genesse County Lank Bank has raised surrounding property values by $109 million and has spurred $60 million in new private investment, all during a major recession and foreclosure crisis. >Affordable Housing Along Transit Corridors/Near Major Employment Centers Projects that meet the following criteria will be granted an additional 10% density bonus, up to 245 a maximum of 35%: • At or within a 1,500 foot radius of an existing or fully funded major bus center, bus stop along a major bus route, or mass transit station; or, • At or within a 1,500 foot radius of an intersection of transit priority arterials; or, • In or within a 1,500 foot radius of the boundaries of a major employment center; or, • In or within a 1,500 foot radius of boundaries of a major economic activity area (such as a regional or sub-regional shopping center); and, • Within 1,500 feet of the boundaries of a college or university. >Project-Specific Incentives: Projects may request one or more of the following incentives, depending upon the income level of the targeted households, the percentage of set-aside units, and the location fo the project/property orientation, in order to provide the affordable units: • Up to 20% deviation from yard/setback requirements, or • Up to 20% deviation from lot coverage requirements, or • Up to 20% deviation from lot width requirements, or • Up to 20% deviation from floor area requirements, or • Up to 20% deviation from open space requirements, or • Up to 20% additional building height, except as limited by local statute, or • Include area of street and alley dedication for purposes of calculating density • A reduction or waiver in parking to include: >A reduction in parking requirements to 1 parking space per restricted dwelling unit irrespective of the number of habitable rooms. >A reduction in parking requirements to not less than ½ parking space per dwelling unit for dwelling units restricted to Very Low or Low Income senior citizens. >Priority Development Areas (PDAs): Local government will ultimately have to comply with the One Bay Area Plan via MTC and ABAG (particularly if they have received the ‘strings attached’ funds from either entity as part of street/transit/other community services revisions). The One Bay Area Plan calls for placing all growth to the year 2040 in the nine county Bay Area counties on four percent of the land. That will severely impact the cost of land (for all uses) and mandates all future development will be a minimum of four to seven stories. By designating specific of these PDAs, local government can assist in meeting its affordable housing goals despite the constraints of the One Bay Area Plan. Paul Stewart GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS DIRECTOR 246 (650) 696-8209 | paul@samcar.org 850 Woodside Way, San Mateo, California 94401 www.samcar.org | www.facebook.com/samcar.fans “Do or Do Not. There is no Try.” – Yoda 247 From: exor miranda <exor@att.net> Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 10:48 AM To: SSF Downtown Plan Subject: Our SSF Bart station. No mention of our SSF bart station and what can be done to upgrade Mission Road for another gateway entrance to the city's downtown. It so sad the way things look right now considering we have one of the best if not the best bart station around, please take this into consideration. Thank you. Mr. Miranda. 248 From: purplebe@comcast.net Sent: Sunday, August 3, 2014 9:45 AM To: SSF Downtown Plan Subject: Proposed DowntownPlan Comments I am a lifelong resident of South San Francisco for over 55+ years First off…we are not Burlingame and we never will be (thank goodness). If someone likes Burlingame's “downtown area” then they should go live in that city. WHY is this even an issue? One has to wonder if this is for the citizens of South San Francisco, or the workers of Genetech, who probably don’t even reside in this city and get "script" to spend downtown. The first thing I focused on in the “Plan” is the Circulation & Parking. According to my sources that attending the meeting 21 PARKING spaces on GRAND AVENUE will be lost., so the sidewalks can be widened? and the sidewalk can be used for dining. Duh! there is wind in South City…lots of wind…we do not have warn weather, like BURLINGAME. Come on, be realistic. Your plan is not encouraging people to visit the downtown area. You are taking the possibility of parking spaces away that are closer to restaurants and stores. Wind = wind turbines...try focusing on getting energy for the community with those instead “Downtown Lanes include Tamarack, Second, Third and Fourth. Pedestrians should have priority on these lanes, and vehicular access should be limited to service needs only” My garage is on Tamarack…between 2 churches, and they park where ever they want to on Saturday and Sunday…because they were "told" they can, even tho the city painted the sidewalk curbs on Tamarack white, which according to DMV regulations is for passenger loading and unloading. The people that use the churches, especially the one at 500 Miller CAN NOT seem to use the sidewalks that are even there now..they walk down the middle of the street to get to church…A few years ago, I almost hit a child while turning from Spruce into Tamarack Lane because, guess what…they were in the middle of the street. One of these days an accident will happen, and maybe the church goers will wake up. Not to mention, I, a resident on Miller Ave can not even plan to have any guests while church is going on, as there is no parking on Miller. Evaluate the possibility of lessening regional traffic impacts on the Downtown by removing the northbound US 101 on-ramp at Grand Avenue and Airport Boulevard ARE YOU KIDDING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That would mean that South City would have 2 entrances northbound - 1 at each end of the “corridor” as 249 you call it. That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever read. Whoever proposed that does not live in South City and does not have to try to get on Northbound 101 NOTE: Has anyone ever contacted Caltrans to keep the on and off ramps (Grand Avenue, both directions) clean.....Oh right, it's call "wind" that keeps the garbage coming back to both ramps. Personally, it looks like a pig sty from either direction. I have also seen homeless people go into the bushes that are under the freeway now. The northbound left turn lane onto Grand Avenue currently serves a mini- mal number of vehicles (<50 vehicles per hour) during peak hours. This traffic would be diverted to Miller Avenue for through traffic or to use the Miller Avenue parking garage. With elimination of southbound left turn lanes from East Grand Avenue onto Airport Boulevard South, traffic from the East of 101 area would be redirected to use Gateway Boulevard and South Airport Boule ard to travel south. These capacity modifications will reduce the number of signal phases required, reducing delay, and reducing the number of vehicles using Airport Boulevard to access the southbound US 101 on- ramp at Pro duce Avenue. Removal of the Grand Avenue-US 101 Northbound On-Ramp The US 101 Northbound on-ramp at Grand Avenue attracts regional traffic through Downtown along Grand Avenue, Airport Boulevard, and Baden Avenue. Its removal could result in a 10 to 20 percent reduction in traffic volume on Grand Avenue and up to a 70 percent reduction in northbound traffic on Airport Boulevard between Baden Avenue and Grand Avenue. Other streets, including Baden Avenue and Linden Avenue would also be likely to have fewer freeway-bound vehicles. The East of 101 Traffic Study (2011) identified this option as an alternative where on-ramp traffic was diverted onto Dubuque Avenue to the Oyster Point interchange. Just leave things alone...it works and there is no need to change anything I can't even begin to look at the rest of the plan...What I want to know is who does this benefit? certainly not the CITIZENS of South San 250 Francisco who live in this "proposed downtown plan". Barbara Ervin 251 From: McMinn, Brian Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 7:58 AM To: 'Adina Levin'; Clarrissa Cabansagan; Kalkin, Susy Cc: Greenwood, Alex Subject: RE: SSF Downtown Station Area Plan and fare recommendations Adina, I am including Suzy Kalkin on this since the Planning Division is handling the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan. Thanks, Brian. Brian McMinn, P.E., P.L.S. Director of Public Works/City Engineer City of South San Francisco (650) 877-8550 From: aldeivnian@gmail.com [mailto:aldeivnian@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Adina Levin Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 7:29 PM To: McMinn, Brian; Clarrissa Cabansagan Subject: SSF Downtown Station Area Plan and fare recommendations Dear Brian, I am working with Clarrissa Cabansagan of TransForm on comments regarding the South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Plan. One of the Community Benefits Coalition recommendations is to create a Transportation Management Association to manage and market sustainable transportation benefits in the plan area, including transit pass discounts. We understand that Caltrain and SamTrans do not yet fully meet the needs of a TMA * Both agencies provide bulk discounts for large employers and residential developments * Neither agency provides a bulk discount suitable for a managed geographic area with numerous smaller employers or an existing residential neighborhood * There is not yet a combination bulk-discount that works for institutional customers needing support from multiple agencies We understand that South San Francisco cannot take on these issues alone, and it does not make sense to commit to offering services that do not yet exist. 252 On the bright side, there is already support for these concepts in multiple cities on the Peninsula Corridor that are currently creating TMAs to manage transportation benefits in development areas (such as City of San Mateo and City of Palo Alto). There is also support for integrated bulk fares from major employers. In the coming year, Friends of Caltrain plans to work with cities and institutional customers to provide this input to agencies about the need for more robust organizational fares. So, in the SSF Downtown Station Area Plan, it would be reasonable to express a willingness and intent to collaborate with other organizational customers to improve bulk transit pass programs to better meet the needs of station areas. I'd be happy to answer questions about this topic. Does this make more sense as an item that can be listed as a policy goal in the Plan? Thanks, - Adina Adina Levin Peninsula Transportation Alternatives - http://peninsulatransportation.org Friends of Caltrain - http://greencaltrain.com 650-646-4344 253 From: mistamagic28@gmail.com on behalf of Bruce Halperin <bhalperi@alumni.princeton.edu> Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 9:10 PM To: SSF Downtown Plan Subject: South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Plan To Whom It May Concern: I am a transit nerd who works in South City (on the east side of the tracks) and I ride my bike to and from the Caltrain station every workday as part of my commute. Having too much time on my hands recently, I put together my vision for a reconstructed Caltrain station that vastly improves multi-modal access (meeting all ADA requirements and Caltrain design guidelines) between the station and downtown as well as the east side of the tracks, while at the same time eliminating the "hold-out" rule at the station that prevents two trains from entering the station at the same time. I hope you will give it some consideration as you plan the future of the station and downtown areas. You can find my plan here: https://mapsengine.google.com/map/u/0/edit?mid=z- YXd8hgR0hE.kkRVEfQe6wns. Each element on the map is clearly labeled, with descriptions and measurements where appropriate, based on satellite imagery. It can be adjusted if necessary (for instance, if Caltrain would prefer a tunnel to connect to the existing parking lot rather than crossing gates) but the central idea is to have one island platform accessible by a pedestrian underpass from both the west and east sides of the tracks. (The idea is based on the recent reconstruction of the Santa Clara Caltrain/Amtrak/ACE station.) Please contact me if you have any questions or feedback. Regards, Bruce Halperin 254 From: Becky Chen <becwchen@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, August 22, 2014 3:37 PM To: SSF Downtown Plan Subject: South San Francisco Downtown Suggestions Hi, I just read about the downtown Station Area plan, but I missed the meeting on July 24. I have some suggestions since I live near downtown area, and I would love to see South San Francisco become more attractive. 1) It seems like we are missing some business in downtown area, like some store, market, and shops like Walgreen, CVS, Safeway, etc. 2) Activity Center to have group activity since we are so close to the water, make some Kayak lesson, water sport lessons. 3) A popular gym / sports club like 24 hour fitness to attract people going to downtown area. 4) Frequent Free Transportation between BART station, CalTrain Station. 5) The Levis Furniture store closed, and now it is an abandon warehouse. We should invite Walmart to come and open a Walmart Store, because there is no Walmart anywhere close to San Francisco. I am sure Walmart is a big attraction. 6) Many store is close or empty on Grand Ave, give business some incentive to start business there 7) Provide more open space for outdoor business, like street side cafe, or restaurant 8) Since we are close to Airport, make a Museum about planes, or something. 9) Change the word in Sign Hill, instead of "Industrial City", change it to "Gateway City" Because first there aren't too much industrial thing going on in South San Francisco Anymore. secondly, many people comes into San Francisco via SFO will pass by South San Francisco. We become like a gateway. 255 Section B Comments from Internal City Offices 256 Parking Place Commission Comments on Downtown Plan August 12, 2014  Concern with safety of bike lanes  Concern with loss of spaces for changes to parking layout  Concerned with conflicts with trucks and new bike lanes  New law goes into effect in September that requires that vehicles maintain a 3-foot distance from bicyclist  Challenge bringing people over for the East of the 101 to Downtown o Like the Railroad Avenue extension  Like the new bike lanes but hope it won’t hamper business and cards downto wn  Income level here is not Burlingame, and we can’t expect our downtown to be that  20 year plan – so changes will happen in stages  There are a lot of challenges- a lot of people use Caltrain, and it could help to get those improvements at the Station 257 DRB Comment on Downtown Plan August 19, 2014  Pedestrian tunnel to extended Caltrain platform should be carefully designed o Curved roof o Wedged walls o Feeling of spaciousness  Pg. 2.2- take out figure 2.02 o All of the building outlines look too large o Makes Grand Avenue look like large E. Grand buildings o Removed this simulations from the plan  Figure 2.01- images are bad, doesn’t look like SSF o Vocabulary needs to tie in with City Hall & Library o Reflection and inspiration for rendering should be City Hall o New buildings shown look more like something you would see across the street from the ball park in SF  Page 5.16- Stormwater management o The examples shown take up a lot of space o Would not work on Grand Avenue o Could be a hazard or barrier to pedestrians o Has to be well placed o Might work best in re-development Eastern Neighborhood, not downtown 258 25 9 26 0 26 1 26 2 26 3 26 4 26 5 26 6 26 7 Section C Comments from Non-Governmental Organizations 268 26 9 27 0 1 September 9, 2014 [VIA EMAIL] Ms. Catherine Barber, Senior Planner City of South San Francisco, Planning Division 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Catherine.Barber@ssf.net Dear Ms. Barber: RE: Coalition for Community Benefits Recommendations on the Downtown South San Francisco Draft Station Area Plan The Coalition for Community Benefits writes to submit recommendations for edits to the Downtown South San Francisco’s Draft Station Area Plan (DSAP). We have been actively engaged in sharing the discussion around key components of the DSAP since the outset of the planning process, and have met with staff, council members, and various committee members regarding the key changes we have been advocating for in the Downtown. We applaud the City’s hard work on the Draft Downtown Station Area Plan and understand the process to the release has been no small feat given the multiple staff transitions over last year. Our coalition was pleased to get a hold of the DSAP and aims to help shape the final document. We appreciate staff’s attention to some of our comments and recognize the incorporation of a number of our recommendations specifically around transportation demand management and open space. We urge that South San Francisco takes more seriously the need for affordable housing and risk of displacement for current residents. Further, the City should adopt better policies for quality jobs and robust labor standards so as to strengthen our local workforce and economy. We believe that proper planning for the City’s current and future communities postures South San Francisco to engender a vibrant and economically sustainable future. We encourage the City to deepen its commitment to an inclusive vision of the Downtown specifically shaped by the community voices that we represent. Attachment 1 details the specific revisions our coalition is proposing to the DSAP by area of concern. Please give our recommendations due consideration as staff finalizes the Draft Plan. Please feel free to contact the coalition coordinator, Kirsten Spalding (kss@wel.com), if you have any questions. We look forward to working with you. With some minor adjustments, the DSAP could be even more effective at helping South San 271 2 Francisco achieve the goal of a healthy, inclusive, transit-oriented, bike-friendly, thriving, safe, and walkable community in its Downtown! Sincerely, William A. Nack, Business Manager Building and Construction Trades Council of San Mateo County, AFL-CIO Adina Levin, Executive Director Friends of Caltrain Michele Beasley, Regional Director Greenbelt Alliance Tracy Choi, Community Builder Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County Mark Leach, Business Manager International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers L.U. 617 Kirsten Spalding, Executive Director San Mateo County Union Community Alliance Corinne Winter, President and Executive Director Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Danny Campbell, Business Development Representative The Sheet Metal Workers' Local Union No. 104 Clarrissa Cabansagan, Community Planner TransForm Ellouise Patton, Regional Director UFCW Local 5 CC: City Coucil members Planning Commissioners City Manager Chief Planner SEE Attachment below with details 272 3 Attachment 1: Specific Revisions Proposed to the Downtown South San Francisco Draft Station Area Plan VISION FOR THE DOWNTOWN STATION AREA 1. In the section on “Vision for the Downtown Station Area,” add the following new bullet on page 2.3: “ENSURE the build out of the Plan advances the social, cultural, environmental, and physical goals of the community and results in a series of community benefits that address the needs of existing and future Downtown residents.” HOUSING We are pleased to see the City’s continued commitment to provide affordable housing through its plans to encourage a variety of housing opportunities, especially those that are high-density and mixed-use located in close proximity to transit. While enhancing the production of housing is a critical component of creating the downtown’s “critical mass,” there are few provisions that meaningfully address the enhanced risk of displacement of existing residents. The plan includes a substantial discussion of potential displacement as a result of development (7.4 “Affordable Housing and Anti-Displacement Strategy”), but only offers programs to mitigate displacement after it has already occurred. We strongly urge the City to include explicit tenant protections to prevent displacement due to sudden and rapid increases in rents and provide specific recommendations below. 2. In the section on “Community-Identified Issues and Opportunities,” add the following bullet under “Land Use and Urban Design” on page 2.2: “Need for balanced housing opportunities: A healthy mix of housing options will ensure a diverse population of new and existing residents, as well as allowing local businesses and employers to attract and retain workers.” The residents and community-based organizations we work have clearly identified this need. 3. In “Guiding Principle 5,” add the underlined language on page 3.4: Guiding Principle 5: Diversity in housing type and occupancy will reinforce the character of the Downtown and support a range of amenities and services. Much of today’s housing in the Downtown is relatively affordable; maintaining and enhancing the supply of affordable housing will ensure a healthy and diverse downtown population. 273 4 Efforts to avoid displacement of existing residents living in affordable residential units will also be required. LU-9: Encourage the provision of affordable housing in the Specific Plan area, by working with non-profit housing developers to identify opportunity sites with high Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) competitiveness, and through inclusionary or in- lieu fee provisions. LU-10: Preserve existing affordable units and avoid the displacement of low-income residents by considering tenant protection policies. 4. Under the section “Development Potential” on page 3.9, include approximate breakdown of total potential residential units by income level. 5. Under the “Affordable Housing and Anti-Displacement Strategy,” add the following two new bullets under “Programs to generate funding for affordable housing” on page 7.5: “Within one year of the completion of the nexus and feasibility study, adopt a commercial linkage fee and housing impact fee.” “Update the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to reflect subsequent changes after the adoption of commercial and housing impact fees.” 6. Under “Other housing programs” on page 7.5, add the following two new bullets: “Consider new policies to prevent displacement of low-income renters living in the Specific Plan area, such as a just cause eviction ordinance and rent stabilization.” “Task the City’s Housing Subcommittee to monitor and report on any negative impacts on existing low-income residents living within the Plan area, such as rates of evictions and increases in rent.” JOBS Although the Draft SAP encourages local hire, local sourcing, and business retention policies as strategies to revitalize the local economy and utilize the local workforce, the Draft SAP does not have as a goal to create quality jobs throughout the lifetime of the Plan. It does not offer specifics on job standards for the hundreds of new construction and service jobs that will be generated. Also, it is not clear on the actions that the City should 274 5 take in order to retain existing small businesses or how local hire and local sourcing will be encouraged. The Plan should specify that the jobs generated by the build out of the Plan must be jobs that pay area standard wages, offer benefits, and career pathways for local residents. It must also specify that developers and contractors provide information on how they will achieve these goals through their project applications. 7. In the section on “Community-Identified Issues and Opportunities,” add the following bullet under “Social and Business” on page 2.2: “The build out of the Plan has the potential to result in hundreds of new construction and service jobs. Without the adequate policies, regulations, and action steps, it is likely that these jobs will not pay area standard wages, will be filled by a workforce from outside the region, and will not result in opportunities for job training for the local youth.” 8. In “Guiding Principle 1,” add the underlined language on page 3.1 and the following five new bullets on page 3.2: “Guiding Principle 1: Revitalize Downtown South San Francisco as a citywide destination that is economically vital, diverse, inclusive, active, and that encompasses a variety of uses.” LU-3: Encourage a mix of uses and activities that will help generate quality construction and service jobs with career pathways that will pay area standard wages and provide job training opportunities for the local workforce. LU-4: Encourage developers to use apprentices from a State of California certified apprenticeship program so the local youth have access to career pathways in the construction industry. LU-5: Encourage developers to negotiate agreements with a full range of community benefits with community stakeholders. [LU-3 becomes LU-6] LU-7: Support local and minority-owned downtown businesses and nonprofits to minimize their potential displacement. LU-8: Promote the collaboration and coordination among the economic development, workforce development, and planning departments to maximize the economic vitality of Downtown and benefits for existing and future residents. 275 6 9. In the section “City Work Program Priorities,” remove the strikethrough language and add the underlined language on page 7.3: “Ongoing City Economic and Workforce Development Efforts Action Plan” 10. Under the section “Ongoing City Economic Development Efforts,” add a “New Efforts” section with the following new five bullets on page 7.3: Implementation 1: Encourage developers to work with the Building and Construction Trades Council to implement local sourcing, local and targeted hiring agreements reached with the City. Implementation 2: Develop a citywide strategy where City owned land, when it is sold or leased, will require the paying of Area Standard Wages for construction workers and require the use of apprentices from the State of California certified apprenticeship programs. Implementation 3: Condition entitlement approvals for future development upon the submission of an Economic Impact Report from the developer. The Economic Impact Report should include at a minimum the following information: the approximate number of jobs generated by the construction and development of the project; the projected job classifications and the estimated wages, and how these wages compare to the Area Standard Wages of that trade; approximate number of jobs generated upon completion of the project; projected occupations and wages for the permanent jobs generated upon completion of the project; and the plan to employ local residents and youth apprentices. Implementation 4: Encourage developers to collaborate with the San Mateo County Workforce Investment Board and the San Mateo County Building and Construction Trades Council and reach community benefit agreements prior to project commencement to achieve the economic and workforce development goals and policies outlined in this Plan. Implementation 5: Create a citywide strategy to retain local and minority-owned businesses and nonprofits. TRANSPORTATION 11. In the section on “Vision for the Downtown Station Area,” add the underlined language on page 2.3: “IMPROVE pedestrian and bicycle connections to Caltrain Station, as well as the Downtown with the east employment area. Ridership at the Caltrain station will increase to be a major hub for visitors and commuters to and from Downtown South San Francisco.” 12. Under the section “Airport Boulevard,” add the underlined language on page 3.15: 276 7 “UD-4 Reconfigure Airport Boulevard at and south of Grand Avenue to ensure safe access across this busy intersection. Improvements will include a reduction in travel lanes, a widened median supporting a pedestrian refuge, and removal of the free right turn from Airport Boulevard to East Grand Avenue coupled with an extended corner and sidewalk for pedestrian safety. Attention should be paid to helping guide bicyclists across this intersection with clear markings connecting the bike lanes on either side of Grand Avenue.” [This could also be inserted into Circulation section on page 4.6]. 13. Under the section “Grand Avenue in the Eastern Neighborhoods,” add the underlined language on page 3.18: “UD-11 Improve Grand Avenue to be pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly with a scale similar to that of Grand Avenue in the Downtown (e.g., two travel lanes, protected or buffered bicycle lanes, parallel parking, and wide sidewalks).” 14. Under the section “Intersection Improvements,” add the underlined language on page 3.20: “UD-18 Consider use of special high-visibility paving that can be used to delineate the crosswalks; different materials will visually or with a different feel, make the crosswalks more evident to motorists.” 15. Under the section “Caltrain Plaza,” add the following new bullet on page 3.28: “The plaza should account for bicycle ingress and egress from the pedestrian and bicycle undercrossing to the bike lanes on Grand Avenue, East Grand Avenue and Airport Boulevard to ensure safety, visibility and clear paths for bicyclists out of the way of pedestrians and vehicles.” 16. Under the section “Circulation,” add a new Guiding Principle after Guiding Principle 30 on page 4.2: “The SSF guidelines for TDM Programs require that all projects that generate greater than 100 daily trips obtain a required alternative mode use goal of 28%, based on a list of 15 TDM Program measures. More stringent alternative mode use goals are required for projects that seek densities above set FAR thresholds, based on land use City of South San Francisco, Municipal Code (SSFMC) § 20.120. The SSF Downtown Station Area Plan will set focused mode share goals for each TMA operating area (see section describing Transportation Management Association operating areas below) based on the characteristics of the area and its potential to reduce vehicle trips.” 17. Under the section “Street Network,” add the underlined language on page 4.4: 277 8 “C-7 Where possible, consider narrowing local streets and providing traffic calming devices to discourage through or speeding traffic and encourage other modes of transportation especially in residential neighborhoods.” 18. Under the section “Restrict Truck Routes,” add the following new bullet on page 4.8: “Update Traffic Impact Fee policy to support multi-modal investments. South San Francisco's traffic impact fee policy is based on impacts to automotive level of service. To mitigate impacts, developers pay fees to pay for road and intersection expansions identified in a nexus study. The measurement of transportation impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act is changing from automotive delay to vehicle miles traveled. Impacts can be mitigated by reducing vehicle miles travelled for a plan or project. Under the new state law, roadway expansions will be evaluated to assess whether they are likely to increase vehicle miles traveled. To incorporate these new standards and more effectively reduce environmental impact, the City will conduct a new Nexus study identifying multi-modal transportation improvements that reduce vehicle miles traveled. The Transportation Impact Fee policy will enable development impact fees to be spent on improvements to shuttles, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and other multi-modal investments, in addition to improvements to roadway capacity.” 19. Under the section “East-West Shuttle Connector,” add the underlined language and the following new bullet point on page 4.8: “C-22 Work with local employers and agencies to explore implementation of an improved shuttle managed by a Transportation Management Association, which could operate like the EmeryGoRound in Emeryville or Mission Bay shuttle in San Francisco, that would provide service to the City's major transit hubs--Caltrain, BART, and Ferry-- and employment and activity centers--East of US 101 and Downtown--during the day. The shuttle schedule data should be provided to 511.org and in formats usable by Google Transit and other services to enable integration into web and mobile apps for trip planning. The shuttle system or any other transit innovation intended to serve the same purposes as a circulator shuttle will extend service to the general public free of charge, to areas where transit operations is limited, as well as during temporal service gaps, such as late night service to specifically benefit service sector employees east of Highway 101.” “Transportation Management Associations (TMAs): The City will create and fund Transportation Management Association operating areas for distinct areas (e.g. Downtown, East Side). Each operating area will have an appropriate mode share and vehicle trip goal and services tailored to the area due to distinctive populations, uses, and transportation resources. TMA operating areas allow for better coordination of traffic reduction strategies, and extend benefits currently available east of the 101, to the heart of the Downtown where current plans are for a temporary pilot circulator shuttle program. Enabling the formation of distinct TMAs encourage existing and smaller businesses to 278 9 participate in the TMA and benefit from similar trip reduction strategies tailored to the area’s specific needs. o For specific planning areas east of the 101, the City’s Zoning Code SSFMC § 20.120 already sets forth a mix of program requirements (including TMAs) to discourage use of solo driving during peak commute hours. Property owners of developments requiring discretionary entitlements and generating a net increase of 100 vehicle trips, must adopt a TDM Plan, to maintain and monitor a 35% minimum alternative mode standard. o The establishment of TMA operating areas help to further the City’s trip reduction goals as specified through the Climate Action Plan and Zoning Code TDM policies (SSFMC § 20.120). o A TMA is a coordinated entity to monitor mode share compliance and allow employers and residents to collectively access the benefits of a robust TDM package often requiring a minimum threshold of participants. Strategies to foster trip reduction include free transit passes, free carshare membership, carpool and vanpool matching, etc. A TMA operating area pursues goals and develops programs targeted for the needs of a focused area. o Employers will work with new and existing TMAs and the City to expand TMA shuttle service to the general public where currently unavailable. o Update funding mechanisms for Transportation Management Associations. In the Downtown Area, enable TMA programs to be funded by parking revenues. This strategy will reduce the need to build additional costly parking and enable more real estate to be used for economic development and housing. o Create an Employer Trip Reduction Fee for employers with 10 more more employees. These fees will contribute to the cost of vehicle trip reduction programs similar to the City of Santa Monica’s Transportation Management Plan Ordinance 1604.” 20. Under the section “Bicycle Circulation,” add the underlined language on page 4.10: “Bicycle and Pedestrian Circulation The recommendations in this plan build upon the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plans, completed in 2011 and 2014, augmenting and focusing improvements to enhance access to and within the plan area. These improvements would be subject to review by the South San Francisco Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee. Guiding Principle 41: Ensure that walking to the Specific Plan area is convenient and safe through improvements to existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities and additions of new connections.” 279 10 21. Under the section “Grand Avenue Bicycle Lanes,” remove strikethrough language and add the underlined language on page 4.11: “C-25 Implement bicycle lanes protected or buffered bicycle lanes of at least 6 feet on Airport Boulevard south of Miller Avenue, on Gateway Boulevard north of East Grand Avenue, and on Grand Avenue, in concert with redesign of the street and enhanced streetscape improvements.” 22. After the section “Colma Creek Canal Trail East-West Bikeway,” add the following new section on page 4.11: “Implement improvements to Grand Avenue to incorporate pedestrian improvements consistent with the City’s Pedestrian Master Plan, the Climate Action Plan, and the Land Use and Urban Design section of this Downtown plan. The City will take a concerted effort to encourage that circulation on Grand Avenue and the Downtown Core District favor the pedestrian-scale. As mode share shifts in these areas to accommodate a higher proportion of pedestrian trips, the City will consider closure of Grand Avenue to car traffic to engender a pedestrian priority zone.” 23. Under the section “Parking Regulation and Metered Zone Expansion,” add the underlined language and the following four new bullets on page 4.12: “P-1 Expand the parking regulation area beyond the current Parking District as development occurs; a possible future configuration is illustrated in, but not limited to Figure 4.06. The City may extend the Parking District to the extent of the plan area. Residents within the plan area will be able to obtain residential parking permits in order to mitigate any issues with residents feeling subject to parking fees. Residential parking permits reduce the amount of spillover parking onto neighborhood streets due to parking pricing adjustments and parking district expansion. They place time limit restrictions on neighborhood streets for vehicles without a residential permit. Homeowners will have preferential parking within their neighborhood and visitors will be incented to park off- street. Residential streets within two blocks of commercial areas, or where nonresident parking constitutes 50% of parked vehicles, would be eligible for residential parking permits. Revenue from the parking benefits district fund the enforcement of downtown residential permit areas.” “Paid Parking for Commercial Developments: Paid parking provides a powerful incentive for employees to reduce vehicle trips. Competitive locations including Mission Bay and Stanford require paid parking. Include paid parking as a candidate feature in TDM plans for commercial development.” “Parking Cashout: South San Francisco should include parking cashout benefits as a standard feature in TDM plans for commercial development. Parking cashout is a benefit with demonstrated effectiveness at reducing driving. California law requires employers with more than 50 employees who provide subsidized parking for their employees, to offer a cash allowance in lieu of a parking space or "parking cashout" benefit to 280 11 employees. This policy enables cities to enforce the state law. To enable parking cashout, commercial developments should include “unbundled pricing” - setting a separate price for the lease of commercial space and for parking spots.” “Wayfinding Program: The addition of a wayfinding program will more effectively manage circulation on Grand Avenue and adjacent streets. The wayfinding program will be coordinated with the Parking District’s aim to prioritize bicycle and pedestrian activity and better manage short term parking. The wayfinding program will provide visitors with information about where to park, and how to connect from parking to destinations. Signage will direct visitors looking for longer-term parking to municipal lots and parking structures away from Grand Avenue. Wayfinding signage should also be provided for pedestrian and bicycle routes and networks, with particular attention paid to major destinations, such as transit and city services. These signs could also list mileage or estimated times to encourage these modes of travel.” “To adequately manage the supply of parking and make curb parking reasonably available when and where needed, a target occupancy rate of 85% on Grand Avenue should be established. This is otherwise known as the Goldilocks principle of parking prices which can effectively reduce congestion on Downtown streets--mileage spent cruising for parking.” 24. Under the section “Parking Time Limits, Restrictions and Fee Adjustments,” add the following new bullet on page 4.13: “Parking Benefits District: Charging the right price for parking helps promote the use of transportation alternatives to personal vehicle use and increase Caltrain ridership in South San Francisco. In conjunction with the Parking District, the City will operate a parking benefits district (PBD). The PBD will dedicate parking revenues, less City expenses for parking management, to local streetscape improvements and programs that promote alternative modes of transportation including but not limited to transit, bicycling, bike share, or car share, reducing the need to construct additional parking supply. The PBD (or associated downtown TMA operating area) may coordinate with residential complexes and businesses to offer bulk discount transit passes to residents and employees, carshare/bikeshare facilities, and other benefits to encourage reduction in parking demand. o Revenues generated from on- and off-street parking within the Downtown Parking District shall be accounted for separately from other City funds and may be used only within or for the benefit of the Downtown Parking District.” 25. Under the section “Parking Minimums and Maximums,” add the following two new bullets on page 4.13: “Reduced Parking Requirements through TDM Strategies in Affordable and Mixed Income Residential Development: South San Francisco’s current residential parking 281 12 standards allow for parking reductions in areas within ¼ mile of the Caltrain Station and parking maximums within the Downtown Parking District. This acknowledges the importance of transportation demand management (TDM) to reduce parking demand specifically near transit and encourage transit ridership. Additive parking reductions for proximity to transit and mixed use centers and housing affordability directly reflect multiple studies of actual parking utilization in similar areas with affordable housing such as the coordination of parking code updates through the Grand Boulevard Initiative and forthcoming Bay Area Residential Parking Database. The suite of strategies proven to be most effective for traffic and vehicle ownership reduction that the City can encourage are the development of homes that are both more affordable and provide affordable transportation. o Affordable housing and mixed income developments are allowed a parking reduction of 50% with the implementation of all three TDM strategies: 1. Unbundled parking 2. Free transit passes 3. Free carsharing memberships and spaces for carsharing pods on site.” “Reduced Parking Requirements through TDM Strategies: The City will consider an automatic parking reduction of 50% for any project providing all three of the following TDM strategies within the entire Downtown Plan Area: 1. Free local transit passes (bus and/or rail, one per unit or employee) 2. 100% Unbundling of parking 3. Free carsharing memberships and spaces for carsharing pods on site.” 26. Under the section “Shared Parking,” add the following new bullet on page 4.13: “Modify the parking code to encourage the development of affordable housing units within the plan area by allowing further reductions in parking maximums for affordable housing developments. This enables the feasibility of creating affordable housing units in the downtown plan area and prevents developers from incorporating excess parking in new residential buildings.” 27. Under the section “Car Sharing,” add the following three new bullets on page 4.13: “The City will encourage car sharing companies to locate preferential carshare pods at the Caltrain Station. Such preferential spaces should also be considered for other innovative forms of vehicle- and ride- sharing that allow for reductions in VMT within the downtown such as point-to-point and peer-to-peer models of carsharing.” “Separate Parking Requirements: The new retail uses suggested in Downtown could use on-street parking or nearby off-street lots and parking garages to meet their parking requirements rather than construct on-site parking. Certain smaller retail uses could be exempt from all parking requirements when a parking study shows their parking demand 282 13 is likely to be very small and more short-term. Where space is limited, development can employ the use of lifts to ensure the right amount of parking is provided. However, the City will prioritize evidence-based parking reduction as the primary means to reduce auto-trips in the downtown. Shared parking and lifts can be considered only after parking reduction potential has been assessed.” “Free Transit Passes: The provision of free transit passes to all residents and employees within plan area will incentivize transit use, especially in Downtown South San Francisco. Both SamTrans and Caltrain offer bulk transit pass purchase programs for residential complexes and companies. Their Way2Go and Go programs provide significant discounts for passes purchased in bulk. For example, SamTrans charges $115 for an annual transit pass when a minimum of 100 passes are purchased. Caltrain charges $165 for an annual transit pass when a minimum of 84 passes are purchased. To date, there are also over 50 housing developments and more than 85 employers in the Bay Area that are providing free passes as a result of bulk discount transit pass programs. o Since minimum program fees apply for the purchase of bulk discount passes, the Plan area will utilize TMAs and TMA operating areas to coordinate a collective program for existing and future small businesses and lower density apartment complexes. The City will encourage Caltrain/SamTrans to provide passes for a pool of customers in each TMA operating area. o Since the plan area has transit service from both Caltrain and SamTrans, SSF will work with transit agencies to provide a combo pass for people who use both services, an emerging need in San Mateo County. o TMAs will explore the idea of providing transit passes to all residents and employees within their operating areas. At minimum they will seek to provide this benefit to all employees and all youth and senior residents.” 28. Under the section “Regional and State Sources of Funds,” add the following bullet on page 7.11: “Car Sharing Grant Program: The Car Sharing Program is a new grant program administered by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission to city and county governments and other public agencies to help expand car sharing services in their communities. In 2014, $2 million in federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program funds were committed to provide four or five one-time grants to expand car sharing in the Bay Area. The City will pursue similar future opportunities for funding the expansion of carshare to the downtown.” 283 November 25, 2014 [VIA EMAIL] Ms. Susy Kalkin, Chief Planner City of South San Francisco, Planning Division 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Susy.Kalkin@ssf.net Dear Ms. Kalkin: RE: Staff Responses to Coalition for Community Benefits Recommendations on the Downtown South San Francisco Draft Station Area Plan The Coalition for Community Benefits writes to thank staff for the amount of attention and consideration they have devoted to our written comments that were submitted on September 9, 2014 with regard to the Downtown South San Francisco Draft Station Area Plan (DSAP). We were pleased to have received the matrix with detailed responses to each suggestion, and glad the City Council and Planning Commission had this information to reference during their special joint study session a few weeks ago. As a broad partnership of labor, environment, health, transportation, housing, equity and social justice organizations, we understand the interconnected nature of our policy areas. We stand together in presenting policy recommendations that collectively can move South San Francisco towards a more economically vibrant and sustainable Downtown that is consistent with the City’s long-standing support for the health and well-being of working-class families. We are thrilled to see the inclusion of a number of our comments (Table 1) and believe that all modifications to our suggestions were in keeping with the intent of the original comments with only one minor edit. Additionally, we look forward to seeing the plan edits that will include to address the directives from the City Council and Planning Commission members during the October 15 joint study discussion. We encourage staff to include the displacement related language provided in our initial comment letter, and propose some new language that characterizes Councilmember Addiego’s suggestion for city staff or a taskforce to monitor the Plan’s impact on lower-income, renter households (Table 2). While some of our recommendations were too specific to be included in the DSAP, we hope to address the following with staff at the appropriate venue and/or work with the City to pursue city- wide policies or ordinances: ● Transportation Management Associations and operating areas 284 ● Traffic Impact Fee updates to support multi-modal investments ● Specific bike lane markings or treatments Lastly, on a few recommendations where staff responded “no,” we offer up a few revised recommendations for your consideration (Table 3). We believe inclusion of this new language is in keeping with the spirit of our original comments. Again, our coalition appreciates staff’s hard work and your leadership in this effort. We sincerely thank you for considering these recommendations. We are confident that their inclusion will lead to a healthier, safer, diverse, walkable, bikeable, sustainable and economically vibrant Downtown South San Francisco. We look forward to continuing to work with you, staff and other community stakeholders in implementing this plan. Sincerely, William A. Nack, Business Manager Building and Construction Trades Council of San Mateo County, AFL-CIO Adina Levin, Executive Director Friends of Caltrain Michele Beasley, Regional Director Greenbelt Alliance Joshua Hugg, Program Manager Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County Rev. Kirsten Spaulding San Mateo County Union Community Alliance Corinne Winter, President and Executive Director Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Danny Campbell, Business Development Representative Sheet Metal Workers' Local Union No. 104 Clarrissa Cabansagan, Community Planner TransForm cc: City Council Members Planning Commissioners City Manager 285 Table 1 # Edits Incorporated into DSAP 1 “ENSURE the build out of the Plan advances the social, cultural, environmental, and physical goals of the community and results in a series of community benefits that address the needs of existing and future Downtown residents.” 3b LU-9: Encourage the provision of affordable housing in the Specific Plan area, by working with non-profit housing developers to identify opportunity sites with high Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) competitiveness, and through inclusionary or in-lieu fee provisions. 8f LU-8: Promote the collaboration and coordination among the economic development, workforce development, and planning departments to maximize the economic vitality of Downtown and benefits for existing and future residents. 11 IMPROVE pedestrian and bicycle connections to Caltrain Station, as well as the Downtown with the east employment area. Ridership at the Caltrain station will increase to be a major hub for visitors and commuters to and from Downtown South San Francisco. 17 C-7: Where possible, consider narrowing local streets and providing traffic calming devices to discourage through or speeding traffic and encourage other modes of transportation especially in residential neighborhoods.” # Edits Incorporated into DSAP with Modification by City Staff 2 “Need for housing opportunities: A healthy mix of housing options will ensure a diverse population of new and existing residents, as well as allowing local businesses and employers to attract and retain workers.” 7 “The build out of the Plan has the potential to result in hundreds of new construction and service jobs. Without adequate policies, regulations, and action steps, it is possible that these jobs may not pay area standard wages, will be filled by a workforce from outside the region, and will not result in opportunities for job tra ining for the local youth.” 13 “UD-11 Improve Grand Ave to be pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly with a scale similar to that of Grand Avenue in the Downtown (e.g., two travel lanes, protected or buffered bicycle lanes where possible and feasible, parallel parking and wide sidewalks).” 14 “UD-18 Consider use of special paving that can be used to delineate the crosswalks for visibility; different materials will visually or with a different feel, make the crosswalks more evident to motorists.” 15 “The plaza should account for bicycle ingress and egress from the pedestrian and bicycle undercrossing to the bike lanes on Grand Avenue, East Grand Avenue and Airport Boulevard to ensure safety, visibility and clear paths for bicyclists out of the way of pedestrians .” 27a (MINOR EDITS) The City should encourage car sharing and ride sharing programs by working directly with a car and ride share companyies to bring these programs into the Specific Plan area. Preferential on-street parking for car share vehicles, and coordination with major employers 286 such as Genentech, may help support this program. The City will encourage Caltrain (Joint Powers Board) to explore the feasibility of the installation of preferential carshare pods at the SSF Caltrain Station. The City will explore future State and Federal funding opportunities for car sharing programs. Table 2 # Labor and Displacement Related Language 8 (NEW) In “Guiding Principle 1,” add the underlined language and the following bullets: “Guiding Principle 1: Revitalize Downtown South San Francisco as a citywide destination that is economically vital, diverse, inclusive, active, and that encompasses a variety of uses.” Amend existing LU-1 to read: LU-1: Encourage the use of local workforce and local business sourcing for development in the plan area that generates quality construction and service jobs with career pathways, that provides job training opportunities for the local workforce, and that pays area standard wages for construction so that money in wages and materials used in the construction of these developments is invested in the local economy. Keep LU-2 and LU-3 as written. LU-4: Support local and minority-owned downtown businesses and nonprofits to minimize their potential displacement. LU-5: Promote the collaboration and coordination among the economic development, workforce development, and planning departments to maximize the economic vitality of Downtown and benefits for existing and future residents. 3a 3b 6a Guiding Principle 5: Diversity in housing type and occupancy will reinforce the character of the Downtown and support a range of amenities and services. Much of today’s housing in the Downtown is relatively affordable; maintaining and enhancing the supply of affordable housing will ensure a healthy and diverse downtown population. Efforts to avoid displacement of existing residents living in affordable residential units will also be required. LU-10: Preserve existing affordable units and avoid the displacement of low-income residents by considering tenant protection policies. “Consider new policies to prevent displacement of low-income renters living in the Specific Plan area, such as a just cause eviction ordinance and rent stabilization.” 287 6b (NEW) Task the City’s Housing Subcommittee [or create a Citizen’s Taskforce] to monitor and report on any negative impacts on existing low-income residents living within the Plan area, such as rates of evictions and increases in rent. The taskforce will also monitor the pace and locations of new development, transactions, and development proposals within the Downtown, to determine whether land costs in the Plan Area are motivating developers to purchase existing housing for demolition and redevelopment; or whether such activity is exacerbating the rent burden on Plan Area households. Table 3 # NEW Recommended Language To address comment 4 Under the section “Development Potential” on page 3.9, include breakdown of total potential residential units by income level as analyzed in the Draft Environmental Impact Report and stated in the Housing Element.. To address comment 5 Under the section “Affordable Housing and Anti-Displacement Strategy,” add the following two new bullets under “Programs to generate funding for affordable housing” on page 7.5: Upon completion one year of the completion of the nexus and feasibility study, consider the adoption of a commercial linkage fee and housing impact fee. Update the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to reflect any subsequent changes after the adoption of commercial and housing impact fees. To address comment 18 Under the section “Restrict Truck Routes,” add the following new bullet on page 4.8: Future Update of Traffic Impact Fee to support multi-modal investments: South San Francisco's traffic impact fee policy is based on impacts to automotive level of service (LOS). While the DSAP is being adopted prior to new guidelines for traffic impact under the California Environmental Quality Act, the City acknowledges the shift from automotive delay to vehicle miles traveled. Any future update of the Traffic Impact Fee will take into consideration the existing guidance on transportation impacts in accordance with CEQA. To incorporate these new standards and more effectively reduce environmental impact, the City will consider conducting a new Nexus study identifying multi-modal transportation improvements that reduce vehicle miles traveled. The Transportation Impact Fee policy will enable development impact fees to be spent on improvements to shuttles, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and other multi-modal investments, in addition to improvements to roadway capacity. 288 To address comments 23b-c,e; 26 Under the section “Parking Regulation and Metered Zone Expansion,” add the underlined language and the following new bullets: “The City’s future parking study will help determine the appropriate mix of additional parking policies to be considered specific to the Downtown that will encourage more walking, biking and transit trips within the Plan Area. Future policies for considera tion include: paid parking for commercial development, parking cashout, shared parking, reduced parking requirements for developments with robust TDM strategies, and goal of 85% on-street parking occupancy rates. The City will consider implementation of a parking assessment district in the Downtown Station Area where revenue from street and municipal parking are set aside to fund pedestrian and streetscape improvements. To address comment 27c 27. Under the section SFO Shuttle Connector and Airtrain Extension” add the following strategy page 4.8: Encourage the Use of Bulk Discount Transit Passes: The provision of free transit passes to all residents and employees within plan area will incentivize transit use, especially in Downtown South San Francisco. Both SamTrans and Caltrain offer bulk transit pass purchase programs for residential complexes and companies. Their Way2Go and Go programs provide significant discounts for passes purchased in bulk. For example, SamTrans charges $115 for an annual transit p ass when a minimum of 100 passes are purchased. Caltrain charges $165 for an annual transit pass when a minimum of 84 passes are purchased. To date, there are also over 50 housing developments and more than 85 employers in the Bay Area that are providing free passes as a result of bulk discount transit pass programs. ● The City encourages businesses and residential developers to provide bulk discount passes in exchange for reduced parking requirements. ● Since the plan area has transit service from both Caltrain and SamTrans, the City will consider working with transit agencies to provide a combo pass for people who use both services, an emerging need in San Mateo County. ● The City will consider working with Caltrain and SamTrans to enable a to-be- determined entity (i.e. a Transportation Management Agency) to manage the purchasing of bulk combo passes for a pool of residents and employees within a half mile from the Caltrain Station. To address comment 23d Add bullet point under UD-51: Consider implementing a wayfinding program to more effectively manage travel on Grand Avenue and adjacent streets. A wayfinding program could be coordinated with the Parking District’s aim to prioritize bicycle and pedestrian activity and better manage short term parking. The wayfinding program can provide visitors with information about where to park, and how to connect from parking to destinations. Clear signage can direct visitors looking for longer-term parking to municipal lots and parking structures away from Grand Avenue. The City may also consider providing wayfinding signage for pedestrian and bicycle routes and networks, with particular attention paid to major destinations, such as transit and city services. These signs could also list mileage or estimated times to encourage these modes of travel.” 289 To address comment 22 Add another bullet under UD-51: If plan area improvements and periodic street closures to motorized vehicles encourage a significant, permanent modal shift to biking and walking along Grand Avenue in the Downtown Core, the City will consider a bicycle and pedestrian only zone on Grand Avenue at a future date. To address comment 22 Add another bullet under UD-51: The City will provide streetscape and pedestrian amenities commensurate with modal shift targets specified in the City’s Climate Action Plan and goals of the Pedestrian Master Plan. 290 Response to Coalition for Community Benefits (CCB) edit suggestions submitted on 11/25/14 Revised suggestions and staff response in red underlined  Staff recommendations are: to support suggested changes (yes), disagree with suggested changes (no), or agree to modify (yes with edits) per the suggestions and alternatives column. 1 Comment # Suggested Change Staff Recommendation Suggestions & Alternatives to Address Concern 1 1. In the section on “Vision for the Downtown Station Area,” add the following new bullet on page 2.3: “ENSURE the build out of the Plan advances the social, cultural, environmental, and physical goals of the community and results in a series of community benefits that address the needs of existing and future Downtown residents.” REASON: Only offers programs to mitigate displacement after it has already occurred. We strongly urge the City to include explicit tenant protections to prevent displacement due to sudden and rapid increases in rents and provide specific recommendations below. Yes Accept suggested language to add to Vision “ENSURE the build out of the Plan advances the social, cultural, environmental, and physical goals of the community and results in a series of community benefits that address the needs of existing and future Downtown residents.” Our existing displacement polices are adequate and we do not feel that additional changes to them are necessary. 2 2. In the section on “Community-Identified Issues and Opportunities,” add the following bullet under “Land Use and Urban Design” on page 2.2: “Need for balanced housing opportunities: A healthy mix of housing options will ensure a diverse population of new and existing residents, as well as allowing local businesses and employers to attract and retain workers.” REASON: The residents and community-based organizations we work have clearly identified this need. Yes with edits Agree to add suggested language: “Need for housing opportunities: A healthy mix of housing options will ensure a diverse population of new and existing residents, as well as allowing local businesses and employers to attract and retain workers.” Except the word “balanced” has not been included; do not understand what that means in this context. 3 3. In “Guiding Principle 5,” add the underlined language on page 3.4: Guiding Principle 5: Diversity in housing type and occupancy will reinforce the character of the Downtown and support a range of amenities and services. Much of today’s housing in the Downtown is relatively affordable; maintaining and enhancing the supply of affordable housing will ensure a healthy and diverse downtown population. REASON: Efforts to avoid displacement of existing residents living in affordable residential units will also be required. LU-9: Encourage the provision of affordable housing in the Specific Plan area, by working with non-profit housing developers to identify opportunity sites with high Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) competitiveness, and through inclusionary or in- lieu fee provisions. LU-10: Preserve existing affordable units and avoid the displacement of low-income residents by considering tenant protection policies. No No Yes No Agree to include edits to LU-9 only Plan is not proposing to demolish existing buildings but focuses development on vacant and underutilized parcels. State laws in place provide existing tenant protections. Update LU-9: “Encourage the provision of affordable housing in the Specific Plan area, by working with non-profit housing developers to identify opportunity sites with high Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) competitiveness, and through inclusionary or in-lieu fee provisions.” 4 4. Under the section “Development Potential” on page 3.9, include breakdown of total potential residential units by income level as analyzed in the Draft Environmental Impact Report and stated in the Housing Element No The breakdown of affordable housing is a Citywide requirement that will be addressed in the Housing Element. This comment stands. 5 5. Under the “Affordable Housing and Anti-Displacement Strategy,” add the following two new bullets under “Programs to generate funding for affordable housing” on page 7.5: “Within one year of the completion of the nexus and feasibility study, consider adoption of a commercial linkage fee and housing impact fee.” “Update the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to reflect subsequent changes after the adoption of commercial and housing impact fees.” No No The Nexus Study for an Affordable Housing Linkage Fee is currently being prepared and is not yet adopted or even available. SSF is participating in this study and will analyze the recommendations in the study upon completion of the study, but we cannot commit to adoption of fees and changes in our ordinances to reflect fees until such time that we can review those recommendations. This comment stands. 291 Response to Coalition for Community Benefits (CCB) edit suggestions submitted on 11/25/14 Revised suggestions and staff response in red underlined  Staff recommendations are: to support suggested changes (yes), disagree with suggested changes (no), or agree to modify (yes with edits) per the suggestions and alternatives column. 2 Comment # Suggested Change Staff Recommendation Suggestions & Alternatives to Address Concern 6 6. Under “Other housing programs” on page 7.5, add the following two new bullets: “Consider new policies to prevent displacement of low-income renters living in the Specific Plan area, such as a just cause eviction ordinance and rent stabilization.” “Task the City’s Housing Subcommittee [or create a Citizen’s Taskforce] to monitor and report on any negative impacts on existing low-income residents living within the Plan area, such as rates of evictions and increases in rent. The taskforce will also monitor the pace and locations of new development, transactions, and development proposals within the Downtown, to determine whether land costs in the Plan Area are motivating developers to purchase existing housing for demolition and redevelopment; or whether such activity is exacerbating the rent burden on Plan Area households.” No Yes to CCB suggestion with new Land Use Policy This is a policy decision. State laws currently address requirements for evictions. The City is supportive of efforts to track changes in rental housing stock and affordability on a regional or local basis and suggests the following guiding principle. Similar language is also proposed for the Housing Element update: Add LU-10: “Support regional and local efforts to examine displacement of affordable housing and lower-income households and consider programs to address identified housing needs.” 7 7. In the section on “Community-Identified Issues and Opportunities,” add the following bullet under “Social and Business” on page 2.2: “The build out of the Plan has the potential to result in hundreds of new construction and service jobs. Without the adequate policies, regulations, and action steps, it is likely that these jobs will not pay area standard wages, will be filled by a workforce from outside the region, and will not result in opportunities for job training for the local youth.” Yes with edits We agree to add this language, slightly modified. It would speak to the list of concerns that were expressed by the community and summarized in the Plan: “The build out of the Plan has the potential to result in hundreds of new construction and service jobs. Without adequate policies, regulations, and action steps, it is possible that these jobs may not pay fair wages, will be filled by a workforce from outside the region, and will not result in opportunities for job training for the local youth.” 8 8. In “Guiding Principle 1,” add the underlined language on page 3.1 and the following five new bullets on page 3.2: “Guiding Principle 1: Revitalize Downtown South San Francisco as a citywide destination that is economically vital, diverse, inclusive, active, and that encompasses a variety of uses.” LU-1: Encourage the use of local workforce and local business sourcing for development in the plan area that generates quality construction and service jobs with career pathways, that provides job training opportunities for the local workforce, and that pays area standar d wages for construction so that money in wages and materials used in the construction of these developments is invested in the local economy. LU-3: Encourage a mix of uses and activities that will help generate quality construction and service jobs with career pathways that will pay area standard wages and provide job training opportunities for the local workforce. LU-4: Encourage developers to use apprentices from a State of California certified apprenticeship program so the local youth have access to career pathways in the construction industry. LU-5: Encourage developers to negotiate agreements with a full range of community benefits with community stakeholders. [LU-3 becomes LU-6] LU-7: Support local and minority-owned downtown businesses and nonprofits to minimize their potential displacement. LU-8: Promote the collaboration and coordination among the economic development, workforce development, and planning departments to maximize the economic vitality of Downtown and benefits for existing and future residents. No Yes to new CCB suggestion with edits No No No No Yes The word “diverse” seems to be “inclusive” and is adequate enough language. Update to LU-1: “Encourage the use of local workforce and local business sourcing for development in the plan area that generates quality construction and service jobs with career pathways, that provides job training opportunities for the local workforce, and that pays fair wages so that money in wages and materials used in the construction of these developments is invested in the local economy.” The City is preempted from requiring payment of prevailing wages when it is acting as a regulator and no City funds are being used for the project. Too specific of a requirement for the Plan; the City could, in addition to the policy statement in LU-1, consider adopting a Citywide resolution that encourages this on all projects. The intent of this policy is covered under comment #1, which we have agreed to include. The Affordable Housing and Anti-Displacement Strategy (AHAD) includes a section titled, “Small Businesses and Community Services” that includes strategies to prevent or mitigate the displacement of existing businesses in the Plan Area; see strategies 11 & 12 on page 24. Agreed to add this policy as LU-11 292 Response to Coalition for Community Benefits (CCB) edit suggestions submitted on 11/25/14 Revised suggestions and staff response in red underlined  Staff recommendations are: to support suggested changes (yes), disagree with suggested changes (no), or agree to modify (yes with edits) per the suggestions and alternatives column. 3 Comment # Suggested Change Staff Recommendation Suggestions & Alternatives to Address Concern 9 9. In the section “City Work Program Priorities,” remove the strikethrough language and add the underlined language on page 7.3: “Ongoing City Economic and Workforce Development Efforts Action Plan” No See explanation below 10 10. Under the section “Ongoing City Economic Development Efforts,” add a “New Efforts” section with the following new five bullets on page 7.3: Implementation 1: Encourage developers to work with the Building and Construction Trades Council to implement local sourcing, local and targeted hiring agreements reached with the City. Implementation 2: Develop a citywide strategy where City owned land, when it is sold or leased, will require the paying of Area Standard Wages for construction workers and require the use of apprentices from the State of California certified apprenticeship programs. Implementation 3: Condition entitlement approvals for future development upon the submission of an Economic Impact Report from the developer. The Economic Impact Report should include at a minimum the following information: the approximate number of jobs generated by the construction and development of the project; the projected job classifications and the estimated wages, and how these wages compare to the Area Standard Wages of that trade; approximate number of jobs generated upon completion of the project; projected occupations and wages for the permanent jobs generated upon completion of the project; and the plan to employ local residents and youth apprentices. Implementation 4: Encourage developers to collaborate with the San Mateo County Workforce Investment Board and the San Mateo County Building and Construction Trades Council and reach community benefit agreements prior to project commencement to achieve the economic and workforce development goals and policies outlined in this Plan. Implementation 5: Create a citywide strategy to retain local and minority-owned businesses and nonprofits. No No No No No Suggested Implementations 1-4 are very specific and directive. A broad policy requiring payment of prevailing wages is not appropriate because the law does not apply uniformly to all situations. Payment of prevailing wages is not required when the City is acting solely as a market participant, but the City has discretion to require them. However, payment of prevailing wages is mandatory when City funds are being used on part of a project. Accordingly, the City is not legally authorized to include such requirements within the Plan. In addition to the current language of LU-1 in the Plan, the City Could consider separate Citywide recommendations or support in theory Citywide, but cannot require unless City funds are being used for a project. The Affordable Housing and Anti-Displacement Strategy (AHAD) includes a section titled, “Small Businesses and Community Services” that includes strategies to prevent or mitigate the displacement of existing businesses in the Plan Area; see strategies 11 & 12 on page 24. 11 11. In the section on “Vision for the Downtown Station Area,” add the underlined language on page 2.3: “IMPROVE pedestrian and bicycle connections to Caltrain Station, as well as the Downtown with the east employment area. Ridership at the Caltrain station will increase to be a major hub for visitors and commuters to and from Downtown South San Francisco.” Yes We agree to add underlined language to the “Vision” statement: “IMPROVE pedestrian and bicycle connections to Caltrain as well as the Downtown with the east employment area. Ridership at the Caltrain station will increase to be a major hub for visitors and commuters to and from Downtown South San Francisco.” 12 12. Under the section “Airport Boulevard,” add the underlined language on page 3.15: “UD-4 Reconfigure Airport Boulevard at and south of Grand Avenue to ensure safe access across this busy intersection. Improvements will include a reduction in travel lanes, a widened median supporting a pedestrian refuge, and removal of the free right turn from Airport Boulevard to East Grand Avenue coupled with an extended corner and sidewalk for pedestrian safety. Attention should be paid to helping guide bicyclists across this intersection with clear markings connecting the bike lanes on either side of Grand Avenue.” [This could also be inserted into Circulation section on page 4.6]. No Suggested language is too specific to include as a policy in the Plan. However we appreciate the suggestion and can explore and analyze further when the improvements are eminent for construction/implementation. Public Works will do a full engineering analysis to determine the proper markings that would be required and if they are an industry accepted standard that could be included. 293 Response to Coalition for Community Benefits (CCB) edit suggestions submitted on 11/25/14 Revised suggestions and staff response in red underlined  Staff recommendations are: to support suggested changes (yes), disagree with suggested changes (no), or agree to modify (yes with edits) per the suggestions and alternatives column. 4 Comment # Suggested Change Staff Recommendation Suggestions & Alternatives to Address Concern 13 13. Under the section “Grand Avenue in the Eastern Neighborhoods,” add the underlined language on page 3.18: “UD-11 Improve Grand Avenue to be pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly with a scale similar to that of Grand Avenue in the Downtown (e.g., two travel lanes, protected or buffered bicycle lanes, parallel parking, and wide sidewalks).” Yes with edits Will include suggested language, slightly modified with the bold language that we included as shown below: Update UD-11: “Improve Grand Avenue to be pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly with a scale similar to that of Grand Avenue in the Downtown (e.g., two travel lanes, protected or buffered bicycle lanes where possible and feasible, parallel parking, and wide sidewalks).” 14 14. Under the section “Intersection Improvements,” add the underlined language on page 3.20: “UD-18 Consider use of special high-visibility paving that can be used to delineate the crosswalks; different materials will visually or with a different feel, make the crosswalks more evident to motorists.” Yes with edits Agree with premise of suggested language and will include language, slightly modified with the strike outs and bold language as shown below: Update UD-18: “Consider use of special paving that can be used to delineate the crosswalks for visibility; different materials will visually or with a different feel, make the crosswalks more evident to motorists.” 15 15. Under the section “Caltrain Plaza,” add the following new bullet on page 3.28: “The plaza should account for bicycle ingress and egress from the pedestrian and bicycle undercrossing to the bike lanes on Grand Avenue, East Grand Avenue and Airport Boulevard to ensure safety, visibility and clear paths for bicyclists out of the way of pedestrians and vehicles.” Yes with edits Agree with premise of suggested language and will include language, slightly modified with the strike outs as shown below because the undercrossing is designed to only accommodate pedestrians and bicycles and will not accommodate vehicles: “The plaza should account for bicycle ingress and egress from the pedestrian and bicycle undercrossing to the bike lanes on Grand Avenue, East Grand Avenue and Airport Boulevard to ensure safety, visibility and clear paths for bicyclists out of the way of pedestrians.” 16 16. Under the section “Circulation,” add a new Guiding Principle after Guiding Principle 30 on page 4.2: “The SSF guidelines for TDM Programs require that all projects that generate greater than 100 daily trips obtain a required alternative mode use goal of 28%, based on a list of 15 TDM Program measures. More stringent alternative mode use goals are required for projects that seek densities above set FAR thresholds, based on land use City of South San Francisco, Municipal Code (SSFMC) § 20.120. The SSF Downtown Station Area Plan will set focused mode share goals for each TMA operating area (see section describing Transportation Management Association operating areas below) based on the characteristics of the area and its potential to reduce vehicle trips.” No Suggested language is too specific for inclusion in the Plan. The City already has very strong TDM requirements in our zoning ordinance. 17 17. Under the section “Street Network,” add the underlined language on page 4.4: “C-7 Where possible, consider narrowing local streets and providing traffic calming devices to discourage through or speeding traffic and encourage other modes of transportation especially in residential neighborhoods.” Yes Agree to include additional language to policy C-7 as suggested. Update C-7: “Where possible, consider narrowing local streets and providing traffic calming devices to discourage through or speeding traffic and encourage other modes of transportation especially in residential neighborhoods.” 18 18. Under the section “Restrict Truck Routes,” add the following new bullet on page 4.8: “Future Update of Traffic Impact Fee to support multi-modal investments: South San Francisco's traffic impact fee policy is based on impacts to automotive level of service (LOS). While the DSASP is being adopted prior to new guidelines for traffic impact under the California Environmental Quality Act, the City acknowledges the shift from automotive delay to vehicle miles traveled. Any future update of the Traffic Impact Fee No This suggestion would require a policy change that would need to apply Citywide. We are already in the processing of updating our Traffic Impact Fee and associated projects to include pedestrian and bicycle improvements projects along with the listed traffic improvements. In addition, the CEQA changes referenced to change the traffic/transportation analysis to include VMT (Vehicle Miles Traveled) rather than LOS (Level of 294 Response to Coalition for Community Benefits (CCB) edit suggestions submitted on 11/25/14 Revised suggestions and staff response in red underlined  Staff recommendations are: to support suggested changes (yes), disagree with suggested changes (no), or agree to modify (yes with edits) per the suggestions and alternatives column. 5 Comment # Suggested Change Staff Recommendation Suggestions & Alternatives to Address Concern will take into consideration the existing guidance on transportation impacts in accordance with CEQA. To incorporate these new standards and more effectively reduce environmental impact, the City will consider conducting a new Nexus study identifying multi-modal transportation improvements that reduce vehicle miles traveled. The Transportation Impact Fee policy will enable development impact fees to be spent on improvements to shuttles, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and other multi-modal investments, in addition to improvements to roadway capacity.” Service) is not yet adopted and implemented as part the CEQA checklist. This comment stands. 19 19. Under the section “East-West Shuttle Connector,” add the underlined language and the following new bullet point on page 4.8: “C-22 Work with local employers and agencies to explore implementation of an improved shuttle managed by a Transportation Management Association, which could operate like the EmeryGoRound in Emeryville or Mission Bay shuttle in San Francisco, that would provide service to the City's major transit hubs--Caltrain, BART, and Ferry- ¬and employment and activity centers--East of US 101 and Downtown--during the day. The shuttle schedule data should be provided to 511.org and in formats usable by Google Transit and other services to enable integration into web and mobile apps for trip planning. The shuttle system or any other transit innovation intended to serve the same purposes as a circulator shuttle will extend service to the general public free of charge, to areas where transit operations is limited, as well as during temporal service gaps, such as late night service to specifically benefit service sector employees east of Highway 101.” “Transportation Management Associations (TMAs): The City will create and fund Transportation Management Association operating areas for distinct areas (e.g. Downtown, East Side). Each operating area will have an appropriate mode share and vehicle trip goal and services tailored to the area due to distinctive populations, uses, and transportation resources. TMA operating areas allow for better coordination of traffic reduction strategies, and extend benefits currently available east of the 101, to the heart of the Downtown where current plans are for a temporary pilot circulator shuttle program. Enabling the formation of distinct TMAs encourage existing and smaller businesses to participate in the TMA and benefit from similar trip reduction strategies tailored to the area’s specific needs. o For specific planning areas east of the 101, the City’s Zoning Code SSFMC § 20.120 already sets forth a mix of program requirements (including TMAs) to discourage use of solo driving during peak commute hours. Property owners of developments requiring discretionary entitlements and generating a net increase of 100 vehicle trips, must adopt a TDM Plan, to maintain and monitor a 35% minimum alternative mode standard. o The establishment of TMA operating areas help to further the City’s trip reduction goals as specified through the Climate Action Plan and Zoning Code TDM policies (SSFMC § 20.120). o A TMA is a coordinated entity to monitor mode share compliance and allow employers and residents to collectively access the benefits of a robust TDM package often requiring a minimum threshold of participants. Strategies to foster trip reduction include free transit passes, free carshare membership, carpool and vanpool matching, etc. A TMA operating area pursues goals and develops programs targeted for the needs of a focused area. o Employers will work with new and existing TMAs and the City to expand TMA shuttle service to the general public where currently unavailable. No No Suggested changes are policy issues that are not just specific to the Plan. The suggested creation of a TMA (Transportation Management Association) is an interesting idea, however it should be considered as a separate issue independent of the Plan. 295 Response to Coalition for Community Benefits (CCB) edit suggestions submitted on 11/25/14 Revised suggestions and staff response in red underlined  Staff recommendations are: to support suggested changes (yes), disagree with suggested changes (no), or agree to modify (yes with edits) per the suggestions and alternatives column. 6 Comment # Suggested Change Staff Recommendation Suggestions & Alternatives to Address Concern o Update funding mechanisms for Transportation Management Associations. In the Downtown Area, enable TMA programs to be funded by parking revenues. This strategy will reduce the need to build additional costly parking and enable more real estate to be used for economic development and housing. o Create an Employer Trip Reduction Fee for employers with 10 more employees. These fees will contribute to the cost of vehicle trip reduction programs similar to the City of Santa Monica’s Transportation Management Plan Ordinance 1604.” No No 20 20. Under the section “Bicycle Circulation,” add the underlined language on page 4.10: “Bicycle and Pedestrian Circulation The recommendations in this plan build upon the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plans, completed in 2011 and 2014, augmenting and focusing improvements to enhance access to and within the plan area. These improvements would be subject to review by the South San Francisco Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee. Guiding Principle 41: Ensure that walking to the Specific Plan area is convenient and safe through improvements to existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities and additions of new connections.” No No This section deals specifically with bicycle improvements; however starting on page 3.20, there is separate independent discussion of pedestrian improvements under “Pedestrian Environments and Accessibility Improvements”. Also the Plan specifically deals with pedestrian improvements separately under “Urban Design” (pg 3.10) with pedestrian improvements detailed with the discussion of specific changes to certain streets 21 21. Under the section “Grand Avenue Bicycle Lanes,” remove strikethrough language and add the underlined language on page 4.11: “C-25 Implement bicycle lanes protected or buffered bicycle lanes of at least 6 feet on Airport Boulevard south of Miller Avenue, on Gateway Boulevard north of East Grand Avenue, and on Grand Avenue, in concert with redesign of the street and enhanced streetscape improvements.” No Suggested language is too specific. Such changes require an engineering analysis to ensure that all Public Works and industry standards are met. 22 22. After the section “Colma Creek Canal Trail East-West Bikeway,” add the following new section on page 4.11: “Implement improvements to Grand Avenue to incorporate pedestrian improvements consistent with the City’s Pedestrian Master Plan, the Climate Action Plan, and the Land Use and Urban Design section of this Downtown plan. The City will take a concerted effort to encourage that circulation on Grand Avenue and the Downtown Core District favor the pedestrian-scale. As mode share shifts in these areas to accommodate a higher proportion of pedestrian trips, the City will consider closure of Grand Avenue to car traffic to engender a pedestrian priority zone.” Add under UD-51: “If plan area improvements and periodic street closures to motorized vehicles encourage a significant, permanent modal shift to biking and walking along Grand Avenue in the Downtown Core, the City will consider a bicycle and pedestrian only zone on Grand Avenue at a future date.” “The City will provide streetscape and pedestrian amenities commensurate with modal shift targets specified in the City’s Climate Action Plan and goals of the Pedestrian Master Plan.” No Yes with edits We agree with goal of providing pedestrian and bicycle linkage in and around Downtown. The Plan builds on both the goals/policies set forth in the Pedestrian Master Plan and Bicycle Master Plan, which is already stated in the Plan. The closure of Grand Avenue would likely have significant impacts on local businesses and is not a commitment that the City will consider making at this time. Update to UD-46: “Provide improvements commensurate with the future level of pedestrian activity and consistent with the goals of the Pedestrian Master Plan and Climate Action Plan objectives; on streets adjacent to Grand Avenue, provide a high level of improvement, including the full complement of streetscape furnishings.” 23 23. Under the section “Parking Regulation and Metered Zone Expansion,” add the underlined language and the following four new bullets on page 4.12: These are Citywide issues. 296 Response to Coalition for Community Benefits (CCB) edit suggestions submitted on 11/25/14 Revised suggestions and staff response in red underlined  Staff recommendations are: to support suggested changes (yes), disagree with suggested changes (no), or agree to modify (yes with edits) per the suggestions and alternatives column. 7 Comment # Suggested Change Staff Recommendation Suggestions & Alternatives to Address Concern “P-1 Expand the parking regulation area beyond the current Parking District as development occurs; a possible future configuration is illustrated in, but not limited to Figure 4.06. The City may extend the Parking District to the extent of the plan area. Residents within the plan area will be able to obtain residential parking permits in order to mitigate any issues with residents feeling subject to parking fees. Residential parking permits reduce the amount of spillover parking onto neighborhood streets due to parking pricing adjustments and parking district expansion. They place time limit restrictions on neighborhood streets for vehicles without a residential permit. Homeowners will have preferential parking within their neighborhood and visitors will be incented to park off-street. Residential streets within two blocks of commercial areas, or where nonresident parking constitutes 50% of parked vehicles, would be eligible for residential parking permits. Revenue from the parking benefits district fund the enforcement of downtown residential permit areas.” “Paid Parking for Commercial Developments: Paid parking provides a powerful incentive for employees to reduce vehicle trips. Competitive locations including Mission Bay and Stanford require paid parking. Include paid parking as a candidate feature in TDM plans for commercial development.” “Parking Cashout: South San Francisco should include parking cashout benefits as a standard feature in TDM plans for commercial development. Parking cashout is a benefit with demonstrated effectiveness at reducing driving. California law requires employers with more than 50 employees who provide subsidized parking for their employees, to offer a cash allowance in lieu of a parking space or "parking cashout" benefit to employees. This policy enables cities to enforce the state law. To enable parking cashout, commercial developments should include “unbundled pricing” - setting a separate price for the lease of commercial space and for parking spots.” Add bullet point under UD-51: “Wayfinding Program: Consider implementing a wayfinding program to more effectively manage travel on Grand Avenue and adjacent streets. A wayfinding program could be coordinated with the Parking District’s aim to prioritize bicycle and pedestrian activity and better manage short term parking. The wayfinding program can provide visitors with information about where to park, and how to connect from parking to destinations. Clear signage can direct visitors looking for longer-term parking to municipal lots and parking structures away from Grand Avenue. The City may also consider providing wayfinding signage for pedestrian and bicycle routes and networks, with particular attention paid to major destinations, such as transit and city services. These signs could also list mileage or estimated times to encourage these modes of travel.” “To adequately manage the supply of parking and make curb parking reasonably available when and where needed, a target occupancy rate of 85% on Grand Avenue should be established. This is otherwise known as the Goldilocks principle of parking prices which can effectively reduce congestion on Downtown streets--mileage spent cruising for parking.” No No No Yes with edits We already have structures in place for preferential parking. And we also have an existing structure in place for parking fees. Insert as new policy UD-52: “Consider implementing a wayfinding program to more effectively manage travel on Grand Avenue and adjacent streets to provide visitors with parking information for short-term and long-term parking, and connections to transit. Wayfinding signage could also provide information for pedestrian and bicycle routes and networks with attention paid to major destinations, and include mileage or estimated times to encourage these modes of travel.” 297 Response to Coalition for Community Benefits (CCB) edit suggestions submitted on 11/25/14 Revised suggestions and staff response in red underlined  Staff recommendations are: to support suggested changes (yes), disagree with suggested changes (no), or agree to modify (yes with edits) per the suggestions and alternatives column. 8 Comment # Suggested Change Staff Recommendation Suggestions & Alternatives to Address Concern “The City’s future parking study will help determine the appropriate mix of additional parking policies to be considered specific to the Downtown that will encourage more walking, biking and transit trips within the Plan Area. Future policies for consideration include: Paid parking for commercial development, parking cashout, shared parking, reduced parking requirements for developments with robust TDM strategies, and goal of 85% on-street parking occupancy rates.” “The City will consider implementation of a parking assessment district in the Downtown Station Area where revenue from street and municipal parking are set aside to fund pedestrian and streetscape improvements.” No No The City has evaluated parking under the proposed plan and will seek to further analyze public parking facilities if infill development on public land is contemplated to ensure that “right sized” parking is in place. Although 85% on- street parking occupancy rates throughout the downtown is the technical occupancy goal, this is too specific for a guiding policy. The current Downtown Parking District revenues are dedicated to parking district enhancements and the parking district encompasses the majority of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan. 24 24. Under the section “Parking Time Limits, Restrictions and Fee Adjustments,” add the following new bullet on page 4.13: “Parking Benefits District: Charging the right price for parking helps promote the use of transportation alternatives to personal vehicle use and increase Caltrain ridership in South San Francisco. In conjunction with the Parking District, the City will operate a parking benefits district (PBD). The PBD will dedicate parking revenues, less City expenses for parking management, to local streetscape improvements and programs that promote alternative modes of transportation including but not limited to transit, bicycling, bike share, or car share, reducing the need to construct additional parking supply. The PBD (or associated downtown TMA operating area) may coordinate with residential complexes and businesses to offer bulk discount transit passes to residents and employees, carshare/bike share facilities, and other benefits to encourage reduction in parking demand. o Revenues generated from on- and off-street parking within the Downtown Parking District shall be accounted for separately from other City funds and may be used only within or for the benefit of the Downtown Parking District.” No Same response as #23. The City has a parking district in place. 25 25. Under the section “Parking Minimums and Maximums,” add the following two new bullets on page 4.13: “Reduced Parking Requirements through TDM Strategies in Affordable and Mixed Income Residential Development: South San Francisco’s current residential parking standards allow for parking reductions in areas within ¼ mile of the Caltrain Station and parking maximums within the Downtown Parking District. This acknowledges the importance of transportation demand management (TDM) to reduce parking demand specifically near transit and encourage transit ridership. Additive parking reductions for proximity to transit and mixed use centers and housing affordability directly reflect multiple studies of actual parking utilization in similar areas with affordable housing such as the coordination of parking code updates through the Grand Boulevard Initiative and forthcoming Bay Area Residential Parking Database. The suite of strategies proven to be most effective for traffic and vehicle ownership reduction that the City can encourage are the development of homes that are both more affordable and provide affordable transportation. o Affordable housing and mixed income developments are allowed a parking reduction of 50% with the implementation of all three TDM strategies: No These are great ideas, however they require a more in-depth study. We are open to discussing these in the future. Our current TDM requirements only apply to commercial development. Applying TDM to residential would be a Citywide policy change. The Plan as proposed recommends several parking alternatives that will be explored including:  Shared parking  Unbundled parking  Car sharing 298 Response to Coalition for Community Benefits (CCB) edit suggestions submitted on 11/25/14 Revised suggestions and staff response in red underlined  Staff recommendations are: to support suggested changes (yes), disagree with suggested changes (no), or agree to modify (yes with edits) per the suggestions and alternatives column. 9 Comment # Suggested Change Staff Recommendation Suggestions & Alternatives to Address Concern 1. Unbundled parking 2 . Free transit passes 3 . Free carsharing memberships and spaces for carsharing pods on site.” “Reduced Parking Requirements through TDM Strategies: The City will consider an automatic parking reduction of 50% for any project providing all three of the following TDM strategies within the entire Downtown Plan Area: 1. Free local transit passes (bus and/or rail, one per unit or employee) 2. 100% Unbundling of parking 3. Free carsharing memberships and spaces for carsharing pods on site.” No 26 26. Under the section “Shared Parking,” add the following new bullet on page 4.13: “Modify the parking code to encourage the development of affordable housing units within the plan area by allowing further reductions in parking maximums for affordable housing developments. This enables the feasibility of creating affordable housing units in the downtown plan area and prevents developers from incorporating excess parking in new residential buildings.” No Do not see nexus; other strategies are recommended in the Plan to reduce parking (i.e., unbundled parking). 27 27. Under the section “Car Sharing,” add the following three new bullets on page 4.13: “The City should encourage car sharing and ride sharing programs by working directly with car and ride share companies to bring these programs into the Specific Plan area. Preferential on-street parking for car share vehicles, and coordination with major employers such as Genentech, may help support this program. The City will encourage Caltrain (Joint Powers Board) to explore the feasibility of the installation of preferential carshare pods at the SSF Caltrain Station. The City will explore future State and Federal funding opportunities for car sharing programs.” “Separate Parking Requirements: The new retail uses suggested in Downtown could use on-street parking or nearby off-street lots and parking garages to meet their parking requirements rather than construct on-site parking. Certain smaller retail uses could be exempt from all parking requirements when a parking study shows their parking demand is likely to be very small and more short-term. Where space is limited, development can employ the use of lifts to ensure the right amount of parking is provided. However, the City will prioritize evidence-based parking reduction as the primary means to reduce auto-trips in the downtown. Shared parking and lifts can be considered only after parking reduction potential has been assessed.” Encourage the Use of Bulk Discount Transit Passes: The provision of free transit passes to all residents and employees within plan area will incentivize transit use, especially in Downtown South San Francisco. Both SamTrans and Caltrain offer bulk transit pass purchase programs for residential complexes and companies. Their Way2Go and Go programs provide significant discounts for passes purchased in bulk. For example, SamTrans charges $115 for an annual transit pass when a minimum of 100 passes are purchased. Caltrain charges $165 for an annual transit pass when a minimum of 84 passes are purchased. To date, there are also over 50 housing developments and more than 85 employers in the Bay Area that are providing free passes as a result of bulk discount transit pass programs. Yes to new CCB suggested edits No No Update P-9: “The City should encourage car sharing and ride sharing programs by working directly with a car and ride share companies to bring these program into the Specific Plan area. Preferential on-street parking for car share vehicles, and coordination with major employers such as Genentech, may help support this program. The City will encourage Caltrain (Joint Powers Board) to explore the feasibility of the installation of preferential carshare pods at the SSF Caltrain Station. The City will explore future State and Federal funding opportunities for car sharing programs.” Please note that on page 4.14 “Station Area Parking Requirements” the Plan suggests that a separate focused parking study be conducted upon adoption of the Plan and these recommendations could be considered in detail at that time. This section recommends the study of changes such as exemptions from parking requirements for small commercial retailers, similar to this recommendation. Creation of TMA (Transportation Management Association) would require Citywide policy changes; requires detailed analysis of operation and implementation. The comment stands given the City’s existing concern regarding funding for these programs. The City’s existing Transportation Demand Management program requires any non-residential development that generates 100 or more daily trips to participate. Additional measures such as transit subsidies for employees can be proposed to meet the alternative mode use of 28%. The DSASP zoning allows FAR bonus by meeting a list of public benefits, one of which would be a transit subsidy for residents or employees, as applicable. 299 Response to Coalition for Community Benefits (CCB) edit suggestions submitted on 11/25/14 Revised suggestions and staff response in red underlined  Staff recommendations are: to support suggested changes (yes), disagree with suggested changes (no), or agree to modify (yes with edits) per the suggestions and alternatives column. 10 Comment # Suggested Change Staff Recommendation Suggestions & Alternatives to Address Concern o The City encourages businesses and residential developers to provide bulk discount passes in exchange for reduced parking requirements. o Since the plan area has transit service from both Caltrain and SamTrans, the City will consider working with transit agencies to provide a combo pass for people who use both services, an emerging need in San Mateo County. o The City will consider working with Caltrain and SamTrans to enable a to-be-determined entity (ie. Transportation Management Agency) to manage the purchasing of bulk combo passes for a pool of residents and employees within a half mile from the Caltrain Station. 28 28. Under the section “Regional and State Sources of Funds,” add the following bullet on page 7.11: “Car Sharing Grant Program: The Car Sharing Program is a new grant program administered by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission to city and county governments and other public agencies to help expand car sharing services in their communities. In 2014, $2 million in federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program funds were committed to provide four or five one-time grants to expand car sharing in the Bay Area. The City will pursue similar future opportunities for funding the expansion of carshare to the downtown.” Yes with edits Addressed as part of Response to Comment #27. 300 Recommendations for Anti-Displacement Strategies and Policies GOAL: Protect tenants and rental housing, stabilize and improve neighborhoods, promote community and resident ownership, leverage market activity, generate capital, expand affordable housing stock in order to promote complete communities that provide stable affordable housing, services, amenities and access to transit for lower income people. 1. Establish a policy commitment and orientation to development without displacement. 2. Consider displacement risks early in the development process. By the time displacement becomes apparent, the process may be too far gone to halt or reverse. 3. Focus on both direct displacement (evictions, demolitions, etc.) and indirect displacement (rent increases, cultural displacement as existing retail/entertainment/services uses are replaced with uses serving higher income populations). 4. Stabilize existing lower income residents/housing. Consider such policies as rent control, just cause eviction ordinances, one-for-one replacement of any housing removed from the supply, condominium conversion controls. 5. Make affordable housing a key component of development strategy from the beginning. It's far easier to include affordable housing early on than to try to incorporate after property values (and land costs) rise and new affluent residents oppose affordable housing. Specific policies/programs to consider: • Rent Controls • Just Cause Eviction Controls • Relocation Benefits and First Right of Return • Return Foreclosed Properties to the Lower Income Supply • One-for-One Replacement Housing Requirements • Preservation of Expiring Use Properties • Small and Scattered Site Acquisition • Land Banking • Infill Incentives Tied to Affordable Housing Provisions • Commercial Linkage Fee Strategies • Community Reinvestment Act • Housing Trust Funds • Inclusionary Zoning • Commercial Stabilization • Employer Assisted Housing • Community Mapping • CDCs with Resident Shareholders • Community Land Trusts • Cooperative Ownership Models • Limited Equity Housing Cooperatives • Resident-owned CDFIs 301 1 | Page Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter Celebrating 81 Years of Protecting the Planet 3921 East Bayshore Road, Suite 204, Palo Alto, CA 94303 loma.prieta.chapter@sierraclub.org TELEPHONE: (650) 390-8411 FAX: (650) 390-8497 October 6, 2014 City of South San Francisco, City Hall 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA. 94080 Re: Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter’s review of the South San Francisco’s draft Downtown Station Area Plan (DSAP) and Climate Action Plan (Climate Action Plan) Dear Mayor, City Manager, City Council members, Planning Commissioners, Ms. Barber, and Ms. Susy Kalkin The Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter’s Sustainable Land Use Committee would like to comment on South San Francisco’s Downtown Station Area Plan (DSAP) and Climate Action Plan, both in a positive light and in a constructively critical point of view. We thank the city for giving us this opportunity to submit our thoughts. Introduction & Background We feel that the DSAP provides commendable initial steps toward creating a vibrant and sustainable downtown that meets the goals of the CAP. A variety of elements in these two plans will help South San Francisco reach several committed goals. The city has made outstanding progress in a number of areas relative to other cities in San Mateo County. These include the number of senior and affordable housing constructed, the availability of Transportation Demand Management for local employers, and rapid deployment of specific plans for implementing Complete Streets. This letter also provides comments related to the upcoming Notice of Preparation and Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the DSAP. The Sierra Club looks to protect the health of the community by ensuring compliance with existing Environmental codes. We focus on four priorities for the success of the DSAP and they are based on our Sustainable Land Use Guidelines for Downtown and Station Area Plans, dated July 2014, http://lomaprieta.sierraclub.org/sustain/guidelines . According to the score-sheet (i.e. grading rubric) our Guidelines provide, the South San Francisco DSAP scores 56 points out of a possible 100 points with a potential to add up to 32 points if the Plan is revised as follows. 302 2 | Page We recommend that the South San Francisco DSAP include the following strategies: 1. Air Quality Impact Fees 2. Parks Not Parking 3. Pedestrian Priority 4. Integration with Climate Action Plan 5. Stronger Language 1. Air Quality Impact Fees A) Encourage housing development that reduces pollution South San Francisco wants to attract a larger income mix into the DSAP area than its current residents. Studies show that higher income residents are invested in driving which consequently: ● Increases Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) in station areas; ● Reduces the Fare Box Recovery that transit can expect; and ● Creates safety issues with the success of pedestrian mobility ● All three of these increases the air pollution substantially.1 A mix of workforce housing and market rate housing within a half-mile radius of the station area can help reduce the impact on air quality. Further, if an impact fee is imposed on the housing development that generates automobile trips, it will allow developers to either propose high-density housing development near transit or pay a fee to compensate for on-site mitigation. The revenue generated with the help of the impact fees can be used to fund community benefiting improvement projects within the station area. Fortunately, in California we can use air quality impacts to create goals for the DSAP. For example, Jeffery Tumlin of Nelson Nygaard notes that impact fees: ● Are “a powerful tool for encouraging good development, discouraging bad development and raising funds for Smart Growth improvements.” ● Can be used for a number of station area plan goals such as Downtown Public Realm Improvements (page 2.12 Vision, DSAP) and Caltrain Station Improvements (page 2.10, Vision, DSAP). The key findings of a study done by the Center for Neighborhood Technology states that: ● “Lower Income households drive 25-30% fewer miles when living within 1/2 mile of transit than those living in non-TOD. When living within 1/4 mile of frequent transit they drove nearly 50% less.”2 ● “Higher Income households drive more than twice as many miles and own more than twice as many vehicles as Extremely Low-Income households living within 1/4 mile of frequent transit. This underscores why it is critical for success of transit as well as social equity to ensure that low-income families can live within 1/4 mile of transit.”2 1 “Why Creating and Preserving Affordable Homes Near Transit is a Highly Effective Climate Protection Strategy,” Transform, http://www.transformca.org/transform-report/why-creating-and-preserving-affordable-homes-near-transit-highly-effective-climate 2 “Why Creating and Preserving Affordable Homes Near Transit is a Highly Effective Climate Protection Strategy,” Transform, http://www.transformca.org/transform-report/why-creating-and-preserving-affordable-homes-near-transit-highly-effective-climate 303 3 | Page ● Encouraging mixed uses in the DSAP will help in reducing VMTs by nearly 50% when compared to non-station area housing and about 60% less VMT when compared to higher income households in station areas. The retail uses planned with workforce housing will help with job retention as well as local households in the area. In addition, it will help in easing congestion, decreasing car ridership and increasing transit trips by 50%.3 The above mentioned reduction in VMT and increase in transit trips can be a major contributor in reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Hence, we think that the DSAP is an ideal location for impact fees to address the health impacts from gentrification through a community benefit district. Recommendations We recommend that the goals for achieving reduced Vehicle Miles Travelled be considered in parallel with the housing policy on displacement and gentrification, both of which are an environmental justice issue. In addition: ● Through our environmental justice policies and awareness of communities with limited resources, we are cognizant of the Coalition for Community Benefit’s comment letter recommendations on housing, requiring either a fee or housing in the DSAP.4 ● We suggest that developers not be allowed to pay into an affordable housing fund within the DSAP, but instead be required to actually build the housing within the DSAP. This is known as an Inclusionary Zoning incentive, which contributes to significant greenhouse gas reduction by preventing low-income populations who use transit from sprawling into transit hostile locations. ● Density bonus – We support the City’s provision of 25% density bonus for developments with that will reduce Vehicle Miles Travelled with residents with lower investments in driving.5 We strongly recommend that the City provide incentives in order to successfully enable non-profit developers to build the percentage of affordable housing that is required to meet RHNA 2014-22 quotas. The incentives can be of various kinds such as: ○ Offering City-owned land for construction in the Station Area; ○ Eliminating parking requirements;6 ○ Building materials sales tax exemption;7 ○ Machinery and Equipment/Pollution Control Facilities Sales Tax Exemption;7 3 “Why Creating and Preserving Affordable Homes Near Transit is a Highly Effective Climate Protection Strategy,” Transform, http://www.transformca.org/sites/default/files/CHPC%20TF%20Affordable%20TOD%20Climate%20Strategy%20BOOKLET%2 0FORMAT.pdf 4 City and County of San Francisco, “Inclusionary Affordable Housing Program,” http://sf-moh.org/index.aspx?page=263 5 Table 1.01, Introduction Section, South San Francisco Downtown Station Area 6 Based on typical affordable housing development costs, one parking space per unit increases costs approximately 12.5%, and tw o parking spaces can increase costs by up to25%. Since parking costs increase as a percentage of rent for lower priced housing, and low income households tend to own fewer vehicles, minimum parking requirements are regressive and unfair, http://www.vtpi.org/park- hou.pdf 7 “Incentive Programs,” http://www.worldbusinesschicago.com/services/location-expansion/incentive-programs 304 4 | Page ○ Exemption from the state tax on gas and electricity as well as administrative charges; ○ Exemption from real estate title transfer tax;7 ○ Property tax reduction;7 ○ Low interest loans7 etc. To make the affordable housing section of the DSAP more comprehensive, we recommend that it provide ● Specific proportional allocation: We recommend that the proportion of affordable housing in the DSAP be specifically allocated to very low, low, and moderate income levels to maintain a diversity of housing types as also recommended by the Coalition for Community Benefits. These above-mentioned examples are a few of many that can ensure that the RHNA numbers translate into low Vehicle Miles Travelled thus qualifying for investment dollars from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. B) Job-Housing Balance The Plan assumes that 1.7 new jobs per new housing unit (2,400 jobs ÷ 1,400 units), will be built in the SAP over the next 20 years. This is slightly greater than 1.5 jobs per housing unit recommended, but is in a reasonable range of acceptance. The Plan also assumes 1,400 existing housing units will remain in the DSAP, of which only 25% of parcels will be developed during the life of the Plan. However, the number of existing jobs expected to remain in the DSAP and the estimated total number of new and jobs and housing units in the entire city is missing in the Plan. Therefore, we recommend that the DEIR must include an estimate of the jobs/housing ratio for the DSAP and strive for a 1.5 jobs/housing unit balance citywide over the life of the Plan. C) Jobs / Housing Fit Not only is it desirable to have a jobs/housing balance within a city, but it is also desirable to have a jobs/housing fit. A Jobs/Housing fit will ensure that housing is located near workplaces with the cost of housing being affordable for a broad range of local employees. It is the best way to reduce auto traffic within a community by encouraging walking or biking to work. In addition, we agree with the Coalition for Community Benefits position that the City should adopt better policies and robust labor standards to strengthen our local workforce and economy. Research has shown that for every high paying job in a city’s downtown, there is a need for low income workers such as retail clerks, hair dressers, waiters, and cooks to serve local retail or commercial uses. Many of these workers earn less than $40,000 per year. If the DSAP does not provide housing to meet a wide range of family types and income levels, these workers will be priced out of the market, forced to live outside the downtown station area, and displace them into communities poorly served by transit. Poor access to transit will encourage them to drive to work and as a result will increase VMTs, traffic, and parking loads in the downtown station area. Thus, we recommend that the DSAP must provide housing to meet a wide range of family types and income levels. 305 5 | Page 2. Parks Not Parking A. Open Spaces Public Plazas - The public open spaces proposed in the DSAP have the potential to be excellent gathering spaces. The fact that the plazas are spread across a ½ mile radius ensures that many people have access to the open spaces and the various activities. We support the occasional closure of roads to conduct activities like a farmer’s market which provides a great opportunity to bring the community together. In addition, we recommend a provision for public recreational spaces such as pocket parks be emphasized within the DSAP guiding principles.8 For example, providing pocket parks, kids play areas, skate parks, and community gardens will help in bringing all ages of the community together. The public plaza design principles adopted by the City of New York are a good reference for facilitating the design and construction of Privately Owned Public Open Spaces (POPOS).9 A good example of affordable housing and community space is the St. Francis Center in Redwood City. The center provides affordable housing for 24 low income families along with education, clothing, recreation, and academic support. The center supports low income family with affordable rents and other facilities until they achieve financial stability. Further, it helps the families relocate and make space for other low income families.10 Thus, we think it is important to have such centers in the DSAP as there is a majority of low income residents existing in the neighborhood. In addition, we also suggest that bike/pedestrian connectivity be established from the DSAP to the existing parks and recreation centers located in close proximity of the station area. Eastern Neighborhood Open Spaces – The open spaces in the Eastern Neighborhood are mostly proposed on private properties. To ensure that the public is aware of such privately-owned public spaces, we recommend that the city include a location map and inventory of public open spaces near the station area. A good example of this initiative exists in the City of San Francisco which has created a new web map to indicate the POPOS in the downtown area.11 Further, we recommend that there must be guidelines for developing POPOS to ensure that the open spaces will be built as inviting and vibrant spaces rather than dead open spaces. B. Parking ● Unbundled parking and Parking Cash-Out- We appreciate the City’s initiative to implement unbundled parking in the DSAP. Unbundled parking is a proven way to reduce auto use and benefit residents who do not want a parking space. According to a study done by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), unbundled parking reduces VMTs by 13%.12 We recommend Parking Cash-Out programs to reduce parking in the Eastern Neighborhood. This will help reduce automobile usage and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. According to a study done 8 “Public Open Space,” Land use and urban design section, South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Plan. 9 “The current public plaza standards,” City of New York, http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/pops/plaza_standards.shtml 10 St. Francis Center, “Housing,” http://www.stfrancisrwc.org/page5/page31/page31.html. 11 Emily Badger, “How to make Privately Owned Spaces Truly Open to the Public,” Citylab, http://www.citylab.com/politics/2012/12/how-make-privately-owned-public-spaces-truly-open-public/4168/ 12 “Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures,” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, http://www.capcoa.org/wp- content/uploads/2010/11/CAPCOA-Quantification-Report-9-14-Final.pdf, pg 55. 306 6 | Page by CAPCOA, employee parking cash-out reduces greenhouse gas emissions by reducing VMT by 7.7%.13 A combination of unbundled parking, parking cash-out, and paid street parking can potentially reduce VMTs by 20%. ● In Lieu Parking Fees - We recommend that the in lieu parking fees collected in the neighborhood should be routed to a Community Benefit District. They can be used to fund street improvement projects and maintenance of pedestrian walkways, bike lanes, public parking facilities, etc. within the neighborhood. ● ● Parking Minimums - The minimum parking number should be reduced to zero. The priority in the Plan Area should be to reduce automobile use and increase pedestrian, bicycle, and public transportation alternatives. As mentioned above, Seattle’s zoning code requires zero parking for multi-family units that are located near frequent transit centers and stations areas.14 This policy will also support the provision of unbundled parking and parking cash-out. ● ● Other recommendations we have for the DSAP are to: ○ Include a specific master plan for shuttle stops, bike, and car share stations within the DSAP. ○ Include guidelines for instituting residential parking permits to protect neighborhoods from overflow parking from adjacent uses. ○ Require developers to offer incentives for transit use including transit passes, parking cash- out, and other incentives. Caltrain now offers heavily discounted passes for multi-unit housing developments as well as for large employers. 3. Pedestrian Priority A. Parking-Free Housing The transportation analysis done by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research states that “a project located near transit, which includes a significant amount of parking, might indicate that the project may still generate significant vehicle travel,”15 and make the downtown unsafe for bicyclists and pedestrians. Therefore, we recommend that the pedestrian priority zones in the downtown plan be designated as zero-parking zones where no parking is provided in buildings and all parking is accumulated in shared peripheral parking garages. For example, Portland’s zoning rules allow for parking-free housing in pedestrian priority zones with public parking provided off-site. This allows the cost of construction to be reduced by 20%-30%. Parking-free housing is also being adopted by other cities like Seattle, Boston, and 13 “Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures,” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, http://www.capcoa.org/wp- content/uploads/2010/11/CAPCOA-Quantification-Report-9-14-Final.pdf, pg. 66 14 Seattle’s Low rise Multi-family Zones, http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/cs/groups/pan/@pan/documents/web_informational/dpds021571.pdf 15 “Updating Transportation Impacts Analysis in the CEQA Guidelines,” Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, http://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/Final_Preliminary_Discussion_Draft_of_Updates_Implementing_SB_743_080614.pdf, pg. 9 307 7 | Page Miami.16 Seattle’s zoning code for multi-family housing states that “no parking is required in urban villages for lots within a 1/4 mile of frequent transit service in urban centers and station areas.”17 B. Community Benefit District Require the establishment of a Community Benefit District (CBD) or equivalent to assure that any benefits from impact fees within the downtown station area are used to maintain and the downtown station area only, and thus, are not used elsewhere in the city. Within the DSAP, the pedestrian priority streets and lanes (with the exception of Grand Avenue), shown in figure 3.1518 should be designated as parking-free zones. The existing parking spaces can be used to widen sidewalks and reduce street setback requirements, and the developers can be incentivized with higher density. The revenue made from extra units should be routed towards a CBD for the DSAP. For example, the City of Oakland has established a CBD known as the Downtown Oakland Association “which successfully provides special benefit services such as district maintenance, safety and security management, and community and cultural enrichment.”19 Further, we recommend that a residential permit parking zone is implemented for residential neighborhoods within or adjacent to the SAP, in order to protect residents from overflow parking. In addition, as stated in the Coalition for Community Benefits letter, developers should be encouraged to negotiate a full range of community benefits with community stakeholders. C. Five Minute Pedestrian Shed “Pedestrian sheds are often defined as the area covered by a five minute walk (about 0.25 miles, 1,320 feet, or 400 meters).”20 The block sizes within pedestrian zones should be no more than 50 feet. We support efforts to make the Plan Area a five minute pedestrian shed such that neighborhood centers and/or the train station are within five minute walking distance. This can be achieved by adopting mitigation measures that increase access to common goods and services such as groceries, schools, and daycare.21 In the DSAP, existing parking areas can be used to accommodate the above mentioned services such that a five minute pedestrian shed can be achieved. D. Transportation Demand Management Association We recommend a Transportation Demand Management Association be formed in downtown to manage and oversee the transportation facilities in the neighborhood. The City of Palo Alto has proposed to establish an ordinance for Transit Demand Management (TDM) in their draft of their transportation element update. Their goal was to establish a list of acceptable TDM measures that include transit use, prepaid transit passes, commuter checks, car sharing, carpooling, parking cash-out, bicycling, walking, 16 Angie Schmitt, “The Rise of parking-free apartment buildings,” Streetsblog, December 19 2013, http://urbanmilwaukee.com/2013/12/19/streetsblog-the-rise-of-parking-free-apartment-buildings 17 Seattle’s Low rise Multi-family Zones, http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/cs/groups/pan/@pan/documents/web_informational/dpds021571.pdf 18 Figure 3.15, Land use and urban design section, South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Plan 19 Downtown Oakland Association, http://www.downtownoakland.org/ 20 What is a Ped Shed? Frequently asked questions, http://pedshed.net/?page_id=5 21 “Updating Transportation Impacts Analysis in the CEQA Guidelines,” Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, http://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/Final_Preliminary_Discussion_Draft_of_Updates_Implementing_SB_743_080614.pdf, pg. 18 308 8 | Page and education and outreach to support the use of these modes.22 The Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Ordinance in South San Francisco requires all non-residential developments that produce 100 average daily vehicle trips or more to meet a 35% non-drive-alone peak hour requirement with fees assessed for non-compliance.23 Establishing a Transportation Demand Management Association will help to implement and monitor the ordinance in the DSAP. Such measures will help to reduce single occupancy car use and increase the usage of bikes, shuttles, and public transit. We recommend that the City specifically call for a monitored Transportation Demand Management program. 4. Integration with the Climate Action Plan Since the DSAP is intended to encourage higher density development in the Plan area, there needs to be a strategy to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Hence, we strongly recommend that a chapter on sustainability be added to the DSAP, which specifically addresses GHG emissions reductions to meet the City’s Climate Action Plan released in 2014. It is important that the CAP be incorporated within the DSAP to ensure that the actions taken in the DSAP are consistent with overall goals of the city. A good example of this integration can be seen in Seattle’s Bicycle Master Plan. Seattle’s staff, in conjunction with key stakeholders (residents, bicyclists, bicycle advisory committee, etc.), evaluated their old 2007 Bicycle Master Plan, Pedestrian Master Plan (2009), Transit Master Plan (2012), Climate Action Plan (2013 update)24, and Seattle’s Comprehensive Plan in the process of updating their new 2014 Bicycle Master Plan. Integrating the goals of different plans will help achieve comprehensive planning for South San Francisco. We suggest a similar approach to be adopted for the DSAP to ensure that the Plan is a comprehensive document of the city’s overall goals for development, growth, health, and GHG reductions. Further, we recommend that the chapter on sustainability include LEED certification, LEED-ND certification for the neighborhood, or other green building standards to require energy efficiency and zero waste management for new developments. We request the City to address the following comments: ● The Plan generally does not address energy and resource efficiency; this should be included in the DSAP. ● Include a strategy for encouraging zero waste, and providing for efficient water use, sewage disposal, and energy use, working with local water and sewage agencies and public utilities to minimize and mitigate environmental impacts. ● Require low impact development (LID) for improved storm water management. ● Provide electric car parking spaces with Class 2 charging for 5% or more of public parking spaces, and incentivize developers to include electric car charging stations within their developments. ● Meet LEED-ND neighborhood development or equivalent – Gold or Platinum. ● Implement a grey water reuse program in the DSAP. ● Specify how the city can restore the natural features of Colma Creek. 22 “Review of Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan,” City of Palo Alto, https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/35596, pg. 6 23 “Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures,” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, http://www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/CAPCOA-Quantification-Report-9-14-Final.pdf, pg. 223 24 Seattle Bicycle Master Plan, http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/docs/bmp/apr14/SBMP_21March_FINAL_full%20doc.pdf 309 9 | Page ● Provide guidelines for the possibility for urban agriculture within the DSAP ● Require sustainable landscaping and incentivize green walls and rooftop gardens. ● Require bird-friendly building and site design. 5. Stronger Language in DSAP We suggest that some of the language in the document be modified such that it results in definitive action rather than mere effort. For example, revise weak words like “encourage” to stronger words like “require”, provide”, and “incentivize”. A. Land Use and Urban Design Section ● Under the Draft Land Use and Urban Design Section, LU-2, delete original text and revise to: “To assist in the revitalization of Downtown as a citywide and regional destination, incentivize a mix of uses, activities and amenities throughout the Downtown Area including a variety of housing types and sizes including 20% minimum affordable units to meet RHNA 2014 – 2022 quotas.” ● Under the Draft Land Use and Urban Design Section, LU-8, delete “Encourage a mix of housing --- ” and replace with: “Incentivize developers to provide a mix of housing ---”. ● Under the Draft Land Use and Urban Design Section, Guiding Principle 4, delete “Encourage development of the Eastern Neighborhood ---,” and revise to: “Facilitate the development of the Eastern Neighborhood ---”. ● Under the Draft Land Use and Urban Design Section, Guiding Principle 5, delete “Encourage variety in new housing development,” and revise to: “Incentivize variety in new housing development.” ● Under the Draft Land Use and Urban Design Section, LU-9, delete “Encourage the provision of affordable housing ---”, and replace with: “Provide a minimum of 20% affordable housing units ---”. ● Under the Draft Land Use and Urban Design Section, UD-10, delete “Encourage north-south pedestrian walkways,” and revise to “Require north-south pedestrian walkways”. B. Circulation and Parking Section ● Under the Draft Circulation and Parking Section, C-3, delete “Consider special enhanced streetscapes----,” and replace with “Require special enhanced streetscapes---”. ● Under the Draft Circulation and Parking Section, C-9, “Encourage additional pedestrian walkways” and revise to “Require additional pedestrian walkways”. ● Under the Draft Circulation and Parking Section, P-8, delete “Allow” unbundled parking and revise to “Require”. ● Under the Draft Circulation and Parking Section, P-9, delete “encourage” car sharing and revise to “facilitate”. 310 10 | Page Conclusion We would like to commend the City for its successes in 2014. The City has adopted a Climate Action Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan and has been working hard on the Downtown Station Area Plan all in one year. We appreciate all the work that is being done, and thus, we congratulate the City of South San Francisco. We hope that our comments are considered to be a joint effort in making South San Francisco’s downtown beautiful, vibrant, inclusive, and a place that has a long standing identity. Sincerely, Gita Dev Sustainable Land Use Committee, Chair Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter Gladwyn D’Souza Sustainable Land Use Committee, Vice Chair Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter Kenneth Rosales Conservation Program Coordinator Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter David Crabbe Sustainable Land Use Committee Member Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter Bhavani Potharaju Sustainable Land Use Intern Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter Pranjali Deokule Sustainable Land Use Intern Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter CC: Mike Ferreira Conservation Committee Chair Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter 311 Greener and Healthier Development Alternatives In the Downtown SAP,the City can commit to alternatives that decrease greenhouse gas emissions and include features that create healthier and more sustainable communities. Policies to achieve a greener plan include sustainable building practices, compact development that will generate less auto traffic, green infrastructure—permeable pavement, bicycle and pedestrian lanes, and low-impact development practices as well as the amenities that create complete communities. Creating community parks, inviting open spaces, recreational facilities and wide pedestrian walk-ways will make it safer and more enjoyable for people of all ages to walk to and within the downtown, reducing traffic congestion and benefitting from an active lifestyle with their families and neighbors. These land use and transportation changes will have long-term community health impacts as pollution is reduced and behavioral changes serve as primary illness prevention and community wellness measures. We also believe that this planning process will offer an opportunity to proactively address hazards such as earthquakes and sea-level-rise for the long-term benefit of the community. South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Plan Community Benefits Platform South San Francisco’s Downtown Station Area planning (Downtown SAP) process offers residents, businesses, workers and local policymakers a tremendous opportunity to envision the City’s downtown and area around the SSF Caltrain station as a transit oriented district that will provide a full range of community benefits to the people who live, work and do business here. As a Priority Development Area (PDA), the site is identified by the Sustainable Communities Strategy for infill development and is eligible for government grants and other targeted funding. The SSF Downtown SAP Community Benefits Platform that follows is a set of principles that will ensure that we achieve the potential of this planning process. 312 Affordable Homes and Homelessness Solutions The City has made a commitment to plan for more housing in the PDA. The Downtown SAP should commit to inclusion as opportunities, such as developer agreements, become available. The City’s Housing Element identifies nine sites in the SSF downtown area as housing opportunity sites that can be developed for lower-income multifamily residential properties. We expect the City to actively implement the affordable housing policies committed to in the City’s Housing Element within the PDA. The Downtown SAP should honor these commitments and provide housing that is affordable to people who work in SSF at the bio-tech companies, at UPS, in the hospitality and airport related industries surrounding the SFO hub and the new and existing retail jobs downtown. An appropriate mix of ownership and rental opportunities and types of housing both in the neighborhoods immediately bordering Grand Avenue and the neighborhood adjacent to the Caltrain station will accommodate families and single people enhancing our diverse and vibrant community. In the absence of redevelopment funding, the Downtown SAP must provide incentives for non-profit housing developers and maximize low-income housing funding opportunities including low-income housing tax credits and regional grants for housing in PDAs. The Downtown SAP should include policies to address the jobs/housing imbalance such as impact fees or commercial linkage fees, the creation of a Community Benefit District or set-asides for non-profit housing developers. The City should consider selling vacant properties to housing developers at prices that will make affordable housing viable. As new market rate housing units are created, existing low-income residents—especially renters, single room occupancy residents and the newly housed populations must be protected so that gentrification does not price them out of their homes. Renter protection policies, such as just cause eviction and rent stabilization are critical in ensuring that all downtown residents can benefit from the growth and development. Following a “housing first” approach to the problem of homelessness in our community, we can build on the San Mateo County’s HOPE plan1 and include in our plans permanent housing with access to services for adults, youth, seniors, veterans and families that are homeless and those that are at risk of homelessness. Efficient Affordable Public Transit with Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Options. The Downtown SAP should reflect collaboration with transit operators serving South San Francisco and large employers to improve and encourage transit access and connectivity to the places where people live, work, and play in South San Francisco and around the Bay Area. The Caltrain Station should serve as a point of connectivity,bridging the downtown and employment center to the East of 101 with safe and attractive walkways and bicycle lanes. The area around the station should be well lit, offer long-term secure bicycle parking, improved visibility, and accessibility. Special attention should be paid to linking the Caltrain Station to the planned and existing bicycle and pedestrian networks in the corporate park east of 101. Many of the large companies have existing master plans that include bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. Filling the gap between these networks and the Caltrain Station is key to diversifying the commute mode share, and improving access to and patronage of existing and future downtown businesses by people who work in the area. Downtown should offer a well-marked bicycle lane to the BART station and a network of bicycle lanes throughout the Downtown SAP. The short distance between the BART station and the downtown should be advertised through signage indicating the distance and direction between the two destinations. The Downtown SAP should offer adequate and distributed bike parking throughout the plan area. 1HOPE (Housing Our People Effectively) is a ten-year action plan that brings together the business, nonprofit, and public sector communities to address the challenging issue of homelessness at its core, rather than manage it at the margins. http://www.co.sanmateo.ca.us/portal/site/humanservices/menuitem.ef2c94fdbdc30bc965d293e5d17332a0/?vgnextoid= b8c0ac14682b1210VgnVCM1000001d37230aRCRD 313 Given that the airport and many of the biotech businesses in SSF operate twenty-four hours, public transportation options must be efficient and accessible throughout the day and night.Public transportation options need to be affordable to ensure that they are usable by workers. SamTrans Bus connectors or public shuttles between BART, Caltrain, the Water Transit Authority (ferry), downtown and businesses east of 101 will be a crucial part of this plan. We need walkable streets and wide sidewalks that can accommodate benches, bus shelters, trees, and outside seating for restaurants and cafes.Future development should preserve and build on the compact style of Grand Avenue, which makes for an attractive street to walk and browse shop windows. Marked mid-block crossings and bulb-outs at intersections should be used to make for a safe and convenient pedestrian priority district. Street signage should also be utilized to denote popular destinations (i.e. Caltrain, parking lots and garages, City Hall, BART) and distances to encourage walking and bicycling. The Downtown should adopt a parking management strategy that utilizes unbundling2, pricing and signage to ensure incentivize residents and visitors to use alternative modes of transportation but also make it easier to find a convenient spot for those who do choose to drive. This strategy should be paired with creating a Parking Management District, where increased revenues from parking are dedicated for streetscape improvements and other features of a Community Benefits District that make the downtown area more attractive for business and residents. Finally, for those residents and shoppers that may need to drive, we encourage the city to include several car sharing parking spots in opportunity sites like major shopping centers, Caltrain, and the BART station. Building Businesses and Creating Good Jobs in Our Community A strong economy in our neighborhood depends on the retention of a full range of businesses in the area and the creation of new businesses that will provide good jobs with wages, benefits and career opportunities for people at entry-level and highly skilled positions. The multi-year build out of the development enabled by our new Downtown SAP should provide hundreds of good middle class construction jobs that pay Area Standard Wages.Our community’s youth will also gain career pathways into the construction industry when apprentices who are enrolled in State of California approved Apprenticeship Programs are required to be part of the construction team. The use of a local workforce and local business sourcing should be encouraged so that the hundreds of millions in wages and materials used in the construction of these developments are reinvested into the local economy. With opportunities for new businesses to come into our community, we must take steps to retain existing businesses,and ensure that big box stores do not displace small businesses that are the lifeblood of our local community. As we create multi-use transit oriented development projects, we must ensure that the retail, maintenance and hospitality service jobs in large enterprises will come with an expectation that the workers will have a voice at work and the right to express their desire for a union by a cross-check election with employer neutrality in the process. These labor standards should be referenced in the Downtown SAP and adopted as City policy so that local workers will benefit from the plan and developers can expect support for these policies. As we seek to enhance the climate for our existing bio- tech companies and create an attractive home for new companies in this sector, we must encourage companies, workers, unions and the public workforce development partners to create and participate in job training programs that will create inter-firm and cross-firm career ladders for existing employees and new entry-level positions for local residents. Collaboration and coordination between SSF’s economic development strategies and the workforce development strategies undertaken by the County and Bay Area workforce development boards and training partners will enhance the economic viability of the Downtown SAP for businesses and local workers. 2A parking strategy in which parking spaces are rented or sold separately, rather than automatically included with the rent or purchase price of a residential or commercial unit.314 Strong Community-Driven and Inclusive Process The new SSF Downtown SAP must reflect the diverse needs of the South San Francisco community including the interests of the low-income residents and workers who stand to benefit the most from the improvements articulated by the Downtown SAP. The planning process must include opportunities for two-way communication with residents being informed about the options being considered and planners hearing from residents, local businesses, transportation, economic development and workforce development agencies and other stakeholders about their vision for this area. We hope that the plan will contain community benefits for all segments of the community. To achieve this end, the process should engage the listed stakeholders and seek out partners including environmentalists, labor unions and their members, affordable housing advocates, public transportation advocates, community-based organizations representing low-income people and immigrants, renters, people of faith, people with disabilities, small businesses, and seniors. The planning process should reflect the racial, ethnic and linguistic diversity of the community and special efforts should be made to encourage participation by those who are not familiar with planning processes. This Community Benefits Platform is the work of South San Francisco community leaders and their representatives, with funding from the Great CommunitiesCollaborative and The San Francisco Foundation. Friends of Caltrain Greenbelt Alliance Housing Leadership Council San Mateo County Building Trades Council San Mateo County Union Community Alliance Sheetmetal Workers Union Local 104 Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition TransForm UFCW Local 5 SAN MATEO COUNTY UNION COMMUNITY ALLIANCE Foster City, CA 94404 PHOTO CREDIT: (ALL PHOTOS) CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO For more information please contact: Belén Seara, San Mateo County Union Community Alliance (551) 404-8804 Clarrissa Cabansagan, TransForm (510) 740-3150 x333 315 1 February 4, 2014 Mr. Gerry Beaudin, Principal Planner City of South San Francisco 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Dear Mr. Beaudin: RE: Vehicle Trip Reduction Comments for South San Francisco Station Area Plan We are writing to submit vehicle trip reduction comments for South San Francisco’s Downtown Station Area Plan (SAP) from Friends of Caltrain, Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition, and TransForm. Friends of Caltrain Friends of Caltrain is a nonprofit grassroots advocacy organization with over 3,000 participants from San Francisco to San Jose. The organization’s goals include stable funding for Caltrain, successful modernization, and transit-supportive land use on the Caltrain corridor. Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition (SVBC) is a nonprofit organization of over 1,400 members promoting the bicycle for everyday use in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties. TransForm TransForm works to create world-class public transportation and walkable communities in the Bay Area and beyond. TransForm has helped to win billions of dollars and groundbreaking policies in support of public transportation, smart growth, affordable housing, and bicycle/pedestrian safety. We have been deeply involved in the discussions on Regional Transportation Plans since 1998, including Plan Bay Area. Our advocacy efforts in South San Francisco are foremost guided by the fact that the station area has been determined as both a Priority Development Area and a Community of Concern. Staff from our respective organizations have attended key stakeholder meetings since the outset of your Downtown SAP planning process and have met with you regarding the platform put forward by the Community Benefits Coalition. We thank you for your responsiveness and being engaged with us on the transportation elements potentially included in the Downtown SAP. 316 2 In multiple public presentations, the City has laid out Station Area Land Use Planning grant funding goals that have the direct aim of bolstering use of South San Francisco’s rich public transit assets: the Caltrain station, BART station, and new ferry service. The City has had the expressed goals of encouraging transit-oriented development for a more balanced, multi-modal downtown via the following targets: ● Boost transit ridership; reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) ● Increase transportation options: walking, bicycling, transit, carpool/vanpool, carshare ● Increase housing supply, especially affordable housing ● Increase jobs and improve access to jobs ● Identify key services and retail opportunities.1 In keeping with these stated goals, we offer up the following recommendations for boosting the viability and attractiveness of alternative modes of travel through the Station Area Plan as you finalize the draft plan for public review. A. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) 1. To encourage the vibrancy of public life in the downtown station area, it is important for the City to set a goal for reducing the number of vehicle trips generated by the SAP. a. Set a policy to establish a modal target. Utilize multimodal transportation experts to set a modal target including vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle trip goals for the station area. b. Allow for the phasing in of goal attainment. c. Link trip/modeshare/VMT goals to climate action plan goals. 2. Require TDM plans for new residential and commercial developments that: a. Regularly monitor trip generation with the aim of encouraging non-motorized travel. b. Regularly survey transportation users. c. Transparently collect and report data. 3. Encourage the formation of a Transportation Management Association (TMA): a. Work with Genentech’s current pilot downtown circulator shuttle to expand service to the public, following the example of districts in Mountain View that are collaborating to consolidate their private shuttling system, starting with the technology-rich area North Bayshore near Google. The City should seize upon this trend towards the formation of TMAs and offer similar connections that link employees and residents to the City’s BART station, downtown, Caltrain, employment centers east of Highway 101, and the ferry.2 b. Shuttles should be open to the public with schedules available electronically available via 511.org and Google Transit, following the example of the North Bayshore area and the Stanford Marguerite shuttles. This functionality is 1 http://www.ssfdowntownplan.org/storage/130819%20CAG%20Mtg4%20pres.pdf 2 DeBolt, Daniel. “A seat on the bus: Google joins tech firms to form transit agency.” Mountain View Voice. October 24, 2013. http://www.mv-voice.com/news/2013/10/24/a-seat-on-the-bus 317 3 currently supported by the Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance. c. Require TMA participation for new developments, and enable optional memberships for small- and mid-sized business, and residentials. d. The TMA should monitor and report trip generation and mode share, and collectively establish parking standards. e. The TMA should utilize various transportation management programs (e.g. shuttles, bulk transit passes, parking cashout, rideshare programs, carshare/bikeshare for a larger pool of users than a single development). f. The TMA should provide marketing programs geared toward commercial and residential users. g. TMA funding structure could include membership and parking/access in lieu of fees. h. The TMA should invest in education and encouragement activities that promote active transportation. i. The TMA should consider opting to buy-in to Bay Area Bike Share in the future. B. Parking 1. Unbundling parking can allow developers and tenants to “right size” parking according to customer needs and budgets. a. Unbundling parking for residential developments helps providing housing at a variety of price points, and building the appropriate amount of parking. In places that are more suburban, developers have been able to creatively unbundle residential parking after providing at least one space per unit. Example: Emeryville recently approved a residential development at 3800 San Pablo Avenue by Holliday Development that includes 100% unbundled parking.3 The site is 0.7 miles from the MacArthur BART Station and is well outside the walkshed from the station. The existence of Emeryville’s TMA, the Emery Go- Round, facilitates this type of unbundling. b. Unbundling parking for commercial developments allows tenants and/or TMAs to offer parking cashout benefits - providing an employee with a cash benefit up to the value of the leased parking spot. Multiple studies over two decades show that unbundled office parking can result in reduction of 10-30% in solo driving.456 If the use of parking cashout is effective at reducing driving, the parking spaces can be made be available for use by nearby tenants where appropriate. Example: Palo Alto Medical Foundation development in San Carlos has unbundled parking, enabling parking cashout benefits for employees. c. The City should consult regional parking data collection efforts (currently underway) for right-size parking information. The Bay Area Regional Online Parking Database will provide an online searchable database with customizable reports to help cities, developers and community members better estimate 3 http://www.transformca.org/book/3800-san-pablo-ave-emeryvilleoakland-ca 4 Case studies from 2006 show 25-30% reduced parking demand due associated with parking cashout (see Table 1) http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm8.htm 5 Seven case studies parking cashout showing an average mode shift from driving alone to an alternative (e.g. bus, carpool or bicycle) of 11%. http://reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/bestpractice209.pdf 6 http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/single-project.php?row_id=55468 318 4 parking demand in transit-rich neighborhoods in all placetypes. It is based on King County Metro’s Right-Size Parking Calculator, and will allow our region more efficient use of parking now and in the future.7,8 2. We encourage more robust parking standards in the downtown. a. Standards for the downtown area should be reduced for residential units to encourage non-motorized travel. Currently there is very minimal parking reduction for residential units in the downtown parking district compared to other areas in the city that are less walkable and transit-rich. b. Developers should have the option of providing bike parking in lieu of car parking and bike parking requirements should not be tied to the number of car parking spaces. c. Reduce vehicle parking at the Caltrain station while facilitating access by other modes of travel. Examples include: bike share, electronic bike lockers and/or a bike repair station. 3. Revenues generated by parking benefits districts should be funneled towards streetscape enhancements and amenities that encourage non-motorized modes, such as TDM programs, bike infrastructure, lighting, benches, landscaping, and parklets. 4. The City can seize on the opportunity to provide better coordinated management of off- street and on-street parking: a. Dynamic pricing of on-street parallel parking on Grand b. Consolidation of surface lots c. Parking lot/bicycle/pedestrian wayfinding signage 5. Include a policy for parking landscape reserve where parking provision may be deferred from meeting the full requirement. For example, Palo Alto’s code allows for the deferral of up to 50% of required parking spaces where the need for parking is uncertain. The land area required for the provision of deferred parking must be maintained as a reserve for future parking demand and landscaped. This allows for developers to phase in parking as needed and doesn’t build all the parking up front. See Palo Alto Municipal Code: Chapter 18.52.050. 6. Create a bicycle parking plan including increased short-term bike parking in the downtown area and secure, well-lit, long-term parking at the new Caltrain station.9 7. The City should encourage shared parking facilities to promote walkability and pedestrian oriented streets. a. Examples: Third Street Promenade in Santa Monica & Downtown Culver City (see Figures 1 and 2). b. Shared use of private lots during non-business hours. Example: Bank of America on Center and Shattuck in Downtown Berkeley. 7 Bay Area Regional Online Parking Database Factsheet: http://www.transformca.org/files/online_parking_database_description_final_0.pdf 8 King County Multi-Family Residential Parking Calculator: http://www.rightsizeparking.org/ 9 South San Francisco Bicycle Master Plan: http://www.ssf.net/documentcenter/view/2117 319 5 Figure 1. Santa Monica Figure 2. Culver City Figure 1. Third Street Promenade in Santa Monica has consolidated municipal parking lots behind retail storefronts. The lots have occupancy displays and parking wayfinding signage to direct traffic away from pedestrian-oriented plazas. This creation of a pedestrian zone activates storefronts, increases economic activity, and reduces the VMT spent on hunting for parking right in front of a retail shop.10 Figure 2. Culver City has a unique downtown parking strategy that has allowed restaurants to operate outdoor dining areas and only increases the requirement for restaurant parking if outdoor dining areas exceed 250 square feet. Restaurants buy parking credits that correspond to 1.5 spaces and applied to parking in three municipal parking structures in the downtown See Culver City Municipal Code: Section 9.08.035. C. Infrastructure 1. Identify provisions to fund key infrastructure elements such as the pedestrian/bike tunnel to transit, station extension, streetscape improvements, etc. a. The plan should prioritize streetscape and bicycle/pedestrian infrastructure improvements that have the immediate benefits of encouraging non-motorized trips to the downtown and to transit. 2. Develop a bike parking plan in the downtown that considers use of bike corrals and parklets with bike parking in parallel parking spaces. Such a plan can be incorporated into place-making efforts. 3. Parklets can employ glass windshields and heaters to mitigate for inclement weather. 4. Ensure that there is a strong bicycle network surrounding and through downtown, and to the Caltrain station that connects to planned and existing bicycle networks throughout the city and the region. 5. Install Class II bike lanes of at least five feet on Grand Avenue and Airport Boulevard to increase accessibility to downtown businesses and the Caltrain station.11 a. Use dashed bike lanes or other technique to guide bicyclists from bike lanes through wide intersections, such as the one at Grand Avenue and Airport Boulevard. 6. Install bicyclist-focused wayfinding signs to key destinations with distances (Caltrain, 10 See map of Third Street Promenade here: http://www.downtownsm.com/sites/default/files/DTSM_MAP_11x17-061813web.pdf. 11 South San Francisco Bicycle Master Plan http://www.ssf.net/documentcenter/view/2117 320 6 BART, City Hall, library, etc.).12 D. Traffic Calming The City can make the Specific Plan area more appealing for walking and biking by ensuring street designs moderate vehicle behavior to be compatible with pedestrian and bike safety. 1. Opt for higher visibility crosswalks with advance yield stop bars/teeth in lieu of decorative crosswalks. 2. Narrow travel lanes when possible for wider sidewalks and bike lanes. 3. Tighten turning ratios where possible, particularly at key intersections near the station area plaza. 4. Add buffered bike lanes where feasible. We applaud the City of South San Francisco’s stated goals for the Downtown Station Area Plan and recent efforts to secure funding for bicycle and pedestrian improvements in the plan area. We eagerly anticipate the draft release in March and look forward to working with the City to encourage that the SAP prioritizes bicycle and pedestrian connectivity in the plan area. Sincerely, Adina Levin, Executive Director Friends of Caltrain Corinne Winter, President and Executive Director Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Clarrissa Cabansagan, Community Planner TransForm 12 South San Francisco Bicycle Master Plan: http://www.ssf.net/documentcenter/view/2117 321 32 2 32 3 Section D Comments from Outreach Events 324 32 5 32 6 32 7 32 8 32 9 33 0 33 1 33 2 33 3 33 4 33 5 33 6 33 7 33 8 33 9 34 0 34 1 34 2 34 3 34 4 34 5 34 6 COMMENT CARD TRANSLATIONS Attachment 2 (Public Comments) included three comment cards in non-English that have been translated below: 1) Xuesu Xiang, 514 Grand Avenue Apt. 3 It is a great pleasure to see your plan. I wish that you would consider community activities for immigrants. Thanks. 2) Ernestina Deering, Tina’s Bridal, 371 Grand Avenue Everything is fine but my concern is the Latin community. Where will they go if Grand Avenue relies on the Latin community. I sell to them. And if they leave? I will close my business. High rents are assured. 3) Rosa Goinfunar, 339 Miller Avenue More resources for the Latin community. 347 34 8 34 9 35 0 35 1 35 2 35 3 35 4 35 5 35 6 35 7 35 8 35 9 36 0 36 1 36 2 36 3 36 4 City Council January 28, 2015 Economic & Community Development Department 365 Adoption of Specific Plan: ◦Approval of Specific Plan ◦General Plan Amendment ◦Zoning Map & Text Amendment EIR Approval: ◦Certification of EIR ◦Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program ◦Statement of Overriding Considerations 366 Guides the future of development within a ½ mile radius of the Caltrain Station Two-year public review and input process 367 368 More than 15 community workshops, study sessions, and other public meetings. Informal community meetings & collaboration Extensive staff analysis EIR Process 369 Vision for Downtown 370 371 372 373 10 374 ◦Office/R&D, Commercial, and Advanced Manufacturing Uses ◦Open space 375 Up to 2,400 new jobs; Up to 1,435 new housing units; New amenities, civic uses, & plazas; Bicycle, pedestrian and transit improvements; Up to 1.2M SF of office/R&D space 376 New density will help support Caltrain station; Improved connections to the East of 101; Enacts policies of Climate Action Plan, Pedestrian Master Plan, & Bicycle Master Plan; Greater shopping, dining, living & working choices in Downtown 377 Adoption of Specific Plan: ◦Approval of Specific Plan ◦General Plan Amendment ◦Zoning Map & Text Amendment EIR Approval: ◦Certification of EIR ◦Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program ◦Statement of Overriding Considerations 378