Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-01-14 e-packetSPECIAL MEETING CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, California 94083 Meeting to be held at: MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING CITY COUNCIL COMMUNITY ROOM 33 ARROYO DRIVE JANUARY 14, 2004 6:45 P.M. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 54956 of the Government Code of the State of California, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco will hold a Special Meeting on Wednesday, the 14m day of January, 2004, at 6:45 p.m., in the Municipal Services Building, Community Room, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California. Purpose of the meeting: 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Public Comments - comments are limited to items on the Special Meeting Agenda Interview applicant for Conference Center Authority Discussion and appointment to Conference Center Authority Adjournment ' Cit~Clerk AGENDA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR MEETING MUNICIPAL SERVICE BUILDING COMMUNITY ROOM JANUARY 14, 2004 7:00 P.M. PEOPLE OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO You are invited to offer your suggestions. In order that you may know our method of conducting Agency business, we proceed as follows: The regular meetings of the Redevelopment Agency are held on the second and fourth Wednesday of each month at 7:00 p.m. in the Municipal Services Building, Community Room, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California. Public Comment: For those wishing to address the Board on any Agenda or n0n-Agendized item, please complete a Speaker Card located at the entrance to the Community Room and submit it to the Clerk. Please be sure to indicate the Agenda Item # you wish to address or the topic of your public comment. California law prevents Redevelopment Agency 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 for the Minutes. COMMENTS ARE GENERALLY LIMITED TO F/VE (5) M/NUTES PER SPEAKER. In the event that there are more than six persons desiring to speak, the Chair may reduce the amount of time per speaker to three (3) minutes. Thank you for your cooperation. The Clerk will read successively the items of business appearing on the Agenda. As she completes reading an item, it will be ready for Board action. RAYMOND L. GREEN Vice Chair RICHARD A. GARBARINO, SR. Boardmember RICHARD BATTAGLIA Investment Officer MICHAEL A. WILSON Executive Director KARYL MATSUMOTO Chair JOSEPH A. FERNEKES Boardmember PEDRO GONZALEZ Boardmember SYLVIA M. PAYNE Clerk STEVEN T. MATTAS Counsel PLEASE TURN OFF CELL PHONES AND PAGERS HEARING ASSISTANCE EQUIPMENT IS AVAILABLE FOR USE BY THE HEARING-IMPAIRED AT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETINGS CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL AGENDA REVIEW PUBLIC COMMENTS CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Motion to approve the minutes of December 10, 2003 2. Motion to confirm expense claims of January 14, 2004 CLOSED SESSION 3. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 real property negotiations related to 480 North Canal Street; Agency Negotiator: Redevelopment Agency Assistant Director Van Duyn ADJOURNMENT REGULAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING AGENDA JANUARY 14, 2004 PAGE 2 AGENDA CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR MEETING MUNICIPAL SERVICE BUILDING COMMUNITY ROOM JANUARY 14, 2004 7:30 P.M. PEOPLE OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO You are invited to offer your suggestions. In order that you may know our method of conducting Council business, we proceed as follows: The regular meetings of the City Council are held on the second and fourth Wednesday of each month at 7:30 p.m. in the Municipal Services Building, Community Room, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California. Public Comment: For those wishing to address the City Council on any Agenda or non-Agendized item, please complete a Speaker Card located at the entrance to the Council Chamber's and submit it to the City Clerk. Please be sure to indicate the Agenda Item # you wish to address or the topic of your public comment. California law prevents the City Council from taking action on any item 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 for the Minutes. COMMENTS ARE GENERALLY LIMITED TO FIVE (5) MINUTES PER SPEAKER. In the event that there are more than six persons desiring to speak, the Mayor may reduce the amount of time per speaker to three (3) minutes. Thank you for your cooperation. The City Clerk will read successively the items of business appearing on the Agenda. As she completes reading an item, it will be ready for Council action. KARYL MATSUMOTO Mayor RAYMOND L. GREEN Vice Mayor JOSEPH A. FERNEKES Councilman RICHARD A GARBARINO, SR. Councilman PEDRO GONZALEZ Councilman RICHARD BATTAGLIA City Treasurer SYLVIA M. PAYNE City Clerk MICHAEL A. WILSON City Manager STEVEN T. MATTAS City Attorney PLEASE TURN OFF CELL PHONES AND PAGERS HEAR1NG ASSISTANCE EQUIPMENT AVAILABLE FOR USE BY THE HEARING IMPAIRED AT CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INVOCATION PRESENTATIONS · Sewer Smart Program - Director of Maintenance Services Terry White AGENDA REVIEW PUBLIC COMMENTS ITEMS FROM COUNCIL · Community Forum · Subcommittee Reports CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Motion to approve the minutes of December 10, 2003 2. Motion to confirm expense claims of January 14, 2004 Motion to accept Hickey Boulevard and Longford Signal Project as complete in accordance with the plans and specifications Motion to accept Bay Trail Improvement Project as complete in accordance with plans and specifications o Motion to accept Lighted Crosswalk Warning System Installation Project as complete in accordance with plans and specifications o Acknowledgement of proclamations issued: Ballet Folklorico Alma de Mexico, 12/12/03; Richard Nofisger, 12/13/03; and retirees Rosa Freddie, 12/18/03 and Russ Lee, 12/26/03 PUBLIC HEARINGS o Consideration of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Tentative Map, Use Permit, Development Agreement and Affordable Housing Agreement, for Fairfield Residential to construct 360 multi-family residential units and approximately 23,000 square feet of commercial space at 1600 E1 Camino Real within the Transit Village District; P02-0088~ UP02-0088, PM02-0088, and ND02-0088; Applicant: Fairfield DeveloPment; Owner: COSTCO SSF LLC; waive reading and introduce an ordinance and approve resolution REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 14, 2004 AGENDA PAGE 2 Consideration of Negative Declaration, Use Permit Modification, Planned Unit Development Modification, and Type C Sign Permit to allow demolition of the existing Century Plaza theater and arcade complex and construction of a new 2,412 seat, 14- theater and arcade complex at 410 Noor Avenue; P03-0103FLIPM03-0003/PUDM03- 0001/SIGNS03-0029; Applicant/Owner: Syufy Enterprises Consideration of appeal of Planning Commission decision to deny a Use Permit Modification to allow sale of beer and wine for off-site consumption at an existing service station at 300 South Airport Boulevard in the Planned Commercial (P-C-L) Zoning District; P03-0045 and UPM03-0001; Applicant: Greiner Service Stations, Inc.; Owner: American River Properties Motion to continue public hearing to danuary 28, 2004 ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 10. Resolution of necessity and authorizing the filing of eminent domain proceedings for the acquisition of 10 properties for the Wet Weather Program Phase I CLOSED SESSION 11. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9a: Conference with legal counsel- existing litigation: Aetna v. City of South San Francisco ADJOURNMENT REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 14, 2004 AGENDA PAGE 3 StaffReport AGENDA ITEM DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: January 14, 2004 The Honorable Mayor and City Council Director of Public Works HICKEY BOULEVARD & LONGFORD DRIVE TRAFFIC SIGNAL PROJECT ENGINEE~G FII JF~ TR-02-02, PROJECT NO. 51-13231-0314 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council, by motion, accept the Hickey Boulevard & Longford Drive Traffic Signal Project as complete in accordance with the plans and specifications. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: This project provided new traffic signal at the intersection of Hickey Boulevard and Longford Drive. The new traffic signal has significantly improved the ability of local residents to enter Hickey Boulevard from Longford Drive. The project has been inspected by City staff and is completed in accordance with the plans and specifications. Acceptance of the project will provide authorization for staff to file a Notice of Completion and to release the payment performance bond and ten percent retention at the end of the thirty-day lien period. The construction was completed at the awarded amount of $85,177.00. Construction costs are budgeted in the 2002-2003 Capital Improvement Program (CIP/51-13231-0314). Director ~f Public Works Approved by: Michael A. Wilson City Manager RHIJG/ed StaffReport DATE: TO: FROM: January 14, 2004 The Honorable Mayor and City Council Director of Public Works AGENDA ITEM SUBJECT: BAY TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS ENGINEERING FII,E PR-01-1, PROJECT NO. 51-13232-0031 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council, by motion, accept the Bay Trail Improvements as complete in accordance with the plans and specifications. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: This project provided a new asphalt pathway for pedestrians along the north side of San Bruno Creek from the vicinity of Harbor WayfLittlefield Avenue to the vicinity of Utah Avenue/Littlefield Avenue. The total length of the new pedestrian pathway is approximately 3200 feet. This new pathway will be connected to the existing bridge over San Bruno Creek and associated pathway south of the creek. The new pathway has 5 rest areas with benches. The project has been inspected by City staff and is completed in accordance with the plans and specifications. Acceptance of the project will provide authorization for staff to file a Notice of Completion and to release the payment performance bond and ten percent retention at the end of the thirty-day lien period. The construction Was completed at a cost of $137,800.23 due to changes requested by the City and Bay Conservation & Development Commission (BCDC) such as the use of new asphalt instead of asphalt grindings for pathway and finish grading along sides of path versus an award amount of $88,888.88. Construction costs are budgeted in the 2002-2003 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Fund. By: J Director of Public Works Michael A. Wilson City Manager RI-l/JG/ed StaffReport AGENDA ITEM #5 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: January 14, 2004 The Honorable Mayor and City Council Director of Public Works Lighted Crosswalk Warning System Installation Project, Project No. 51-13231-0313, Engineering File TR-02-4, Bid No. 2335 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council, by motion, accept the Lighted Crosswalk Warning System Installation Project as complete in accordance with the plans, specifications, and contract documents. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: This project has provided three lighted crosswalks along Grand Avenue. One is at the intersection of Grand Avenue and Magnolia Avenue in front of the Senior Center. Two are at mid-block on Grand Avenue between Maple Avenue and Linden Avenue. These in-pavement light fixtures flash toward the oncoming traffic to warn drivers of a pedestrian's presence in the crosswalk, hence to reduce the chances of having pedestrian/vehicle collisions. The project has been inspected by City staff and is completed in accordance with the plans and specifications. The project has a one-year warranty period that takes effect upon acceptance by the City Council. Acceptance of the project will provide authorization for staff to file a Notice of Completion and to release the ten percent retention at the end of the thirty-day lien period. FUNDING: The final construction cost is $83,061.99 ($45,477.99 for equipment and $37,584.00 for installation). This project is budgeted in the 2003-2004 Capital Improvement Program (CIP). It is fully funded by a Transportation Development Act (TDA) grant. Approved: City Manager MC/JG/ed StaffReport A GEND,4 ITEM #7 DATE: January 14, 2004 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Honorable Mayor and City Council Marty Van Duyn, Assistant City Manager PUBLIC HEARING: FAIRFIELD MIXED-USE, COMMERCIAL/RESIDENTIAL TRANSIT VILLAGE PROJECT Case Number: Applicant: P02-0088 (Use Permit, Tentative Parcel Map, Affordable Housing Agreement, & Development Agreement) and MND-02-0088, Mitigated Negative Declaration Fairfield Residential RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council 1) adopt a resolution approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND-02-0088), including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations and approving P02-0088, Use Permit and Tentative Parcel Map; and 2) waive reading and introduce an ordinance adopting the Development Agreement (DA-02-0088) for the Residential/Mixed Retail/Commercial Use Subdivision. BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission has recommended that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration adopt and Ordinance approving the Development Agreement, approve a Use Permit to construct a mixed-use, commercial/residential transit-oriented development complex adjacent to the South San Francisco BART station, and approve a Tentative Parcel Map to divide the existing single parcel into three parcel. The proposed project is located on an existing single parcel in the South San Francisco BART Transit Village Zoning District and the E1 Camino Real Corridor Redevelopment Project Area. The project comprises 360 apartment units, up to 23,000 square feet of retail space, and two on-site parking structures. The applicant is also requesting City of South San Francisco approval a Tentative Parcel Map, to subdivide the existing single parcel, bisected by McLellan Drive, into three smaller parcel to accommodate the grocery store and the two mixed-use development sites. Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Subject: Fairfield Mixed-Use Transit Village Project Date: January 14, 2004 Page 2 Fairfield Residential Review Process In October 2002, Fairfield Residential submitted an application to construct a mixed-use proj eot on the site. In January 2003, several City Council members and Planning Commissioners toured representative mixed-use commercial and high-density residential projects between San Jose and Redwood City. Rick Williams of the consulting firm, Van Meter Williams Pollack, prepared the attached handout that lists the projects on the tour, other projects of interest in the San Francisco Bay Area, and the development information on each project. Fairfield introduced the mixed-use project to the Planning Commission at a Study Session held on May 1, 2003 and held a community meeting at the Municipal Services Building on May 27, 2003. The Planning Commission then held two Sub-Committee meetings between July and October 2003, which provided the Planning Commissioners and the developer the opportunity to clarify, refine or modify several site planning and architectural issues prior to scheduling a public heating. As a result o£the Sub-Committee process, the developer increased the commercial area of the project, changed the proposed building materials, changed the architectural design of the complex, agreed to permit public access into the interior courtyard areas of the complex, and refined the use of the stoops along E1 Camino Real, BART Service Road 2 and the BART Pedestrian Plaza. The Planning Commission held public hearings on October 16, 2003, November 6, 2003, and December 4, 2003. At the first public heating, Planning Commissioners identified several architectural issues that needed further clarification or refinement. At the second public hearing, the Planning Commission reviewed the environmental analysis and took public comments on the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed mixed-use transit village project. Planning Commissioners also identified additional site planning and architectural issues that needed further clarification or refinement. The Planning Commission held a final public hearing on December 4, 2003 and recommended that the City Council approve the project, subject to Conditions of Approval. DISCUSSION: Fairfield Residential is proposing the development ora mixed-use transit village project, with 360 residential units and 23,000 square feet of retail commercial, on a single 8.48-acre parcel adjacent to the South San Francisco BART Station. The developer is also proposing to subdivide the existing single parcel into three parcels. The project data is provided in the following table: Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Subject: Fairfield Mixed-Use Transit Village Project Date: January 14, 2004 Page 3 Project Development Data Acres Proposed Parcel 1 Proposed Parcel 2 Proposed Parcel 3 McLellan Dedication Total Number of Residential Units Proposed Parcel 2 Proposed Parcel 3 Total Commercial Square Feet Proposed Parcels 1 & 2 Proposed Parcel 3 Total Residential Density Landscape Area Building Height Three story Four story Number of Parking Spaces Resident Only (structured) Visitor (structured) Grocery (surface) McLellan Drive (street) Total Residential Parking Ratio Proposed Project 3.55 acres (154,638 square feet) 1.26 acres (54,886 square feet) 2.44 acres (106,286 square feet) 1.23 acres (53,579 square feet) 8.48 gross acres (369,389 square feet) 188 units 172 units 360 units 16,000 square feet for a Trader Joe's grocery store and ground level retail 7,000 square feet ground level retail 23,000 square feet 43 units/acre gross and 50 units/acre net 65,825 square feet (including 35,800 square feet interior courtyard areas) 37 feet 47 feet 541 spaces 60 spaces 64 spaces 24 spaces 689 spaces 1.5 spaces per unit Project Consistency With City General Plan, Zoning and Redevelopment Plan Standards Consistency With The South San Francisco General Plan The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, which designates the property for mixed-use commercial/retail and high-densityresidential uses. Mixed-use commercial and high-densityresidential uses are considered appropriate uses under this designation. Consistency With The Transff Village Zoning District The proposed project meets or exceeds the City's minimum standards and requirements, established in Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Subject: Fairfield Mixed-Use Transit Village Project Date: January 14, 2004 Page 4 Chapter 20.27, Transit Village Zoning District, which designates the site as TV-C, Transit Village Commercial and TV-RH, Transit Village Residential, High-Density. Consistency With The El Camino Real Redevelopment Plan The proposed project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the E1 Camino Real Corridor Redevelopment Project Plan, amended in 2001, to 1) create and develop high-density residential development adjacent to the South San Francisco BART Station and 2) to replan, redesign and develop areas which are stagnant or improperly used. Proposed Development Agreement And Affordable Housing Agreement The Development Agreement to implement the project consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the South San Francisco General Plan and the South San Francisco BART Transit Village Plan. The key items listed in the Development Agreement include: · Public art contribution: Developer will either pay an agreed-upon fee or install public art. · Childcare contribution: Developer will pay the required fee plus and an additional $600 per unit to help the City secure a site for a Childcare facility · Infrastructure Improvements: Developer will install and maintain street furniture and lighting on McLellan Drive and E1 Camino Real · Park fee contribution: Developer will provide a fee to help maintain existing parks. · CC&R 's: Developer will prepare CC&R's to manage the commercial leasing space. · Affordable Housing Agreement: The developer will set aside 20 percent of the units for low- and moderate-income households. Mitigated Negative Declaration In accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and City policy, an Initial Study was conducted to determine whether the project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Initial Study was distributed for a 30-day comment period on October 14, 2003. The Initial Study analyzed potential visual impacts, air quality impacts, geology and soil impacts, hazardous materials, noise, public services, traffic, and utilities. On the basis of the Initial Study it has been determined that although the proposed project could have a significant adverse effect on the environment, there will not be a significant adverse effect in this case because the mitigation measures in the Initial Study have been incorporated into the project. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission held public heatings on October 16, 2003, November 6, 2003 and December 4, 2003 to review the transit village proposal. During each meeting, City staff and the developer presented a PowerPoint presentation and illustrations that showed changes or refinements to the architectural design, the use of building materials and color, and landscaping. Planning Commissioners then commented on the Staff Report To: Honorab~le Mayor and City Council Subject: Fairfield Mixed-Use Transit Village Project Date: January 14, 2004 Page 5 architectural design of the project and asked that the developer prepare additional illustrations to either redesign a specific element or clarify an architectural concept. The Planning Commission held a final public hearing on December 4, 2003 and recommended that the City Council approve the project, subject to the Conditions of Approval. The Planning Commission also recommended that the City Council consider additional design improvements to the project that include the following: · The applicant should improve the overall design of the project and improve the use of materials. The applicant should provide more "open space" on the project site, as envisioned by the Transit Village Plan. · The applicant should consider providing a roof on each parking structure and use the surface for open space. · The interior courtyards appear to be too narrow. The applicant should provide a more detailed view of the interior courtyards. · The applicant should improve the interior courtyards provide better amenities for children. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council 1) adopt a resolution approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND-02-0088), including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations and approving P02-0088, Use Permit and Tentative Parcel Map; and 2) waive reading and introduce an Ordinance adopting the Development Agreement (DA-02-0088) for the Residentia~ixed Ketail/Commerei~/1 Use:Subdivision. By: M~ity Manager Appr°ved: lch~ael A.~~/i~ii y~~ ~ ger AttaCl~ments: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. City Council Resolution with Exhibits Development Agreement Ordinance with Exhibits Planning Commission Resolution, December 4, 2003 Planning Commission Minutes, December 4, 2003 Tentative Parcel Map Planning Commission Staff Report, December 4, 2003 Planning Commission Staff Report, November 20, 2003 Planning Commission Staff Report, November 6, 2003 Planning Commission Minutes, November 6, 2003 Planning Commission Staff Report, October 16, 2003 Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Subject: Fairfield Mixed-Use Transit Village Project Date: January 14, 2004 Page 6 11. 12. 13. 14. Planning Commission Minutes, October 16, 2003 Planning Commission Tour Handout Comments from Residents and Interested Groups Site and Building Elevation Plans (c/~y f co/rna) CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO FAIRFIELD RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Exhibit 2b SITE CONTEXT 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 mile ATTACHMENT1 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION EXHIBIT A Mitigated Negative Declaration with Statement of Overriding Considerations RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO APPROVING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, INCLUDING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSDERATIONS AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM AND APPROVING A VESTING TENTATIVE MAP AND USE PERMIT TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF 8.48 ACRE MIXED-USE TRANSIT VILLAGE PROJECT AND MAKING FINDINGS RELATED THERETO WHEREAS, Fairfield Residential LLC has proposed a mixed residential/retail/commercial project consisting of 360 multi-family residential units and 23,000 square feet of retail/commercial space located in the Transit Village District ("Project"); and, WHEREAS, in order to construct the Project, Fairfield must obtain approval of a Vesting Tentative Map and Use Permit; and, WHEREAS, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the Project and circulated for public review; and, WHEREAS, based on recent court rulings construing the California Environmental Quality Act, it is necessary to adopt a new Statement of Overriding Considerations that analyzes the benefits of the Project that justify overriding certain environmental impacts previously identified in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report of 1999; and, WHEREAS, the South San Francisco Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearings on October 16, 2003, November 6, 2003 and December 4, 2003, to consider the Project and related approvals; and, WHEREAS, on December 4, 2003, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the entitlements requested to permit development of the Project; and, WHEREAS, the Project meets or exceeds all requirements of the City of South San Francisco Municipal Code ("SSFMC") for a development of this type; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has exercised it independent judgment in reviewing the Project based on the entirety of the record which consists of, but is not limited to, the following: the City of South San Francisco General Plan adopted in 1999 and as amended from time to time; the Environmental Impact Report dated 1999 prepared for the General Plan, including the Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted concurrent with the 1999 EIR; public testimony and materials submitted to the City of -1- South San Francisco Planning Commission which include, but are not limited to: the site plans, floor plans, elevations and color and materials boards, revised October 10, 2003, prepared by Kwan Hemni Architecture/Planning; Preliminary Landscape Plans, revised October 10, 2003, prepared by Ima Design, and Vesting Tentative Map, revised October 10, 2003, prepared by Charles Davidson Company, "Preliminary Transportation Demand Management Program," dated , prepared by Fairfield Residential; Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, Fairfield Residential Mixed-Use Project and Response to Comments; Planning Commission staff reports dated October 16, 2003, November 6, 2003 and December 4, 2003;testimony received at the October 16, 2003, November 6, 2003, and December 4, 2003 Planning Commission meetings; and, the testimony and materials received at the January 14, 2004, duly noticed public heating of the City of South San Francisco City Council. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco, that the City Council does hereby find as follows: The subject site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the land use being proposed. The suitability of the site for development was analyzed thoroughly in the South San Francisco General Plan Environmental Impact Report and the environmental document prepared for the project. Additionally, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the Project that further analyzed project specific topography and surrounding uses. Both the General Plan EIR and the project Mitigated Negative Declaration conclude that the project site is relatively flat and can accommodate the proposed development. The Project, including the Tentative Map, is consistent with the General Plan, which designates the property for mixed-use commercial/retail and high-density residential uses. Mixed-use commercial and high-density residential uses are considered an appropriate use under this designation. The following policies specifically support the Project: mo Guiding Policy 2-G3 - Provide land use designations that maximize benefits of increased accessibility that will result from BART extension to the city and adjacent locations. Guiding Policy 2-G-7 - Encourage mixed-use residential, retail, and office development in centers where they would support transit, in locations where they would provide increased access to neighborhoods that currently lack such facilities, and in corridors where such developments can help to foster identity and vitality. Co Implementing Policy 3.4-1-3 - In partnership with property owners, area residents, and BART and other agencies, develop the approximately 8-acre McLellan Boulevard Extension area as a pedestrian-oriented spine fronted by active uses. -2- Implementing Policy 3.4-1-5 - Establish transit-supportive development requirements for the approximately 8-acre station area eo Policy 4.2-G- 10 - Exempt development within the one-quarter mile of a Caltrain or BART station or a City-designated ferry terminal from LOS standards. The Project meets or exceeds the City's minimum standards and requirements, established in Chapter 20.27, Transit Village Zoning District, which designates the site as TV-C, Transit Village Commercial and TV-RH, Transit Village Residential, High-Density as further analyzed below: ao The Project includes commercial and residential uses and, thus, meets the City requirements for retail uses or eating and drinking establishments on the ground floor with either commercial office and high density residential uses on upper floors, established in Sections 20.47.020, Sub-districts and 20.47.030, Land Uses in the Transit Village Zoning District. The Project will not exceed 50 residential units per acre and, thus, meets the City's maximum density requirement of 50 units per acre for a high- density residential project, established in Section 20.47.040, Regulations and Standards in the Transit Village Zoning District. Co The Project will not exceed a height of 47 feet and, thus, meets the City's maximum height requirement of 55 feet for the site, established in Section 20.47.040, Regulations and Standards in the Transit Village Zoning District. The Project will provide a ratio of 1.5 parking spaces per residential units and, thus, meets the City's parking standards, established in Section 20.47.040, Regulations and Standards in the Transit Village Zoning District and Chapter 20.74, Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations. The Project complies with the City development and design standards for street frontages, parking garage locations, building design, open space areas, pedestrian-orientation and project amenities, established in Section 20.47.040, Regulations and Standards in the Transit Village Zoning District. The Project includes a mix of below market rate units consistent with the requirement of South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter20.125 and is implemented by an Affordable Housing Agreement as required in the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance. -3- The Project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the E1 Camino Real Corridor Redevelopment Project Area, and specifically with the following: ao To create and develop high-density residential development adjacent to the South San Francisco BART Station. bo To replan, redesign and develop areas which are stagnant or improperly used. Provides below market rate units affordable to persons earning less than 80% of the median income for wage earners in San Mateo County. An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project in accordance with the provisions of CEQA. Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project, which will reduce all the identified impacts to a less than significant level. Those impacts that cannot be mitigated, particularly cumulative impacts as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR, are subject to override in accordance with CEQA and as further analyzed in Exhibit A. Analysis: The environmental impacts of the proposed development have been analyzed in two prior environmental documents prepared by the City under CEQA. The City of South San Francisco certified an Environmental Impact Report for its 1999 General Plan which analyzed the Project site as a mixed-use residential/commercial high density project. In 2001, the City adopted a Negative Declaration which analyzed the impacts of South San Francisco BART Transit Village Plan ("Transit Village Plan") which implemented the General Plan policies and development standards for a mix of uses of sufficient density on the site to create a vibrant pedestrian-oriented center. The Transit Village Plan included zoning standards, design guidelines and implementation measures for the Project site. The Transit Village Plan permits a density of 50 units per acre (with an additional density bonus for affordable units) and up to 30,000 square feet of commercial at a FAR of 2.0. The Negative Declaration for the Transit Village Plan concluded that development under the Plan would result in no significant environmental impacts. The Project is consistent with the Transit Village Plan as analyzed under the Negative Declaration. The environmental impacts of development of project site and surrounding area also have been analyzed in several recent EIRs: the BART Station Plan EIR; the Hickey (McLellan) Boulevard Extension Plan EIR; the E1 Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan EIR and the Costco Project EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15093, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for those impacts identified in the General Plan EIR as significant and unavoidable. (Resolution 99-135). In accordance with CEQA standards for streamlining and tiering environmental review, these prior environmental documents may be used -4- and relied on in evaluating the environmental impacts of the Project. Based on such documents, the Statement of Overriding Considerations is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A. The Project will not be adverse to the public health, safety, or general welfare of the community, nor unreasonably detrimental to surrounding properties or improvements. The Project includes pedestrian walkways, public infrastructure improvements, affordable housing consistent with the City of South San Francisco's Inclusionary Ordinance and provides 23,000 square feet of commercial/retail development that will assist in off-setting the costs of public services to the Project. Additionally, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco will realize tax increment funds from the redevelopment of the Property. Based on these and other factors in the record, the Project will not be adverse to the public health, safety or general welfare and will likely increase the value of surrounding properties by redeveloping blighted, vacant property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby: Adopts a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Fairfield Residential/Mixed Use Project; Approves Mitigated Negative Declaration MND-08-0088 and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program included therein; o Approves the Vesting Tentative Map and Conditional Use Permit for the Fairfield Residential/Mixed Use project. I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a special meeting held on the 14 day of January 2004 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTALN: -5- ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk -6- DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVF. LOPMENT PL.ANNING DIVISION Negative Declaration To: San Mateo County Clerk 555 County Center Drive Redwood City CA 94060 Fro~t'. City of South San Francisco 3'15 Ma. pie Avenue South San Francisco CA 940S3 Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento CA 95812 in-accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and City policy, an Initial Study was conducted to determine whether the following project may have ~ significant effect on the environment. On the Basis of the Initial Study it has beer~ determined that: Although the proposed project could'have a significant adverse effect on the environment, there will not be ~ significant adverse effect in this case because the mitigation measures in the trivial Study have been incorporated into the project., An Environmental impact Report is not required. Proje~ Description: TITLE: LOCATION: DESCRIPTION: APPLICANT: CONTACT PERSON and TITLE: Fairfield Mixed-Use Development Project East and west sides of McLeltan Road, north of E! Camino Rea!.. South ~a,, Frandsc.~. San ,M=,.~., Count~, Const~on of up to 370 one-and ~o-bedroom asaAment uni~ in ~ree stow buildinas with uc te 23.000 s~uare feet ¢ sround floor re.ii and ~ffT~ s~ace. A to~l ¢ 722 o~-site Darkino ssa:es are ~rooosed aion~ wit~ on-site ~eationa~ facili~es and teasino offices. Fai~etd Residential Mi~aef La[~Den. Senior Planner NOTICE: This document and ail support material are available for review in the Of T"i~ listed above. %his Negative Declsratbn may become fine] uniess written c.~mments are receiv~ at the above B~^ 7,1 ~ SOUTH, SAN FRAN,.,,$,-,Q, CC, 94DB3 ;315 MAPLE. AVENUE ~ P.C. r-,,¢ .... _~'_ OfT'iCe not later than November 1,3, 2003. If you wish to appeal th=. apprc~pdatenass or adequacy of this document, actdress your written comments to the City of South San Francisco, as referenced above, and state one or all of the following: 1) Iclentif~, the potential er~vironmental effect(s), why they would occur and why they would be significant. Please explain the basis for your commer~ts and submit supportin~ documentation; and 2) Suggest any mitigation measure which you believe would reduce or eliminate the environmental effect to an acceptable tevel. Date:t/;)?~/~J Signed: Title: ~--/.'//~F /~',~'¢~/¢£'g-- -8- Table of Contents Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 2 Applicant/Contact Person ................................................................................................ 2 Project Location and Context ....................... , ................................................................... 2 Project Description ........................................................................................................... 2 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected .................................................................... 12 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts .............................................................................. 13 Axachment to Initial Stud5 .............................................................................................. _,3 1. Aesth~ttcs ................................................................................................. 25 2. A~icultural Resources ............................................................................. 29 · .3. .air Quahty ............................................................................................... 4. Biological Resources ................................................................................ 34 5. CulmraI Resources ................................................................................... 34 6. Oeolo~, and Soils .................................................................................... 35 7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ............................................................ 37 8. Hydrolo~' and Water Quati~, .................................................................. 38 9. Land Use and Planning ............................................................................ 41 10. Mineral Resources .................................................................................... 42 11. Noise ........................................................................................................ 42 12. Population and Housing ........................................................................... 45 13. Public Services ......................................................................................... 46 ! 4. Recreation ................................................................................................ 48 t 5. Transportation and Traffic ...................................................................... 49 16. Utilities and Service Systems ................................................................... 60 i 7. Mandatory Findings of Significance ........................................................ 6 i A~encies and Orlanizaions Consuked ........................................................................... 63 References "~ -9- City of South San Francisco Environmental Checklist/ Initia~ Study introduction This Initial Study has been prepared in accord with the provisions of the California Environmental QuailS, Act (CBQA) and assesses the potemial environmental impacts of implememing the proposed project described below. The Inkial Smd5, consists of a completed environmental checklist and a brief explanation of thc environmental topics addressed in the chec -~ist. Applicant/Contact Person Fairfield Residential LLC 5510 Morehouse Drive Suite 200 San Diego CA 92121 Arm: Shon Finch Project Location and Context The project is located in the northerly portion of South San Francisco, on the east side of E1 Carnqno Real (State Route 82) north and south of McLellan Drive. Assessors Parcel Number 010-212-110 The project site encompasses 8.48 acres (goss) of land which is generally flat. No trees, rock outcrops, major, topo~apkic features or other features are located on the site. The project size is bisected by McLellan Drive, an ex/sting north-south collector road that links E1 Camino Rea/to the South San Francisco BART station as well as areas to the north of the site in the Town of Colma. Land uses near the project a_rea include the mn. exisfmg Costco %.rholesale faci!i~, northwest of the she, the newly-opened South San Francisco Bay A_rea Rapid Transit District (B.~T) station northeasterly of the she, a multi-stou BA_P,.T parking garage east of the she and a combination of single and muki-famity family residences to the south, south of E1 Camino Real. Exhibit 1 depicts the regional setting of South San Francisco, Exhibh 2a shows 'Cae location of the projec~ in context with the City. of South San Francisco and Ex.h/bit 25 shows the project location in relation to nearby major streets and highways and other fearn-es. Projeet Description The applicanz is proposing the approval and development of a mixed-use, residential/commercial transit-oriented development complex adjacent ~o the South San Francisco BART station that would include up to 370 apartment units (w/th approximately. 4,400 square feet of clubhouse/leasing office space), ,~.000 square feet of retail space and on-size parking (structured and surface). The project site is bisected into an east and west parcel by existing McLellan Drive. /he west parcel is bounded by Co¢co Drive, El Carnino Real, McLell~ Drive and Coloma City-of South San Francisco initial Study/Fairfield Residential Project Page 2 October 2003 -lO- Creek. This parcel will include ground floor in-line retail space, a~ well as, residential housing units surrounding a central five-level parking slrucmre. The east parcel is bounded by E1 Camino Real, McLellan Drive, the BART pedestrian plaza and BART Service Road 2. This parcel will include pound floor retail space, as well as, residential un/ts surrounding a central five-level parking structure. Both parcels wilt include a mix of three mad four stoD, buildings. The design of the proposed mixed-use complex would reflect a contemporary theme. Buildings will be desi~maed with fiat roofs, however, parapet wails and setect overhangs Mil be used to proxfide height variation and shadow effects. ,The buiI ;dh. rig fagade would be designed m create visual interest by incorporating varied vertical and horizontal wall planes as well as use of multiple exterior materials, in order to create a pedestrian-friendly emfiromnent, sidewalks located along the retail lined McLellan Drive would vary in width from ten to fifteen feet to provide strong pedestrian access to the retail uses. In addition, ground floor residential units along E1 Carnino Real, BART pedestrian plaza and BART Service Road 2 have stoop access to sidewalks leading to the BART station or shopping opportunities. Overall, the wide sidewalks and enhanced streetscape are designed to promote pedestrian use. Exhibk 3 shows the proposed site plan for the project, Ex.h/bit 4a shows proposed building elevations for the northerly portion of the project, Exhibit 4b shows elevations for the southerly portion of the proposed project and Exhibit 4c shows additional building elevations and a cross- section through the building complex.. Project elements are described below: Residential: Up to 370 rental apartments dwellings would be built, consisting of one- bedroom and two-bedroom units. Overall residential density allows up to50 units/acre. Unit sizes would range from 752 square feet to 1,288 square feet. Apartment homes would be rental only, with 20% of the un/ts designated affordable for low and moderate income households. The urdts occupied by low and moderate income households would be essentially the same as units occupied by marker households and dispersed throughout the building. The proposed project would be professionally managed by an on-site staff. Security measures would be included as pan of site construction. Recreational amenitiex: Each parcel will include spas, BBQs, seating areas, as well as, ~rchen hcilities ~d business center. In addition, a small mini-p~k would be located on ~e sou~west corner of the west p~cet. Commercial/office: Up to 23,000 square feet of retail space would be constructed on the ground floors of proposed residential buildings along McLellan Drive. Of the 23,000 square feet, approimately 12,000 square feet would consist of a retail-only building (a groceu is the anticipated tenant) located in the northern portion of the west parcel, near the intersection of BART Service Road 2 and McLellan Drive. Although no specific retail tenants have been identified, it is anticipated thar retail uses along McLellan Drive would serve prqiect residents, BART passengers and surrounding neighborhoods. · ?arL'ing and circuiarion: Up to 722 parking spaces would be provided as cart of the proposed project, with up to 557 resident parking spaces to be located wit!'~ structured City' of South San Francisco Initial Study/Fairfield Residential Project ~-~u¢ 3 October 2003 -11- parking garages, up to 65 guest parking spaces, up to 64 spaces rescued for retail uses and up to 37 on-street spaces along McClellan Drive. Paridng spaces would be dispersed throughout the site. Phasing of improvements The proposed development will be constructed in a single phase. Land use entitlements The applicant is requesting r~'~. ,-ay of South San Fr~zis~o approv~ l~d use enf~ements ~d o~er pe~its: · Conditional Use Permit for residential and commercial land uses (South San Francisco Planning Commission). Design Review for the exterior desi~ of residential and commercial uses, including exterior desi=m~s, use of materials and colors, landscaping and similar desitin features (South San Francisco Planning Commission). · Tentative Parcel Map,'to subdivide the project into smaller lots (South San Francisco Planning Commission). Development agreement, which would serve to detail affording housing requirements and to "lock in" land use entitlements for a specified number of years South San Francisco City Council) The developer also proposes to prepare CC&Rs (Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions) for the commercial portion of the development (including sign standards). .Previous environmental documentation The environmental knpacts of the proposed development have been analyzed in two prior environmental documents prepared by the City under CEQA. in 2000, the City of South San Francisco certified an Environmental Impact Report for its 1999 General Plan which analyzed the Project site as a mixed-use residential/commercial high density, project. In 2001, the CiD, adopted a Negative Declaration which analyzed the impacts o£ South San Francisco BART development standards for a mixed of use of sufficient densir3., on the site ¢o create a vibrant y,uc~,,,a.u-vz,,,,[=d cerner, z ne Transit v nlage lqan lncluoeo zoning standards, desig-n guidelines and implementation measures for the Project site. The Transit Village Plan permits a density of 50 units per acre (with an additional density bonus for affordable units) and up to 30,000 square feet of commercial at a FAR 0£2.0. The Negative Declaration for the Transk Village Plan concluded that development under the Plan would result in no significant environmental impacts. The proposed project is consistent with the Transit Village Plan as analyzed under the Negative Declaration. The environmental impacts of development of proj eot site and smrrounding area also have been analyzed in several recem EIRs: the BA_RT Station Plan EIR; the Hickey (McLellan) Boulevard Exte,~s~,,. ...~...v]~,~._. ~---,'CTP' the E1 Cam/mo Co..~dm~.~ ~ .... ......~ ..... _~'***~ Pl~ r:rv~,, and the~st~,~ ~ ~ ~r~ue~ ~: ~+ E!R. City o~ South San Francisco Initial Study/Fairfield Residential Project Page 4 October 2003 -12- In accordance with CEQA standards for streamlining and tiering environmen*~l review, these prior environmental documents may be used and relied on in eval,~ating the environmenta~ impacts of the proposed project. City of-South San - Initial Study/Fairfield Residential Project Page 5 OctOber 2003 -13- Rataet Mill Valle' Rict~mond Berkeley Walnut Creek \ San Franr~isoo South San Francisco qayward Llvarmore San Mateo Fremont Half Moon Redwood City Alto CiTY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO FAiRFiELD RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPf~ENT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Exhibit 1 R='-':~'~ ^: LOCATION -!4- GOLDEN PARK Area shown in Exhibit 27 ° Brisbane SAN INTERNATIONAL , Mentar~ Hiltsborough CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO FAIRFIELD RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Exhibit 2a S~TE CONTEXT LOCATER MAP ? 2 3 -' -15- SITE I~MED[C&L CENTER CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO FAIRFIELD RESIDENTIAL__-~.,--,r~=v=~ c~=~m,.,..., MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Exhibit 2b SiTE CON~ :,~, ~ 0.7 -16- SOURCE: Charles W Davidson Co., Consulting Civil Engineers, 70/2/2002. CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO FAiRFiELD RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Exhibit 3 PROPOSED, SITE PLAN 0 5¢ 10~ ?50 2~¢ 250 ieer -]7- OII'iIEnlO. COUIllYAIII7 LOOKING NQfllfl $OUF?C'E' I('w,~n ! lenmi, Amhileclure/Pla~rTfl~g, 12- i~ CITY OF SOUTII SAN FRANCISCO FAIRFIELD RESIDENTIAL DEVEI~OPMENT MITIGATE[) PIEGATIVE DECLAFIATIOFI Exhibil: 4a BUILDING ELEVATIONS: NORTH SITE DAIIT ACC[SS IIOA~ ELEVAllOPI ELEVATION I(E¥ PlAN SOUI'ICE: I(wat~ I lenmi, Atchiteclute/Pla¢~t~it~g, 12 16-2002. ClI'Y OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO FAIRFIELD RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT MITIGATEIE) 1~4EGAI'IVE IBECLArlA'[ION Exhibit 4b BUILDING ELEVATIONS: SOUTI4 SITE ~ll,II[nlOll COURT EL~VATI(Itl ELEVATION KEY PLAN : '-II L i I ~ i ~ l [ ~ ~ I[I1' / uJ SOURCE: Iq,va/~ I lenmi,/b(:lffleclute/Plat~/fing, 12-16-;?'002l CITY OF SOU'T'H SAN FRANCISCO FAIF1FII-'L[t RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT MITIGATED r,IEGATIVE DECLARATION Exhibilt 40 BUILDING ELEVATIONS & SECTION: SOUTH SITE 1. Project description: Construction of up to 370 one and two bedroom apartmem units in three story buildings with up ~o 23,000 square feet of ground floor retail and office space. A ~oml of 722 on- site parking spaces are proposed along with on-site recreational facilities and leasing offices. 2. Lead agency: CiD' of South San Francisco · ,~***~,~ Division 315 Maple Avenue/P.O. Box 71 South San Francisco CA 94803 3. Contact person: Mike Lappen, Serfior Planner (650) 877-8535 4. Project location: East and west sides of McLellan Road, north of E1 Camino Real, APN# 010-212-110 5. Project sponsor: Fairfield Residential Shon Finch 55 t 0 Morehouse Drive, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92121 (858) 457-2123 6. General Plan designation: Mixed-Use -Community Commercial, High Density ResidenTial and Office 7. Zoning: Transit Village-Residential High Density and Transit Village - Retail 8. Public agency required approvals: Approval of Negative Declaration (CID' of South San Francisco) Development Agreement (City of South San Francisco) Tentative Parcel Map (CID7 of South San Francisco) Desi=m:~ Review (CID' of South San Francisco) Use Permit (City of South San l:rancisco) Grading and Building Permks (City of South San Francisco) Utility connections (City of South San Francisco and various utility providers) Notice of Intent (State Water Resources Conzrot Board) Encroachment Perm/t (Caltrans) City of South San Francisco initial Study/Fairfield Residential Project October 2003 -21- Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked be]ow would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "potentially si~cant impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. X X Aesthetics Biological Resources X AgriculU~-at Resources Culu.u'al Resources X X _Air Quality Geology/Soils x Hazards and x Hazardous Materials Hydrolo~dWater Quality X Land Use/' Ptannmg X X Mineral Resources Public Services Utilities/Service Systems X Noise Recreation x Mandatory Findings of Significance Population/ Housing Transportation/ Ckculation Determination (to be completed by Lead Agency): On the basis of this initial evaluation: I fred that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the env/ronmem and the previous Negative Declaration certified for this project by the City of South San Francisco adequately addresses potential impacts. X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the envirornnent, there will not be a siDaificant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an aUached sheet have been added to the project. A Negative Declaration will be prepared. __ ! £md that although the proposed prQect rosy have a sig.~cant effect on the envirommem, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed kn_ an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis as described on the attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially siga~ificanr impact" or "potenriaiiy si~'dfic~nt ~m_iess .,_d,';tiga*-ed." _Am Envh-o~ental impact Report is req,~red, bu,: must only analyze the effects that remain to be addressed. __ ! fred that although the proposed project could have a si~m-~ificant effect on the environment, there will not be a sigrfificant effect in this case because all potemially si=m-fificant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier E!R pursuant to applicable standards, and Co) have been avoided or n-fitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed on the proposed project. Prim*.ed Nmme: { 0'.~. ~ City of South San Francisco initial Study/Fairfield ~esidentiaf Project Date: For: October 2003 -22- Evaluation of Environmental Impacts A brief explanation is required for all answers except "no impact" answers thai are adequately supported by the iffformation sources a lead agency cites in the parenthesis following each question. A "no impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply' to projects like the one involved (e.g. the prqiect falls ouzside a fault rupture zone). A "no impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general factors (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). :) All answers must rake account of the whole action, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and cons~-acdon as well as operational impacts. "Potentially Si=rmificant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that ~ effect is significant. If there are one or more "potentially si=orfificant impact" entries when the derermination is made, an EtR is required. 4) "Less Than Significam With Mitigation Incorporated" implies the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "potentially si=m:dficant effect" go a "less than sigrfificant impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than sigr~ificant level. City of South San Francisco Initial Study/Fairfield Residentiai Project Page ! 3 October 2003 -23- ~nvironmcntal Impacts (Note: Source of determination listed in parenthesis. See listing of sources used to determine each potential impact at the end of the checklist) Note: A full discussion of each item is found following the checklist. i. Aesthetics. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista? (Source: 2, 6) b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not Iimited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Source: 8) c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Source: 5,6) d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Source: 5) 2. Agricultural Resources Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide importance, as showing on the maps prepared pursuant to the Parm_land Mapping and Monitoring Pro.am of the Califomia Resources Agency, to a non-a~iculrural use? (Source: 1, 2) b) Conflict with existing zoning for agriculrare use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Source: l, 2) c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural use? (Source: i, :) 3..&ir QualiD, (Where available, the si~ificance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district may be relied on to make the following determinations). Vcbuld the project: a) Conflict with or obst~ct implementation of the applicable air quality plar~? (Source: 2, 6) b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Source: 2,6) Potentially Less Than Less than No Si~ificant Sign/figaro Signifisant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation X X X X X X ~hy .~T SOuu~ ~ar'i ~raDcisc© initial Stuoy/Fairfieid Residential Project Page 14 October 2003 -24- c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors? (2) d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Source:2) e) Create objectionable odors? (Source: 5) 4. Biological Resources. Would the project a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly through habitat modifications, on an5, species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Source: 2) b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural cornmun/t3, identified in local or regional plans, policies or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Source: 2) c) Have a substantial adverse impact on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption or other (Source: 2) d) interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (Source: 2) e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree protection ordinances? (Source: 2) Potentially Si=maificant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less than Significant Impact X X No impact X X X X City of South San Francisco initial Study/Fairfield Residential Project Pag=~ 15 October 2003 -25- f) Conflict with the provision of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural CommuniW Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? (Source: i, 2) 5. Cultural Resources. W~outd the project a) Cause a substantial adverse impact in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Sec. 15064.5? (Source: 2) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to Sec. 15064.5 (Source: 2) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or unique geologic feature? (Source: 2) d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of a formal cemetery ? (Source: 2) 6. Geology and Soils. Would the project a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a .'known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist or based on other known evidence of a known fault (Source: 2) ii) Strong seismic ~ound shaking (2) hi) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? (2) iv) Landslides? (5) b) Resuk in substantial soil erosion or the loss of c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on- and off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or similar hazards (Source: 2) d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 13-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to tile or property? (Source: 2) Po~ndally Significant Impact Less Than Sig~nificant With Mificadon X X V Less than Significant Impact X X Impact X X X City of South Sar~ Francisco initial Study/Fairfield Residential Project Page 16 October 2003 -26- e) Have soils capable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste? (Source: 2) ?. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Would the proje~. a) Create a si~ificant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials (Source: 2, 4) b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous into the environment? (Source: 4) c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Source: 4) d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Sec. 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a si~nificant hazard to the public or the environment? (Source: 6) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such plan has not been adopted, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Source: 2) f) For a project within the vicinity of private hazard for people residing or working in the project area'? (Source: 2) g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with the adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Source: 2) Potentially Si~cant Impact Less _Than Si~m-fificant With MJtieation X Less than. Significant impact X NO Impact X X X ~.,~,),,~ South San Francisco initial Study/Fairfield Residential Project October 2003 -27- h) Expose people or sk,-ucmres to a sig-nificant risk of loss, injury .or death involving wildland fires, including where wildtands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are inter-m/xed with wildlands? (Source: 2) 8. Hydrolo~ and Water Quality, Would the project: a) Viotate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (Source: 2, 9) b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table, level (e.g. the production rate of existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? (Source: 2, 5) c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the aeration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site? (Source: 2, 5) d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or areas, including through the akeration of a course or stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? (Source: 2, 5) e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capaciq, of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (Source: 5, 6) ~ Otherwise substantially degade water qualiD,? (Source: 5, 6) g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Flood Hazard Boundau or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map? (Source: 6) Potentially Significant impact Less Than Significant With Mkication X X X X Less than Significant impact No Impact X X X City of South San Francisco initial Study/Fairfield Residential Project Page 18 October 2003 -28- h) Place within a l O0-year flood hazard area structures which impede or redirect flood flows? (Source: 2) i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury., and death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (2) j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow? (2) 9. Land Use and Planning. Would the project: a) Physically d/vide an established community? (Source: 1, 2, 5) b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (Source: 1, 2) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat :.conservation plan or natural community 'conservation ~ 9 , p,an. (1 2, 5) 10. Mineral Resources. Would the project a) Result in the toss of availabiLi5, of a tmown mineral resource that would be of value to ~the region and the residents of the state? (Source: 1, 2) b) R~sult in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general Plan, specific Dian or other land use plan? (Source: 1, 2) 11. Noise. Would the proposal result a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise the general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies ? (Source: 2) b) Exposure of persons or to generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Source: 2, 5) c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above ex/sting levels without the project? (Source: Potentially Signifieam impact Less Thm~ Si~tmificam With Mitigation X Less Significant Impact X No Impa:t X X X X X X Ci~.~i of South San Francisco Initial Study/Fairfield Residential Project Page i 9 October 2003 -29- d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity. above levels without the project? (Source:2) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or wor'!.dng n the project area to excessive noise levels? (Source: 2) f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose, people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Source: 2) 12. Population and Housing. Would the project a) Induce. substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (Source: 2) b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (2) c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the replacement of housing elsewhere? (Source: 5) 13. Public Services. Would the proposal: a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause sig,nificant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service rations, response times or performance objectives for an5, of the public serv,.ces: (~-ources:.,~ _,'~ 6) Fire protection Police protection Schools Parks Other public facilities Potentially Significant Impact Less Thma Significant With Mitigation X Less than Sign/f/cant Impact X X No Impact X X X X X X ,.,,,y of South Sar~ Initial Study/Fairfield Residential Project Page 20 October 2003 -30- !4. Recreation: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facili~, would occur or be accelerated (Source: 2) b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require, the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Source: 2) Potentially Sigrdfieant impact Less Than With Mitication Less than Significant Impact X NO 15. Transportation and Traffic. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capaciD, of the street system (i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads or congestion at intersections)? (4) b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the Count), Congestion Management Agency for designated roads or highways? (4) c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safe~, risks? (4) d) Substantia/ly increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses, such as e! Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate paficing capacity? (4) g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (such as bus turnouts and bicycle facilities) X X X X X X City of South San Francisco initial Study/Fairfield Residential Project ~ao= 21 October 2003 -31- 16. Utilities and Service Systems. WouM the project a) Exceed wastewater h-eatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (2) b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause ~ 9 sigrfificant environmental effects. (2, 5) c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause sig-nificant environmental effects? (6) d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing water entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (2) e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacitS., to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the providers existing comrrfitments ? (6) ~ Be served by a landfill with sufficient permiued capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (2) g) Comply wi~ federal, state and local statutes and reg'ulations related to solid waste? (2) 17. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quaiiry of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number of or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate impo~ant examples of the major periods of California histou or prehistou? Potentially Significant impact Less Than Significam Mitigation X Less than Significant impact X No Impact X X City of South San Francisco Initial Study/Fairfield Residential Project October 2003 -32- b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects). Potentially Significant c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Sources used to determine r)otential environmental imr~acts 2. 3. 4. 6. South San Francisco General Plan South San Francisco General Plan EIR Hazardous Materials Corrective Action ReporL Kleinfelder Traffic analysis of project, Fehr & Peers Site Visit Other Source Less Than Si.~ni~cant With Mit/cation Less than Si~m:tffieant impact Impact X X ~,,y of South San: ...... initial Study/Fairfield Residentiai Project Page 23 October20ua"*' -33- XVIL Earlier Analyses Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program ELK., or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIP. or negative declaration. Reference Section 15063 (c)(3)(d). a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where the): are available for review. Portions of the environmental setting, project impacts and mitigation measures for this Initial Smd), refer to environmental information contained in the General Plan and General Plan ElK i999) (SCH#97122030). The following envn-onmental documents have been used in the preparation of this Initial Study: South San Francisco BART Transit Village Plan Initial Study/Negative Declaration (2001) BA_RT Station EIR Hickey Boulevard (McLellan Boulevard) Ex-tension EIR. El Camino Redevelopment Corridor EiR Costco EIR ,4_1t documents are available for review at the South San Francisco Planning Department, 315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco, during normal business hours. initial Study/Fairfieid Residential Project Page 24 October 2003 -34- Attachment to Initial Study Discussion of Checkiist i. Aesthetics Environmental Settin~ The project site is located along the E1 Camino Real corridor, characterized by major commercial estabiishmems (including a Costco Wholesale faciii~0 and offices (including a Kaiser Hospital) along the north side of this regional roadway and residential development along the south side of E1 Camino Real. In addition to the Costco building, other major features along the corridor include the newly opened South San Francisco Bay A.rea Rapid Transk station and multi-stoo' par ~king garage ~rnmediatety noah. beast of the project site and a Kaiser multi-stoW parMng garage also located east of the site. Single-family houses on the south side of E1 Camino Real have been constructed on hillside areas that overlook the project sire and provide views to San Brano Mountain to the north. Views of San Bruno Mountain are also available from the project ske, however, the site is not open to the public. Al*Zaough no sources of light ex/st on the project site, significant levels of lighting are located within the adjacent Costco parking Ior, the BART station and B.ART paring garage. Reg'ulatory Framework In 2001, the City of South San Francisco adopted the South San Francisco BART Transk Villa_~e Plan ~to =re.fide the development within an approximate 1/2-mile of the B,ART station. Transit Village Character Design Guidelines and Architectural Prototype Design Guidelines contained in the document call for development on the project site x~fith a strong urban feel and with three stories of development over podium parking. Specific sire planning and building design crkeria are contained in the documem. Proiect a) Impacts ~crve a substantial adverse ira. pact o~ a scenic vista? LS. Exkibk 5a is a phorosmuiation sho~aing the potential impact 0fthe proposed project on the existing view from Hickey Boulevard jus~ south of the site. The sLm_~_~afion has been prepped <Dproyfimme!y one- half way up the roadway m depict views of adjacen~ residences from rear yards and windows. Based on the photosimularion, the lower levels of San Bruno Mountain, including some ~rees and other vegetation at the base of the mountain, would be obscured by the proposed mixed-use development. However, upper xdews wo~d nor be obscured by the proposed development nor would the ridge itself be blocked. Partial views of trees and other distant vegetation at the base of the moumain would remain from Hickey Boulevard and nearby residents. Less-than-significant impac~ is therefore anticipated with regard to adverse impacts on scenic vistas. b) Substan~alty damage scenic resources, inciuding state scenic highway? LS. Ex]a/bit 5a is ....... o~ ~n~ propos~a project as k would appear north~ouna on a SlmUla~loi1 oi me appearance City' of South San Francisco Initial Study/Fairfield Residential Project Page 25 October 2003 -35- E1 Camino Real. The appearance of the site would be difference under a developed condition, however, the type, intensity., scale, height and general nature of the proposed project is consistent with future land uses envisioned in the BART Transit Village Plan, so a less-than-si~ificant impact is anticipated. c) Substantially dew'ade existing visual character or the quali~; q£ the sire? LS. Approval and cons~ucfion of the proposed projec't would convert the e~sfing vac~r site to a ~xed use, ~sk-ofiemed development. Since ~e proposed projec~ is being developed ~ a ~ptemenz~g zon~g dis~ic~ (see Section 9 of ~s I~ri~ Study, L~d Use), w~ch promotes ~ee-stou, pedes~i~ acfivi~ ~d ~e~ree~al ~reres~ ~ong E1 C~o Re~, McLeli~ Drive ~d Mission Road. as well as appropriate i~dscaping ~d open space pleas, ~ere wo~d be a texs-thamsi~cam impac~ with reg~d to de~ading ~e visu~ ch~acter of ~e ske. Oeare light or glw'e? LS/M. A number of light sources presently exist adjacent to the sire. Approval and implementation o£the proposed project would add new sources o£ light and glare, since the project would include new light sources for securi~' purposes, as required by the South San Francisco Police Department, exterior lights for the retail component o£ the proj eot and other tight sources. New lighting could have a potentially sigT~ificant impact on residents o£the proposed project. The following measure is recommended to reduce Iight and glare impacts to a less-than-sig-nificant level: Mitigation Measure 1. All exterior lights shall be equipped wkh cut-off lenses and fixtures to reduce spill over of unwanted light to residential areas and areas off o£ the site. Lights for commercial and office uses shall be dimmed or mined off during closed evening hours as approved by the South San Francisco Planning Departmem. CiTy o~ South San Francisco tnitiai Study/Fairfield Residential Project Page 26 October 2003 -36- SOURCE: Environmenta/ Vision, 9/22/£003. CITY OF SOUTH'SAN FRANCISCO FAIRFIELD RESiDENTiAL DEVELOPMENT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION LOOKING NORTH -37- SOURCE: Environmen[a! Vision, C!.?Y OF.SO~JTH SAN FRANCISCO FAiRFiELD RESiDENTiAL DEVELOPMENT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Exhibit 5b EL.~'" ~,-.,wlN O RE,~.L. LOOKING WEST -38- 2. Agricultural Resources Environmema] Se~ting The project area has been developed for a number of years for primarily commercial and office uses. Although underlying soils may support a~iculmre, no crops have been cultivated in many years nor have any portions of the project area been used for animal ~azing. No Williamson conservation a~eemen~s have been signed for properties affected by fi:tis project, since the grea~ mai oriry of the land is owned by,~ublic agencies. _No azricuimral_ zoninz~ had beeri any portion of the project area by the City of South San Francisco. Proiect Impacts ~-c) Convert Prime Farmland., conflict ~4,ith a~'icultura! zoning or a~'iculture land use or convert prime farmland to a non-a~iculrural use ? NI. The pro. jeer area lies in a highly urbanhed area o£ South San Francisco and there would be no impact with regard xo a~iculmral uses, zoning or Williamson Act Land Conservation agreements. 3. Air Quality Environmental Settin,c, Northwest winds are most common in South San Francisco, reflecting the orientation of wind gaps within the mountains of the San Francisco Peninsula. Winds are persistent and strong, providing excellent ventilation and carrying pollutants downwind. Winds are lightesz on the average in fall and winter. The persistent winds in South San Francisco result in a relatively tow' potential for air pollution. Even so, in fall and winter there are periods of several days when winds are very light and local pollueanes can build up. Bo~ the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and the California A_ir Resources Board have established ambient air quali~ standards for common pollutants. These a_mbien¢ air qualivy standards are levels of contaminams which represent s~fe levels that avoid specific adverse health effects associmed with each pollutant. The ambiem air qualiD? standards cover what are u=~crlb~u in called "criteria" ponutants because ~he health and other -= of eachpouu[m,[-" ...... are =--- ' - = criteria documents. The federal Cle~ _&_ir Act requires the U.S. Environmental protection Agency (EPA) to m~nnfy. mr qualiry standards. California has also adopted more s~ingent ambient air qualiry standards for some pollutants. Table 1 summarizes current stare and national standards. The local air quality agency is the Bay A.rea Air QuaS~ Management District (BA_AQMD). The BA_KQMD enforces rules and regulations regarding air pollution sources and is the primary agency preparing the regional air quali~ plans mandated under state and federal taw. The BA_&QMD has prepared air quatiry/mpact guidelines for use in preparing environmental documents under the California Environmental Quail%' Act. City of South San Francisco initial Study/Fairfield Residential Project Page 29 October 2003 -39- The Bay' Area Air Quality. Management District (BAAQMD) monitors air quail%, at several locations within the San Francisco Bay .Air Basin, although none are located in South San Francisco. The monitoring sites closest to the project sire are located in San Francisco to the north and Redwood City. zo the south. Table 2 summarizes exceedances of the state and federal standards at these Wvo sites. Table 2 shows that most of the ambient air quali~' standards are met in the project area with the exception of PM~0 and ozone. Table i. Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant Averaging Time l-Hour g-Hour 8-Hour 1 -Hour .Annual 1 -Hour .Annual 24-Hour 1 -Hour Annual 24-Hour .Annual 24-Hour 30-Day Avg. Month Avg. Ozone Carbon Monoxide Nitrogen Dioxide Sulfur Dioxide PM~0 PM2.5 Lead ppm = parrs per million u~m° = Micro,ams per Cubic Source: BAAQMI) Meter Federal State ?rimary Standard Standard 0.12 ppm 0.09 ppm 0.08 ppm -- 9.0 ppm 9.0 ppm 35.0 ppm 20.0 ppm 0.05 ppm -- -- 0.25 ppm 0.03 ppm -- 0.14 ppm 0.05 ppm -- 0.5 ppm 50 ug/m~ 30ug/m~ 150 ug/m~ 50 ug/m~ 15 ug/m~ -- 65 ug/rr? -- -- 1.5 ug/m; 1.5 ug/mz -- C~*',, of South San = .... ~¢~ initial Study/Fairfield Residential Project Page 30 October 2003 -40- Table 2. Air Quality Data SummaD' for San Francisco and Redwood City, 1999-200! Pollutant Standard Monitoring Site Days Standard Exceeded 1 oor~ 2000 Ozone Federal 1-Hour San Francisco 0 0 Redwood City 0 0 Ozone State 1-Hour San Francisco 0 0 Redwood City 0 0 Ozone I Federal 8- San Francisco 0 0 HourI Redwood City 0 0 PM~0 t Federal 24- San Francisco 0 0 Hour Redwood Ci~, 0 0 PM~0 State 24-Hour San Francisco 6 ~ Redwood City' 3 1 Carbon Sram/Federal San Francisco 0 0 Monoxide 8-Hour Redwood Ci~, 0 0 Nitrogen State 1-Hour San Francisco I 0 0 Dioxide Redwood City I 0 0 Source: Air Resources Board, Aerometric Data Analysis and Management (ADAM), 2002. 200! 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 7 4 0 0 0 0 it eguiatory frameu, ork The South San Francisco General Plan contains the following guiding air quali~y policies regarding reduction of cumulative air quality impacts: Policy 7.3-G-1' Continue to work toward improving air quality' and meeting all national and Stare ambient air quality' standards and by reducing the generation of air pollmanrs from both stationary and mobile sources, where feasible. · ~'~;~",~-,w 7.._x-~,-'~.,., ~.. Encourage_ land use and =anspomation strategies~ thal promote use c,f a!tematives to the automobile ~%r transpo,rtation, including bicycling, bu~ tr~sit and cam~ ooling. arrangement of land uses, improved alternative modes and enhanced integration of various transportation systems serving South San Francisco, strive to reduce the total of vehicle miles traveled. The Stare of California aisc has adopted the Transit Village Development Pls_mn/ng Act of t 994 (Calif. Gov. Code 65460 et. seq). Legislative findings made as part of this Act notes t_hat persons living within a one-quarter mile radius of iransit stations use transit systems in far greater numbers than does the general public living elsewhere. Ciw ~*-qm,,th San Francisco initial Study/Fairfield Residentiai Project October 2003 -41- Pro~ect a) impacts Would the project conflict or obstruct implementation of an air qualiry plan? LS. The S~ Fr~eiseo Bay ~ea A~ Basin is e~enfly non-a~en~ ~or ozone (sm~e ~d ~edera] ~bient s~d~ds) ~d PM~0 (state ~biem s~d~d). ~le ~r quali~ plus e~s~ for ozone, none e~sts (or is c~enfly req~red) for PM~o. The Revfsed Sa~ francisco Say Are~ Ozone Attainment ~lan for the f -~our ~tional Ozone Standard ~s ~e c~ent ozone Mr quatiD' pl~ required ~der ~e federal Cle~ ~r Ac~, The s~aee-manda~ed regional air quMiD' pt~ is ~e Bay Area 2000 Clean Air Plato These pt~ contain mobile so.ce conmols~ smfionmD~ so.ce ¢onmols ~d m~spommfion control measles ~o be implemented ~ ~e region ~o a~ ~e state ~d federal ozone s~d~ds wi~ the Bay ~ea Ab Bas~. The project represents the proposed development of higher densi~ mixed-use project near m~or transit facilities (bus and BART) to reduce dependence or,. automobile mode of transportation. The proposed ~,pe, location and densi~; of development s also consistent with City' of South San Francisco General Plan air qualit7 guiding policies. Although air pollutants would increase through consU-uction of the proposed Fairfield development project, this type of development is a land use strategy promoted by the Cib' of South San Francisco, BAAQMD and other regional planning agencies to improve regional air quality, so no impact would result. b) Would the project violate an), air quali9, standards? LS/M. Conslx'uction The proposed project would not require demolition of any existing structures. Construction activities would temporarily affect local air quaJ_iry, causing a temporary increase in particulate dust and other pollutants. Uncontrolled dust errfissions during construction have the potential to exceed the ambient air quality' standards locally. This impact is potentially sig-nificant. £M,4QMD C£QA Guidelines, provide thresholds 05' siDa/ficance for air qualiD- impacts. The B.~_&QMD sigrfificance thresholds for construction dust impacts is based on the appropriateness of construction dust con=ols. The BA.AQldD guidelines provide feasible control measures for construction emission of PM~0. !f the appropriate construction controls are to be implemented, then air pollutant emissions for constraction activities would he considered !ess-th~n-si~Jficam Ar~harana~ tn the r%llnw~no m~t~a~?ia.m w~ll achieve this obi ective. Mitigation Measure 2. The following measures are recommended for inclusion in conslrucfion specifications to control fugitive dust errfissions. a. Water all active construction areas a~ least twice daily. b. Water or cover stockpiles of debris, soil, sand or other materials that can be blown by the wdnd. c. Cover al! trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maknmin ac least ~o feet of freeboard. ~,~3,"~' of South o=,, Francisco initial Stu0y/Fairfi~id ~esid~ntia[ Project October 2003 -42- c) e) Sweep daily (preferably with water sweepers) all paved access road, parldng areas and staging areas at construction sites. Sweep streets daily (preferably with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. Ooeration Development projects in the Bay .A_rea are most likely to violate and air quality standard or contribute substamially to an existing or projected air quality violation through generation of vehicle U-lps. New vehicle ~ps ~'~ ' ,~ to carbon monoxide concenu-anons near streets providing access to the site. The traffic analysis prepared for th/s project by Fehr & Peers estimates a total number of 4,646 vehicle trips resulting fi:om buildout of the proposed projecr. tn this instance, the size of the proposed development would not exceed regional thresholds as outlined on Table 6 of2B,4_~tQMD '~ C£O_M Guidelines as resulting in potentially significant NOX emissions. Table 6 suggests that developmem projects containing 5 t 0 apartment dwellings or more and/or 24,000 square fee~ or more for stand- alone groceu stores would be the threshold for resulting in cumulatively considerable air quality impacts. For the proposed project, dwelling units would be below this threshold and the type of retail proposed would be generally oriented to transit r>assengers or residents of the proposed project, so that total vehicle trips would be iess than anticipated in Table 6 of the £.4AQMD Guidelines. Operational impacts of the approving and constructing the proposed proj ect are therefore less-than-significant. ~'"ould the project result in cumulatively considerable air pollutants? LS. Based on Table 6 contained in the ~B. OIQMD C£O_A Guidelines, the proposed project would no~ be sufficiently large in terms of numbers o£ dwelling units or commercial square footage to generate at least 80 pounds per day of Nitrogen Oxides, which is the B_4_AQMD threshold o£ si=-mificance. The intent of the proposed proj cci is to provide a high density mixed-use project near the newly opened South San Francisco BA_RT station with aparu'nenI units and pedestrian-oriented office and commercial use to minim/ze use of automobile modes o£ travel. This Wpe, intensity mad location o£ land uses is consistent with the Transit Village Development Planning Act, the City of South San Francisco General Plan and other regional planning agencies. Therefore, this would be a ieaa-fi, an- would provide housing for residents, some of whom may be considered sensitive receptors (very young or old), however, none of the other uses on the site would generate significant quantifies of pollutants, so this would be considered a leas-thar~-significanr impact. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number or people? LS During construction the various diesel-powered vehicles and equipment in use on the site would create odors. These odors are temporar7 and not likely to be noticeable much beyond the project boundaries. The poterrdal for diesel odors impacts is lesa-rhan-sign~ificam. r-i,,, Of SotJth ~ "r-- .... ;~.,.,,., lnitiai Study/Fairfield Residential Project Page o~ October 2003 -43- 4. Biological Resources Envkomnenmi Sattirt: The project site is located ~dthin an upland, urbanized area of South San Francisco. Although the site is vacant, it has been graded or other,wise disturbed to preclude growing of plant life, except for ruderal species, or to serve as animal habitat. The westerly portion of the site has been used ro dispose ~ading spoils by the BART station con=actor and the central portion of the si:e was disturbed :o allow for consU-uction of McLellan Drive. The site is substantially surrounded by urban uses, including a Costco Wholesale facitiw and BART station. No wetlands have been observed on the site. Figure 4.13-4 (Sensitive Biological Resources) contained in the General Plan Draft ErR do no: identify the presence of an), significant biological or eeolo~cal resources on the site. Fi=mare 4.13-5 (Special Environmental Studies Required for Furore Developrnem Proposals) does not identi~, the project site as subject to future site-specific biological analyses. Proi et: Impacts a) .~crve a substantial adverse impact on a candidate, sensitive, oz' special-status species? NI. The project site is located in an urbanized area and has been disturbed by previous action. No candidate, sensitive or special-status plant or animal species exist on the site. No impacts would therefore result. b, c) ~'ave a substantial adverse impact on riparian habitat or federai!y protected wetlands? NI. No impacts would result ro wetlands, since the sire is m: upland site lot and no wetlands exist on the si~e. ]nteufere with movemem of native fish or wildlife species? N:. Existing fencing along portions of'the site preclude migration by x~41dlife species. No impacts would therefore result. Following project construction, buildings and other site improvements would serve as a barrier to movement of wildlife species. Conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources oz' any adopted ;qabitar Conservation Plans or Narurai CommuniO, Conservation Pians ? N-:. The site is Community- Conservation Plan. No impacts would therefore result. 5. Cultural Resources Environmental Setting The Cultural resources section of the South San Francisco General Plan DEiR does nol indicate the presence of any historic, archeological or Nalive _american resources n or adjacem to the project site. Proies: ImoacZs a5 Cause ~ ~o~ation s.~ fm& in ~e General m~. =tv ; *~"' ~ ,.S~m .... d.ntl~]~, on GiN of South San Francisco =a~=, .~ 34 initial Study/Fairfieid Residential Project October 2003 -44- b) d) the project site. No impacts are therefore anticipated with regard to si~omfficant historica] resources. Cause a substantial adverse impact or destruction zo archeoiogical resource ? LS/M. The presence of senskiv¢ ~cheological reso~ces on c~al reso~ces ~o~afion contused ~ ~¢ Sou~ S~ Fr~cisco General Pl~. However, s~¢¢ excavation is proposed b~ld~g fo~dations ~d utilkies, a possibili~' ¢xisZs of enco~mring cul~al reso~ces. The follow~g reco~¢r, ded to ensue ~at ~y Lmpacts to an m-ch¢ological resources would be te~s- than-~ign~canr. Mitigation Measure 3. if historic, archeological or Native ./american materials or artifacts are identified during project construction., work on the project shall cease until a resource protection plan conforming to CEQA Section 15064.$ is prepared by a qualified archeologist and/or paleontologist and approved by the South San Francisco Chief Plarmer. Project work may be resumed in compliance with such plan. If human remains are encountered, the Coung, Coroner shall be contacted immediately and the provisions of State law carried out. Directly or indirectly desv'oy a unique gateontologicaI resource or unique geological feature? LS/M. Any potential impacts to paleontological impacts will be addressed as part of Mitigation Measure 3. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of a formal cemetery? LSflvI. No formal cemeteries have been identified on the site in either the archeoiogical or resources survey. If human remains are identified outside of a cemetery., adherence to Mitigation Measure 3 would reduce this impact to a less-than-sig'nificant level. 6. GeoloD, and Soils Environmental Setting Geolo~; and soits Coast Range Oeomorphic Province. The Coast Rznge consists o£ northwest trending mountains and valleys. The region has undergone a complex geologic history o£ sedimemation, volcanism; folding, uplift and erosion. This geologic province is *&ought to have been formed by northwest- southeast tectonic forces caused by the intersection of the North American Plate moving northwesterly and the Pacific Crustal Plate moving southeasterly. The contact between these plates is the San Anckeas fault zone. The soil rzpe underlying the project site is identified as alluvium on Fign2re 4.1 t-3 comained in the General Plan EIK. Alluvium consists of deposited material caused by hydrological action of a water course, Colma Creek in this instance. City of South Sar,, Francisco initial Study/Fairfield Residential Project Page 35 October 2003 -45- Seismic hazards tn terms of seismic hazards, the City of South San Francisco, and the Bay area as a whole, is located in one of the most seismically active regions in the Un/red States. Several major faults and fault zones traverse the region, including the San _andreas, the San Gregorio fault, the Hayward fault, the Calaveras fauk, the Coyote Poim fault and the Hunters Point fault. None of these ex/st on the project sire and the site is not located in an Earthquake safety Zone (formerly Alquist-Prioio Zone). The I ~'"^ m¢ ua**luu,,~ ea~d"lquake Probabilities a u ~/o of a major earthquake (7.0+ magnitude) by the year 2020. There are no knov~m active faults within the project area. Proiect a) tint, acts £:~ose peot~le or structures to potential substantial adverse impact~, including loss, injury or death related to gr. ound rupture, seismic ~o-round shaking, ~'ound failure; or landslides? LS. Proposed improvements on the site would be subject ~o moderate to severe ~ound shaking during seismic events on nearby fault zones, tn the absence of an Earthquake Safety Zone on the site, the risk of ~ound rupture is considered low. With adherence to construction techniques identified in the Uniform Building Code and other applicable State of California standards, iess-than-sig~!ficanr seismic impacts to humans or smactures are anticipated. No impacts related to tandslide hazard are anticipated, since the project site contains minimal topo~aphic relief. Js the site subject to substantial erosion and/or the loss of topsoil? LS/M. The proposed project would include excavation for construction of site improvemems. Akhough limited, a possibili~, exists that stockpiling of trench spoils could erode into nearby streets, the Colma Creek channel north of the site and ultimately into San Francisco Bay. This would be a sig~nificant impact. The following mitigation measure is therefore recommended to reduce erosion impacts to a less-than-sig-n/ficam level. Mitigation Measure 4. Contract specifications for this project shall require the preparation and implementation of an erosion control_l~lan for all _l~orrions o~ ~' th,.'~ project thru would involve U'enching, excavation or stockpiling of d~. The plan shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and be consistent v, Zth Cir,, of South San c is the site located on soil that i~ unstable or expansive or result in tgotenriaI lateral spreading, liquefaction, landslide or collapse? LS. Figure 10-2 o£ the General Plan Existing Conditions Report (Geotechnical Hazards) identifies the site as being subject to moderate liquefaction potential based on underlying soil U~pe, so less-rhan-si~cant impacts are anticipated with regard to liquefaction and lateral spreading. Figure 4.11-6 contained in the General Plan DEiR (imensity of Groundsh '~aking from a 7.1 San Andreas Earthquake) does not identif9.' the project site or any surrounding property as being sensitive to seismic action. Since the project site is generally fiat, no impacts are anticipated v~fith regard to landslides. City of South Sar~ Francisco Initial Study/Fairfield Residential Project Page 36 October 2003 -46- e) Have soils incapable of supporting on-site septic tank~ if sewers are not available2 NI. The proposed project would connect to the City's muuicipal sewer system, so there would be. no impacts with regard to septic systems. 7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Env/rom-nental Settin_~ Previous soil investigations performed on the site by PES, Ins. discovered soil impacted with motor oil w/thin three m-cas on the easterly portion of the project site which exceed Regional Water QualiV Control Board risk-based screening levels for surface soil where groundwater is potential source of drinking water. Based on the results of tb_/s investigation, a case file on the property was opened by San Marco Count, Health Depa,,trnent. The current prope~, owner (Costco grholesale) is required to perform corrective actions to remove contaminated soil and conf~m that petroleum hydrocarbons have not affected local ~oundwater. The soil science fn-m of Kleinfelder has been retained by the prope~, owner to coordinate hazardous materials corrective action on the project site and ensure appropriate closure letters are obtained from all applicable regulatory agencies. The project site is not listed on the State of California Departmem of Toxics and Substances Control's Cortese List as a contaminated site as of September 22, _00~. Impacts a) Create a sig-nificam hazard to the public oz' the em,ironment through the routine V'anspor~, use or disposal of hazardous materials? NI. The proposed proj est would include construct/on of multi-family dwellings, retail uses, parking and related facilities. None of the proposed uses would handle, use, transport or store substantial quantifies of'hazardous materials, so there would be no impact with regard to this topic. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release q£hazardous materials into the environment? LS/M. The project site contains an unkno~ qu~tiu~ of stored excavation spoils res~g ~om the consmction of ~e Sou~ S~ Fr~cisco B_~T station. mm~fiats. Since ~e project site wo~d be developed for residenfi~ uses. the presence of contract mated~ wo~d be a si~fic~t impact. ~e foiiouig ~figation meas~e is reco~ended to reduce ~s ~pact to a less-than-sial?cam level. Mitigation Measure 5. Prior to issuance of a ~ading permit for the project, all contaminated mater/al shall be removed from the site by a qualified contractor under perm/ts and/or approvals from all applicable regulatoD, agencies. A clearance letter for the site shall be Arm/shed to the Ci13~ from the San Mateo County Health Departmen7 or other appropriate re~o-almou~ agency. c) £mit hazardous materiaJs or handie hazardous materiaJ; or acureb; hazardous mazeriaJ& substances, or waste within one-quarter miJe qf an existing or prqvosed schooJ? Ni. AlUhough ~o schools exists ,Mtbgn Kvproxima/eiy one-quintet mile ~om ~e priest site City o? South San Francisco Pag~ 37 ~nitial Study/Fairfield ResidentiaI Project Ootober 2003 -47- d) g) h) Camino High school to the northwest and AlU~ Loma lvliddle School to the southwest), the proposed pr~ect involves a mixed use development with residential and retail commercial uses that would not handle si=m:fifican! quantifies of hazardous material or waste..No impacts would therefore result. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 5 Mil ensure thai no hazardous rnaeefials wilt be released dm=rog project consnmcfion. the sire listed as a hazardous materials site? NI. The project site is nor includes on the most recent "Cortese List" of identified hazardous waste and substances sites as of Con=cl. ~ere is ther,fore no imFacr M~ reg~ds to ~e projec~ rare Dem, iden~fied as a h~dous matefi~s site. ]s &e site located within an airport land use plan cfa public airport o:' private airxv'i_p? LS. The project site is located within an airport referral area as part of an ,~rport Land Use Plan, but is not located within an impacted noise overflight area. Less-than-signi~cant impacts are therefore anticipated.. Interference with an emergency evacuation plan? NI. l-he proposed project would not involve major change to existing roads or development paUerns. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated with regard to interference with emergency evacuation plans. Expose people and st~-ucrures to a sigv~ificant risk of loss, injuu., or death involving wildland fires or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? NI. The pro~ect area ties in a substantially urbm-'fized area with minimal risk of wildtand fn'es. No impacts are therez%re anticipated. 8. Hydrolo , and Water Quality Environmental Setting The main surface body of water within South San Francisco is Colma Creek, a perennial stream with a watershed of approximately 16 square miles. Cotma Creek e~ends in a southeastern direction through the center of the community and passes to the no~h of the project she. The n~o primary tributaries of Colma Creek include Twelve lvSle Creek and Spruce Creek. Both of these San Francisco Bay, another major body of water, forms the easreriy bounda-D~ of South San Francisco. Existing storm drain facilities have been cons~mcied in streets abutting the project site to accommodate stormwater runoff. Sw'face water quali? All flows into Cotma Creek originate as stormwater,/rrigation rmmff or are ~om similar sources. As ar: urban stream, Colma Creek is expected to have high levels of heaw merats as well as other pollutants ~?ical of urban bodies of water. u, Su-~,, San Francisco City ...... ~' initiai Study/Fairfield Residential Project October 2003 -48- South San Francisco has joined the other cities and San Malco Cow. fy to create the San Marco Coun3,wide Siormwater Pollution Prevention Pro,am. The purpose of this pro~arn is to administer a Joint Municipal NPDES Permit for stormwater quality' management. Bach participant has adopted a Storm-water Management Plan to ensure that Best Management Practices are enforced to protect surface wa~er qualiv, during both cons~ucfion and operational stages of a project. Flooding and tsunami hazards Periodic flooding occurs along most of the right-of-way of Colma Creek in South San Francisco, however, based on the Flood Insurance Rate Map for this portion of South San Francisco, (Community Panel No. 0650620002B), the project site lies omside of the 100-year flood plain as mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The project site is not anticipated to be subject to tsunami hazards from San Francisco Bay, based on Figure 10-2 contained in the 1999 General Plan Existing Conditions Report (O~oteckuical Hazards). Proiect Imoaots a) Fiotate any water qualiO; standards or waste discharge requirements? LS/M. Approval of the requested project would increase surface water flow that could affect surface water quality standards. The pomntial for violation of surface water standards is considered potentially significant Adherence to Mitigation Measure 7 will ensure that erosion during grading and excavation activities would be conl~olled to a lexs-rhamsig'nificant level Less- than-significant impacts are anticipated with regard to exceeding water quality discharge requirements since there would be small but minor contribution to the City" s wasrewater b) Substantially deplete groundwater recharge areas or lowering qf water table? NI. No imRacts are anticipated with regard to depletion of =m-oundwater resources, since the project would not require use of ~oundwater resources. The City's primaw source of water is imported water. Similarly, less-than-significant impacts are annmpated w~th re~ar~ to overcovering groundwater recharge areas since minor and non-substantial new impervious surfaces would be created as part of the project within the larger drainage basin. ,siltation or erosion would ocew'? LS._/M= Const_ruction of additional Lmpervious surfaces is anticipated with the proposed project, which would include, adding new buildings, driveways, walkways and other impervious surfaces to an open area that couldpotentialty impact local drainage systems and facilities. The site would also be g-raded to allow for improved site drainage. Adherence ~o the following measures will ensure that this impact is reduced to a less-than-si=onificanr level: Mitigation Measure 6. Prior to issuance of a ~ading permit for the project, the project developer's civil engineer shall submit a drainage and hydrolo~, repo~, idemi~'ing existing peak hour and ~otal stormwa~er .runoff' fi.om the site, direction of flow, anticipated peak hour and total stormwater nmoff at full project buiidom and the abiiiU, of aownsrream &-aina~e~ *,a~.,~_.,,,.o~;";*; ..... to r~ ~ increases. If necessmw, the repo~ shall idendR~ soecific measures to ~rovi~ drsj''~ ~''~ immrovemepxs ro ,-~ee* Git5, of South San Francisco Page 39 Initial Study/Fairfield Residential Project October 2003 -49- Ci~, of South San Francisco and San Marco Count, Flood Control District drainage criteria to ensure that all drainage impacts are less-than-sig-rfificant and no flooding would occur off of the project site. The report shall be approved by' the South San Francisco City Engineer. d) Substantially alter drainage patterns or result in flooding, either on or o./~ rhe project site? LS/M. See item "c" above and Mitigation Measure 6. e) substantial amounts ofpolluted runoff LS/M. See items "c" and "£" Subsrantiaiiy degrade water quality? LS/M. With adherence to Mitigazion Measure 3 (soil erosion), there would be less-than-sign!ficant impacts relined to de,eclat/on of water quali~; due to increases in soil erosion. However, there would be.a potentially, significant impact to surface water quality due deposits of oil, spillage of gas and deposits of other organic and inorganic material as a result of more human activity on the site. The following mitigation measure is therefore recommended to reduce the potential for surface water quality impacts to a less-than-significant leveh Mitigation Measure 7. The project developer's civil engineer shall prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) adhering to City of South San Francisco and Regional Water Quality Control Board standards to assure adherence to surface water quality standards for both consmucfion and long-term operational phases of the project. The SW-PPP shall incorporate the most recent Best Management Practices, including, but not limited to provision of storm water fihers, frequent sweeping of'the site, labeling storm drain inlets and adding a permanent cover over solid waste dumpsters. Place housing within a J O0-year flood hazard area as mapped b), a Flood Jnsurance .Rate May? NI. The project site is located outside of a 100-year flood plain so there would be no impact with regard to placing housing within a 100-year flood plain. h, i) _Place within a J O0-year flood h ' azara boundaz5, sv'uctures that impeded or redirect flood flow, including dam failures? NI. The site is located outside o£ a 100-year flood plain. Result in inundation ~ seiche, tsunami or mudflows7 Nfl. The project site ties outside of anticipated tsunami impac~ areas, based on the South Say_ Francisco General Plan. Also, the site is fiat with minimal topographic relief, so the risk of krnpacrs from mudflows or landslides is very unlikely. No impacr¢ are therefore anticipated. City of South Sar~ Francisco initial Study/Faiffieid Residentiai Project Page 40 October 2003 -50- 9. Land Use and Planning Environmental Se~in¢ Existing land uses The proj eot site is presently vacant. S'mTOm-~ding land uses include a Costco ~,~olesale facri~ ";*~,~lui ~_u~-- associated auto re~eling to the west. Colma Creek flows north of the project site, which has been charmelized and fenced to preclude public access. A small vacant parcel lies north of Colma Creek, a portion of which is in the Ci~, of South San Francisco with the remainder within the Town of Coima. The newly opened South San Francisco BA_RT station exists northeast o£the site and a multi-stoo' BA_RT parking garage bas been built east of the site. Single-family residences exists south of the south, on the south side of E1 Camino Real. Reg'uiato~y framework Land uses within South Sma Francisco are reD,later by the South San Francisco General Plan, which was recently updated in 1999. The General Plan includes the Land Use Element, Transportation Element, Parks, Public Facilities and Services Element, Economic Developmem Element, Open Space and Conservation Element, Health and Safety Element and Noise Element. The General Plan Land Use Map designates the site for "Mixed-Use:High Density Residential, Office and Commercial" development. This designation allows for a mix of retail, eating and drinking establishments, and pedestrian-oriented commercial uses with high density' residential. Allowed residential densities in this General Plan classification is between 18.1 and 30 units per acre. The Subareas Element of the General Plan contain a number of specific guiding and implementing policies for the E1 Camino Real area, which includes the project site. Generally, the polices direct that E1 Camino Real be developed as a boulevard with a mix of higher inxensiry, pedest~dan-oriented lmad uses and with convenient easr-west connections with adjacent neighbo£noods. no,easterly of ~e sire as a Tr~spo~tion Center, Co~~ Co~erci~ uses no~ of ~e projec~ site, Low Densi~ Residential sou~ of ~e project ske ~ong E1 C~o Real ~d Public Uses no~hwest o~ the project siie on ~e site o~Et C~no High School. The Ci~ of South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance regulates land uses on private property in the communJ~. Current zoning of the site is Transit Village Zoning-Residential (TY-R). This zoning district was adopted by the City in 2001 to create, preserve and enhance opporrunkies for transit supportive development adjacent to the South San Francisco BART station. A mi>: of residential and commercial land uses are encouraged to support nearby public transit opporrunkies. This zoning dis'crier has been applied to the project site and adjacent sites within one-half mite of the B)~RT station. Initial Stud¥/Fair[ield Residentiai Projec~ Page 41 October 2003 -51- The Transit Village Dismict contains two sub-districts--Transit Village Commercial and Transit Village Residential. The project site has been zoned TV-KH, which allows retail used or eating smd drinkdng establishments on the pound floor with either commercial or higher density residential uses on upper floors. The District envisions up to 30,000 square feet of commercial space and a small plaza offering public seating., landscaping and lighting. The District also sets forth development standards to guide future conslzucdon, including but not limited to minimum tot areas, lot coverage, floor arcs ratios, setbacks; build-to lines, building height, parking and similar standards. Proiect Imnacts a) .Physically divide an established community? NI. Approval and construction of the proposed project would involve a mixed-use development on a currently vacant site within the E1 Camino Real corridor o£the commumty. The project is intended to complement the newly constructed BART station consistent with the Transit Village Zoning District, so no impacts would result. b) Conflict with any applicable land use ]2lan, 12olicy or reg-dation? NI. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan Iand use desigmatio2 o£Mixed Use as welt the Transit Village Zoning District. No impacts would therefore result. c) Conflict with a habitat conservation pian or natural community conservation plan? NI. No such plan has been adopted within the CiD' of South San Francisco. There would therefore be no impact to a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan for the proposed project. t0. Mineral Resources Environmental Setfins The project area contains no known mineral resources. This is based on the EXisting Conditions Report prepared as part of the 1999 General Plan Update process. Project Im,aacts a, b) Result in the loss 2~arvaiiability of regionally or locally sigm~ficant mineral resources? Nt. deposits of m~erals exist M~ ~e project ~ek so no impacts wo~d occ~. I 1. Noise Environmental Settin~ The Ci~, defines ':noise" as a sound or series of sounds that are intrusive, irritating, objectionable and/or disruptive to daily life. Noise is primar/!y a concerns with regard to noise sensitive land uses such as residences, schools, churches and hospitals. Although noise is con=oiled around commercial, industrial and recreation uses, community noise levels rarely exceed maximum recorrmaended levels for these uses. City of-South San Francisco initial Study/Fairfield Residential Project Page 42 October 2003 -52- The Noise Elemem of the General Plan ElK identifies the follo'.Jng primary sources on noise in South San Francisco' aircraft noise from San Francisco International Airport. ~raffic noise from freeways and arterial roadways in the communiD,, railroad noise and industrial noise. The Noise Elemem ~denLmes the following max.imum noise exposm-e levels by land use type. Table 5. City of South San Francisco Noise Exposure Levels Land Use Noise Exposure * Residential Less than 65: Saisfactow 66 to 70: Conditionally Acceptable 70+: Unacceptable Commercial Less than 70:Satisfactow 70 to 80: Conditionally Acceptable 80+A/rport-related development only Industrial Up to 75: Satisfactou 75 to 85: Conditionally Acceptable 85+ Airport related development only Open Up to 75: Satisfactow 75+ Avoid uses involving concentrations of people or animals Source: South San Francisco General Plan Noise Element, 1999 N oise level references reflect Communii, Noise Equivalent Levels (CNEL) decibels Proi eot Imraacts a) FTould the ~vrojecr expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess ~standar& established by the General Plan or other applicable standard? LS/M. Figure 4.5-4 (Projected Road and Rail Noise) contained in the General Plan EIR indicates that portions o£the project ske adjacent to E1 Cam/no Real would be subject to roadway noise in excess of 65 db CNEL. Portions of the northerly area of the project site near the B.~T tracks would be subject to noise levels of 60 db CNEL. Since the ~oise level projections are not based on a site-specific stud5', future residents of the exterior units of the proposed residential development could be exposed to liner/or and exterior noise levels in excess of Ci~; noise standards (see Table 5) The following measure is therefore recommended to control noise levels m City standards. Mitigation Measure 8. Final building plans for all residential buildings shall include provisions for reducing interior noise levels to state and local noise exposure levels and ensuring that exterior spaced comply with Ci~, of South San Francisco noise exposure levels. Methods for complying wi~ interior noise levels may include but are limited to somnd-rated windows, noise insulation and simitar z%arm-es. Methods for meetin~ Cit-y e~erior noise exposure levels may include construction of noise barriers, use of buildings to shield oUtdoor areas and similar z%amres. Final building plans shall be stamped by a qualified acoustical consulran~ that the plans comply with Ci~ of South oo~c ~ Francisco mud State of Califo~m_ia exterior and interior noise standards. ,~,,~y South, Sar, Francisco initial Study/Fairfield Residential Project Page 43 October 2003 -53- b) c) d) Exposure qf people to excessive ~roundborne vibration or groundborne noise level~? ~ Implementation of ~e proposed project would ~volve no~,~ con~ction me.ods, w~ch rcq~ing ~ading ~d compaction of ~e soil, uso ofheax~, cons~ction equipment ~d si~t~ operations. No ~usual cons~ction operations ~e ~ficipa~ed tha~ could res~ ~ si~fic~ ~o~dbome vibration or ~o~dbome noise levels over ~d above s:~d~d cons~cfion operations ~d proced~es. No impacts ~e ~ercfore ~ficipa~ed.. Substant~a~ permanent increases in ambient noise leveI~? LS. There would be minor ~n~,~as~o m the amount of nmse ;w, thm and adja~m to the~r~,j~* area, caused bY. ~ increase in vehicles associa,ted with the proposed project, noise generated from commercial businesses and similar noises associated with a mixed use development. The surrounding area is currently impacted by louder existing noise generated from heaxf~ ~raffic on nearby E1 Camino Real and B.~d~T train operations immediately adjacent to the no.,'~h, so that on- site noises would be masked by surrounding louder noise and would therefore be lexs-rha~- significant as caused by the proposed project. Substantial temporarT or periodic increase 'in ambient noise levels in the project vicini~, above levets without the project? LS/M. Construction of the proposed project could result in short-term noise and v/bration due to site grading and installation of utility connections. trenching and ~ading for building foundations and construction of buildings. There would also be increased noise levee from trucks and other construction vehicles needed for the project. In the short-icftu, these activities could exceed City- noise exposure standards. And would be potentially sig-nificant. Adherence ro the following measure would reduce this impact to a tess-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure 9. Prior to issuance of a ~ading permit, the pro~ect developer shall prepare and submit a Construction Noise Management Plan to the South San Francisco Planning Department. At minimum, the Plan shall address hours of construction operation to be consistent with the City's noise ordinance, a requirement for providing mufflers on all gasoline or diesel-powered equipment, retiance on electrically powered tools and similar requirements. The Plan shall speci_~; a noise coordinator with a 24-hour contact person 'to be posted prominently on the prqiect sim. The Plan shall be approved by the South San Francisco Chief Plarmer prior to issuance o£ a ~ading permi,t. For a projecr located within an airport land use plan, would the prqiect expose people ro ~c~zv~ noi3¢ ~ ine pr ~v~zt. ~N~. cci siteues ..... omsme of~e s~gmnc~t noise levels as ~dicated on Fi~e 4.5-2 of~e South S~ Fr~cisco Gener~ Pi~ DEIR (Akcrafl Noise ~d ~ation Pro~ ~ea). There would ~erefore be no impact reg~d~g aircraft noise levels on the prQect si,re. ,.,,~ of South c~. = .... ~ initiai Stu~ylFaiffietd Resic~ential Project Page ,4.4 October 2003 -54- 12. Population and Housing Envirom-nenzat SeWing ~o]2ulation South San Francisco is San Mated County's fourth largest CIV'. Population ~owth in the CiD' has been cyclical, generally fueled first by heaw industrial uses in the early and mid-part of the last century. More recently, biotechnolo~ and related high tech and of-rice uses have spurred residential ~owth. The one major residential project that is in the process of completion is the Terrabay project on the south slopes of San Bruno Mountain. Other im~li residential projects have been built along the E1 Camino corridor and other m-cas. Since the supply of large vacant parceis of land in the community is nearly exhausted, furore residential ~owth is anticipated to be limked. Addiiional population grow~ must therefore come from redevelopment projects. The following table includes historical population projections for the Bay Area, San Mated Coun~ and South San Francisco, based on the Association of Bay Area Government's Projections 2002 publication. The City's General Plan (1999) anticipates a maximum build-out population of 67,400 for the community. No time horizon for build-out is assumed ha the General Pla~. Table 6. Regional, County and City Population (~) Region 2000 Popuiation 2010 Population 2020Population 6,783,760 7,513,800 8,014,100 San Mateo Co, South San Francisco Source: (1) 707,16t >4,~12 ABAG Projections 2002 754,600 63,800 66,900 Em.ployment Employmem trends in South San Francisco have been changing from a heaw industrial center. dominated by steel mills, meat pack2ng, s.hip building and similar "blue collar" indus~ies to high tech and research jobs. Due to the proximi~, m regional transportation facilities and to San Francisco, continued employment ~owth is anticipated for the next 20+ years. The following table surn_m~es projected employment ~owlh in South San Francisco. City-of-South San Francisco initial Study/Fairfield Residential Project Page 45 OCtober 2003 -55- Region San Mated Co. South San Francisco Table 7. Reoona!, Count3' and Ci.ty Employment 2000 Jobs 5,753,670 395,890 _~,190 2010 Jobs 4,225,030 453,820 58,020 2020 Jobs 4,709,960 480,990 62,880 ~01~C~: (1) .~AG Projections 2002 The South San Francisco General Plan EIR anticipates a buildout employment figure of 71,400 for the General Plan, but no time horizon is attached to employment buildouu Project Impacts a) Jnduce subsranrial popularion W'owrh in an area, either directly or indirectly? LS. Approval of the proposed project would increase population gro,a~ah in South San Francisco, since the project includes development of up to 370 aparUuent dwellhags. This would represent an estimated 818 residents, based on a per-unit occupancy factor o£ 2.21 based on the recently adopted CiD' of South San Francisco Housing Elemem. T.~e proposed development is being proposed consistent with adopted CiB; policies to encourage kigh- density residential development and mixed land uses near the South San Francisco B_~d~T station. Therefore a less-than-significant impact is anticipated. b,c) l~butd the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing units or people ? NI. The project site is currently vacant. ]go impacts would therefore occur w/th regard to population displacement since no residential dwellings would be removed. i3. Public Services The £ollowing provide essential services to the commurfiry: Fire Protection. Fire protection services are handled by the Ci~ of South San Francisco Fire Department. The Deparmnent provides fire suppression, fire prevention, education and hazardous material control. The closest Ci~ fire station to the projecz site is the Arroyo Fire Station, located on Et Camino Real and _~royo Drive, staffed by five firefighters and paramedics per each shi~. initial Study/Fai~eld Besidentiai Project Page 46 October 2003 -56- Police Protection: Police and security protection is provided by thc City of South San Francisco Police Department, which maintains a 24-hour securiB, patrol throughout the community. The Departmcm is headquartered at 33 .~oyo Drive. Schools. Thc South San Francisco UnkSed School District provides public K-12 educational services to the community. A number of private schools are also available within the community and surrounding cornmunitics. responsibility of the City of South San Francisco. Solid Waste: Solid waste service is off%red by South 8an Francisco Scavenger Company. After collection, waste is brought m the Material Recovery.. Facility Transfer Station in the east of 101 area and ultimately disposed of at the Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill located near Half Moon Bay. The Ox Mountain facility has a permit m accept fill material until 2016. Upon expiration of that permk, the facility is proposed for expansion. Project Imoacts a) Fire protection? LS. Approval of the proposed project would increase the number of calls for service by the South San Francisco Fire Department due to an increase in the population and ~pe ofbullding improvements on the sire. Impacts to the Fire Department will be reduced to less-than-sig-nificanr level by adherence to the Un/form Fire Code, Uniform Building Code requirements and other standard building requirements imposed by the :South San Francisco Fire Department through the normal developmenz review' process. These typically include but are not limited to installation of f~re hydrants near the site, provision of adequate water pressure with a looped water system, ensuring adequate F/re 'Department access to buildings, provision of life safety provisions and adherence to similar requiremems. ?olice protection? LS/M. Construction of the proposed project would increase the number of calls for to the South San Francisco Pohce Department. Given the location of the proposed project site, adjacent to a major regional roadway (El Camino Real) and the South San Francisco BART station, and the on-site commercial componem, the number ofpeopte potentially sig'nit~cam impact with regard to police and securiB,' issues. Th¢ following m/tigation measure is recommended to reduce this impact io a less-than-si=m-M3cant level: Mitigation Measure it). Prior to issuance of the f~rst building permit for the projec:, the prQem developer shall submit a Safety and Security Plan to the City, of South Francisco Police and Planning Departments. The Plan shall include specific measures to reduce potential security issues to a less-than-si~cun2ficant tevek Items to be addressed in the Plan may include but is not limited to location and levels of securi~ lighting, provision of loc~ and secur/ty devices, and provision for private security services. The Safety and Securi~ Plan shall be approved by the Police and Planning Depax-U-nenrs proper re issuance o£ a building perm/t. City o¢ South San Francisco Initial Study/Fairfield Residential Project October 2003 -57- c) d) e) Schools? LS. The proposed project is anticipated to generate a total of 54 K-12 students at project buildout. This projection is based on estimated student generation rates published in the South San Francisco Existing Conciitions Report (Table 8-6, Estimated Soufi~ San Francisco Student Generation Rates). Students living within the proposed projec~ would a~end Sunshine @arde~ Elementary School, .Alta Loma Middle School mud Bi Cmmino High School. As o£ the publication of this Initial Study, none of these schools exceed estimated maximum capackies. Pasanent of school impact fees by the prqject developer to the South San Francisco Unified School District would provide mitigation for education hmpacts of the project so that school impacts would be tess-than-signb~cant. School impact fees are presently $2.05 per square foot o£residential living space. Other governmental service, including maintenance qT~ublic facilities? }',~. There would be no impact to maintenance services provided by the City, since any off-site construction would be consnmcted to City standard to minimize the need for maintenance. Solid waste generation? LS. Less-than-significant impacts regarding generation of solid waste is anticipated since construction of the proposed mixed-use project would generate a small amount of construction debris. Long-term operation of the faciliry would result in a less-rhan-si~ificant impact regarding sotid waste generation, since South City Scavenger Service provides re=re.flat pick up of recyclabte materials and can accommodate anticipated minor increases in the mount of solid waste from the proposed project. 14. Recreation Environmental Setting South San Francisco maintains 319.7 acres of parks and open space, equivalent to 5.4 acres per 1,000 residents. Th.is includes 70 acres of developed park. land, 168.5 acres of open space and 81.2 acres of school lands. The CiD~ also provides a range of recreation pro,ams available in 6 communi¢' recreation buildings, some of which provide specialized services. Proiect Irnoacts Consmcfion of~e proposed project woMd add new popMation Fr~cisco. The added pop,etlon would Mcrease dem~d for local p~ks ~d recreation facilities. However, payment of req~ed p~k ~-lieu fees ~o the Ciw of Sou~ S~ Fr~cisco Mli ~d new p~k l~d ~ ~e co--mW. %erez%re, p~k impacts would be less-rha~- si~cant. b) Doe~ the project inciude recreationaf facilifie~ or require the consv'ucfion 2f recreationaf facilities? LS. Vise proposed project includes a mini-park on the southwestern comer o£ the project site as well as a number of spas and bar-b-que areas on both the wesre~ and eastern portion of the project area. in addition, the projec~ developer wS!l be required to pax, pm:k in- lieu fees to the City of South San Francisco to fund new park land in the cormmuni~'. Therefore, impacts to p~k and recreation facilities would be leas-than-significant, initiai StudylFairfieid Residential Project Page 48 October 2003 -58- i5. Transportation and Traffic (Note: The following traffic analysis has been prepared by FeN- & Peers Associates, Inc dared June _00.~. The full ~ext of the report is available au the South Sari francisco Planning Departrnem during normal business hours.) Emdrormaental Setting £xisring roadways Interstate 280 (I-280) provides regional access to the project site, while a number of arterials and local roads provide local access. b280 is an eight-lane freeway in the vicinig, of the project site, nmring through the Cin., of South San Francisco. The freeway extends northward through Colma and Daty City to San Francisco. Southward, !-280 extends to San Jose. Access to and from the project sire is provided via interchanges at Hickey Boulevard and Westborough Boulevard. E! Camino Rea/(State Route 82) is a north-south arterSal roadway that provides access between Daly City. and Sma Jose. This roadway comains six lanes north o£Mission Road and south of Hickey Boulevard, and four lanes in between. Traffic flows primarily southbound in the morning and northbound in the evening on this roadway in the viciniV o£ the site. Missio~ Road is a minor arterial rtmrfing generally parallel to E1 Camino Real throughom its span. This two-lane road originates at E1 Carnino Real in Colma and ierminates at Chesmut Avenue in South San Francisco. Traffic volumes on this roadway are highest during the _~ peak period due to E1 Camino High School. ~ickey Boulevard is an east-west arterial providing four-lane access between its intersection w/th Et Carnino Real in South San Francisco and the City, of Pacifica. In the vicirfiry of the study, most traffic flows easfbound in the morning and westbound in the ~ ' ~ McLelia~ Drive is a two-tone road £rorn its beginning to E1 Camino Real. It was recently Lawndale Boulevard is the road connecting Mission Road to Hillside Boulevard. it is two lanes w/de (one lane in each direction). ~ver~'een Dive is a local two-tone srree~ connecting t¢fission Road and Hillside Boulevard. Near its intersection wkh Mission Road is E1 Camino ~qigh School. Traffic on this roadway is heavier in the westbound direction in the morning. Traffic is generally balanced during other periods o~ th~ day along its span. £A~TAccexs Road ~1 is a r~vo-lane street providing access between E1 Camino Real and Missior~ Road m-~d to the BA3~T station parl~ng garage and ior. initial Study/Fairfield Resiciential Project Page 49 October 2003 -59- Grand Avenue is an east-west road that runs from Mission Road to the east of U.S. 10t. This roadway has two lanes near the projec~ ske. It has predominately eastbound traffic in the morning and westbound traffic in the evening near its intersection with Chestnut Avenue. Oak Avenue is a woo-lane local street corme¢fing Mission Road and Grand Avenue. r, fTestborough Boulevard is a southwest-northeasl four-lane arterial ex'tending from SkTIine Boulevard to El Camfino Real. in the morning, ~a%~c pr~**a,fily flows no,beast toward downtov, m South San Francisco; in the evening, traffic primarily flows southwest toward 1- 280 and further west past this freeway. Chestnut Avenue extends from Hillside Boulevard to E1 Camino Real, and connects to Westborough Boulevard. This four-lane arterial carries ~affic predominately north in the morning and south in the evening. £xisting transit service San Maeo County Transit District (SarnTrans) operates several bus sen,ices in San Mateo County in the viciniu~ of the project. The Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board provides commuter rail service (CalTrain) from San Francisco to Gikoy. The Bay Area Rapid Transit (BA_R.T) system recently opened a station near the project site. BART presently provides rapid rail service east from Sm2 Francisco to Richmond, Pittsburg, Pieasanton, and Fremont, and south to Millbrae. The extension to San Francisco Imemafional ,dJrport was recently completed as well as a new South San Francisco station located at 1333 Mission Road in the vicinity of the site. Caf_Train provides frequent passenger train service ben~een San Jose and San Francisco Monday through Friday, and limited bus service on the weekends. During commute hours, CalTrain provides ex~ended service south of Sm2 Jose 1o Oilroy. The South San Francisco station at Dubuque Avenue and Grand Avenue is located approximaety 2.5 miles from project site. SamTrans Route 35 and Route 36 provide bus service to Et Carnino High School and the 3:00 pm ¢o ~.o~ pm on school d~'s o~y. Mo~g headways ~e 30 ~utes, w~te afternoon headways ~e 8 ~utes. SamTrans Route 130 provides bus service be.Wceen the Daly CiD' BART Station and downtown South San Francisco at Airport Boulevard. This bus route operates along Mission Road in the vicinity of the project site. The hours of operation are 5:30 am to 11:30 pm on weekdays and 8:30 am to 6:00 pm on weekends. Cormmute and midday headways are 20 minutes apart on weekdays and 30 minutes apart on weekends. Headw%~s are 60 minutes apart during the evenings. SamTrana Route l$l provides bus sea,ice between t_he Cotma BA_RT Station and the Tam'oran Shopping Cent. er N Sm,,. B_m_no. TNs bus route aisc operates aiong Mission Road in City of South San Francisco Page 50 initial Study/Fairfield Residential Project October 2003 -60- the vicinity of the project she, training north onto Ever~een. Thc hours of operation are 6:00 am to 7:00 pm on weekdays and 9:00 am to 7:00 pm on weekends. Commute headways are 30 minutes on weekdays and 60 minutes on weekends. Headways are 60 minutes during the midday of weekdays. SainT rems Route 193 provides bus service between San Francisco State Urfiversiry and San Francisco International Airport. This new bus route also operates along E1 Camino Real Road in the vicinity of the project site. SamD'anx Route 390 prov/des bus service along E1 Camino Real .benveen the Daly CiD, BART Siation and University Avenue in Palo Alto. The hours of operation are 5:30 am to 9 ' 1:30 am everyday. Commute headways are _0 minutes apart on weekdays and 30 minutes on weekends. Headways are 30 minutes during the midday. $amTrans Route 393 provides bus service between the Transbay Terminal in San Francisco and Redwood City,. This bus route also operates along E1 Camino Real in the vicinin.? of the project site. The hours of operation are 4:30 am to 2:30 am everyday. Commute and midday headways are 30 minutes, while evening headways are 60 minutes. £xisring pedestrian and b icycie.facilities Pedestrian facilkies comprise sidewalks, crosswalks, and pedesn'ian signals. Near the site, sidewalks are located on the east side of E1 Camino Real and on both sides of Mission Road, Grand Avenue, and Ever~een Drive. Crosswalks and pedestrian signals are provided or will be added at ail of the signalized study intersections. Bicycle facilities comprise bike paths (Class I), bike lanes (Class II), and bike routes (Class Iii). Bike paths are paved trails that are separated from roadways. Bike lanes are lanes on roadways designated for use by bicycles by striping, pavement legends, and si~m,,s. Bike routes are roadways thru are designated for bicycle use by signs only and may or may not include additional pavement width for cyclists. In the vicinity of the she, bike lanes are provided on the both sides of Westborough Boulevard and Hillside Boulevard. A bike pafi~ is being constructed on the B,~T right-of-way. This path will extend from Coima to the Millbrae Station. The roadway construction of Lawndale Boulevm-d from Mission Road to Hillside Boulevard MI! include bike l~n~ ~ each dkecfion. Level of Service methodologies The. operations of roadway facilities are described w/th the term "level of service." Level of service is a qualitative description of ~raffic flow based on such factors as speed, travel time, delay, and freedom to maneuver. Six levels of service are defined ranging from Level A, the best operating conditions, to Level F, the worst operating conditions. Level of Service (LOS) E co_rresponds to "a~-capaci~," operations. 5Vhen volumes exceed capacity, stop-and-go conditions result and operations are designated as LOS F. Differem criteria and methodologies were used to assess operating conditions for the different D;pes of intersections,o,=** .~,~=-;~,'-o~;*~' anduns~_ona~,z,~,~, '_ ~; ~ (stop sien~ controlled). The ..... ~ .... ] of service crkeriz and mekhodoiogies ?%r each are described in the f.o!lox~mg sections. City of South San Francisco Initial Study/Fairfield Residential Project Page 51 October 2003 -61- The operations of the signalized intersections were calculaied using the methodolo~, described in Chapter 16 of the 2000 Hfghwcty Cagac#y Manual (HCM) (Trmxsportation Research Board). Th/s methodolo~ correlates the LOS to the average conn'ol delay erperienced at the intersection. Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, mad final acceleration. The average delay for the signalized intersections, calculated using the TR. AFFIX level of service analysis software, is correlated to a level o£ service. In South Sma Francisco, acceptable signalized intersection operations are defined as LOS D or better. level of service calculations were conducted using the methodoto~ contained in Chapter 17 of the 2000 Highway Caj~ac~ry Manual. The LOS rating is based on the average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle. At two-way or side-street stop-controlled intersections. LOS is calculated for each movement, not for the intersection as a whole. LOS is reported for the longest-delayed mining movement. For approaches composed of a single lane. the control delay is computed as the average of all movements in that lane..At four-way stop-controlled intersections, LOS is based on the average detay experienced on all approaches. £xisring intersection traffic voturnes and lane configurations The operations of the intersections were analyzed under weekday .~M and PM peak-hour traffic conditions. Peak conditions usually occur during the morning and everfing commute periods between 7:00 and 9:00 am and between 4:00 and 6:00 pm, respectively. Intersection operations were evaluated for the hour during each of these periods w/th the highest measured traffic volumes. Traffic volumes from available peak-hour traffic counts were obtained from the £l Cami~o Real Amended Rede~elo_pment _Pia~ ££R (Crane Transportation Group, March 2000), the Chesrnut/Mission Area Land U-~e & Urban Desig~ 7'ia~ TraT~?c Stu4¥ (Crane Transportation Group, .April 2002), and an existing June 2001 count. New counts were conducted at the intersections of Hickey Boulevard and El Camino Real, Costco Driveway and E1 Camino Real, and Westborough Boulevard/Chestnm Avenue and E1 Camino Real in Janum~y 2003 to supplement this information. The results of the January 2003 counts are presented in Appendix A of the full traffic report. Existing intersection Le~efs of Service The existing volumes were used w/th the ex/sting lane cor~figurarions and signal phasings/timings as inputs to the LOS calculations to evaluate the current operations of the key ....~.4~,*~-*'~,,,~a~. The re~,Ats of ,'-~e ~,,~ersection analysis _~,'~ p,-~m~ ~ T~b~._ .~ 3. The level of service calculation sheets are contained in Appendix B of the fuI] traffic report. All of the intersections are currently operating m LOS D or better. Therefore, alt of the intersections are operating a~ acceptable levels. City of South San Francisco Initial Study/Fairfield Residential Project Page 52 October 2003 -62- Table 8. Existing Intersection Levels of Service Intersection E1 Camino Real and Hickey Boulevard Et Camino Real and Costco Driveway E1 Cammo Real and McLellan Drive (east leg under cons~--uction) E] Camino Real and Westborou~ Boulevard/Chesmut Avenue Mission Road and McLellan Drive/Lawndale Boulevard (under consumction) Mission Road and Ever~een Drive Mission Road and BART Access Road #1 (under consumcfion) Mission Road and Grand Avenue Grand Avenue and Oak Avenue (west lea under consmaction) Notes: ~ Delay = Averse delay in seconds per vehi¢te, Peak Hour PM AM PM AM PM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM LOS caleula~--ions performed ming the TRAFFIX level of service methodolo~,. Type of Control Signals Si~¢nais Signals Signals Ail-way stop Alt-way stop Alt-way s~op All-way stop Two-way stop Deiayx 25.9 24.2 17.6 43.2 9.3 8.4 34.2 47.3 N/A 24..3 19.2 N/A 13.8 13.9 0.5 0.6 LOS~ C C B D A A C D N/A C C N/A B B B B analysis program and the 2000 Highway Capa¢i~, Manual D'ansportation xystem improvements McLellan Drive has been extended from E1 Camino Real to Mission Road to provide access to the South San Francisco BART Station. At its intersection with E1 Camino Real, the westbound approach has one left-mm lane, one shared lefr-tura/throuCz/righ~-rum lane, and one right-mm lane. On its eastbound approach to Mfission Road, one shared lefi-u.nn/through la.ne and one right-turn lane is provided. A new two-lane roadway, Lawndale Boulevard cormects M/ssion Road-~o Hillside Boulevard. On its westbound approach to Mission Road, it has one lane, one throu~_ lane, and one shared th_rough/righ~-rmrn lane. !n add_/fion, B_4_P,_T Access Road #1, a two-lane road, is being constructed between E1 Cam/no Real and Mission Road to provide access to the. BART parking garage and lot. At its iniersection with Mission Road, the eastbound approach has one left-mm lane and one right-mm lane. The layouts and corrfigurafions of the hn~ersecfions aftercump~,,~o,,-- ' -":-- of'~-m=~=--- roadways are shown on Fixate 4 contained in ~he 1 ~11 contained in the volume summary sheets in Appendix D. The resultin~ back~ound traffic volumes are shown on Figure 5 also contained in the full traffic report. Sack~ound rraJfic estimates The traffic volumes ~%r Back~ound Conditions were estimated by reassi~-fing existing volumes to the new roadways, adding traffic generated by approved, bm no~ ye~ constructed, developmen~ projects in the study area, and adding estimates of traffic going to and from the BART s~ation. A list of the approved development:s, along with the/r trip generation estimates, is presented in the full traffic report. The trip assigranents for these developmems a~ the study intersections are comained in the volume summary sheets in Append/x D of the ~ull !raz~c report. Ci~ o~ South San Francisco initial Study/Fairfield Residential Project Page 53 October 2003 -63- Background intersection levels of service Levels of service were calculated for the study intersections using the back~ound u-al-tic volumes and the planned intersection improvements. Table 9 presents the LOS results and the corresponding LOS calculation sheets are included in Appendb: B. Eight of the nine study intersections are projected to operate at LOS D or better, acceptable levels, during both peak hours with the addition of ~raffic from approved developments. The intersection of Ever~een Drive and Mission Road is projected to operate at LOS E during the AM peak hour, an ,unacceptable. level of se~ice for a~_ all-way stop intersection. Table 9, Background Intersection Levels of Service Intersection E1 Camino Real and Hickey Boulevard E1 Camino Real and Cosmo Driveway Et Cam/no Real and McLellan Drive Et Camino Real and Westborough Boulevard/Chesmur Avenue Mission Road and McLellan Drive?Lawndale Boulevard Mission Road and Evergreen Drive Mission Road and BART Access Road #1 Mission Road and Grand Avenue Grand Avenue and Oak Avenue Not¢s: ~ Delay = Averse delay in seconds pervehi¢le, Peak Hour AM PM AM PM PM PM AM PM AM PM PM AM PM AM .PM Type of Delaf Control Si:o-nab ~ 1.1 24.7 Signals l 8.2 48.4 Sisals 25.1 24.8 Sisals ~ ~ .0 50.3 Sisals 31.1 33.5 All-way 39.1 stop 34.3 All-way 20.1 stol~ 25.3 All-way 17.0 stop 18.0 Two-way 0.8 stop 0.8 LOS calculations performed using the TRAFFtX level of service analyms program and methodolo~. Imersecdons overatmg ar unacceptable levels are highli~ted in. bold tyre. LOS: C C B D C C C D C D E D C D C C C C the 2000 Highway Capacity Manu~l Policy 4.2-G-5' Make efficiem use of existing transportation facilities and, through the arrangement of land uses, improved alternative modes and enhanced integration of various transportation systems serving South San Francisco, strive to reduce the total vehicle miles traveled. Policy 4.2-G-8: Strive to maintain LOS D or better on arterial and collector streets, at all intersections and on principal arterials in the CIvEP during peak hours. Policy 4.2-G-9: Accep~ LOS E or F after finding that: a) there is a practical and feasible way to rmti~ate_ the lower level of sea,ice, or b) the uses resulting from the'm,~= ..... **,,,~' .... ' of ser,,ice are of clear, overall public benefit. City o~ South San Francisco Page 54 Initial Study/Fairfield Residential Project O~tober Policy 4.2-G-10: Exempt development within one-quarter mile ora Caltrain or B.~T station or a Ci~'-desi=.m~ated ferry terminal, from LOS standards. Proiect Impacts Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial to existing traffic load and sv'eer ca_pacify? LS/M. The following analysis has been prepared to address the impacts o£ the proposed project. Tri~ generario~, and distribution The project proposes 370 apartments and approximately 24,200 square feet of retail/office space. The mount of traffic generated by the proposed project was estimated using trip generation rates from Tr¢ Generation (Sixth Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1997) for the individual uses. Retail rates were applied to the retail/office space since the tenants have not yet been identified, and retail rates yield higher traffic estimates. This is a conservative assumption from a project-impact srandpoin;. Fifteen percent and five percent reductions were applied to the apartments and retail space, respectively, to account for transit use due m the adjacent B.~d~T station. These reductions are consistent ~Sth reductions used in the South San Francisco Amended Redevetojoment .Plan £_rP~ (Crane Transportation Group, March 2000). In addition, the retail trips were reduced to account for passerby traffic. Table E-1 in Appendix E contained in the full traffic report presents the trip generation rates, transit and passerby reductions, and estimated trips. The results are summarized in Table 6. The apartments are estimated to generate 2,113 daily trips, 162 AM pete-hour trips (27 in/135 out), and 202 PM peak-hour irips (135 in/67 out). The retail space is estimated to generate 2,533 daily trips, 54 AM peak-hour trips (35 in/19 out), and 197 PM peak-hour trips (94 i_ril03 out). The trip distribution pattern for the proposed development is based on ex/sting traffic patterns and rela¢ive locations or res~denUa, land uses (for the retail space) in the area. The m~or d/rections of approach and departure for the two project components are shown on Figure 6 comained in the full traffic report. £urure Levels of Service with proposed project !mersection !evil -¢ ~,,i,~ ~1 ~,,1 ~,i,n ~ ,~r~ conducted to eva!,~te ~Xersection s~ized ~ Table 10. The coxespondbg LOS c~c~afion sheets ~e bcluded ~ Appendix B of ~e ~11 ~c report. The proposed development is projected to exacerbate LOS E operations a~ the intersection of Mission Road and Ever~een Drive during the Advl peak hour. The level of service rating is estimated to de~ade by one level to LOS E during the PM peak hour. The remaining key intersections are projected to operate a~ the same (acceptable) levee of services as indicated in the Environmental SeUing section; above. City of South San Francisco initial Study/Fairfield Residential Project Page 55 October 2003 -65- Table !0. Background and Project Levels of Service Intersection Peak Type of Hour Controls E1 Cammo Real and Hickey Boulevard El CamEo Real and Costco Driveway El cammo Real and McLell~,n Drive El Camino Real and Westborou~b Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue Mission Road and McLellan Drive/Lawndale Boulevard Mission Road and Evergreen Drive Mission Road and BART Access Road #1 Mission Road and Grand Avenue Grand Avenue and Oak Avenue Notes: AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Si~maals Si~maals SiDaals Signals Alt-way stop Ail-way stop All-way stop Two-way stop ~ Delay = Averse delay in seconds per vehicle. : LOS calculations performed uang the TP, AFFIX level of service analysis methodologT. Intersections operating at unacceptable levels are hi~ligMed in bold type. Background Delay~ LOS" 31.1 C 24,7 C 18.2 B 48.4 D 25.! C 24.8 C 35.0 C 50.3 D 31.1 C 2.3.5 D 39.1 E 34.3 D 20.1 C 25.3 D 17.0 C 18.0 C 0.8 C 0.8 C Project Detav LOS 312 C 24.9 C 18.3 B 48.9 D 26,9 C 27.6 C 35.2 D 53.0 D 32.1 C 36.1 D 43.4 E 45.8 E 2t .5 C 32.4 D 17.7 C 20.8 C 0.8 C 0.8 C pro,am and the 2000 Highway Capacity. Manual Dnpact significance criteria impact criteria were obtained from the Britannia East Grand.Project (Fuller O'£rien ,Vro_verty) ErR, Morehouse Associates, October 2001). Traffic impacts would be considered sigu/ficant if any of the following conditions occur: 1. The r*w,-~"'~';~'+ would exceed 100 new peak-hour i::ips. 2. Signal/zed or alt-way stop intersections would operate at an LOS lower than level D. .3. Unsignai~zed two-way stop intersections would operate at an LOS lower than level E. 4. A two percent or greater increase in traffic entering an intersection due to the proposed project, when the imersection is a signalized or ail-way stop intersection controlled intersection already operating at LOS F. 5. A two percem or greater increase in n'affic entering an intersection due to the proposed project, when the base case traffic volume levels at an unsigualized intersection already exceeds sig-nal warrant criteria levels. 6. The project worsens traffic and pedestrian safe~,. 7. Public streets adjacent to the project are not in conformance with the sin/mum dmensions specified in the Municipal Code. CumuZati~e ?'ojecr is?acrs 2?ne proposed project would generae more than 100 pe~-ho~ ~ps. T~s is considered a si~canr impact p~su~r to C/CAO Guidei~es. Th~ following meas-~e is proposed to ~tigate this ~pact to a ~ess-~han-s~=np,~a,,, ~eve.. Cib' off. South San Francisco Pag~ 56 Initial Study/Fairfield Residential eroj~ct October 2003 -66- Mitigation Measure 11. The project developer shall develop and implemen~ a Transportation Demand Management Program for the proposed project consis~en~ with Cir3~ of South San Francisco and C/CAG guidelines. At a minimum, the TDM Plan shall address the foiiowing topics: a. Provision of bicycle racks b. Provision of on-site walkways and pedestrian access to the BAd~T station c. participation in Guaranteed Ride Home program (office uses only) d. Subsidy of n:ansit passes (office uses only) e. Provision of transit and carpoot information, including schedules for BAXT and Sam Trans (located in residential leasing office) f. Provision of promotional programs to promote alternative mode use (located in residential leasing office) Project intersection impacts The intersection of Mission Road and Evergreen Drive is projected to operate at LOS E during the .AM peak hour under both back,cunt and project conditions with alt-ww stop sign control. The proposed project would add more than a two percent increase in traffic entering the imersection. The addition o£rraf-fic is projected to cause this imersection To operate at LOS E during the PM peak hour. Therefore, based on the project impact criteria listed above, the proposed project would have a sig~nificant impact on this intersection. The following mitigation measure is recommended to reduce these impacts to a !ess-than- significant level. Mitigation Measure 12. The project developer shall be responsible for their fair share contribution for the following roadway improvements ac At the intersection of Mission Road and Evergreen Drive, the four-way-stop control shall be replaced with a traffic signal control having sptit east/west phasing (due to the limited space in the intersection). A~ the intersection of Mission Road and BART Access Road, four-way-stop con~o! ~h~ll be replaced .w~. '.th a traffic sig~__a! control having split easr_/we~ phasing (due to t_he !i_m_jted space ~_ the intersecfio_~_). Both intersections are anticipated to operate at acceptable levels of service following implementation of the above mitigations. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a LOS standard established by, the Coun~ CMA for designated roads)? LS/M. ConsU'Ucfion o£ the proposed project would result in a signg~canr ~mpact since it is anticipated te generate at least 100 p.m. peak hour trips. Adherence to Mitigation Measure l 1 would reduce this impact to a less-than-sig-nificant level. City of South San Francisco Initial Study/Fairfield Residential Project Page 57 October 2003 -67- c) d) Change in air traffic patterns? NI. The proposed project involves consh-ucfion of a mixed use residemial and commercial project. There would be no impact to current air traffic patterns. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature 07' incompatible use? LS{M. Access to the project site is proposed to be provided by three driveways on McLeli~ Drive ~d one on the B~T e~ess ~veway. Two of~e ~veways m McLell~ D~ve wo~d be l~ted to fight-~s ~ ~d out o~y. ~e ~rd &iveway is proposed as a ~E-access ~veway ~d would provide a co~cfion ~o ~e re~l p~g lot on ~e no~h p~cel. The last &ivewW would be l~tcd to lefi-~s out only onto ~e B.~T e~ess ~veway from the sou~ p~cel. The ~l-access ~veway ~d ~e BART e~ess &iveway fo~ ~e no~ ~d sou~ legs, respectively, of a si~alized ~tersecfion ~ McLeii~ Drive. The northern parcel of the project site is projected to generate 130 trips during the AM peak hour and 262 trips during the PM peak hour. The southern parcel of the project site, containing 169 apartments and 3,000 square feet of retail/office use, is pro, coted to generate 861zips during the AM peak hour and 137 trips during the PM peak hour. The signalized project driveway/BAJ~.T driveway/McLellan Drive intersection is estimated to operate at acceptable levels of service w/th the projected traffic volumes. No eastbound left-mm pocket is provided at th/s intersection for left-roms from McLellan Drive to the north parcel. The design of McLellan Drive Mil include the raised medi~ on the west leg which would be reserved for a furore left-mm lane, if needed. Although this movement is not projected to experience sigrdficant delays it could result in an unsafe condition that could be aporenrially sign!~canr impact,, it is recommended that a left-turn pocket be provided to prevent left-mining vehicles from making their maneuvers in the middle of the imersection. Access from McLellan Drive to the residential parking garages and retail parking spaces would be provided with circulation aisles serving two-way traffic and having adjacent perpendicular spaces~ Tkis condition could result in a potentially significant traffic safety impact. It is recommended that a stop sign be installed for vehicles ex/ting the par 'l&ng =ara*e at the intersection of the interior north parcel driveway and parking garage to improve circulation. It is recommended tlmt a stop sign be installed also for vehicles exiting m~ pm'~zmg ~ara~ze in ,k ~ · · k is also recommended that the right in/right out driveway for the north parcel be slzaightened to eliminate a slight curve at its intersection w/th McLellan Drive. The vehicular site access and on-site circulation system is considered adequate with the recommendations presented above. Mitigation Measure 13. Final bulldingptans shall inco.-porate the ~ollowing roadway and site access improvements: A left-rum pocket shall be provided at the signalized project drivewav/B_~-~RT &~veway/McLellan Drive intersection to prevent iefi-turrfing veh/cies fi-om mak&ng their maneuvers in the middle of the intersection City of South San = ~-~ . ran~,ooo initial Study/Fairfield Residential Project Page 58 October 2003 -68- e) b. A stop sign shall be installed for vehicles exiting the parking garage m the intersection of the interior north parcel driveway and par 'tdng garage to improve circulation. c. A stop si__~n shall be insmlted also for vehicles exiting the parking garage in the south parcel at the intersection of the BA_RT e~ess &-iveway. d. The right in/right ou~ driveway- for the north parcel be sn'aighZened to eliminate a slight curve at ks intersection with McLellan Drive Result ~.n inadequate emergency access? N!. Multiple &fiveways ho_m__ McLellan Drive serve the site that provide emergency and non-emergency access. No changes are proposed with regard to site access and no impacts are anticipated. Result in inadequate par/dug capacity? NI. The site plan shows a total of 722 park. lng spaces. The proposed parking ratio is 1.95 spaces per unit. Gated access within the parking structures w/il allow for restricted resident-only access, as well as visitor pm'king on the ground floors o£the structures. Both parking structures will provide designated resident and visitor par'king, with visitor par'king to be monitored by on- site property management. Retail pm'king will be available along McLellan Drive and within a surface par'king area located on the east end of the north parcel. The par'king ratio in the South San Francisco for a Transit Oriented Development is 1.70 spaces per unh. No requirements are specified for reta/1 and office uses. The Ci~' of South San Francisco encourages transk use by limiting the number of parking spaces provided to the residents to a ratio of 1.00 space per unit. The City is currently evaluating a car share progam aU the B.&ET station. A car share pro,am would be available for use by the residents thus reducing their need to own private vehicles and the associated parking spaces. Par ~king surveys conducted at aparmaem complexes located in suburban locations by- the project traffic engineer in the Bay Area show that 1.75 spaces per unit are needed in locations with limited transit service. Applying the 15 percent B_&ET reduction used in the trip generation estimates results in 1.50 spaces per unit. Part-dug for the proposed projecr would slightly exceed this number. The City of Pleasant Hill has a parking requirement of 1.3 spaces per unit for apar~em complexes located near BART stations. The retail/office space would need approximately 92 spaces, assuming a partdng ratio of 1 space per 250 square feet of space. The available supply for residents and their ~ests is ~30 spaces, assuming that patrons of the retail/office space will be able to use the 37 angled spaces on McLellan Drive. The resulting residential parldng ratio is 1,70 spaces per umt. Residents and retail patrons will be able m share spaces since residential uses peak in the middle of the night, and retail uses peak during the da5', and food-relaTed uses peak at meal times. City ef..Soutn San Francisco initial Study/Fairfield Residential Project Pace ~.o October 2003 -69- g) Based on this information, the proposed supply is appropriate for the proposed uses with limited space (5,000 square feet or less) being leased to restaurants. Reducing the parking supply further could result in residents parking in the Costco lot or in the BAKT station. Overall, a less-than-sig-nificant impact is anticipated with regard to par-king. Hazar& or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? NI. The proposed proj oct would proxfde pedestrian tinkages to the nearby BA_RT station. Bicycle facilities would be required to be provided pursuant to the TDM pro,am (see Mitigation Measure 11). No impact would therefore result to pedestrian or bicycle access near the site. 16. Utilities and Service Systems Environmental Settinz The project area is served by the following service providers: Water supply: Cati~%rnia Water Service. This private water company obtains water via an a~eement with the San Francisco Water Deparunent and from groundwater resources. In addition to South San Francisco, the water company serves customers in San Carlos and San Marco. The Water company prepares a range of water use projections based on fluctuations in population and employment demands. The company has indicated an adequate water supply for the kighem prQected demand for future uses. Sewage collection, treamaent and dis¢osal: City of South San Francisco. The City's san/tory sewer collection system has an interconnecting work of gravity sewers, force mains and pump stations which function together to bring wastewater from individual properties to the Water Quality Control Plant. A number of the sewer lines, especially in the east of 101 area, are older and experience infiltration and inflow (i/i) during wet weather conditions which cause the capacity of pump stations and the Water Quality Control Planz to be exceeded. Older pump stations have aisc experienced reliabitiv' problems. The City has recently' initiated a pro,am to replace and rehabilitate older sewer facilities. Wastewater treatment is accomplished at the City:s Water Quality Control Plant, located provides service for the CiD' of Stun B_~o, S~ Fr~_n_cis6o potions of o~er co~mties. The Pl~t has been recently up~aded acco~o~ted ~o~g employmen~ uses h ~e Pt~t's se~ce ~ea ~d to meet Regional Water Qualiq~ Consol Bo=d dischmge req~ements. Storm drainage' City of South San Francisco maintains a series of drainage pipes and culverts 'd~rough the City to accommodate stormwater runoff. East of the 280 freeway, storrnwmer flows imo Colma Creek for ultimate disposal in San Francisco Bay. · ElecrricaJ and natural ~as power: Pacific Gas and Elecu'ic Co (PG&E). provides electrical and natural gas service to the Ci~ of South San Francisco through a series of overhead ~,~,~vm~u elecmca'_, lines. "- ' ' ~ _ ~ r~x~sun~ p'mmp rmtions receive etec~cal power ~o_m PG&E. City o~ South San Francisco Page 60 initial Study/Fairfield Residential Project October 2003 -70- · Communications: Souhhwestern Bell (SBC) provides a range of telephone and telecommunication service to homes and businesses in the community. Proiect Impacts a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the RFFO_CB? LS. The proposed project would contribute additional wastewater flows to the City's Water Quality Control Plato. The plant has been recently expanded to provide for adddtional dray weather sewage flows and an expansion was approved by the Ci~' to expand the Plm-n's wet weather capacir/as well. Th~ expansion would be able to accommodate additional flows resulting from the developmem of the proposed proj eot. Less-than-significant impacts axe anticipated. b) Require neu~ water or wastewater V'earment facilities or ex,pansion of existing facilities? NI. Additional sewage flows resulting from development of the proposed project could be accommodated by the Water Qualiry Control Plant tha~ has recently been expanded by the City. Less-than-significant impacts axe anticipated. c) Require new storm d','ainagefacilifies? LS/M. Refer to the Hydrolo~, section (Section 8), subsection "c." d) Are sufficient water supplies available ? LS. Based on information provided by the water supplier for the proposed project, adequate long-term water supplies exist to serve the proposed project (source: personal commurdcation w/th California Water Services, 7/8/03). e) Adequate wasrewater capacity to serve the proposed project? NI. See response to "a," above. Solid waste disposal? LS. Small quantities of solid waste would be generated by the implementation of the proposed project, which would be construction debris. This mount of solid waste is anticipated to be less-than-significant and can be accommodated in the local sarfitary landfill. Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste ? NI. The existing service provider will ensure adherence to federal, state and local solid waste regard. 17. Mandatory Findings of Significance a) Cib' of South San'Francisco initial:Stusy/Fairfieid Residential Project Does the project have the potential to deg-rade ~he quality of the environment, substantialJy reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or witdl!fe population to drop betow sel~tsustaining Ieveis, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number, of or resz~'ict the range ora rare or endangered.plant or animaf or eliminate imporzan~ examples.of the major periods of Calfornia histo? or prehiszo~T? No. The preceding ~aiysis indicates ~at ~e proposed project will not have a sig~fic~t adverse · · · ~, ,~'~ ' '' ~;~ l ~,~e .... culr~ .... ' overall ......... i iig,, ~ _ ,~,ya~t o~ ~n~ ,~ ~,~,~nta, qua ~IB~. OlOlO_~a~ October 2003 -71- b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects o£past pro~ects, the effects of other current projects and the e.-ff%cts o£ probable future pro. jects). No, the proposed project involves the construction o£ a high densit3,, m/xed-use project near the South San Francisco BART station. The proposed project is consistent w/th the City's adopted General Plan and Transit Village Zorfing District, so that cumulative/mpacts were previously assessed in the Ci¢-'s General Plan E!K. in Mdifion, none o£the foregoing an~ysis has shown that the pro, eot would contribute to cumulatively considerable ak qualiry, traffic or any other impact area. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No. No such impacts have been discovered in the course o£ preparing this trfitia/Study. City of South San Francisco Initial Study/Fairfield Residential Project Page ~ October 2003 -72- Initial Study Preparers Jerry Haag, Urban Planner, project manager and principal author Charles Cornwall, EnvironmenUd Vision, photosimutations Jane Maxwell, report g'raphics Agencies and Organizations Consulted The following agencies and organizations were contacted in the course of this Initial Study: CiO' of South San Francisco Susy Kalkin, Principal Planner Michael Lappen, Senior Planner Richard Harmon, Engineering Department Mo Dong, Fire Marshal Sgt. Jim Thane, Police Department Fairfield Development Company Shon Finch, Project Manager South San Francisco Unified School District Jim Novak, Business Manager California Water Service Mike Utz, Water Engineer References CEOA Guidelines. Bay Area Air Quality Management Disu-ict. December 1999 South San Francisco General Plan: Existing Conditions and Planning Issues, Dyett & Bhatia, 1997 South San Francisco General Plan EiP., EIP Associates, 1999 Transportation Impact Analysis for the BART Transit Village, Fehr & Peers Associates Inc. June 2003 Ouarterlv Ret)orr of Corrective Actions. Costco Pro, ertv at E1 Camino Real and 9 McLellan Drive. South San Francisco, Klein/eider, July _00~ City of South San Francisco initial Study/Fairfield Residential Project Page 63 October 2003 -73- Responses to Fairfield Residential MND Public Comments November 14, 2003 Comments Received from Public/Ouasi-Public c Agencies 1) Pacific Gas and Electric Co (11/03/03): Notes that PG&E owns and operates electrical and natural gas facilities within and adjacent to the project site. Relocations of PG&E facilities will be at developer's cost. Costs to extend these facilities to the project site will be borne by the developer. PG&E also notes that their facilities emit electric and magnetic fields and this information should be disclosed. Response: Comment acknowledged. Information provided by PG&E is noted. 2) Caltrans (11/6/03): Notes that an encroachment permit is needed for any work in a state rig~ht-of-way Response: Comment acknowledged. An encroachment permit will be obtained for any work in a state-right-of-way. Comments Received from the Public The following comment letters were received. These letters generally comment on the anticipated traffic impacts of the proposed project and potential blockage of views. Two of the comment letters (Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County and' Greenbelt Alliance) offer support of the proposed project. 1) Iv'filagS_mo and Tessie Cachola (10/10/03) 2) Letter with no si~.smature (i 0/10/03) 3) Peter Gefler (10/12/03) 4) Housing Leadership Council of S an Mateo County (10/13/03) 5) Barbara Epis (10/20/03) De~, n~;~; i c;/", -;/rlx', 7) Judy Korte (10/28/03) 8) Jan Hopkins (11/2/03) 9) ChristineMarie Ruck (11/4/03) 10) Greenbelt Alliance (11/5/03) Master Response: Traffic and transportation issues related to the approval and construction of the proposed project were addressed in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. These impacts were assessed by a professional traffic and transportation engineering firm using standards of traffic impact si=m-fificance adopted by the City of South San Francisco. The Mitigated Negative Declaration identifies that the project will result in more traffic on local s~eets near the project site, however, with adherence to mitigation measures contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, a less- than-sigm_Jficant; ~-~ .... ~ ~mp,~ would be ~ ~at,~,. -74- Other comments regarding the merits of the proposed project are noted, however, these are opirfions on the underlying project and are not comments on the environmental aspects of the project. No response is therefore needed for these comments. Comments from Planning Commission Public Hearing on November 6, 2003 Comments were raised by various Planning Commissioners regarding: 1) Project Design: a) Lack of open space on the project. The developer should consider using the top deck of the parking garage as a recreation area. b) Balcony rails on upper floors should be "popped out" from the building wall to provide more visual relief. Response: Modifications to the design of the proposed project is not an environmental issue and suggested design enhancements have been transnfitted to the project development for consideration. 1) Traffic issues: Concerns were raised regarding traffic impacts on adjacent streets by the existing Costco facility and especially the Costco fueling station near the Fairfield site. Local intersections appear to be operating at LOS F since refueling lines can extend onto E1 Camino Real. Response: The comment appears to be directed towards impacts of the existing Costco facility on an adjacent parcel of land. Since the Costco facility is an approved project and is not part of this application, no response is necessary to this comment. -75- STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 1. General. Pursuant to CBQA Guidelines section 15093, the City Council of the City of Sou~ San Francisco adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for those impacts identified in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report ("Elk") as sig-nificant and unavoidable. (Resolution 135-99, October 13, t999.) The City Council carefully considered each impact in its decision to approve transit oriented development with a hig_h density, mixed use character near the Bay Area Rapid Transit station through approval of the 1999 General Plan. Additionally, in 2001, the City adopted a Negative Declaration ('?CD~') which analyzed the impacts of South San Francisco BART Transit Village Plan ("Transit Village Plan") which implemented the General Plan policies and development standards for a mixed of use of sufficient density on the site to create a vibrant pedestrian-oriented center. The Transit Village Plan included zoning standards, design guidelines and implementation measures for the Project site. The Transit Village Plan permits a density of 50 units per acre (with an additional density bonus for affordable units) and up to 30,000 square feet of commercial at a FAR of 2.0. The Negative Declaration for the Transit Village Plan concluded that development under the Plan would result in no sigrfificant environmental impacts. The proposed project is consistent with the Transit Village Plan as analyzed under the Negative Declaration. The environmental impacts of development of project site and surrounding area also have been analyzed in several recent EIRs: the BART Station Plan Elk; the Hickey (McLellan) Boulevard Extension Plan Elk; the E1 Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Elk and the Costco Project Elk. The Project is consistent with the t-Ii~ Density, Mixed Commercial/Retail use designations for the site, as analyzed in the General Plan Elk and updated in the Transit Village Zoning District ND. The Project contains desig-n and environmental protection measures to implement adopted mitigation measures from the previous EIR and ND. The City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations with the original land use approvals, i.e. the General Plan re-designations for the 8.48-acre parcel located near the Bg_RT ~*~*~ D,~r~mnt m ~ recent court decision, the Ci~ Comnci! hereby adopts specific overriding considerations for the Fairfield Project. i The City Council believes that many of the unavoidable environmental effects identified in the South San Francisco General Plan EIR that are applicable to the PrQect site will be substantially lessened by mitigation measures adopted with the original approval, with the previous Transit Village Zoning District approvals, and by the environmental protection measures adopted through the cun'ent Project approval, and further implemented through the related Conditions of Approval for the Project, including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the Fairfield Mitigated Negative Declaration. Even with mitigation, the City Council recognizes that the implementation of the project cmnfes with it unavoidable adverse emdronmental effects as identified in ~ "...public officials must still go on the record and explain specifically why they are appro%ng the later prqiec~ despite iu signhq_can*. ~mavoid£Dle impacts." (emphasis ofig4.na!.) Communizes for a Be~er Env/roranent v. California Resources A-~encv 103 Cai. App. 4~ 98, (2002). -76- the South San Francisco General Plan EIR. The Ci157 Council specifically finds that to the exten~ the identified adverse or potentially adverse impacts for the Fairfield Project have not been mitigated to acceptable levels, there are specific economic, social, envfl'onmental, land use, and other considerations that support approval of the Project. 2. Unavoidable Skmifieant Adverse Iml~aets. The following unavoidable significant environmental impacts identified in the South San Francisco General Plan EIl~ for future development apply to the Fairfield Projecr: 1. Emissions of ozone precursors (ROG and NOx) and PM-10 largely due to increase in vehicle-miles-traveled. The City has imposed numerous performance stm~dards as identified in the Fairfield/XLND to reduce its environmental impacts. The following considerations support approval of the Project: A. The Project's below market rate housing substantially assists the City in meetings its obligation to prov/de 771 units of below market housing by the year 2006, which is the share of the re~onal housing need allocated to South San Francisco by the Association of Bay Area Governments (AJ3AG). The Project's contribution addresses the City's concern about the inability of residents, particularly the younger and older citizens, to find affordable housing in the community. B. The Project site represents the pr/mary parcel on which Transit Oriented Development can occur in the City. It is adjacent to commercial uses, comains a mixture of commercial, retail and residential uses, has easy access to recently completed B)~R_T station and is served by major st~-eets. The Project's provision of 360 residential units will assist the City in maintaining an appropriate housing to jobs balance. Additionally, the commercial/retail component of the Project will generate increased sales tax and, because the Project is in the [El Cam/no Redevelopment Plan Area, will result in the redevelopment of presently blighted property to its highest and best use. Such redevelopment results in increased t~_x increme_n_t to t_he Ci~ which can then be used to develop additional iow income housing. C. The increased housing density of the Project helps lower the cost per unit to the consumer. Housing costs are acknowledged as one of the two most severe ~owth problems in the Bay Area. D. The Project coma/ns open space between the buildings, pedestrian walkways, landscaping both within the Project and fronting the street, and outdoor passive recreation areas. Additionally, the Project provides a monetary contribution of $600 per mn_ir in excess of '[hat required by '[he Child Care impact Fee ordnance. E. The Project is designed to take advantage of and promote the use of public transii by using a higher density and lower the pa~ldng ratio to increase -77- ridersl~ip on BART and the East of 101 shuttle sen-ice, as well as constructing pedestrian walkways Iflfldng the Project to the adjacent BART Station and the future BART ROW Bikeway and Linear Park. ?. The Project includes a contribution to construct a public art display for the benefit of the Proj oct and surrounding neighborhoods. G. The Project implements the ~dsion of the City CoUncil as identified in the 1999 General Plan and Transit Village Zoning District by including a g-rocery, other retail and commercial uses and quality hig_h 'density residential units that enhance the character of thc community, preserve and enhance critical emdronmental resources, and m~n~m~ ze hazards. H.. The Project imp]ements the policies of the General Plan that encourage development where activities and facilities used on a frequent basis by residents, such as stores and parks, be easily accessib]e to residents. I. The Project includes specific urban desigm policies that wilt provide a cohesive image and identity for ]El Cam~no Real corridor. \IFS ]\SYS\WPDIMA~SW\40$\001\GP ETM SOC.doc -78- ATTACHMENT 2 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ORDINANCE WITH EXHIBITS EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT B EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT D EXHIBIT E EXHIBIT F EXHIBIT G EXHIBIT H Site Plan Use Permit Plan Set Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Parcel Map Conditions Of Approval Affordable Housing Agreement Phasing Plan Park Fee Calculation ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH FAIRFIELD RESDENTIAL LLC FOR THE MIXED USE TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT NEARTHE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO BART STATION WHEREAS, the South San Francisco Municipal Code allows development of the approximately 8 acre vacant site located adjacent to the newly constructed Bay Area Rapid Transit Station located on E1 Camino Real, subject to further approvals; and, WHEREAS, Fairfield Residential ("Fairfield") has submitted and received approval for a plan to develop up to 360 housing units and up to 23,000 square feet of retail space constructed on the ground floors of proposed residential buildings along McLellan Drive of which approximately 12,000 square feet would consist of a rethil-only building (grocery); and, WHEREAS, it is anticipated that retail uses along McLellan Drive would serve project residents, BART passengers and surrounding neighborhoods. WHEREAS, the 360 unit, 23,000 square feet commercial/office project ("Project") constitutes the present proposed development and is the project subject to the terms of the Development Agreement ("Agreement"); and, WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared which analyzes the anticipated environmental impacts of the proposed Project; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant instructed the City to process the proposed entitlements for the Project; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Municipal Code section 19.60.050, the Director of Economic and Community Development reviewed the application for the Agreement and found the proposed Agreement to be in the proper form, determined that the application was complete, and referred the application and Agreement to the Planning Commission for a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, on December 4, 2003, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the proposed Agreement for the Fairfield Project and recommended that the City Council approve the Project, including this Development Agreement; and, WHEREAS, on January 14, 2004, pursuant to Municipal Code section 19.060.110 the City Council conducted a property noticed public hearing on the proposed Agreement for the project. -79- NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. Findings The proposed Development Agreement for the Project is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan, as amended and adopted. This finding is based upon all evidence in the record as a whole, including, but not limited to: the City Council's independent review of these documents. The Project provides for high-density residential development with a strong mixed-use retail component in the City's recently adopted Transit Village District. The proposed project complies with all zoning regulations, including set backs, provision for open space, payment of park fees and monetary contributions through payment of the City's childcare fee. Bo The City Council has independently reviewed the proposed Development Agreement, the certified and adopted Housing Element, the General Plan, Chapters 20.78 and 20.84 of the Zoning Ordinance, Title 15 of the Municipal Code, and applicable state and federal law and has determined that the proposed Development Agreement for the Project complies with all applicable zoning, subdivision, and building regulations and with the General Plan. This finding is based upon all evidence in the record as a whole, including, but not limited to: the City Council's independent review of these documents, oral and written evidence submitted at the public heatings on the Project, including advice and recommendations from City staff. The Project includes below market rate units and a marketing plan to target those units to both governmental employees and existing residents of the City. This reflects the general plan policies, including the adopted Housing Element, to provide workforce housing. Co The proposed Development Agreement for the Project states its specific duration. This finding is based upon all evidence in the record as a whole, including, but not limited to: the City Council's independent review of the proposed Development Agreement and its determination that Section 3.2 of the Agreement states that the Agreement shall expire ten years from the effective date of the Agreement. The proposed Development Agreement states the permitted uses, density and intensity of use for the property subject thereto. This finding is based upon all evidence in the record as a whole, including, but not limited to: the City Council's independent review of the proposed Development Agreement and its determination that Sections 3.3 and 3.4of the Agreement set forth the development standards and the documents constituting the Project. E. The proposed Development Agreement states the maximum permitted height and size of proposed buildings on the property subject thereto. This finding is based -80- upon all evidence in the record as a whole, including, but not limited to: the City Council's independent review of the proposed Development Agreement and its determination that Section 3.4 of the Agreement sets forth the documents which state the maximum permitted height and size of buildings. The proposed Development Agreement describes the land which will be dedicated for public purposes from the property subject thereto. This finding is based upon all evidence in the record as a whole, including, but not limited to: the City Council's independent review of the proposed Development Agreement and its determination that Exhibit A to the Agreement and the specific project approvals establish the Project boundaries and the land required for future dedication. SECTION 2. The City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby approves the proposed Development Agreement with Fairfield Residential LLC, attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 3. Severability. In the event any section or portion of this ordinance shall be determined invalid or unconstitutional, such section or portion shall be deemed severable and all other sections or portions hereof shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 4. Publication and Effective Date. Pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 36933, a summary of this Ordinance shall be prepared by the City Attorney. At least five (5) days prior to the Council meeting at which this Ordinance is scheduled to be adopted, the City Clerk shall (1) publish the Summary, and (2) post in the City Clerk' s Office a certified copy of this Ordinance. Within fifteen (15) days after the adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall (1) publish the summary, and (2) post in the City Clerk's Office a certified copy of the full text of this Ordinance along with the names of those Ci.ty Council members voting for and against this Ordinance or otherwise voting. This ordinance shall become effective thirty days from and after its adoption. -81- Introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of South San Francisco, held the day of ,2004. Adopted as an Ordinance of the City of South Francisco at a regular meeting of the City Council held the __ day of ,2004 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk As Mayor of the City of South San Francisco, I do hereby approve the foregoing Ordinance this day of ,2004. Mayor S:\Current Ord's\dev.fairfield.ord. DOC -82- City of South San Francisco When Recorded Mail To: City Clerk City of South San Francisco 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Space above this line for Recorder's Use DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND FAIRFIELD RESIDENTIAL LLC IN THE TRANSIT VILLAGE ZONING DISTRICT -83- This Development Agreement for a mixed use transit oriented development in the City of South San Francisco, is dated ,2003 ("Agreement"), between Fairfield Residential, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("Owner"), and the City of South San Francisco, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California ("City"). Owner shall also mean any separately formed legal entity created by Fairfield Residential LLC where such entity is created for the purposes of financing or implementing the obligations of Owner under this Agreement and holds all the rights, obligations and duties of Owner under this Agreement. Owner and City are collectively referred to herein as "Parties". Section 1. Recitals 1.1 WHEREAS, California Government Code Sections 65864 through 65869.5 authorize the City to enter into binding development agreements with persons having legal or equitable interests in real property for the development of such property or on behalf of those persons having same; and, 1.2 WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 65865, the City has adopted rules and regulations, embodied in Chapter 19.60 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, establistfing procedures and requirements for adoption and execution of development agreements; and, !.3 . ,WI-tF, RF, A,R thi~ A ~rraamant r~nnnarn~ an annrn¥1rnntalx~ R AR hera xmr, ant cltp located north and south of McLellan Drive, between E1 Camino Real and the South San Francisco BART Station in the City, as shown and more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference ("Property"); and, 1.4. 672338 6 Created by Kaj Created on 1/9/2004 12:25 PM WHEREAS, the Owner applied to the City for a Use Permit proposal consisting of multi-family homes, retail, open space, and public right of way, which proposal was depicted on the Use Permit application, including the application for a Parcel Map, dated , and attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit B (the "Use Permit Plan Set"), to be located on the Property; and, 2 -84- 1.5. WHEREAS, Owner provided a letter dated March 3, 2003, to the San Mateo County Construction Trades Council indicating that Fairfield Residential LLC, or its successors or assigns, intend to use Building Trades union labor for construction of the project, excluding off-site manufacturer and suppliers, provided that Fairfield Residential LLC, or its successors or assigns proceeds with construction of the project; and, 1.6 WHEREAS, Owner has requested that the City enter into this Agreement to set forth the rights and obligations of the parties relating to the development of the Project; and, 1.7 WHEREAS, all proceedings necessary for the valid adoption and execution hereof have taken place in accordance with Government Code Sections 65864 through 65869.5 and with Chapter 19.60 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code; and, 1.8 WHEREAS, the City Council and the Planning Commission have found that this Agreement is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the South San Francisco General Plan and the South San Francisco BART Transit Village Plan, as adopted on October 13, 1999, and August, 2001, respectively, as amended from time to time; and, 1.9 WHEREAS, on December 4, 2003, the Planning Commission recommended adoption of this Agreement to the City Council; and 1.10 WHEREAS, on ,2004, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. __ approving and adopting this Agreement and the Ordinance thereafter took effect on __., 2004. Section 2. Definitions 2.1 Project Approvals. As part of the project, Owner has applied for, and City has certified, adopted, granted, and approved, as applicable, certain environmental documents, amendments to rules, regulations, and official policies, and land use approvals and entitlements, including the following (collectively, "Project Approvals") as set forth below: 672338 6 Created by Kaj Created on 1/9/2004 12:25 PM -85- 2.1.1 Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan adopted and approved pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit C; 2.1.2 Use Permit and application therefore; 2.2 2.3 2.1.3 Parcel Map dated ,2003, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit D; 2.1.4 Conditions of Approval for Project Approvals, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit E; 2.1.5 Affordable Housing Agreement, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit F. 2.1.6 This Development Agreement. 2.1.7 Design Review as modified by the Conditions of Approval. "City" shall mean the City of South San Francisco, a mtmicipal corporation. "Effective Date" shall be as set forth in Section 3.1. 2.4 "Project" shall have meaning set forth in Section 3.3. 2.5 2.6 Exhibit B. "Project Approvals" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 2.1. "Property" shall have the meaning set forth in Sectionl.3 and as depicted in 2.7 "Shell Condition" shall mean construction of structures including all exterior walls, windows, doors, fire protection devices and with rough plumbing, electrical, and other necessary utilities to the building. 2.8 "Term ' shall have the meaning set forth in Section 3.2. Section 3. Agreement NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties, pursuant to the authority contained in Government Code Sections 65864 through 65869.5 and Chapter 19.60 of the South San Francisco Municipal 672338 6 4 Created by Kaj Created on 1/9/2004 12:25 PM - 8 6 - Code and in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, agree as follows: 3.1 Effective Date This Agreement shall be become effective 30 days after adoption of the ordinance approving this Agreement pursuant to South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 19.60.140 (the "Effective Date") and shall be of no force or effect until the Effective Date. The Parties shall execute this Agreement within fifteen (15) days of final approval by the City of South San Francisco City Council and the Agreement shall be recorded within ten (10) days of the Effective Date. 3.2 Duration This Agreement shall expire ten (10) years from the Effective Date. In the event that litigation to which the City is a party against the Owner or any of its officers, agents, employees, contractors, representatives or consultants should delay implementation or construction of the Project on the Property, the expiration date of this Agreement shall be tolled automatically from the time the summons and complaint is served on the defendant(s) until judgment entered by the court is final and not subject to appeal; provided, however, that the total amount of time which the expiration date shall be tolled as a result of such litigation shall not exceed five (5) years. 3.3 Project Description - Development Standards For Project 672338 6 Created by Kaj Created on 1/9/2004 12:25 PM The development on the Property shall be as described in this Agreement and the Project Approvals ("Project"). The residential development shall consist of no more than 360 residential dwellings and 23,000 square feet of retail space on the northwest and southeast sides of McLellan Drive. Development on the northwest parcel shall consist of 188 residential units constructed around a four story parking garage and shall include a 12,000 square foot grocery store, as well as, 4,000 square feet of in-line retail space along McLellan Drive (collectively "Phase I.") Development on the southeast parcel shall consist of 172 residential 5 -87- dwellings constructed around a four story parking garage and shall include a minimum of 7,000 square feet of in-line retail space along McLellan Drive (collectively "Phase II.") The residential structures shall not exceed four stories and shall be constructed in accordance with the Project Approvals. The multifamily development shall contain on-site amenities, including, without limitation, at least one indoor recreation area, one outdoor recreation area, on-site leasing facility, and other structures and improvements as provided in the Project Approvals. The commercial aspect of the Project consists of a not less than 23,000 square feet of combined retail/grocery. Commercial and Residential Phasing 3.3.1 Construction of the commercial, retail and residential components of the Project shall be completed in accordance with the Phasing Plan attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit G. Said Phasing Plan shall require, at a minimum, that the grocery, an approximatelyl2,000 square foot facility as described in the Project Approvals, shall receive all appropriate building permits prior to the approval of the first building permit for the vertical construction of the 188 unit multi-family residential and the ground level commercial construction on McLellan Drive. The grocery store and the vertical construction (labeled "1" and "2" in Exhibit G) may be constructed concurrently in accordance with the Phasing Plan. The grocery shall be in "shell condition" as described in Section 2.7 prior to Certificate of Occupancy or Final Building Permit for the 188 unit multi-family residential component and approval of the first building permit for the vertical construction of the 172 unit multi-family component (labeled "3" in Exhibit G). 3.3.2 672338 6 Created by Kaj Created on 1/9/2004 12:25 PM If Owner fails to obtain a final occupancy permit for the grocery facility in Phase I prior to December 31, 2005, due to delays solely caused by actions within Owner's control and excluding, without limitation, force majeure 6 -88- 3.3.3 3.3.4 (as defined in Section 39), Owner shall pay to City One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) to compensate the City for the increased costs of services and other infi'astructure improvements necessitated by the residential development. If Owner fails to obtain a final occupancy permit for the remaining commercial/retail structures within the project prior to December 31,2006, Owner shall pay to the City One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) for the purpose set forth in Section 3.3.2. Failure to pay such funds required under Section 3.3.2 and this Section 3.3.3 shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement entitling City to all remedies available at law or equity, including termination of this Agreement. Owner shall exercise commercially reasonable efforts to ensure all Phase I commercial and retail spaces are fully leased and/or sold and available for occupancy prior to the lease or sale of the 94th multi-family residential unit in Phase I. In Phase II, Owner shall exercise commercially reasonable efforts to ensure all Phase II and Phase I commercial and retail spaces are fully leased and/or sold and available for occupancy prior to the lease or sale of the 86th multi-family residential unit in Phase II 3.4 Permitted Uses. The permitted uses, the density and intensity of uses, the maximum heights, locations and total area of the proposed buildings, the development schedule, the provisions for vehicular access and parking, any reservation of dedication of land, any public improvements, facilities and services, development standards.and all environmental impact mitigation measures imposed as approval conditions for the Project shall be exclusively those provided in the Project Approvals as approved by the City Council, the applicable rules, regulations, policies, development standards and ordinances in effect as of the Effective Date and applicable provisions of the South San Francisco Municipal Code as in effect on the Effective Date, except as modified in th_is Agreement. 672338 6 Created by Kaj Created on 1/9/2004 12:25 PM 7 -89- 3.4.1 Subject to Owner's fulfillment of its obligations under this Agreement, upon the Effective Date of this Agreement, the City hereby grants to Owner a vested right to develop and construct on the Property all the improvements for the Project authorized by, and in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, the Project Approvals and the applicable City codes, rules, regulations, policies, and ordinances in effect as of the Effective Date. 3.4.2 Upon such grant of right, Owner's exercise of such right and all other rights provided to Owner under this Agreement shall not be impaired, affected or limited by (i) any pending or future City ordinances establishing moratoriums unless required by state or federal law, (ii) any pending or future City codes, rules, regulations, policies, or ordinances related to impact, development, or other fees, excluding increases to impact fees, processing fees, administrative fees (including legal and consultant fees) and building or other uniform code fees adopted by the City where such fees are provided for by resolution, ordinance or official policy and/or regulation of the City, or (iii) any pending or future City codes, rules, regulations, policies, or ordinances that would otherwise prevent the development of the Project or would require the development to proceed in a manner in conflict with the Project Approvals. 3.4.3 672338 6 Created by Kaj Created on 1/9/2004 12:25 PM No future amendments to the City General Plan, the City Zoning Code, the City Municipal Code, or other City ordinances, rules, policies or regulations in effect as of the Effective Date shall apply to the Project, except such future modifications that are requested by or consented to by the Owner; provided, however, that nothing in this Agreement shall prevent or preclude the City from adopting any land use regulations or amendments expressly permitted herein or otherwise required or permitted by State or Federal Law and excepting those rules, regulations, ordinances and policies required to protect against an imminent threat to the public health, safety or welfare. 8 -90- Section 4. Description of Property. The property which is the subject of this Development Agreement is described in Exhibit A attached hereto (the "Property"). Section 5. Interest of Owner. Owner has a legal or equitable interest in the Project in that, with the exception of public rights-of-way and a portion of the property owned by the Bay Area Rapid Transit District and the SamTrans Section 6. Relationship of City and Owner. It is understood that this Agreement is a contract that has been negotiated and voluntarily entered into by City and Owner and that the Owner is not an agent of City. The City and Owner hereby renounce the existence of any form of joint venture or partnership between them, and agree that nothing contained herein or in any document executed in connection herewith shall be construed as making the City and Owner joint venturers or partners Section 7. Obligations of City and Owner 7.1 In consideration of the entitlements conferred upon Owner, Owner has agreed to implement the obligations of Owner set forth below, according to the terms and conditions set forth herein: "7 I 1 / ,1.1 k. Ywii~i, iii ~ tliil~iy illailll~l,~11~11 ~lUVl~l~ WILII :qll ~ity ctocumen[s, applications, plans and other information necessary for the City to carry out its obligations hereunder and to cause its planners, engineers and all other consultants to submit in a timely manner all necessary materials and documents. It is the parties' express intent to cooperate with one another and diligently work to implement all land use and building approvals for development of the Property in accordance with the terms of this Agreement and the Project Approvals. 672338 6 Created by Kaj Created on 1/9/2004 12:25 PM 9 -91- 7.2 In consideration of the rights and benefits conferred upon the public by the Owner pursuant to this Agreement, the City has agreed to implement the obligations of the City set forth below according to the terms and conditions set forth herein: 7.2.1 Process in a timely manner all actions required for the development of the Project, including by not limited to processing and checking all maps, plans, permits, building plans and specifications and other plans relating to the development of the Property filed by Owner or its nominee, successor or assign as necessary for development of the Project. 7.3 For purposes of Section 7.1.1 and 7.2.1, a timely manner shall determined by the deadlines mandated by applicable agreements, statutes or ordinances, to complete all steps necessary for implementation of this Agreement and development of the Project in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. Section 8. Use of the Project. 8.1 Right to Develop. Owner shall have the vested right to develop the Project on the Property in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Project Approvals, and any amendments to any of them as shall, from time to time, be approved pursuant to this Agreement. 8.2 Permitted Uses. The permitted uses of the Project, the density and intensity of use, the height, bulk and size of proposed buildings, general provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public Purposes and general location and maintenance of on-site and off site improvements, general location of public utilities (operated by City) and all other terms and conditions of development applicable to the Project, shall be those set forth in this Agreement, the Project Approvals and any amendments to this Agreement or Project Approvals where such amendments have been reviewed and approved in the same manner in which the original Agreement and Project Approvals were approved. 672338 6 Created by Kaj Created on 1/9/2004 12:25 PM 10 -92- Section 9. Applicable Rules, Regulations and Official Policies 9.1 Rules re Permitted Uses. Unless otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement, for the term of this Agreement, the City's ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations and official policies governing the permitted and conditional permitted uses of the Project, governing density and intensity of use in the Project, and the maximum height, bulk and size of proposed buildings shall be those set forth in the Project Approvals and those in force and effect on the Effective Date of this Agreement. 9.2 Rules re Design and Construction of Pubhc Improvements. The ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations and official policies governing design, improvement and construction standards and specifications applicable to public improvements to be constructed by Owner shall be those in force and effect at the time of the applicable permit approval for the public improvement. 9.3 Uniform Codes Applicable. Unless expressly provided in this Agreement, the Project shall be constructed in accordance with the provisions of the City's adopted Uniform Codes, including but not limited to, the Building, Mechanical, Plumbing, Electrical and Fire Codes and Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, relating to Building Standards, in effect at the time of approval of the appropriate building, grading, or other construction permits for the Project. Section 10. Moratorium Not Applicable. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, in the event an ordinance, resolution or other measure is enacted, whether by action of City, by initiative, referendum, or otherwise, that imposes a building moratorium, a limit on the rate of development, or a voter- approval requirement which affects the Project, City agrees that such ordinance, resolution or other measure shall not apply to the Project or this Agreement, including the Project Approvals incorporated herein, unless imposed by City as part of a declaration of a local emergency (including a moratorium due to lack of sewer or water capacity) or state of emergency as defined in Government Code § 8558. Section 11. Applicable Impact Fees and Dedications; Time of Payment. 672338 6 11 Created by Kaj Created on 1/9/2004 12:25 PM - 9 3 - 11.1. No New Fees Applied to Project. The Project shall be subject to those development impact fees, dedications and other fees applicable to new development required by City's adopted ordinances, resolutions and policies which are in effect as of the Effective Date, except as modified by this Agreement or the Project Approvals. 11.2 Amount of Fees. All applicable development impact fees for the Project shall be paid by Owner at the time of issuance of building permits and in the then-current mount of the impact fee. Section 12. Subsequently Enacted or Revised Fees, Assessments and Taxes. 12.1 Fees, Exactions, Dedications. City and Owner agree that the fees payable and exactions required in connection with the development of the Project for purposes of mitigating environmental and other impacts of the Project, providing infrastructure for the Project and complying with the General Plan shall be those in effect as of the Effective Date except as modified by the Project Approvals and this Agreement. 12.2 Revised Application Fees. Any existing application, processing, legal services and inspection fees that are revised during the term of this Agreement shall apply to the Project provided that (1) such fees have general applicability; and (2) the application of such fees to the Project is prospective. 12.3 New Taxes. Any subsequently enacted City-wide taxes shall apply to the Project provided that the application of such taxes to the Project is prospective. 12.4 Assessments. Nothing herein shall be construed to relieve the Project from assessments levied against it by City pursuant to any statutory procedure for the assessment of property to pay for infrastructure and/or services which benefit the Project. 12.5 Vote on Future Assessments and Fees. In the event that any assessment, fee or charge which is applicable to the Project is subject to Article XIIID of the California Constitution and Owner does not return its ballot, Owner agrees, on behalf of itself and its successors that City may count Owner's ballot as affirmatively voting in favor of such assessment, fee or charge.} 672338 6 12 Created by Kaj Created on 1/9/2004 12:25 PM - 9 4 - 12.6 Infrastructure. Certain infrastructure improvements will be required for the Project. Such infrastructure improvements will be finally determined at or prior to approval of the Final Map for the Project. At a minimum, all infrastructure improvements shall be constructed to the satisfaction and requirements of the City's Public Works Director. The Owner shall enter into a Subdivision Improvement Agreement which shall provide for construction of the improvements and a fight-of-entry to construct the improvements within City right-of-way. Owner shall complete construction of the improvements and offer them to City for dedication prior to occupancy of any structure. Construction of such improvements shall be at Owner's sole cost and expense and consistent with the Project Approvals. This section shall survive termination of this Agreement. Section 13. Affordable Housing. Owner shall comply with the provisions of City's Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance (South S an Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 20.12 5) in effect at the time o f approval o f Project. 13.1 On-Site Units Required. All required moderate income and low income units for the Project shall be located onsite and provided in the manner set forth in the Affordable Housing Agreement. A minimum of 20% of the total units constructed on the Project shall be inclusionary units consistent with the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance. 13.2 Phasing of Inclusionary Units. Owner has or will enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement, as required by the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance, and substantially in the form attached as Exhibit F. Notwithstanding any terms in the Affordable Housing Agreement to the contrary, construction of the inclusionary units shall occur contemporaneously with construction of the market rate units. No Certificate of Occupancy/Final Building Permit for market rate units shall be issued unless the applicable pro-rata permits/certificates for the moderate income and low income units have been issued as provided in, and in accordance with, the Affordable Housing Agreement and the Phasing Plan. 13.3 Marketin~ Concept. Owner has agreed to proactively market the moderate and low income units to: 1) Employees of the South San Francisco Unified School District; 2) Employees of other governmental agencies located in the City of South San Francisco; and, 3) 672338 6 13 Created by Kaj Created on 1/9/2004 12:25 PM - 9 5 - Existing low-income qualified residents of the City of South San Francisco (collectively "Priority Group"). 13.3.1 The Parties agree that the moderate and low income units in the Project shall be marketed in a manner such that the units are targeted specifically for rent to the members of the Priority Group. 13.3.2 Owner shall develop and implement a comprehensive strategy for notifying the Priority Group members and soliciting their interest in leasing the units. 13.3.3 City shall provide, upon request of Owner and to the extent maintained by City, a list of those qualified individuals that have expressed an interest in leasing affordable units. 13.3.4 The parties acknowledge that nothing herein or in the marketing plan shall obligate or cause Owner or City to violate State or Federal Fair Housing laws. 13.4 This section shall survive termination of this agreement. Section 14. Maintenance of Property. Owner or an entity acceptable to the Parties shall maintain all of the Property subject to this Agreement for the Project in perpetuity. The Property shall be maintained in accordance with City requirements and the Covenant, Conditions and Restrictions applicable to the commercial/retail components, to prevent accumulation of litter and trash, to keep weeds abated, and to provide erosion control, and other requirements set forth in Chapter 19 of the Zoning Code, subject to City approval. 14.1 Any provisions of the conditions, covenants, and restrictions governing and relating to the maintenance obligations under this section shall be subject to review by the City Attorney and shall be enforceable by the City. 672338 6 Created by Kaj Created on 1/9/2004 12:25 PM 14 -96- 14.2 The City will maintain improvements within the public right-of-way which have been dedicated to and accepted by City, provided that frontage improvements consisting of sidewalks and landscaping located behind the street curb or extension of the curb will be maintained by Owner. 14.3 Owner agrees to record a declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions or a similar document against the Property before issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any structure on such property, which declaration will covenant Owner, on behalf of itself and its successors, to maintain all frontage improvements, in accordance with the Project Approvals. 14.4 This section shall survive termination of this Agreement. Section 15. Public Art Contribution. Owner agrees to contribute Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000) to City for use by City for construction of public art within the Project. Owner will pay $25,000 to City prior to issuance of the first building permit for the Project and $ 25,000 prior to occupancy of any portion of the Project. City will consult with Owner regarding the selection of public art to be purchased with such monies. In lieu of said monetary contribution, Owner may elect to purchase and install public art on the Project property with the value of said art to be at least $50,000. Section 16. Park Fees. 16.1 Fair Market Value of Property,. The parties ackn__ow!edge that for purposes of calculation of the fee amount payable to the City in lieu of park land dedication required under South San Francisco Code (the "Code") Section 19.24.030, et seq. (the "Park Fee"), in connection with the project, the fair market value of each buildable acre shall equal the base purchase price paid by Owner ($16,140,000)for the entire property divided by the gross acreage of the entire property (8.48 acres). 16.2 Net Park Fee. Based upon such fair market value of each buildable acre and the formula and calculation set forth in Exhibit H attached hereto and incorporated herein, the 672338 6 Created by Kaj Created on 1/9/2004 12:25 PM 15 -97- Net Park Fee due to the City in coimection with the Project is $3,120,297. This mount is equal to the difference of the Total Park Fee minus the Park Fee Credit. 16.3 Park Fee Credit Calculation. The Park Fee Credit is determined by the land and construction costs of the on-site private and public open space and recreational amenities. The Park Fee Credit is calculated in Exhibit H and amounts to $2,898,400. The Owner is entitled to receive a credit against the Total Park Fee for the Project in an amount not to exceed fifty percent (50%) of the Total Park Fee due, in accordance with Section 19.24.030, et seq. of the Code. It is noted that the Park Fee calculation is based on 360 apartment homes. The Net Park Fee will be adjusted if the total number of units changes. Section 17. Child Care Fees. Pursuant to South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 20.115, Owner is required to pay a Child Care Impact Fee for each dwelling unit and the commercial spaces constructed in the Project. In consideration of the additional impact of the Project on childcare facilities, and in lieu of providing a facility on-site, the Owner will provide an Additional Childcare Fee contribution of $600 per market rate unit. City may use this fee to acquire an appropriate parcel for childcare use, construct new childcare facilities, rehabilitate existing facilities or to secure child care spaces in existing facilities located in the City of South San Francisco. Payment of the additional fee shall not result in any credit or offset whatsoever against the Child Care Fee established in South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 20.115. Said fee shall be paid at or prior to approval of Final Map. Section 18. Timing. Time is of the essence for this Agreement. Owner hereby expressly agrees to complete the Project in the time and manner in which it was approved, including the construction of the commercial and retail components of the Project currently with the residential components of the Project in accordance with this Agreement and the Phasing Plan attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit G. Said construction of the commercial and retail components is a material term of this Agreement and a failure to construct in accordance with this Agreement and the 672338 6 16 Created by Kaj Created on 1/9/2004 12:25 PM - 9 8 - Project Approvals shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement entitling City to all remedies provided herein. Section 19. Amendment or Cancellation 19.1 Modification Because of Conflict with State or Federal Laws. In the event that state or federal laws or regulations enacted after the Effective Date prevent or preclude compliance with one or more provisions of this Agreement or require changes in plans, maps or permits approved by the City, the parties shall meet and confer in good faith in a reasonable attempt to modify this Agreement to comply with such federal or state law or regulation. Any such amendment or suspension of the Agreement shall be approved by the City Council in accordance with Chapter 19.60. 19.2 Amendment by Mutual Consent. This Agreement may be further amended or terminated only in writing and in the manner set forth in Government Code Sections 65865.1, 65868, 65869.5 and Chapter 19.60 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. 672338 6 Created by Kaj Created on 1/9/2004 12:25 PM 19.3 Public Hearing for Amendments to Agreement. Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding paragraph 19.2, any amendments to this Agreement which relate to (a) the term of the Agreement as provided in Section 3.2; (b) the permitted uses of the Project as provided in Sections 3.4 and 8.2; (c) provisions for reservation or dedication of land; (d) conditions, terms, restrictions, vested rights or requirements for development; (e) the density or intensity of use of the Project; (7 the maximum height or size of proposed buildings; (g) monetary contributions.and payment of fees by Owner as provided in this Agreement; or (h) the Project Approvals shall require notice or public hearing before both the Planning Commission and the City Council before the parties may execute an amendment hereto. Any amendment to this Agreement that is not subject to the public hearing and notice requirements shall nonetheless be in writing and signed by the City Manager. The determination as to whether an amendment is required to be approved by the Planning Commission and City Council shall be made by the Director of Economic and Community Development in his/her sole and absolute discretion and such decision shall be final. Any amendment to this Agreement approved 17 -99- without a duly noticed public hearing being held to review such amendment shall not confer any vested right in such amendment where such right would vest only as a result of this Agreement. 19.4 Amendment of Project Approvals. Any amendment of Project Approvals relating to: (a) the permitted uses of the Project; (b) provision for reservation or dedication of land; (c) conditions, terms, restrictions or requirements for subsequent discretionary actions; (d) the density or intensity of use; (e) the maximum height or size of proposed buildings; (f) monetary contributions or payment of fees by the Owner; (g) public improvements to be constructed by Owner; (h) or the vested rights of Owner pursuant to this Agreement and the Project Approvals, if applicable, shall require an amendment of this Agreement. Said amendment shall be approved in the same manner in which this Agreement was adopted. Any non-substantive amendment of the Project Approvals, or any of them, shall not require amendment of this Agreement unless the amendment of the Project Approval(s) relates SPecifically to some provision of this Agreement. Owner shall not obtain any vested rights under this Agreement for any amendment to the Project Approvals that is not approved in the same manner in which this Agreement was adopted. 19.5 Cancellation by Mutual Consent. Except as otherwise permitted herein, this Agreement may be canceled in whole or in part only by the mutual consent of the parties or their successors in interest, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 19. Any fees paid and/or land dedicated pursuant to this Agreement prior to the date of cancellation shall be retained by City. 19.6 Conflict with State or Federal Law. In the event that State or Federal laws or regulations, enacted after the Effective Date, prevent or preclude compliance with one or more provisions of this Agreement, such provisions of this Agreement shall be modified or suspended as may be necessary to comply with such State or Federal laws or regulations. The Project shall be deemed modified only to the extent necessary to comply with f~amre state or federal laws or regulations. No~Sthstanding the foregoing, Owner shall have the right to challenge, at its sole cost, in a court of competent 672338 6 18 Created by Kaj Created on 1/9/2004 12:25 PM - 1 0 0 - jurisdiction, the law or regulation preventing compliance with the terms oft his Agreement and, if the challenge in a court of competent jurisdiction is successful, this Agreement shall remain unmodified and in full force and effect. Section 20. Annual Review 20.1 Review Date. The annual review date for this Agreement shall be January 2005 and each January thereafter. In the event the City Council is unable to review this Agreement in January of any review year, the heating for such review shall be scheduled at the first available meeting of the City Council thereafter. Said date shall be established in consultation with the City Manager and determined in his/her sole and absolute discretion. 20.2 Initiation of Review. The City's Economic Community Development Director shall initiate the annual review, as required under Chapters 19.60.185,19.60.190, 19.60.200 and19.60.210, by giving to Owner thirty (30) days' written notice that the City intends to undertake such review. Owner shall provide evidence to the Community Development Director prior to the heating on the annual review, as and when reasonably determined necessary by the Community Development Director, to demonstrate good faith compliance with the provisions of the Development Agreement as provided in Government Code §§ 65684 et. seq. The burden of proof by substantial evidence of compliance is upon the Owner. 20.3 Staff Reports. To the extent practical, City shall deposit in the mail and fax to Owner a copy of all staff reports, and related exhibits concerning contract performance at least five (5) days prior to any annual review. 20.4 Costs. Costs reasonably incurred by City in connection with the annual review shall be paid by Owner in accordance with the City's Master Fee Schedule and governing contracts for consultant and legal services, in effect at the time of review. Section 21. Default. 672338 6 Created by Kaj Created on 1/9/2004 12:25 PM 19 -101- 21.1 Owner shall be in default under tiffs Agreement upon the happening of one of more of the following events: 21.1.1 If a warranty, representation or statement made or furnished by Owner to the City is false or proves to have been false in any material respect when it was made; or 21.1.2 A finding and determination by the City made following an annual or special review under the procedure provided for in Government Code Section 65865.1 and Chapter 19.60 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code that, upon the basis of substantial evidence, Owner have not complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. 21.1.3 Owner fails to fulfill any of its obligations set forth in tiffs Agreement. 21.2 Other Remedies Available. Upon the occurrence of an event of default, the Parties may pursue all other remedies at law or in equity which are not otherwise provided for in tiffs Agreement or in City's regulations governing development agreements, expressly including the remedy of specific performance of tiffs Agreement. 21.3 Procedure Upon Default. Upon the occurrence of an event of default, City may terminate or modify this Agreement in accordance with the provisions of Government Code Section 65865.1 and Chapter 19.60 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. 21.4 The City shall not be deemed to have waived any claim of defect in Owners' performance if, on annual or special review, the City does not propose to terminate tiffs Agreement. 21.5 No waiver or failure by the City or Owner to enforce any provision of this Agreement shall be deemed to be a waiver of any provision of this Agreement or of any subsequent breach of the same or any other provision. 672338 6 20 Created by Kaj Created on 1/9/2004 12:25 PM - 1 0 2 - 21.6 Any actions for breach of this Agreement shall be decided in a court of competent jurisdiction located in San Mateo Country, California. By signing this Agreement, Owner hereby waives any right to a jury trial for breach of this Agreement. 21.7 The City shall give Owner written notice of any default under this Agreement, and Owner shall have thirty (30) days after the date of the notice to cure the default or to reasonably commence the procedures or actions needed to cure the default. 21.8 No Damages Against City. In no event shall damages be awarded against City upon an event of default or upon termination of this Agreement. Owner shall be entitled only to the City's specific performance of its obligations hereunder and any attorneys' fees awarded by a court to Owner in accordance with Section 25 of this Agreement. Section 22. Estoppel Certificate Either party may, at any time, and from time to time, request written notice from the other party requesting such party to certify in writing that, (a) this Agreement is in full force and effect and a binding obligation of the parties, (b) this Agreement has not been amended or modified either orally or in writing, or if so amended, identifying the amendments, and (c) to the knowledge of the certifying party the requesting party is not in default in the performance of its obligations under this Agreement, or if in default, to describe therein the nature and amount of any such defaults. 22.1 Time for Executing Certificate. A party receiving a request hereunder shall execute and return such certificate within thirty (30) days following the receipt thereof, or such longer period as may reasonably be agreed to by the parties. 22.2 Authority to Execute Certificate. The. City Manager of City shall be authorized to execute any certificate requested by Owner provided that the City Council has reviewed this Agreement in accordance with Chapter 19.60 within three (3) months of the request for said certificate. If a request for a compliance certificate is made and this Agreement has not been reviewed by the City Council during the three months preceding the request, no 672338 6 21 Created by Kaj Created on 1/9/2004 12:25 PM - 1 0 3 - certificate of compliance shall issue until the City Council has determined that Owner has complied or is in substantial compliance with, the terms of this Agreement. 22.3 Request within 90 days of Effective Date. Notwithstanding the foregoing, provided that Owner has not received a permit for the Project, including grading or other pre- construction permits, a Compliance Certificate may be issued by the City Manager without the formal review required in Section 22.2 of this Agreement. 22.4 No Default for Failure to Execute Certificate. Should the party receiving the request not execute and return such certificate within the applicable period, this shall not be deemed to be a default. Section 23. Mortgagee Protection: Certain Rights of Cure 23.1 Mortgagee Protection. This Agreement shall be superior and senior to any lien placed upon the Project, or any portion thereof after the date of recording this Agreement, including the lien for any deed of trust or mortgage ("Mortgage"). Notwithstanding the foregoing, no breach hereof shall defeat, render invalid, diminish or impair the lien of any Mortgage made in good faith and for value, but all the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement shall be binding upon and effective against any person or entity, including any deed of trust beneficiary or mortgagee ("Mortgagee") who acquires title to the Project, or any portion thereof, by foreclosure, trustee's sale, deed in lieu of foreclosure, or otherwise. 23.2 Mortgagee Not Obligated. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 23.1 above, no Mortgagee shall have any obligation or duty under this Agreement, before or after foreclosure or a deed in lieu of foreclosure, to construct or complete the construction of improvements, or to guarantee such construction of improvements, or to guarantee such construction or completion, or to pay, perform or provide any fee, dedication, improvements or other exaction or imposition; provided, however, that a Mortgagee shall not be entitled to devote the Property to any uses or to construct any improvements thereon other than those uses or improvements provided for or authorized by the Project Approvals or by this Agreement. 23.3 Notice of Default to Mortgagee and Extension of Right to Cure. If City receives notice from a Mortgagee requesting a copy of any notice of default given Owner hereunder and 672338 6 22 Created by Kaj Created on 1/9/2004 12:25 PM - 1 0 4 - specifying the address for service thereof, then City shall deliver to such Mortgagee, concurrently with service thereon to Owner, any notice given to Owner with respect to any claim by City that Owner has committed an event of default. Each Mortgagee shall have the right during the same period available to Owner to cure or remedy, or to commence to cure or remedy, the event of default claimed set forth in the City's notice. City, through its City Manager, may extend the thirty-day cure period provided in Section __ for not more than an additional sixty (60) days upon request of Owner or a Mortgagee. Section 24. Severability The unenforceability, invalidity or illegality of any provisions, covenant, condition or term of this Agreement shall not render the other provisions unenforceable, invalid or illegal. Section 25. Attorneys' Fees and Costs If City or Owner initiates any action at law or in equity to enforce or interpret the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in addition to any other relief to which it may otherwise be entitled. If any person or entity not a party to this Agreement initiates an action at law or in equity to challenge the validity of any provision of this Agreement, the Project Approvals, or City's actions pursuant to this Agreement, the parties shall cooperate in defending such action. Owner shall bear its own costs of defense as a real party in interest in any such action, and shall reimburse City for all reasonable court costs and attorneys' fees expended by City in defense of any such action or other proceeding and for any attorney's fees and costs awarded to a pa_ ~rty to be paid by City. Section 26. Transfers and Assignments 672338 6 Created by Kaj Created on 1/9/2004 12:25 PM 26.1 Right to Assign. Owner may sell, transfer or assign all of the Property to another Owner ("Transferee"). In connection with any such sale, transfer or assignment to a Transferee, Owner may sell, transfer or assign to such Transferee all rights, interests and obligations of Owner arising hereunder provided, however, that no such transfer, sale or assignment of Owner's rights, interests and obligations hereunder shall occur without prior written notice to City and approval by the City Manager (which shall be for the 23 -105- purpose of assuring City that the proposed transferee can perform Owner's obligations hereunder), which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. 26.2 Approval and Notice of Sale, Transfer or Assignment. The City Manger shall consider and decide on any transfer, sale or assignment within ten (10) working days after Owner's notice, provided all necessary documents, certifications and other information showing the proposed transferee can perform Owner's obligations are first provided to the City Manager. Notice of any such approved sale, transfer or assignment shall be recorded in the official records of San Mateo County, in a form acceptable to the City Manager, concurrently with such sale, transfer or assignment. 26.3 Effect of Sale, Transfer or Assignment. Owner shall be released from any obligations hereunder sold, transferred or assigned to a Transferee pursuant to subparagraph 26.1 of this Agreement, provided that: a) such sale, transfer or assignment has been approved by the City Manager pursuant to subparagraph 26.2 of this Agreement; b) such obligations are expressly assumed by Transferee; and 3) that Transferee is subject to all the provisions hereof and has provided all necessary documents, certifications and other necessary information prior to City Manager approval pursuant to subparagraph 26.2 of this Agreement. As a condition precedent to any such transfer, Owner shall require the Transferee to acknowledge in writing that Transferee has been informed, understands and agrees that the burdens and benefits under this Agreement relating to such transferred property shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Transferee. 26.4 Permitted Transfer, Purchase or Assignment. The sale or other transfer of any interest in the Property to a purchaser ("Purchaser") pursuant to the exercise of any right or remedy under a deed of trust encumbering Owner's interest in the Property shall not require City Manager approval pursuant to the provision of paragraph 26.2. Any subsequent transfer, sale or assignment by the Purchaser to a subsequent transferee, purchaser, or assignee shall be subject to the provisions of paragraph 26.2. 672338 6 24 Created by Kaj Created on 1/9/2004 12:25 PM - 1 0 6 - 26.5 Sale of a Portion of Property. The sale or transfer of a portion of the Project shall not require approval by the City Manager but the New Owner shall enter into a Development Agreement, which Agreement will include any of the infrastructure obligations of Owner which Owner may wish to assign to a new Owner. This section may be waived by the City Manager upon a determination that the infrastructure improvements have been completed or that the Project Approvals and the documents submitted pursuant to the Project Approvals, including but not limited to the Subdivision Improvement Agreement, provide adequate assurances as to the responsible party for constructing said improvements. Section 27. Acquisition of Other Property; Eminent Domain In order to facilitate and insure development of the Project in accordance with the Project Approvals, the City may assist Owner, at Owner's sole cost and expense, in acquiring any easements or properties necessary for the satisfaction and completion of any off site components of the Project required by the City Council in its approval of the Project and the Project Approvals, in the event Owner is unable to acquire such easements or properties or the Owner is unable to secure the necessary agreements with the applicable property Owner for such easements or properties. Owner expressly acknowledges that the City is under no obligation to use its power of Eminent Domain. Section 28. Agreement Runs with the Land. All of the provisions, rights, terms, covenants, and obligations contained i_n_ this Agreement shall be binding upon the parties and their respective heirs, successors and assignees, representatives, lessees, and all other persons acquiring the Project, or any portion thereof, or any interest therein, whether by operation of law or in any manner whatsoever. All of the provisions of this Agreement shall be enforceable as equitable servitude and shall constitute covenants running with the land pursuant to applicable laws, including, but not limited to, Section 1468 of the Civil Code of the State of Cahfornia. Each covenant to do, or refrain from doing, some act on the Project hereunder, or with respect to any owned property, (a) is for the benefit of such properties and is a burden upon such properties, (b) runs with such properties, and (c) is binding upon each party and each successive Owner during its ownership of such properties or any 672338 6 25 Created by Kaj Created on 1/9/2004 12:25 PM - 1 0 7 - portion thereof, and shall be a benefit to and a burden upon each party and its property hereunder and each other person succeeding to an interest in such properties. Section 29. No Third Party Beneficiaries No person other than the City, Owner, or their respective successors is intended to or shall have any right or claim under this Agreement, this Agreement being for the sole benefit and protection of the parties hereto and their respective successors. Similarly, no amendment or waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall require the consent or acknowledgement of any person not a Party or successor to this Agreement. Section 30. Bankruptcy The obligations of this Agreement shall not be dischargeable in bankruptcy. Section 31. Indemnification Owner agrees to indemnify, defend (with Counsel selected by City) and hold harmless City, and its elected and appointed councils, boards, commissions, officers, agents, employees, and representatives from any and all claims, costs (including administrative claims, actions, penalties and or fines, legal fees and costs) and liability for any personal injury or property damage which may arise directly or indirectly as a result of any actions or inactions by the Owner, or any actions or inactions of Owner's contractors, subcontractors, agents, or employees in connection with the construction, improvement, operation, or maintenance of the Project, respect to the gross negligence or willful misconduct of City, its contractors, subcontractors, agents or employees, or with respect to the maintenance, use or condition of any improvement after the time it has been dedicated to and accepted by the City or another public entity (except as otherwise provided in an improvement agreement or maintenance bond). Section 32. Insurance 32.1 Public Liability and ProperW Damage Insurance. At all times that Owner is constructing any improvements that will become public improvements, Owner 672338 6 Created by Kaj Created on 1/9/2004 12:25 PM 26 -108- shall maintain in effect a policy of comprehensive general liability insurance with a per-occurrence combined single limit of not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) and a deductible of not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) per claim. The policy so maintained by Owner shall name the City as an additional insured and shall include either a severability of interest clause or cross-liability endorsement. 32.2 Workers Compensation Insurance. At all times that Owner is constructing any improvements that will become public improvements Owner shall maintain Worker's Compensation insurance for all persons employed by Owner for work at the Project site or for work performed pursuant to this Agreement. Owner shall require each contractor and subcontractor similarly to provide Worker's Compensation insurance for its respective employees. Owner agrees to indemnify the City for any damage resulting from Owner's failure to maintain any such insurance. 32.3 Evidence of Insurance. Prior to commencement of construction of any improvements which will become public improvements, Owner shall furnish City satisfactory evidence of the insurance required in Sections 32.3 and 32.3 evidence that the carrier is required to give the City at least fifteen days prior written notice of the cancellation or reduction in coverage of a policy. The insurance shall extend to the City, its elective and appointive boards, commissions, officers, agents, employees and representatives and to Owner performing work on the Project and pursuant to this Agreement. Owner may satisfy the requirements of this Section by providing a Certificate of self insurance. Section 33. Notices All notices required or provided for under this Agreement shall be in writing. Notices required to be given to City shall be addressed as follows: City Manager City of South San Francisco 672338 6 Created by Kaj Created on 1/9/2004 12:25 PM 27 -109- 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Notices required to be given to OWNER shall be addressed as follows: Name/Title: Patrick J. Gavin, Vice President Fairfield Residential 5510 Morehouse Drive, Ste 200 San Diego, CA 92121 A party may change addresses by giving notice in writing to the other party and thereafter all notices shall be addressed and transmitted to the new address. Notices shall be deemed given and received upon personal delivery, or if mailed, upon the expiration of 48 hours after being deposited in the United States Mail. Notices may also be given by overnight courier which shall be deemed given the following day or by facsimile transmission which shall be deemed given upon verification of receipt. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if said notice relates to the filing of any request for judicial action by Owner or its agents, successors or heirs, to enforce or challenge or in any way relates to this Agreement, the Project Approvals or other discretionary or ministerial action or inaction of the City, notice shall only be provided by personal service to the City Clerk for the City of South San Francisco. Section 34. Agreement is Entire Understanding This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding and agreement of the parties and supercedes any oral, written or other communication or understandings between the parties. Section 35. Exhibits The following documents are referred to in this Agreement and are attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full: 35.1 Exhibit A - Legal Description of Property 35.2 Exhibit B - Use Permit Plan Set 672338 6 28 Created by Kaj Created on 1/9/2004 12:25 PM - 1 1 0 - 35.3 35.4 35.5 35.6 35.7 35.8 Exhibit C- Reporting Plan Exhibit D - Parcel Map dated Exhibit E - Conditions of Approval Exhibit F- Exhibit G - Exhibit H - Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and ,2003 Affordable Housing Agreement Phasing Plan Park Fee Calculation Section 35. Counterparts This Agreement is executed in three (3) duplicate originals, each of which is deemed to be an original. Section 37. Force Majeure Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, either party shall be excused for the period of any delay in the performance of any of its obligations hereunder, when prevented fi:om so doing by certain causes beyond its reasonable control, including, and limited to, major weather differences fi:om the normal weather conditions for the South San Francisco area, war, acts of God, or of the public enemy, fn'es, floods, strikes, fi:eight embargoes, and acts of the government (other than the City). IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed as of the date and year first above written. City of South San Francisco By: Michael A. Wilson, City Manager Date: ATTEST: By: Date: Sylvia M. Payne, City Clerk Approved as to Form: 672338 6 29 Created by Kaj Created on 1/9/2004 12:25 PM - 1 1 1 - Steven T. Mattas, City Attorney Fairfield Residential, LLC By: Title: 672338 6 Created by Kaj Created on 1/9/2004 12:25 PM 30 -112- EXHIBIT A SITE PLAN -113- Site Plan Fairfield Residential LLC South San Francisco Transit Oriented Development City Council Submittal January 14, 2004 COSTCO W-C2 Fairfield Residential LLC South San Francisco Transit Oriented Development ?lanning Department Submittal November 20, 2003 I Fairfiekl R~siclcntial LLC Sooth San Francisco Transit Oriented Development Ptannin~ Depaament November 20, 2003 Td-C2 Fairfield Residential LLC South San Francisco Transit Oriented Development Planning Department Submittal November 20, 2003 COSTCO Fairfield Residential LLC South San Francisco Transit Oriented Development Planning Department Submittal November 20, 2003 W-C3 t ReSidential LLc '1 Fairfield Residential LLC South San Francisco Transit Oriented Development Planning Department Submittal November 20, 2003 T J-C3. EXHIBIT B USE PERMIT PLAN SET -121- South San Francisco Transit Oriented City Council Submittal January 14, 2004 Development Fairfield Residential LLC South San Francisco Transit Oriented Development City Council Submittal January 14, 2004 Fairfield Residential LLC Project: South San Francisco Transit Village Date: tl-20-03 A1 A2 A3 B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 THI Area of Site- AC 7.3 Dwelling Units _ DU 360 Site Density- DU/AC 49.32 Parking Count 665 Building Height (4-story) 47' Building Height (3-story) 37' Unl( Type ~ ~: ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~: ;; ~i~::S!~e :East:Site!~ Totql ~:~ ~,~ ~; Un [ Mix ?/~ :,Unit ,$F: t:,, !~; ~ '~:!;~ ~ Total,SE Ibr/lba 112 109 221 61.4% 750 165,750 lbr/lba 0 3 3 0.8% 872 2,616 lbr/lba/den 3 0 3 0.8% 1,112 3,336 2br/2ba 34 33 67 18.6% 1,054 70,618 2br/2ba 6 6 12 3.3% 1,266 15,192 2br/2ba 8 8 8 2.2% 1,134 9,072 2br/2ba 2 2 4 1.1% 1,288 5,152 2br/2ba 10 19 29 8.1% 1,103 31,987 1bt townhouse 13 0 13 3.6% 1,327 17,251 Commercial Retail 4,000 7,000 11,0DO Betail Box 12,000 0 i 2,000 ILsasing and Clubhouse I 2,9~31Z,7921 ~,ZZ5I Resident Parking (I .5 per unit) 283 258 541 Guest Parking 32 28 60 Mclellan 11 13 24. Betail Box 64 0 64 Fairfield Residential LLC Sonth San Francisco Transit Oriented Development City Council Submittal January 14, 2004 ~ai~field R~siclential £Lc LEGEND ~ ...... PUBLIC;'URBAN EDGEEXPERIENCE CIRCULATION · a, · INTERIOR GARDEN EXPERIENCE CIRCULATION [] GATED ENTRY ~ ~,,,~ AMENITY/GATHERING SPACES PEDESTRIAN EXPERIENTIAL DIAGRAM Fairfield Residential [,LC South San Francisco Transit Oriented Development City Council Submittal January 14, 2004 Enlarged McLellan Drive Plan TREE PALETTE Fairfield Residential LLC Sonth San Francisco Transit Oriented Development City CouDcil Submittal January 14, 2004 Limit of Work ~ .~t e~:I 'Entry BART Plaza Edge BART Plaza BART Transit Station Chinese Hackberry Community Plaza Community Plaza London Plane Tree 14'-6" Fairfield Reside~]tial LLC South San Francisco Transit Oriented Development City Council Submittal January 14, 2004 South San Fra,disco Fairfield Residential LLC South San Francisco Transit Oriented Development City Council Submittal January 14, 2004 Fairfield Residential LLC South San Francisco Transit Oriented Development City Council Submittal January 14, 2004 View along El Camino Retail al McLellan Fai~'field Residential LLC South San Fraocisco Transit Oriented Development City Council Submittal January 14, 2004 Fairfield Residential [,LC South San Francisco Transit Oriented Development City Council Submittal January 14, 2004 c~oss El Camino rfield Residential LLC South San Francisco Transit Oriented Development City Council Submittal January 14, 2004 View e[ midblock lane Fai~:field Reside~tial LLC Sonth San Francisco Transit Oriented Development City Council Submittal January 14, 2_004 View of ieterior court and children's play area Fairfield Residential LLC Soutl~ San Francisco Transit Oriented Development City Council Submittal January 14, 2004 View from BAFI r Plaza Fairfield Residential LLC Sonth San Francisco Transit Oriented Development City Council Submittal January 14, 2004 Fairfield Residential LLC South San Francisco Transit Oriented Development City Council Submittal January 14, 2004 View of large retail entry Fairfield Residential LLC South San Francisco Transit Oriented Development City Council Submittal January 14, 2004 Fairfield Residential LLC South San Francisco Transit Oriented Development City Council Submittal Januaw 14, 2004 Fairfield Residential LLC Sonth San Francisco Transit Oriented Development City Council Submittal January 14, 2004 East Site West Site Site Section through El Camino Fairfield Residential LLC South San Francisco Transit Oriented Development City Council Submittal January 14, 2004 ? ?? ? Fairfield Residential LLC South San Francisco Transit Oriented Development Planning Department SubmittaJ November 20, 2003 ? ? ? Fairfield Residential LLC South San Francisco Transit Oriented Development Planning Department Submittal November 20, 2003 Fairfield Residential LLC South San Francisco Transit Oriented Development Planning Department Submittal November 20. 2003 Fairfield Residential LLC South San Francisco Transit Oriented Development Planning Department Submittal November 20, 2003 Fairfield Residential LLC ~ TDWNHDU~E ~qST ~(I~,Ai?QN ~ South San Francisco Transit Oriented Development Planning Department Submittal November 20, 2003 Fairfield Residential LLC South San Francisco Transit Oriented Development Planning Department Submittal November 20, 2003 I.. I Fairfield Residential LLC South San Francisco Transit Oriented Development Planning Department Submittal November 20, 2003 ® ® Fairfield Residential LLC South San Francisco Transit Oriented Development Planning Department Submittal November 20, 2003 EXHIBIT C MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM -149- Fairfield Mixed-Use Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program October 2002 Mitigation Measure Mitigation Measure 1. All exterior lights sliall be equipped with cut-off lenses and fixture..!; to reduce spill over of unwanted light to residential areas and areas off of the site. Lights for commercial and office uses shall be dimmed or t~rned off during closed evenin.g hours as approved by the South San Franci~,i;co Plannh~g Department. Implementing Responsibility Project Contractor Monitoriug Responsibility_ South San Francisco Plmming Division Monitoring Schedule Prior to issuance of a building permit Verification Mitigation Measure Implementing Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Schedule Verification Mitigation Measure 2. The following measures are recommended for inclusion in cc,nstruction specifications to control fugitive dust emissions. a. Water ali active construction areas at least twice daily. b. Water or cover stockpiles of debris, soil, sand or other materials that can be blown by the wind. c. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of h'eeboard. d. Sweep daily (preferably with water sweepers) all paved access road, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. e. Sweep streets daily (preferably with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. Project Contractor South San Francisco Public Works Department Prior to issuance of a grading permit Faidield Mixed-Use Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of South San Francisco Page 2 Mitigation Measure Verification Mitigation Measure 3. If historic, archeological or Native American materials or artifacts are identified during project construclion, work on the project shall cease until a resource protection plan colfforming to CEQA Section 15064.5 is prepared by a qualified archeologist and / or paleontologist and approved by the South San Francisco Chief Planner. Project work may be resumed in compliance with such plan. If human remains are encountered, the County Coroner shal| be contacted immediately and the provisions of State law carried out. M~tigation Measure 4. Contract specifications for tliis project shall require the preparation and implementation of an erosion control plan for all portions of the project that would involve trenching, excavation or stockpiling of dirt. The plan shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and be consistent with City of South San Francisco and Regional Water Quality C'ontrol Board guidelines and standards. Implementing Responsibility Project Developer Project Developer Monitoring Responsibility South San Francisco Plam~ing Division South San Francisco Public Works Department Monitoriug Schedule During project construction During project construction Fairfield Mixed-Use Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of South San Francisco Page 3 Mitigation Measure Implementing Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Schedule Verification Mitigation Measure 5. Prior to issuance ot7 a grading permit for the project, all contaminated material shall be removed from the site by a qualified contractor under permits and/or approvals &om all applicable regulatory agencies. A clearance letter for the site shall be furnished to the City from the San Mateo County Health Department or other appropriate regulatory agency. Project developer South San Francisco Planning Division Prior to issuance of a grading permit Fairfield Mixed-Use Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of South San Francisco Page 4 Mitigation Measure Impleineuting Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Schedule Verification Mitigation Measure 7. The project developer's civil engineer shall prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) adhering to City of South San Francisco and Regional Water Quality Control Board standards to assure adherence to surface water quality standards for both construction and loug-term operational phases of the project. The SWPPP shall incorporate the most recent Best Management Practices, including, but not limited to provision of storm water filters, fi'equent sweeping of the site, labeling storm drain inlets and adding a permanent cover over solid waste dumpsters. Project Developer South San Francisco Public Works Departmeut Prior to issuance of a grading permit Fairfield Mixed-Use Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of South San Francisco Page 6 Mitigation Measnre Implementing Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Schednle Verification Mitigation Measure 8. Final building plans for all residential buildings shall include provisions for reducing interior noise levels to state and local noise exposure levels and ensuring that exterior spaced comply with City of South San Francisco noise exposure levels. Methods for complying with interior noise levels may include but are limited to sound-rated windows, noise insulation and similar features. Methods for meeting City exterior noise exposure levels may include construction of noise barriers, use of buildings to shield outdoor areas and simihr features. Final building plans shall be stamped by a qualified acoustical consultant tlmt the plans comply with City of South San Francisco and State of California exterior and interior noise standards. Project developer South San Francisco Plmming Division Prior to issuance of a building permit Fairfield Mixed-Use Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of South San Francisco Page 7 Mitigation Measure Nlltigation Measure 9. Prior to issuance ora grading permit, the prQect developer shall prepare and submit a Construction Noise Management Plan to the South San Francisco Planning Deparhnent. At mhfimum, the Phm shall address hours of construction operation to be consistent with the City's noise ordinam:e, a requirement for providing mufflers on all gasoline or diesel-powered equipment, reliance on electrically powered tools and similar requirements. The Plan shall specify a noise coordinator with a 24- hour contact person to be posted prominently on the project site. The Plan shall be approved by the South San Francisco Chief Plam~er prior to issuance of a gradh~g permit. Implementing Responsibility Project Developer Monitoring Responsibility South San Francisco Building Division and Plmmh~g Division Monitoring Schedule Prior to issuance of a gradh~g permit. Verification Fairfield Mixed-Use Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of South San Francisco Page 8 Mitigation Measure Implemeuting Responsibility Monitoriug Responsibility Monitoring Schedule Verification Mitigation Measure 10. Pr/or to issuance of the first building permit for the project, the project developer shall submit a Safety and Security Plan to the City of South Francisco Police and Plamdng Departments. The Plan shall incIude specific measures to reduce potential security issues to a less-than- significant level. Items to be addressed in the Plan may include but is not limited to location and levels of security lighting, provision of locks and security devices, and provision for private security seiwices. The Safety and Security Plan shall be approved by the Police and Plam~ing Departments proper to issuance of a building permit. Project Developer South San Francisco Police Department and Plam~ing Division Fairfield Mixed-Use Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of South San Francisco Page 9 Mitigation Measure Verification Mitigation Measure 11. Tire project developer' shall develop and implement a Transportation Demand Managemeut Program for the proposed project consistent with Cit), of South San Francisco and C/CAG guidelines. At a mhdmum, the TDM Plan shall address tire following topics: a. Provision of bicycle racks b. Provision of on-site walkways and pedestrian access to the BART station c. Participation/a~ Guaranteed Ride Home program (office uses only) cl. Subsidy of b'ansit passes (office uses only) e. Provision of transit and carpool ilfformation, h~cluding schedules for BART and Sam Trans (located in residential leash~g office) f. Provision of promotional programs to promote alternative mode use (located h~ residential leasing office) Implementing Responsibility Project Developer Monitoring Responsibility South San Francisco Plam~ing Division Monitoring Schedule Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy Permit Fairfield Mixed-Use Project 10 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of South San Francisco Page Mitigation Measure hnplementing Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Schedule Verification Mitigation Measure 12. The project developer shall be responsible for their fair share contribution for the following roadway improvements a. At the intersection of Mission Road arid Evergreen Drive, the four-way-stop conta'ol shall be replaced with a traffic signal COnltO1 having split east/west phasing (due to the limited space in the intersection). b. At the intersection of Mission Road and BART Access Road, four-way-stop control shall be replaced with a traffic: signal control having split east/west phasing (due to the limited space in the intersection). Project Developer South San Francisco Public Works Depart~nent Prior to issum~ce of a Certificate of Occupancy Permit Fairfield Mixed-Use Project 11 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of SoL, th San Francisco Page Mitigation Measure Verification Mitigation Measure 13. Final building plans Shall incorporate the following roadway ami site access improvements: a. A k, ft-turn pocket shall be provided at the signalized project driveway/BART driveway/McLellan Drive hffersecfion to prevent left~turning vehicles &om making their maneuvers in the middle of the intersection b. A stop sign shall be installed for vehicles exiting the parking garage at the intersection of the interior north parcel driveway and parking garage to improve circulation. c. A stop sign shall be installed also for vehicles exiting the parking garage in the south parcel at the intersection of the BART egress driveway. ti. The right in/right out driveway for the north parcel be straightened to eliminate a ,,;light curve at its intersection with McLellan Drive. Implemeuting Responsibility Project Developer Monitoring Responsibility South San Francisco Public Works Department Monitoring Schedule Prior to issuance of a building permit Fairfield Mixed-Use Project 12 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of South San Francisco Page EXHIBIT D PARCEL MAP -161- Fairfield .Resicle~lial LLC PARCEL 2 PA~cF.L I PARCEL SOuth San Francisco Transit Plan · Oriented uoer 70, 2003 EXHIBIT E CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -163- o Fairfield Residential Transk Village Project And Tentative Parcel Map PROPOSEr) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL P02-0088 AND PM-02-0088 Planning Division requirements shall be as follow: The project shall be completed substantially as indicated on the attached site plans, floor plans, elevations, and color and materials board, revised 10/10/03 prepared by Kwan Henmi Architecture/Planning; Preliminary Landscape Plan revised 10/10/03 prepared by Ima Design; and Vesting Tentative Map revised 10/10/03 prepared by Charles W. Davidson Company, except as otherwise modified by the following conditions: The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures outlined in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Fairfield Residential Mixed-Use Project. Final Landscaping Plans - Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall prepare final landscape, and irrigation plans (that clearly indicates the improvements to the park area adjacent to Costco Drive, the interior courtyards - such as play areas, BBQ, and spa areas - the area adjacent to the BART pedestrian plaza, parking tot landscaping, and the pedestrian strip along BART Service Road 2) for review and approval of the Planning Division. The landscape plan shall incorporate all the conditions identified in this resolution. The applicant shall submit, wi~ the building permit application, a final color and materials board that shall be reviewed and approved by the Chief Planner prior to issuance of any building perm/ts. Master Sign and Desi~tm Progam - Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a comprehensive sign and design program. The sign program shall include but not be limited to, signage for commercial space, residential leasing offices, banner signs, and monument or gateway signage. The design program shall include but not be limited to outdoor seating areas for commercial uses. The Master Sign and Design Program shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board prior to issuance of a building permit. All future signage for both commercial and residential uses shall be subject to separate review and approval by the Planning Division. The location, design and size of all outdoor seating areas on McLellan Drive shall be subject to a separate review and approval by the Planning Division. -164- Street and Pedestrian Plazas Improvements - The applicant shall prepare final infrastructure and landscaping plans for all street and pedestrian plaza frontages -- includ/ng but not limited to sidewalk and plaza paving plans, location and style of street furniture, bicycle amenities, loading and service areas, and location and style of street lighting -- for review and approval of the Planning Division and the Public Works Department. The Parkette - The apphcant shall prepare final landscaping plans for the Parkette -- including but not limited to sidewalk and plaza paving plans, location and style of street furniture, and location and style of street lighting -- for review and approval of the Planning Division. 10. The Grocery Store Parcel - The applicant shall prepare final irrfi:astructure and landscaping plans for the grocery store site-- including but not limited to plaza paving plans, location of planters, location and style of street furniture, and location and style of street lighting -- for review and approval of the Planning Division. 11. Easements - The final map shall clearly indicate the extent of the common easements with BART along BART Pedestrian Plaza and BART Service Road 2. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide the City with a copy of an agreement with BART to permit auto access from the project to BART Service Road 2 and allow the landscape easement along the BART Pedestrian Plaza. 12. Easement on BART Service Road 2 - Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall execute an agreement with BART for automobile access from the project site onto BART Service Road 2. 13. Transportation Demand Management - The applicant shall submit a TDM Program that is consistent with Chapter 20.120 in the Municipal Code and Mitigation Measure 11 in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The applicant shall also agree to participate in a City approved program, such as the shuttle system located at the South San Francisco BART Station that will link residents with regional employers. 14. Access to the Costco Property- The applicant shall not construct any direct vehicular access between the project site and the Costco parking lot. Emergency vehicle access may be permitted between the two properties only from the mid-block lane on the north parcel. 15. Commercial/Retail Uses - The Municipal Code Chapter 20.27.030 provides a list of uses that are appropriate in the Transit Village Zoning District. The appropriate uses include, but not limited to eating and drinking establishments, retail sales and financial services. Customer service offices are permitted on the ground level, and other offices are permitted on the second floor or when conducted as a accessory use with a permitted use on the site, occupying no more than 25 percent of the floor area. Additional office space may be allowed with a use permit, upon finding that such use will not conflict with adjacent street level retail uses. Prior to issuance of a building -165- permit, the applicant shall submit a retail management plan that will include provisions for limiting the use of non-customer service oriented office uses in the ground floor retail spaces. 16. The applicant shall comply with all Standard Conditions of Approval. (Planning Division contact: Michael Lappen, Sen/or Plam~er (650) 877-8535) B. Engineering Division conditions shall be as follows: The Engineering Division has reviewed the "Topographic Site Plan", Sheet 1 of 1, dated June 10, 2003 and the Tentative Parcel Map, Lands of Costco SSF, LLP, Sheet 1 of 1, dated May 1, 2003, prepared by Charles W. Davidson Co., Consulting Engineers, which was submitted by the applicant, Fairfield Residential, for the subject mixed-use transit village development. Should the Planning Commission approve this development and Parcel Map, we request that the following items be included in the Conditions of Approval for the Fairfield Residential mixed-use transit village project use permit and tentative parcel map, case number P02-0088: 1. STANDARD CONDITIONS a. The Applicant/Project Sponsor shall comply with the Engineering Division's "Standard Subdivision and Use Permit Conditions for Townhouse, Condominium and Apartment Developments with Private Streets and Utilities", consisting of eight pages. These conditions are contained in the Engineering Division's "Standard Conditions for Subdivisions and Private Developments" booklet, dated January 1998. (Copies oft his booklet are available at no cost from the Planning and Engineering Divisions). b. The subdivider/property owner shall comply with the requirements of the Engineering Division's "Standard Conditions for Tentative Parcel Maps", as contained in the Engineering Division's "Standard Conditions for Subdivisions and Private Developments" booklet, dated January 1998, in connection with the processing of a parcel map for the subject project. 2. SPECIAL CONDITIONS a. The "Topographic Site Plan" shows an 8" sewer main installed under McLellan Drive from the southerly apartment complex, to the northerly complex, which then passes through the adjacent Costco parking lot, eventually connecting to the City of South San Francisco's Winston Manor trunk line, where it crosses Colma Creek. This new sewer main will only serve the private transit village development and can be considered a lateral for the apartment/commercial complex. The City does not require dedication of this new sewer main. The applicant shall own and maintain the new 8" sewer main. The -166- Transit Village owner' s maintenance obligations for the portion of the main under McLellan Drive shall be secured through an encroachment agreement between the apartment property owner and the City. The 6" sewer shown under the sidewalk on the southeast side of McLellan Drive, in front of the commercial building with a finish floor elevation of 82.67, shall be moved fi:om under the public sidewalk and relocated on to private property in front of the commercial building, or within the building, or within the pedestrian corridor along the rear of the building. b. The 12" fire service and domestic water main, which is currently at a dead-end from its connection over 2000 feet to the south, needs to be connected to an existing main, either to the north along E1 Camino Real, or to the west at Mission Road, whichever is appropriate to provide for an additional source of water to the Transit Village, should there be a break in the main. This connection would provide a loop in the system that would continue to supply fire and domestic water service to the complex, should the water main rupture or need to be taken out of service for maintenance. If one portion of the main were to break, the development could be served fi:om the other end of the loop. Without a looped system, a break anywhere on the line could leave the Transit Village without fire protection or water to the dwellings. The applicant shall be responsible for instalhng any new water mains necessary to provide a loop system in accordance with the requirements of the California Water Service Company and the City of South San Francisco Fire Marshal. The cost of designing and installing the new water main shall be borne by the applicant. c. One empty, one and one-quarter inch, PVC, four conduit duct bank and one additional two inch, PVC conduit and mid- and end-of-run pull-boxes, shall be installed along the entire project frontage of E1 Camino Real and McLellan Drive, in order to accommodate furore communication services within the City. d. In connection with the grading, development, building construction and occupancy of the subject Transit Village, the subdivider shall prepare and submit for City approval, three copies of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for both construction and post-construction activities, that will result in the filtering of storm water runoff, so as to prevent silt, debris and toxic materials fi:om being discharged, transported or blown fi:om the site and entering adjacent public or private property, or the public storm drain system. e. As required by City Ordinance, new permanent storm water pollution control devices and filters shall be installed within the development's drainage system, in order to prevent pollutants deposited within the project from entering Colma Creek and the San Francisco Bay. The stonn water filter devices shall be either a "Stormcepter", as manufactured by Hydro Conduit; a CDS unit, as distributed by Kristar Enterprises; or similar and equal devices that will remove pollutants from the storm water and irrigation runoff from both the improved and any unimproved property within the Transit Village sites, at a central location. Plans and specifications for these facilities shall be prepared by -167- the applicant's civil engineering consultant and submitted to the Engineering and Water Quality Control Divisions for review- and approval. f. The Subdivider shall reimburse the City for all costs to plan check and inspect the subject development in accordance with the City's Master Fee Schedule. g. Prior to completing the last phase of the development, the subdivider shall repair or reconstruct any damage to the E1 Camino Real and McLellan Drive sidewalks, curbs, gutters and pavements, along the entire frontage of the project, to conform to current City standards. This work shall be performed at no cost to the City of South San Francisco, in accordance with City standards and to the satisfaction of the City's Construction Manager. h. Due to the potentially congested McLellan Drive, between E1 Camino Real and the BART station exit intersections and the existence of the left-mm stacking lane and median from westbound McLellan Drive on to southbound E1 Camino Real, each exit driveway from the Transit Village on to McLellan Drive shall be posted with an R1 "Stop" sign and a "right turn only" sign. i. Because the left-mm stacking lane described above and the existing median island are blocking access to each driveway enn'ance, left turns shall not be permitted into each site. All access from McLellan Drive to the subject site shall be accomplished by right tums into the site and right turns out of the site. j. Mitigation Measure 12 in the Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation states that the project developer shall be responsible for their fair share contribution for improvements at two intersections. The applicant shall pay a fair share contribution for off-site traffic mitigation improvements that are required to accommodate this development, as identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. C. Police Department conditions shall be as follows: 1. Municipal Code Compliance The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 15.48 of the Municipal Code; "Minimum Building Security Standards" Ordinance revised May 1995. The Police Department reserves the right to make additional security and safety conditions, if necessary, upon receipt of detailed/revised building plans. The applicant is recommended to pay particular attention additional security requirements below. Multiple Family Dwelling Un/ts Exterior security lighting -168- 1) Parking lots, (including parking lots with carports), circulation areas, aisles, passageways, recesses and grounds contiguous to buildings shall be provided with high intensity discharge lighting with sufficient wattage to provide adequate illumination to make clearly visible the presence of any person on or about the premises during the hours of darkness and provide a safe, secure environment of all persons, property and vehicles on site. Such lighting shall be equipped with vandal-resistant covers. 2) All exterior doors shall be provided with their own light source and shall be adequately illuminated at all hours to make clearly visible the presence of any person on or about the premises and provide adequate illumination of persons exiting the building. 3) Exterior doors, perimeter, parking area and canopy lights shall be controlled by photocell or timer and shall be left on during hours of darkness or diminished lighting. 4) Parking lot lights shall remain on during the hours of darkness. 5) The lighting required in subsection (a) of this section shall be installed according to project specific illumination levels prescribed, and a lighting plan rex4ewed and approved by the police department. Photometrics are required for this site plan to illustrate lighting levels. Landscaping Landscaping shall be of the type and situated in locations to maximize observation while providing the desired degree of aesthetics. Security planting mater/als are encouraged along fence and property lines and under vulnerable windows. Numbering of Buildings There shall be positioned at each entrance of a multiple family dwelling complex an illustrated diagranm~atic representation of the complex, which shows the location of the viewer and the unit designations within the complex. The illuminated diagrammatic representation shall be protected by the use of vandal-resistant covers. In addition, each individual unit within the complex shall display a prominent identification number not less than two inches in height, which is easily visible to approaching vehicular and pedestrian traffic. The numbers shall be of contrasting color to the background to which they are attached. Additional Security Measures 1) Children's play lot shall be gated and fenced for protection and safety purposes. The design of the fence shall provide a clear view to the presence of any person within the play lot while viewed from the outside. The play lot shall be visible from living areas of residential units on site. -169- 2) Jacuzzi areas shall be gated and fenced for protection and safety of tenants and children. Jacuzzi shall be locked at all times w/th keyed or electronic access for tenants. 3) The perimeter of the site shall be fenced during construction, and security lighting and patrols shall be employed as necessary. The police department reserves the right to require private security based on calls for service. 4) All highly portable, easily resalable property should be inventoried and marked with a distinctive identification numbers for recognition purposes (e.g., drivers license information or company name). 5) The fence surrounding the storage yard shall be topped with triple-strand barbed wire or razor ribbon. 6) Additional security measures more stringent and site specific than those stated elsewhere in this chapter may be required by the Planning Commission or City Council as conditions of approval of a use permit, specific plans or precise plan, in projects of a more complex nature than the typical residential, commercial or industrial developments. Such additional security measures shall be made based on the fact that the project is of a highly complicated nature, which may significantly and adversely affect the City's ability to respond to security and/or other emergency situations within the project. Non-Residential/Commercial Retail Space Exterior security lighting 1) Parking lots, (including parking lots with carports), circulation areas, aisles, passageways, recesses and grounds contiguous to buildings shall be provided with high intensity discharge lighting with sufficient wattage to provide adequate illumination to make clearly visible the presence of any person on or about the premises during the hours of darkness and provide a safe, secure environment of all person, property and vehicles on site. Such lighting shall be equipped with vandal-resistant covers. 2) All exterior doors shall be provided with their own light source and shall be adequately illuminated at all hours to make clearly visible the presence of any person on or about the premises and provide adequate illumination of persons exiting the building. 3) Exterior doors, perimeter, parking area and canopy lights shall be controlled by photocell or timer and shall be left on during hours of darkness or diminished lighting. 4) Parking lot lights shall remain on during the hours of darkness. 5) The lighting required in subsection (a) of this section shall be installed according to prqj ect specific illumination levels prescribed and a lighting plan reviewed and approved by the police department. Photometrics are required for this site plan to illustrate lighting levels. -170- Landscaping Landscaping shall be of the type and situated in locations to maximize observation while providing the desired degree of aesthetics. Security planting materials are encouraged along fence and property lines and under vulnerable windows. Numbering of Buildings Buildings and individual retail/commercial businesses shall be clearly numbered within the complex and easily identifiable to emergency personnel. In addition, each individual unit within the complex shall display a prominent identification number clearly visible to approaching vehicular and pedestrian traffic. The numbers shall be of contrasting color to the background to which they are attached. Alarms 1) Retail and commercial businesses shall be equipped with at least a central station silent intrusion alarm. 2) All individual businesses within the complex will be required to have an alarm system before occupancy. The type of alarm is dependent upon the nature of the individual business. Traffic, Parking, and Site Plan 1) All entrances to the parking area shall be posted with appropriate signs per 22658(a) CVC, to assist in removing vehicles at the property owner's or manager's request. 2) Handicapped parking spaces shall be clearly marked and properly posted. Additional Security Measures Additional security measure more stringent and site specific than those stated may be required by the Planning Commission or City Council as conditions of approval of a use permit, specific plan or precise plan, in projects of a more complex nature that the typical residential, commercial or industrial developments Such additional security measure shall be made based on the fact that the project is ora highly complicated nature which may sigrfificantly and adversely affect the City's ability to respond to security and/or other emergency situation within the project. Security measure required under this section may include, but shall not be limited to: 1) Security g~ard systems; 2) Video monitoring and recording systems; -171- 3) Card access systems; 4) Detailed documented integrated security plans; consultant services, paid for by the developer, as needed for detail plan review and systems testing; 5) Other state of the art security measures, including incorporation of"defensible space" techniques. Misc. Security Measures 1) Commercial establishments having one hundred dollars or more in cash on the premises after closing hours shall lock such money in an approved type money safe with a minimum rating of TL- 15. 2) Multiple tenant office and commercial bu/ldings shall have floor to floor demising walls or security barriers separating individual tenant areas to prevent entry of adjacent spaces over the top of the divider. 3) Business machines visible from the exterior of the building should be equipped with desk pad type locking devices. 4) All highly portable, easily resalable property should be inventoried and marked with a distinctive identification number. 5) The per/meter of the site shall be fenced during construction, and security lighting and patrols shall be employed as necessary. 6) The fence surrounding the storage yard should be topped with triple-strand barbed wire or razor ribbon. Police Depm~2r~ent contact, Sergeant Jim Thane (650) 877-8927 D. Fire Prevention conditions shall be as follows: 1. Fire sprinkler per NFPA 13. Submit plans under separate fire plan check and permit. 2. Provide class III outlets per floor. Okay for combination system. 3. Provide on-site fire hydrants spaced 300 feet apart. 4. Fire alarm system per CBC 1001.2.9.1 for apartment buildings. Submit installation plans per CBC Chapter 35 and NFPA 72 for fire plan check and permit 5. Knox box required. Number and locations to be approved by fire department. -172- PM-02-0088, PARCEL MAP SUBDIVIDING THE LANDS OF COSTCO TO EITHER SIDE OF MCLELLAN DRIVE A. Engineering Division conditions shall be as follows: The Engineering Division has reviewed the "Tentative Parcel Map, Lands of Costco SSF, LLP", dated May 1, 2003, sheet 1 of 1, prepared by Charles Davidson, Consulting Civil Engineers, submitted by the subdivider, Fairfield Residential LLC, with subject parcel map application. Should the Planning Commission approve this map, we request that the following items are conditions of Parcel Map PM-02-0088: The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the En~neering Division's "Standard Conditions for Subdivisions and Private Developments" booklet dated January 1988. The applicant shall pay the City's actual plan check costs to retain a land surveyor to plan check the preliminary map and to sign the parcel map. -173- EXHIBIT F AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT -174- RECORDING REQUESTED BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 400 GRAND AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 400 GRAND AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 Documentary Transfer Tax $ EXEMPT County of San Mateo City of South San Francisco [] Right of Way Agent AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND FAIRFIELD DEVELOPMENT LLP This Agreement is entered into as of this __ day of ,2004, by and between the CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO ("City") and Fairfield Development LLP ("Developer") as a condition of approval of the development of the real property described in Exhibit A attached hereto (the "Project Property"). RECITALS WHEREAS, Chapter 20.125 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code sets forth the requirements for Inclusionary Housing ("Inclusionary Housing Ordinance"); and WHEREAS, the Developer is planning to construct a mixed-use commercial and apartment complex on the Project Property (the "Project") and has applied for City approvals and submitted site development plans for the Project; and WHEREAS, the Developer is required by the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to set aside twenty percent (20%) of new housing as low- and moderate-income level housing, as defined in Chapter 20.125.020 in the Municipal Code; and Fairfield - Rent Restriction and Right of First Refusal Agreement 676977 1 - -175- Page 1 WHEREAS, the Developer proposes meeting this requirement by renting the required number of Below Market Rate Units; and WHEREAS, the City has agreed that onsite rental of the Below Market Rate Units will be sufficient to meet the requirements of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requires the Developer's plans and the City's conditions regarding inclusionary housing be set forth in an Affordable Housing Agreement; and WHEREAS, this Affordable Housing Agreement is required as a condition of future discretionary permits for development of the Project Property and shall be recorded against the Project Property; NOW THEREFORE, the City and the Developer agree as follows: AGREEMENT 1. The real property which is the subject of this Agreement is commonly known as 1600 E1 Camino Real, South San Francisco, CA 94080, more fully described in the legal description attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A. Said real property ("Premises") is hereby designated as consisting of 72 Below Market Rate Units ("BMR units") and 288 Market Rate Units, and shall be subject to the terms and conditions herein set forth. The number of Below Market Rate Units shall be equal to twenty percent (20%) of the total number of apartments to be built upon the Project Property. 2. The developer shall provide 72 Below Market Rate Units on site for households whose qualifying income is more than 50 percent and up to 120 percent of the monthly median income for a San Mateo County in the San Francisco Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area, as published and adjusted annually by the Department of Housing and Urban Development ("Published Area Income Limits"). The applicant shall accept all qualified applicants of low- and moderate income households as follows: 1) no less than nine (9) units for households which qualify at more than fifty percent (50%) and up to sixty percent (60%) of the Published Area mcoul~ ~units;z] no l~ss man twenty[zu) miltsxor~'-" 'nousenoms'- - ' -' - whichquanxy"" at more than sixty percent (60%) and up to eighty-percent (80%) of Published Area Income Limits; 3) no less than forty-three (43) units for households which qualify at more than eighty percent (80%) and up to one hundred twenty percent (120%) of the Published Area Income Limits. 3. The parties acknowledge and agree that the monthly rent payable by a household for a Below Market Rate Unit shall not exceed thirty percent (30%) of that household's qualifying gross monthly income. Rents shall be set upon commencement of occupancy for each individual Below Market Rate Unit and shall be adjusted on that households annual anniversary and re-qualification or upon new occupancy and qualification of a different household for each Below Market Rate Unit. Under no circumstance shall such rent increases result in household(s) paying more than thi~y percent (30%) of income towards rent and utilities as per Chapter 20.125.020 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. The parties further acknowledge and agree that rent determined in accordance with the preceding sentence shall be deemed Fairfield - AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMF_' ~7 6 - Page 2 "affordable" in accordance with the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in accordance with Section 20.125.040 of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, no qualified household in any Below Market Rate Unit shall be obligated to pay rent for such Below Market Rate Unit in an amount greater than ninety percent (90%) of the average market rental rate for such unit. 4. The Below Market Rate Units shall be located on two parcels in the Transit Village residential complex, separated by McLellan Drive. The Developer and City acknowledge this is an ideal area for such Below Market Rate Units as it is in close proximity to and has access to employment centers and alternative transportation facilities. In event Developer desires to provide any or all of the Below Market Rate Units offsite, Developer shall be required to comply with Section 20.125.120 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. 5. Occupancy of the Below Market Rate Units shall be established concurrently with occupancy of the market rate units located on the Project Property in accordance with the Development Agreement and this Agreement. This requirement shall be effective as of the date the first unit is occupied on the Project Property. This requirement for the Below Market Rate Units shall remain in effect even in the event all market rate units on the Project Property become unoccupied. 6. Pursuant to the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, the rental amounts for such Below Market Rate Units shall include a utility allowance as determined annually by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (the "Utility Allowance"). The City acknowledges and agrees that Owner may reduce the rent amount payable by tenants of the Below Market Rate Units by the amount of such Utility Allowance and obligate tenants of the Below Market Rate Units to pay for utilities directly to the applicable utility providers. Except as otherwise set forth herein, Owner shall not be obligated to pay utilities for any of the Below Market Rate Units. 7. The Below Market Rate Units shall remain restricted and affordable to the income groups designated in Section 3 above for a period of fifty-five (55) years, which period commences on the date on which the final Below Market Rate unit is occupied or receives a final inspection certifying it available for occupancy, whichever occurs later. This Agreement shall Il.iii WlLil [,lie i-IUJ~k.,L l-lOlJ~it~/ i:[llU. ~lllg[ll O~;; UIIIUIII~ UII I. JlG [./tllti~b II~I[TLU i:l, ilU uien :~U~L;~:~UI~ illlU assigns in accordance with the time limit provide for in this Section. Transferees, successors and assigns that receive or purchase the project are subject to this Agreement and will be required to execute, acknowledge and record an agreement under the terms of which the transferee shall assume the obligations and duties and agree to be bound by the restrictions of this Agreement. 8. The Below Market Rate Units shall meet minimum below market rate and habitability standards. Said standards shall be determined by the City and set forth in Exhibit B, incorporated herein and attached hereto. In the event of a transfer of Owner's rights in the Below Market Rate Units and/or a transfer of Owner's rights and obligations under this Agreement, in either case, to a third party in accordance with Sections 7 and 10 herein, such transferee shall be responsible for maintaining such below market rate and habitability standards and Owner shall be released from this responsibility. Fairfield - AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMF_' ~-7 7 - Page 3 9. Developer shall maintain the seventy-two (72) Below Market Rate Units in conformance with the terms and conditions set forth in Exhibit C, incorporated herein and attached hereto. The extent applicable, said conditions shall be reflected in all rental agreements for the seventy-two (72) rental units. 10. Right of First Refusal. If at any point during the term of affordability, as defined in section 7 above, Owner applies to convert the Project Property to for-sale units, the Owner shall be required to submit an Affordable Housing Plan as a part of any application for said conversion. Said Plan must provide for the sale of 72 below market units as established and defined in this Agreement, notwithstanding any contrary rule, regulation, law or policy of the City at the time such application is made. The City or its assignee, shall hold a first right of refusal to purchase the Below Market Rate Units. The terms and conditions of the first right of refusal to purchase the Below Market Rate Units shall be set forth in an Affordable Housing Agreement approved by the City Council prior to approval of the any entitlement or subdivision map that would permit the conversion of the Project Property to condominiums. 11. Any material amendments to this Agreement shall be processed in the same manner as an original application for approval pursuant to Section 20.125.150 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. 12. Owner shall indemnify, defend with counsel selected by the City, and hold harmless the City and its officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers from and against any and all losses, liability, claims, suits, actions, damages, and causes of action arising out of any personal injury, bodily injury, loss of life, or damage to property, or any violation of any federal, state, or municipal law or ordinance related to the implementation of this Agreement and/or the renting of the Below Market Rate Units resulting from or caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of the owner, its agents, employees, contractors or subcontractors; except to the extent such losses, liability, claims, suits, actions, damages, and/or causes of action are based on or arise out of challenges to the City's actions in adopting the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, or City's gross negligence or willful misconduct. 13. Any amendments to this Agreement shall be processed in the same manner as an original application for approval pursuant to Section 20.125.150 of the South San Francisco ~v~tm~c~pm ~'~otmng, however, snan prevent tne ooay granting final approval of the project development, from modifying the location and phasing of inclusionary housing as a condition of approval for the project. 14. The laws of the State of California shall govern this Agreement. In the event that either party brings any action against the other under this Agreement, the parties agree that trial of such action shall be vested exclusively in the state courts of California in the County of San Mateo or in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. 15. If a party to this Agreement brings any action, including an action for declaratory relief, to enforce or interpret the provision of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees in addition to any other relief to which that party may be entitled. The court may set such fees in the same action or in a separate action brought for that pm-pose. Fairfield - AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEM! _ 17 8 - Page 4 16. If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this Agreement is invalid, void, or unenforceable, the provisions of this Agreement not so adjudged shall remain in full force and effect. The invalidity in whole or in part of any provision of this Agreement shall not void or affect the validity of any other provision of this Agreement. 17. Any notice or demand shall be made by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, or reliable overnight courier to the address of the respective parties set forth below: Developer: Fairfield Development L.P. 5510 Morehouse Drive Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92121 City: City of South San Francisco - City Clerk 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 18. Notwithstanding any previous provision of this Agreement, the terms of this Agreement shall be interpreted in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 20.125 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code ("Chapter 20.125 IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first written above. DEVELOPER: FAIRFIELD DEVELOPMENT L.P CITY: CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISO Michael A. Wilson, City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: Steven T. Mattas, City Attorney Fairfield - AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMF2 ~-7 9 - Page 5 EXHIBIT A Property Description Fairfield - Rent Restriction and Right of First Refusal Agreement 676977_1 - 1 8 0 - Page 1 W-C2 Fairfield Residential LLC South San Francisco Transit Oriented I)evelopment Planning Department Submittal October 10, 2003 Fairfield Residential LLC South San Francisco Transit Oriented Development Planning Department Submittal October 10, 2003 GRADIMG PLAN - EAST E-C2 I T J-C2 Fairfield Residential LLC South San Francisco Transit Oriented Development Planning Department Submittal October 1 O, 2003 Fairfield Residen rial LLC CO,~TCO ff ,,,/ i /; South San Francisco Transit Oriented Development PJannJng Department Submittal October 10, 2003 W-C3 Fairfield Residential LLC South San Francisco Transit Oriented Development Planning Department Submittal October 10. 2003 · T J-C3 Fairfield Residential LLC South San Francisco Transit Oriented Development Planning Department Submittal October 10, 2003 Fairfield Residential LLC South San Francisco Transit Oriented Development Planning Department Submittal October 10, 2003 Fairfield Residential LLC South San Francisco Transit Oriented Development Planning Deportment Submittal October 10, 2003 Fairfield Residential LLC South San Francisco Transit Oriented Development Planning Department Submittal October 10, 2003 Fairfield Residential LLC South San Francisco Transit Oriented Development Planning Department SubmiLtal October 10, 2003 Fairfield Residential LLC South San Francisco Transit Oriented Development Planning Department Submittal October 10. 2003 Fairfield Residential LLC South San Francisco Transit Oriented Development Planning Department Submittal October 10, 2003 Fairfield Residential LLC South San Francisco Transit Oriented Development Planning Department Submittal October 10, 2003 EXHIBIT B Minimum Habitability Standards Below Market Rate Units shall meet minimum habitability standards. Owner and/or owner must ensure compliance with all state and local housing codes, licensing requirements and any other standards regarding the condition of a structure and the operation of the housing and/or services. Specifically, each project sponsor must adhere to proper standards regarding accessibility, sanitation, security, illumination, electricity, and fire safety. These standard include, but are not limited to: · Effective waterproofing and weather protection of roof and exterior walls, including unbroken windows and walls; · Functional plumbing facilities, including hot and cold running water, and efficient sewage disposal; · Gas facilities, heating resources and electrical system in good working order; · Lights and wiring that work and are safe. At least two functioning electrical outlets in every room, with at least one light in the bathroom; · Well-lighted common areas, such as stairs and hallways; · Buildings, grounds and fixtures that are clean, sanitary and free from debris, rodents and vermin; · Adequate and properly maintained trash receptacles; · Doors and windows in good repair. Functional outer doors and locks, including a deadbolt lock for the main entry door, and window locks; · Functional smoke detector--it's the tenant's responsibility to buy and install batteries for the smoke detector; · Floors, stairways and railings that are safe and in good repair; · Prevention and elimination of mold and mildew; · Interior and exterior paint in fair to excellent condition. The Owner and/or owner shall allow and make arrangements with tenants to permit the City, at its discretion, to inspect all units on a biannual basis to monitor compliance with the habitability standards. Fairfield - Rent Restriction and Right of First Refusal Agreement 676977_1 ~ 1 9 4 - Page 1 EXHIBIT C The following conditions shall apply to the rental of all Below Market Rate Units and, to the extent applicable, the conditions shall be reflected in the rental agreements between the Developer and the Tenants of all Below Market Rate Units: 1. Tenants shall be annually certified as to income eligibility for the Below Market Rate Units and the annual certification shall be submitted to the office of Community Development. If Developer fails to perform an annual certification, City shall notify Developer in writing that Developer is in violation of the Affordable Housing Agreement and that Developer shall be fined ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($1,000.00) for each Below Market Unit whose tenants were not subject to an annual certification. Upon receiving written notice, Developer shall have thirty (30) days from the date of notification to perform the certification for each Below Market Unit whose tenants have not been subject to an annual certification. In the event Developer fails to perform the certification within the thirty (30) day period, City shall have the right to fine the Developer ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($1,000.00) for each Below Market Unit whose tenants have not been subject to an annual certification. The City shall continue to have the right to fine Developer an additional ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($1,000.00) for every thirty (30) day period that passes, from the date Developer receives notice, for each Below Market Unit whose tenants have not been subject to an annual certification. City shall have the right to take steps to assess these fines as a lien against either the property where the Below Market Units are located or against the Project Property. 2. For a Tenant paying the maximum rental allowance, the Developer shall be allowed to raise the rental amount annually. Annual rent increases shall be equal to the percentage rise in area median income for a San Mateo County household in the San Francisco Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area, published annually by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. but under no circumstance shall such rent increases result in tenant(s) paying more than thirty percent (30%) of income towards rent and utilities as per Section 20.125.020 of the South San Francisco Municipal 3. In the event income eligible Tenants are subsequently determined to be ineligible (or over income tenants), Developer shall be allowed to raise the rent amount for said ineligible Tenant to an amount equivalent to the Market Rate for said Tenant's unit. Developer shall not evict a formerly income eligible Tenant on the basis the Tenant has become income ineligible. Upon raising the rent amount for the formerly eligible Tenant to Market Rate, Developer shall rent the next available unit in the Project as a Below Market Rate Unit at an affordable level necessary to maintain the ratios indicated in Section 3 of the Rent Restrictions and Right of First Refusal Agreement. 4. Nothing, however, in this agreement shall prevent the Developer from evicting said Tenants for cause such as, including but not limited to, conducting illegal activities on the property or failing to pay rent. 676977__1 - 1 9 5 - 5. If the City determines that Developer, at any time, fails to provide 72 Below Market Rate Units at the agreed upon rents, City shall notify Developer in whting that Developer is in violation of the Affordable Housing Agreement and that Developer and shall be subject to a fine for each unit below the required 72 units. Upon receiving written notice, Developer shall have thirty (30) days from the date of notification to provide City with additional information or other accepted documentation that demonstrates that the developer is in compliance with City Standards. In the event Developer fails to provide additional documentation and demonstrate compliance with City Standards within the thirty (30) day period, City shall have the right to fine Developer One-Thousand Dollars ($1,000) for each unit below 72 Below Market Rate Units. The City shall continue to have the right to fine Developer additional One-Thousand Dollars ($1,000) for every thirty (30) day period that passes for each Below Market Unit not provided pursuant to this Agreement. City shall have the right to take steps to assess these fines as a lien against either the property where the Below Market Units are located or against the Project Property. 676977 1 - -196- EXHIBIT G PHASING PLAN -197- Phasing Plan Phase 1 Phase 3 I I EXHIBIT H PARK FEE CALCULATION -199- FAIRFIELD RESIDENTIAL (HIGH DENSITY) 361 units x 2.44 = 880.84 x 3 acres '-- 2.6452 x 8,220,225 = 5,902,747 x _6 --- $7,083,296 1,000 3.68. 5 $7,083,296 -361 = 519,621.32 p/unit Maximum 50% Credit = $3,541,648 -. 361 = $9,810.66 p/unit FAIRFIELD RESIDENTIAL (MEDiUM DENSITY) 361 units x 2.95 = 1,064.95 x 3 acres. = 3.19485 x 8,220,225 = 7,136,518 x 6 '-" $8,563,821 1,000 3.68 5 $8,563,821 - 361 = $23,723 p/unit Max/mum 50% Credit -- $4,281,911 - 361 = $11,861 p/unit -200- ATTACHMENT 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2630 WITH EXHIBITS, December 4, 2003 SEE EXHIBITS ATTACHED TO CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION RESOLUTION NO. 2630 PLANNING COMMISSION, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE P02-0088 AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, MND02-0088 AND ADOPT ASTATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF 8.48 ACRE MIX~D-USE TRANSIT VILLAGE PROJECT ON A SITE LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF EL CAMINO REAL AND MCLELLAN DRIVE IN THE TV TRANSIT VILLAGE ZONE DISTRICT, APPROVE A VESTING TENTATIVE MAP, APPROVE AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT, ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, DA-02-0088, AND MAKING FINDINGS RELATED THERETO WHEREAS, the South San Francisco Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearings on October 16, 2003, November 6, 2003 and November 20, 2003; and WHEREAS, as required by the "Use Permit Procedure" (S SFMC Chapter 20.81), the Planning Commission makes the following findings in support of the request to approve a mixed-use transit village project, which includes a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Statement of Overriding Considerations, Conditional Use Permit, Affordable Housing Agreement ,Vesting Tentative Map, and Development Agreement, on a 8.38 acre site located at the intersection of E1 Camino Real and McLellan Drive in the TV Transit Village Zone District ("Project"). These findings are based on public testimony and the materials submitted to the City of South San Francisco Planning Commission which include, but are not limited to: the site plans, floor plans, elevations and color and materials boards, revised October 10, 2003, prepared by Kwan Hemni Architecture/Planning; Preliminary Landscape Plans, revised October 10, 2003, prepared by Ima Design, and Vesting Tentative Map, revised October 10, 2003, prepared by Charles Davidson Company, Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, Fairfield Residential Mixed-Use Project and Response to Comments; Planning Commission staff reports dated October 16, 2003, November 6, 2003 and November 20, 2003; and testimony received at the October 16, 2003, Novernber 6, 2003, and November 20, 2003 Planning Commission meetings: The subject site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the land use being proposed. The suitability of the site for development was analyzed thoroughly in the South San Francisco General Plan Environmental Impact Report and the environmental document prepared for the project. Additionally, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the Project that further analyzed project specific topography and surrounding uses. Both the General Plan EIR and the project Mitigated Negative Declaration conclude that the project site is relatively flat and can accommodate the proposed development. -201- The Project, including the Tentative Map, is consistent with the General Plan, which desig-nates the property for mixed-use commercial/retail and high-density residential uses. Mixed-use commercial and high-density residential uses are considered an appropriate use under this designation. The following policies specifically support the Project: Guiding Policy 2-G3 - Provide land use designations that maximize benefits of increased accessibility that will result from BART extension to the city and adjacent locations. Guiding Policy 2-G-7 - Encourage mixed-use residential, retail, and office development in centers where they would support transit, in locations where they would provide increased access to neighborhoods that currently lack such facilities, and in corridors where such developments can help to foster identity and vitality. Implementing Policy 3.4-1-3 - In partnership with property owners, area residents, and BART and other agencies, develop the approximately 8- acre McLellan Boulevard Extension area as a pedestrian-oriented spine fronted by active uses. Implementing Policy 3.4-1-5 - Establish transit-supportive development requirements for the approximately 8-acre station area that include: · Designation of the area as a transit-overlay zone, with specific development requirements established in the Zoning Ordinance; Transit-oriented design and development standards that address pedestrian scale, comfort and safety, including maximum setbacks or "build-to" hnes, and building transparency requirements; · Inclusion of child care facilities; · Prohibition on auto-oriented and drive-through establishments; and · Minimum density and development intensity requirements. Policy 4.2-G-10 - Exempt development within the one-quarter mile of a Caltrain or BART station or a City-designated ferry terminal from LOS standards. The Project meets or exceeds the City's minimum standards and requirements, established in Chapter 20.27, Transit Village Zoning District, which designates the site as TV-C, Transit Village Commercial and TV-RH, Transit Village Residential, High-Density as luther analyzed below: -202- The Project includes commercial and residential uses and, thus, meets the City requirements for retail uses or eating and drinking establishments on the ground floor with either commercial office and high density residential uses on upper floors, established in Sections 20.47.020, Sub-districts and 20.47.030, Land Uses in the Transit Village Zoning District. The Project will not exceed 50 residential un/ts per acre and, thus, meets the City's maximum density requirement of 50 units per acre for a high- density residential project, established in Section 20.47.040, Regulations and Standards in the Transit Village Zoning District. Co The Project will not exceed a height of 47 feet and, thus, meets the City's maximum height requirement of 55 feet for the site, established in Section 20.47.040, Regulations and Standards in the Transit Village Zoning District. do The Project will provide a ratio of 1.5 parking spaces per residential units and, thus, meets the City's parking standards, established in Section 20.47.040, Regulations and Standards in the Transit Village Zoning District and Chapter 20.74, Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations. The Project complies with the City development and design standards for street frontages, parking garage locations, building design, open space areas, pedestrian-orientation and project amenities, established in Section 20.47.040, Regulations and Standards in the Transit Village Zoning District. The Project includes a mix of below market rate units consistent with the requirement of South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter20.125 and is implemented by an Affordable Housing Agreement as required in the lmclusionary Zoning Ordinance. The Project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the E! Cam/no Rea! Corridor Redevelopment Project Area, and specifically with the following: To create and develop high-density residential development adjacent to the South San Francisco BART Station. To replan, redesign and develop areas which are stagnant or improperly used. Provides below market rate units affordable to persons earning less than 80% of the median income for wage earners in San Mateo County. o An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project in accordance with the provisions of CEQA. Mitigation measures have been -203- incorporated into the project, which will reduce all the identified impacts to a less than significant level. Analysis: The environmental impacts of the proposed development have been analyzed in two prior environmental documents prepared by the City under CEQA. The City of South San Francisco certified an Environmental Impact Report for its 1999 General Plan which analyzed the Project site as a mixed-use residential/commercial high density project. In 2001, the City adopted a Negative Declaration which analyzed the impacts of South San Francisco BART Transit Village Plan ("Transit Village Plan") which implemented the General Plan policies and development standards for a mix of uses of sufficient density on the site to create a vibrant pedestrian-oriented center. The Transit Village Plan included zoning standards, design guidelines and implementation measures for the Project site. The Transit Village Plan permits a density of 50 units per acre (with an additional density bonus for affordable un/ts) and up to 30,000 square feet of commercial at a FAR of 2.0. The Negative Declaration for the Transit Village Plan concluded that development under the Plan would result in no significant environmental impacts. The Project is consistent with the Transit Village Plan as analyzed under the Negative Declaration. The environmental impacts of development of project site and surrounding area also have been analyzed in several recent EIRs: the BART Station Plan E/R; the Hickey (McLellan) Boulevard Extension Plan EIR; the E1 Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan EIR and the Costco Project EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15093, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for those impacts identified in the General Plan EIR as significant and unavoidable. (Resolution 135-99.) In accordance with CEQA standards for streamlining and tiering environmental review, these prior environmental documents may be used and relied on in evaluating the environmental impacts of the Project. Based on such documents, the Statement of Overriding Considerations is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit D. o The Project will not be adverse to the public health, safety, or general welfare of the community, nor unreasonably detrimental to surrounding properties or improvements. The Project includes pedestrian walkways, public infrastructure improvements, affordable housing consistent with the City of South San Francisco's Inclusionary Ordinance and provides 23,000 square feet of commercial/retail development that will assist in off-setting the costs of public services to the Project. Additionally, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco will realize tax increment funds from the redevelopment of the Property. Based on these and other factors in the record, the Project will not be adverse to the public health, safety or general welfare and will likely increase the value of surrounding properties by redeveloping blighted, vacant property. -204- The Owner and City have negotiated a Development Agreement pursuant to Government Code section 65864 et. seq. The Development Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit B, sets forth the duration, property, project criteria and other required information identified in Government Code section 65865.2. Additionally, the Agreement requires the Owner to support the City's efforts to locate a childcare facility near the South San Francisco BART Station. Owner will pay for street and sidewalk improvements on McLellan Drive and E1 Camino Real and include public art on the project site. The owner will also pay its fair share of infrastructure improvements, including traffic mitigation. Based on the £mdings in support of the Use Permit, the Commission finds that the Development Agreement, vesting a project for a mixed-use transit village project, is consistent with the General Plan and the applicable zoning regulations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the South San Francisco City Council approve P02-0088, Mitigated Negative Declaration MND-08-0088, as contained in Extfibit B, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program as contained in Exhibit C, Conditional Use Permit UP-02-0088, subject to Conditions of Approval as contained in Exhibit A Vesting Tentative Map PM-02-0088, subject to the Conditions of Approval as contained in Exhibit A, and Affordable Housing Agreement and Development A~eement DA-02-0088 as contained in Exh/bit F. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption. t hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco at the regular meeting held on the 4th day of December, 2003 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Giusti, Commissioner Honan, Commissioner Sim, Commissioner Teglia, Vice Chairperson Ochsenhirt and Chairperson Romero NOES: None ABSTAIN: Commissioner Zemke ABSENT: None Commission Thomas C. Sparks -205- ATTACHMENT 4 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, DECEMBER 4, 2003 APPROVED DECEMBER 4, 2003 PLANNI'NG COMM1'SSI'ON MEETtNG MI'NUTES Fairfield Transit Village Costco SSF, LLC/Owner Fairfield Residential LLC/Applicant 1600 El Camino Real P02-0088 and Mitigated Negative Declaration MND02-0088 Forwarded to Council Resolution 2630 (Continued from November 20, 2003) Use Permit Application, Development Agreement, Affordable Housing Agreement to construct a mixed-use commercial/residential project consisting of 360 residential units and approximately 23,000 square feet of commercial space for a grocery store and local serving retail spaces, community recreation/leasing offices, and common recreation areas on a 8.48 acre site at the intersection of El Camino Real and McLellan Drive in the SSF Bart Transit Village Zoning District and the El Camino Real Corridor Redevelopment Area in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 19.48, 20.27 and 20.81. Tentative Parcel Map Application to subdivide the existing single parcel, which includes McLellan Drive, into three parcels. The north site comprises of Parcel ! and would be bounded by Costco Drive, El Camino Real, McLellan Drive and Colma Creek. The south site comprises of Parcel 2 and 3 and would be bounded by El Camino Real, McLellan Drive, the Bart Plaza, and BART Service Road 2. Public Hearing opened. Senior Planner Mike Lappen gave a PowerPoint presentation. He added that the Conditions of Approval need to be changed to reflect the date of the most current plans that are for November 20, 2003 and requiring the applicant to include the CC&Rs with the final map. Assistant City Attorney Johnson gave an overview of the Development Agreement to the Planning Commission. During Assistant City Attorney .lohnson's DA review Chairperson Romero asked if the park fee was an additional amount than what was assessed. Assistant City Attorney .lohnson responded that the fee is in accordance with the existing ordinance and has been incorporated into the Development Agreement to put a contractual obligation on the developer to pay the amount. Vice Chairperson Ochsenhirt asked how the payment schedule was set up. Assistant City Attorney .lohnson noted that some fees, such as the Park & School fees are due upon issuance of a building IJU, n,L aflu ti,at u ~u ~l,,u~r~ fee is ~u,,~L~u on a phased plan per goYemrnent code. Ed McCoy, and Dennis Henmy gave a presentation to the Commission in response to previous comments. Some of the responses included giving dimensions and sizes of the courtyards to give an idea of their size, window treatment detail and bringing out the French balconies with railing details. Speakers ~favoroftheproposa/were: Steve Savage County 20! Rainer Avenue Christopher Mohr, Housing Leadership Council of SM 690 Broadway, Redwood City Their comments included being thankful to the Commission for recognizing the need for quality rental space in the City for teachers that qualify for Iow-income housing. The development meets the criteria for affordable housing by the Housing Leadership Council. The mixed-use project will benefit everyone. -206- Public Hearing closed. Commission comments: · Commissioner Sim asked for an overview of the parking garage elevation and how the applicant responded to the Design Review Board's (DRB) comments. Commissioner Teglia noted that both balcony options presented could be used and rotated. He suggested that the applicant look at the materials being used specifically with the awnings. He noted that metal, although of high quality, tends to have rust streaks over time and suggested using another material other than metal. He added that the lighting posts could be explored. He added that the intent of the Transit Oriented Development was to make a connection to the downtown with the antique- looking light fixtures. A motif that can be integrated all the way to McLellan Drive. Commissioner Honan noted that she sees where the play area is on the north side but does not see the south side play area. She also asked if the gates to the development would be kept open and unlocked to allow pedestrians to cut through the site to go to the BART station. She asked if the -~ ............ ~ ,utu~ ~ w~ from BART to .... C-.LU.L was still being planned. Commissioner Zemke asked if the line of site from the Promenade subdivision was roof level and if these residents would see the HVAC units and other structures on the roof. Chairperson Romero noted that the Development Agreement (DA) shows that there will be 16,000 sq ft but that the applicant showed :12, 000 in their presentation. He also noted that the DA give the option that the retail space can go as Iow as 12,000 and was concerned with reducing the Applicants comments Mr. Henmy noted that they have proposed Redwood trees to screen the building from the Costco parking lot and have added vines at the base that will climb up the parking structure. The goal is to have it blend in as a landscape element. As for the DRB comments, he noted that they extended the retail out to El Camino Real (ECR) and the landscaping on the corner of ECR and McLellan will emphasize the retail entrance. Mr. McCoy noted that there is a condition of approval that requires details of the railing and lighting come back to staff for final review and approval. Chief Planner Sparks noted that staff would review the lighting plan and approve it according to the Commission's recommendation. Mr. McCoy noted that it would be by the leasing office on the south side. He added that there is a condition of approval that requires them to keep the gate open. Chief Planner Sparks noted as of October 13, 2003 the shuttle from BART to E-101 was implemented. Mr. Henmy noted that there will not be any air conditions units on the roof and the parapet will screen the mechanical units. Assistant City Attorney Johnson noted that for the November 20th packet the phasing plan and commercial/retail space were unresolved and since then have been. The revised DA states that the commercial consists of note less than :12,000 sq ft of grocery space and not less than 11,000 sq ft of retail along McLellan Drive. -207- commercial space automatically. Chairperson Romero noted that he had requested rendering of the interior courtyards to visualize the amount of Open Space for the project but has not received that information and has only seen the north parcel but not the south parcel. He added that the recommendation to Council be that the project be redesigned to include more open space without loosing the number of units. Commissioner Sim, Commissioner Teglia and Chairperson Romero felt that there needed to be more renderings of the project along El Camino, more design details and improvement in aesthetics. Chairperson Romero noted that the density calculation includes the street and that is not in accordance with policy 2-1-19. he noted that the play area is inadequate and the other one will also be inadequate. Senior Planner Mike Lappen noted that streets have not been counted as part of the density calculations. The density calculations allow 50 units per acre without McLellan Drive based on 7 acres and not the 8.4 acres. Mr. McCoy felt that their presentation addressed the Commission's comments and added that the presentation showed dimensions to give the Commission an idea of the size of the courtyards. Chief Planner Sparks noted that there is not enough land for additional open space. Assistant City Attorney 3ohnson noted that state law addresses lack of open space and this is why the City has implemented an in lieu fee to offset the lack of open space not being provided. -208- Commissioner Giusti noted that the project is meeting all SSF code requirements. Commissioner Teglia envisioned more adults and less children. He noted that the lack of open space is a good reason to develop the linear park as soon as possible. The Commission discussed giving the City council a full weight analysis of how the Commission sees this project. Commissioner Honan noted that the Commission has discussed the project and they also have to look at it in a realistic manner. The project has improved and to add more open space in proposal there would have to be fewer units or go higher. She noted that the Transit Village is not a residential area where there is a lot of open space. She recommended forwarding it to Council with additional comments by the Commission. The Commission agreed that the item needed to be forwarded to Council. Commissioner Zemke noted that he would be abstaining on the item being that he has not been at all the discussion by the Commission. Vice Chairperson Ochsenhirt noted that this is a high quality project and appreciates the effort that staff and the applicant have put into the project. Chairperson Romero asked why the sale of a portion of the property has to be approved by the City Manager. Assistant City Attorney Johnson noted that the DA runs with the land and there may be several owners for one project. She noted that the DA requires the City's approval prior to transfer of property owners and if the city is not notified the transfer would be void. Commissioner Honan asked what the rent rates for the units would be. Mr. McCoy noted that the Iow income units are 30% of the income of the renter. ::[ BR rent from $1600-$2600 and the 2 bedrooms are $2400-$2600. Assistant City Attorney Johnson noted that staff has taken the Commission's comments will be added to the conditions of approval. Nlotion Teglia recommending that the City Council approves P02-0088, Development Agreement, Affordable Housing Agreement, Tentative Map application, and Mitigated Negative Declaration MND02-0088 with the modified conditions of approval based on the discussion by the Commission. Assistant City Attorney Johnson added that the Mitigated Negative Declaration also includes a stated of overriding considerations for a cumulative impact identified in the General Plan E[R. Chairperson Romero noted that he would like to recommend that the City Council consider requiring additional design improvements and open space through rooftop design or redesign the project. Amended l~lotion Teglia ! Second Sim including the recommendation Chairperson Romero. Approved by majority voice vote with Commissioner Zemke abstaining. Chief Planner Sparks noted that he would communicate the Commission's concerns to the Council. He commended the Commission on their work with this project. -209- ATTACHMENT 5 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP Fairfield Residential LLC PARCEl. 2 PARCEL 3 South San Francisco Tri~nsit Oriented Oevelopment Platmin§ [lepartment Submittal Octobel I0, 2003 ATTACHMENT 6 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DECEMBER 4~ 2003 Planning Commission Staff Report DATE: December 4, 2003 TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: FAIRFIELD MIXED-USE, COMMERCIAL/RESIDENTIAL TRANSIT VILLAGE PROJECT Applicant: Case Number: Fairfield Residential P02-0088 (Use Permit, Tentative Parcel Map, Affordable Housing Agreement, & Development Agreement) and MND-02-0088, Mitigated Negative Declaration RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve MND-02-0088, Mitigated Negative 'Declaration and approve P02-0088, Fairfield Mixed-Use Commercial/Residential Transit Village Project including, Use Permit, Affordable Housing Agreement and Tentative Parcel Map. It is also recommended that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt DA-02-0088, Development Agreement. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The Planning Commission has held pubhc hearings on October 16, 2003, November 6, 2003 and November 20, 2003. At the first public heating, Planning Commissioners identified several arctfitecrural issues that needed further clarification or refinement. At the second pubhc hearing, the Planning Commission reviewed the environmental analysis and took public comments on the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed mixed-use transit village project. Planning Commissioners also identified additional site plannh~g and architectural issues that needed further clarification or refinement. On November 20, 2003, the developer requested that the City continue the item to the December 4, 2003 meeting.. The continuance was necessary for the developer and City staff to discuss the Affordable Housihg Agreement. This staff report and the November 20, 2003 Planning Commission Staff Report (Attachment 1) comprise the staff presentation for the December 4, 2003 Plmming Commission meeting. The November 20, 2003 Staff Report is divided into three sections. Section 1: The E1 Camino Real Corridor, includes a background and summary of the goals of the El Camino Real Corridor Redevelopment Plan, the 1999 South San Francisco General Plan, and the Transit Village Zoning District. Section 2: Fairfield Residential Project Description, includes the proposed -211 - Staff Report To: Planning Commission Subject: Study Session, Fairfield Residential Date: December 4, 2003 Page 2 project description, project consistency with the General Plan, Redevelopment Plan, and the Transit Village Zoning District standards, a summary of the proposed Development Agreement, and a summary of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Section 3: Planning Commission Meetings, includes a summary of the Planning Commission public hearings and Planning Commissioner comments. The attached November 20, 2003 Staff Report includes the following documents: Resolution · Negative Declaration · Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program · Statement of Overriding Considerations · Draft Development Agreement and Ordinance · Draft Affordable Housing Agreement RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve MND-02-0088, Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve P02-0088, Fairfield M/xed-Use Commercial/Residential Transit Village Project including, Use Permit, Affordable Housing Agreement, and Tentative Parcel Map. It is also recommended that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt DA-02-0088, Development Agreement. Respectfully submitted, I~lichael Lappen // Senior Plam~er {/ Attachments: 1. Planning Commission Staff Report, November 20, 2003, with attachments -212- ATTACHMENT 7 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT NOVEMBER 20, 2003 Planning Gommission Staff Report DATE: November 20, 2003 TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: FAIRFIELD MIX~D-USE, COMMERC~SIDENT~ TRANSIT VILLAGE PROJECT Applicant: Case Number: Fairfield Residential P02-0088 (Use Permit, Tentative Parcel Map, Affordable Housing Agreement, & Development Agreement) and MND-02-0088, Mitigated Negative Declaration RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve MND-02-0088, Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve P02-0088, Fairfield Mixed-Use Commercial/Residential Transit Village Project including, Use Permit, draft Transportation Demand Management Plan, Affordable Houshxg Agreement and Tentative Parcel Map. It is also recommended that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt DA-02- 0088, Development Agreement. BACKGROUND: Fairfield Residential is requesting approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and a Use ~;*~ ~,~,,~ *~,, consh--uct a ~xeu-u~c, Cu~,,,,,~ml/re~d=ntm~ ~mtsit-ofiented development complex adjacent to the Sou~ S~ Fr~cisco B~T station. The proposed project is locmed on ~ exist~g single p~cel in the Sou~ S~ Fr~cisco B.~T Tr~sit Village Zomg Dis~ct ~d the E1 C~o Real Comdor Redevelopment Project ~ea. The project comphses 360 ap~ment 9~ ~ts, up to _~,000 squ~e feet of retail space, ~d ~o on-site p~g s~cmres. The apphc~t is also request~g CiV of Sou~ S~ Fr~cisco approval a Tentative P~cel Map, to subdivide the exist~g s~gle p~cel, bisected by McLell~ Dsve, into t~ee smaller parcel to acco~odate ~e ~oceu store ~d ~e ~o mixed-use development sites. The project also ~cludes approval of the ~forddale Housing A~eement ~d City Co~cil adoption of a Development A~eemem. Fairfield Residential Review Process In October 2002, Fairfield Residential submitted an application to consU-uct a m/xed use project on the site. hn January 2003, several City Comacil members and Plarming Commissioners toured -213- Staff Report To: Planning Commission Subject: Study Session, Fairfield Residential Date: November 20, 2003 Page 2 representative mixed-use commercial and high-density residential projects between San Jose and Redwood City. Rick Williams of the consulting firm, Van Meter Williams Pollack, prepared the attached handout that lists the projects on the tour, other projects of interest in the San Francisco Bay Area, and the development information on each project (see Attachment 8). Fairfield introduced the mixed-use project to the Planning Commission at a Study Session held on May 1, 2003 and held a community meeting at the Municipal Services Building on May 27, 2003. The Planning Commission then held two Sub-Committee meetings between July and October 2003, which provided the Planning Commissioners and the developer to clarify, refine or modify several site plarming and architectural issues prior to scheduling a public hearing. As a result of the Sub-Committee process, the developer increased the commercial area of the project, changed the proposed building materials, changed the architectural desig-n of the complex, agreed to permit public access into the interior com'tyard areas of the complex, and refined the use of the stoops along E1 Camino Real, BART Service Road 2 and the BART Pedestrian Plaza. The Planning Commission has held public heatings on October 16, 2003 and November 6, 2003. At the first public heating, Planning Commissioners identified several architectural issues that needed further clarification or refinement..At the second public hearing, the Planning Commission reviewed the environmental analysis and took public comments on the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed mixed-use transit village project. Planning Commissioners also identified additional site planning and architectural issues that needed further clarification or refinement. The item was continued to the November 20, 2003 meeting. DISCUSSION: This staff report is divided into tl~'ee sections. Section 1: The El Camino Real Corridor, includes a back,curtal and sum_maD' of the goals of the E1 Camino Real Corridor Redevelopment Plan, the 1999 South San Francisco General Plan, and the Transit Village Zoning District. Section 2: Fairfield Residential Project Description, includes the proposed project description, project consistency with the General Plan, Redevelopment Plan, and the Transit Village Zoning District standards, a summary of the proposed Development Agreement, and a summary of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Section 3: Planning Commission Meetings, includes a summary of the Planning Commission public hearings and Planning Commi ssioner comments. Section 1: The El Camino Real Corridor The proposed Fakfield Residential mixed-use comm_ercial/residential project is a culmination of ten years of planning and redevelopment on the El Camino Real Corridor near the new' BART Station. The City's General Plan policies and zoning standards promoting a mixed-use project -214- Staff Report To: Planning Commission Subject: Study Session, Fairfield Residential Date: November 20, 2003 Page 3 respond to the State of California's housing laws and the city's need to provide a modern shopping center near residential neighborhoods. The General Plan policies and Transit Village Zoning District standards provides the developer with specific guidelines for 1) the city's first high-density residential apartment complex near the BART Station, and 2) the city's first si:,mfificant "neighborhood" shopping center on E1 Camino Real to be built since the 1960s. Historical Residential and Commercial Character The proposed transit village project is located in the E1 Camino Real Corridor Redevelopment Project Area, adjacent to the newly opened South San Francisco BART Station. The corridor contains a mixture residential neighborhoods, office buildings, industrial sites, and neighborhood and regional commercial retailers. The project site was originally part of the former Macy's Warehouse Center. The new housing developments along the E1 Camino Real corridor include Promenade and Greenridge. Most of South San Francisco's neighborhood and community centers are concentrated along E1 Camino Real and are characterized by small sites. Some shopping centers have retailers and restaurants with a citywide orientation, such as Safeway at the South City Center or Blockbuster Video at the Buri Buri Shopping Center; other neighborhood centers serve primarily convenience needs. Costco and Ron Price Motors, which are two of the city's top sales tax generators, are considered to be re~onal commercial uses with a northern Peninsula and San Francisco service area. E1 Cam/no also has a Wal~eens, two freestanding supermarkets and other convenience retailers. E1 Camino Real supports three of the city's major employers, Kaiser Permanente, Costco and See's Candies. The new BART station has provided the impetus for transformation of the corridor, particularly on vacant and underutihzed parcels near the station site. Adopted on July 14, 1993, the redevelopment plan for the E1 Camino Real Corridor was prepared in response to the planned BART extension through South San Francisco just east of E1 Camino Real. The plan focuses on redevelopment of key parcels along the northern section of the corridor, including the 26-acre Macy's Service Center and the County Government Center, as well as annexation of the 30.9 acre McLellan Nursery Site. The E1 Camino Real Corridor Redevelopment Plan and General Plan Amendment changed land-use policies to permit the following: · Develop high-density residential, with housing densities of at least 30 units per acre along the BA_RT line itse!£ -215- Staff Report To: Planning Commission Subject: Study Session, Fairfield Residential Date: November 20, 2003 Page 4 · Redevelopment project area established to fund a full subway cortfiguration for BART through South San Francisco Following adoption of the Plan, Lincoln Properties purchased the 26-acre Macy's Service Center site to construct potentially up to 780 high-density residential units, with no commercial development. The developer did not submit an application. The Redevelopment Plan was expanded in 2001 to include commercial properties on E1 Camino Real south of Chestnut Avenue and Willow Gardens. The South San Francisco General Plan Update Bem~een 1997 and 1999, the Planning Commission and City Council had the opportunity to review the existing land use policies along the E1 Camino Real and prepare policies that promoted balanced commercial, office and residential land uses near the BART station. The General Plan Existing Conditions and Planning Issues Report noted that South San Francisco has never been a commercial center and has actually lost potential sales tax revenues to Colma, Daly City and San Bruno. The Report also noted that the city's neighborhood and convenience shopping centers are small and aging, do not provide a anchor or appropriate tenant mix, and cannot compete with newer centers in the adjacent cities. The General Plan Update process identified several redevelopment objectives for the E1 Camino Real Corridor, including: · Create strong neighborhood centers that are vital for stabilizing residential neighborhoods. · Recognize that redevelopment can provide the opportunity to create a new visual identity for E1 Camino Real in the city. In 1999, the City Council adopted the South San Francisco General Plan, which contains specific policies and programs that promote "transit oriented development" -- balancing high-density residential development and commercial uses -- in the area around the BART Station. Transit Village Zoning District La 2001, the City Council, Planning Commission, Design Review Board, developers, property owners, regional agencies, and residents undertook a collaborative process to implement the General Plan and create the Transit Village Zoning Distr/ct. The City held a series of' Planning Commission Subcommittee meetings, technical meetings with stakeholders, a community meeting at E1 Camino High School, an Open House at the Magnolia Center, several Planning Cormnission study sessions, and Planning Coffin-fission and City Council pubhc heatings. -216- Staff Report To: Planning Commission Subject: Study Session, Fairfield Residential Date: November 20, 2003 Page 5 During the process, KB Homes expressed interest in building a residential tfigh-density apartment over podium parking proj eot on the site. The developer was interested in building a standard apartment project with approximately 500 un/ts and 1,200 square feet of ground floor commercial flex space. Ultimately, at the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the City Council adopted a Zoning District that required a more balanced mix of land uses in the transit village area and quality design standards. The developer withdrew the proposal based on the City's design, commercial and affordable housing requirements. Section 2: Fairfield Residential Project Description Fairfield Residential is proposing the development of a mixed-use transit village project, with 360 residential un/ts and 23,000 square feet of retail commercial, on a single 8.48-acre parcel adjacent to the South San Francisco B.~T Station. The developer is also proposing to subdivide the existing single parcel into three parcels. The project data is provided in the following table: Project Development Data Acres I Proposed Parcel 1 I Proposed Parcel 2 Proposed Parcel 3 McLellan Dedication Total Number of Residential Units Proposed Parcel 2 Total ' Commercial Square Feet Proposed Parcels 1 & 2 Proposed Parcel 3 Total Residential DensiBT Landscape Area Building Height Three story ~ };our stoW Number of Parking Spaces Proposed Project 3.55 acres (154,638 square feet) 1.26 acres (54,886 square feet) 2.44 acres (106,286 square feet) ~ ~ (53,579 square feet) i .~D acres 8.48 g-ross acres (369,389 square feet) 188 units l~Z,~ - * ~-' amis 360 un/ts 16,000 square feet for a Trader Joe's grocery store and ground level retail 7,000 square feet ground level retail _.~,000 square feet 43 un/ts/acre gross and 50 un/ts/acre 65,825 square feet (including 35,800 square feet interior courtyard areas) 37 feet 47 feet -217- StaffReport To: Planning Commission Subj oct: Study Session, Fairfield Residential Date: November 20, 2003 Page 6 Proposed Project Resident Only (structured) Visitor (structured) Grocery (surface) McLellan Drive (street) Total Residential Parking Ratio 541 spaces 60 spaces 64 spaces 24 spaces 689 spaces 1.5 spaces per unit Consistency With The South San Francisco General Plan The developer's proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, which designates the property for mixed-use commercial/retail and high-density residential uses. Mixed-use commercial and high-density residential uses are considered appropriate uses under this designation. The following policies specifically support the proposed project: · Guiding Policy 2-G3 - Provide land use designations that maxhnize benefits of increased accessibihty that will result from BART extension to the city and adjacent locations. Guiding Pohcy 2-G-7 - Encourage mixed-use residential, retail, and office development in centers where they would support transit, in locations where they would provide increased access to neighborhoods that currently lack such facilities, and in corridors where such developments can help to foster identity and vitahty. Guiding Policy 2-G-8 - Provide incentives to maxim/ze community orientation of new development, and promote alternate transportation modes. · Implementing Policy 3.4-I-3 - In parmership with property owners, area residents, and BART and other agencies, develop the approximately 8-acre McLellan Boulevard Extension area as a pedes~an-oriented spine fronted by active uses. · Implementing Policy 3.4-I-5 - Establish transit-supportive development requirements for the approximately 8-acre station area ...... · Policy 4.2-G-10 - Exempt development within the one-quarter mile of a Caltrain or BART station or a City-designated ferry terminal from LOS standards. · Pohcy 2-1-19 - The benchmark density (un/ts per net acre of land) shall be the number of dwelling units proposed on a specific site for each 43,560 square feet of raw land exclusive of land allocated for public streets and submerged land ..... Consistency ~th The Transit Village Zoning District The proposed project meets or exceeds the City's minimum standards and requirements, established in Chapter 20.27, Trm2sit Village Zo~Sng District, wkich designates the site as TV-C, Transit Village Cow~mercial and TV-R_H, Transit Village Residential, Higth-Density. -218- Staff Report To: Planning Commission Subject: Study Session, Fairfield Residential Date: November 20, 2003 Page 7 Adopted in 2001, the Transit Village Plan and Zoning District is designed to promote a balanced mixed use development near the BART Station. The plan also assists developers, arch/tects and policy makers in obtaining the best possible design. The Plan envisions McLellan Drive as a pedestrian oriented "main street" in the Transit Village. Community-serving retail could be located at the central intersection with BART Access Road 2 for a grocery store, cafe, restaurants, small shops, and some services. There is a strong desire to place at least one outdoor seating/plaza area for shoppers and community members to gather at one comer of this location for coffee, relaxing, game playing, and chatting. Other retail uses may have smaller caf~ seating areas along their frontage along McLellan Drive. Princif~al Design features include: · The architecture which fronts the E1 Camino Real should be urban in feel and have a strong presence and should address the street to provide a strong edge against this busy street. · The design of the podium along E1 Camino Real must be integrated into the building design as a strong base, articulated by openings and punctuated by entry stoops at regular intervals to provide activity and visual interest for pedestrians walking along the street. · The building massing should be articulated to create a strong rhythm in the bu/lding facades and should emphasize groupings of units and be integral with the entry articulation. · Parapet detailing and roof top forms are of great importance to the overall appearance of the E1 Camino Real facades as they are viewed from the residential neighborhoods above. These should be carefully designed, articulated to reinforce the building massing and ..... oi m~chamcai units. fns~b~ms ann h~ ~,~ua,,,5, ~;t ~ ,~a,~,4 .... a,s,~ ~,~'*~ appropriate' screening ~' ...... : ' · McLellan Drive is envisioned as the "main street" of the Transit Village. Its central location and accessibility to the BART station creates the opportunity for a lively neighborhood center. This street connects two residential developments to the BART Station and is the primary pedestrian connection to E1 Carnino High School. · Commercial uses must occur where designated in the land use plan, and should be encouraged in the ground floor of all other frontage along McLellan Drive. The project is meets or exceeds the following Transit Village Zoning District standards (see the table on Attachment 7): The proposed project includes commercial and residential uses and, thus, meets the City requirements for retail uses or eating and d~dng establist~ments on the ground floor with either commercial office and high density residential uses on upper floors~ -219- Staff Report To: Planning Commission Subject: Study Session, Fairfield Residential Date: November 20, 2003 Page 8 established in Sections 20.47.020, Sub-districts and 20.47.030, Land Uses in the Transit Village Zoning District. · The proposed project will not exceed 50 residential units per acre and, thus, meets the City's maximum density requirement of 50 units per acre for a ki~-density residential project, established in Section 20.47.040, Regulations and Standards in the Transit Village Zoning D/strict and General Plan Po]icy 2-1-19. · The proposed project will not exceed a height of 47 feet and, thus, meets the City's maximum height requirement of 55 feet for the site, established in Section 20.47.040, Regulations and Standards in the Transit Village Zoning D/strict. · The proposed project will provide a ration of 1.5 par-king spaces per residential units and, thus, meets the City's parking standards, established in Section 20.47.040, Regulations and Standards in the Transit Village Zoning District and Chapter 20.74, Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations. · The proposed project complies with the City development and desig-n standards for street frontages, parking garage locations, building design, open space areas, pedestrian- orientation and project amenities, established in Section 20.47.040, Regulations and Standards in the Transit Village Zoning District. Consistency With The E1 Camino Real Redevelopment Plan The proposed project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the E1 Camino Real Corridor Redevelopment Project Plan, amended in 2001, to 1) create and develop high-density residential development adjacent to the South San Francisco BART Station and 2) to replan, redesign and develop areas which are stagnant or improperly used. Proposed Development Agreement And Affordable Rousing Agreement The City and the developer are currently negotiating a Development A~eement to implement the project consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and pro,ams specified in the South San Francisco General Plan and the South San Francisco BART Transit Village Plan. The Development Agreement will be attached to the November 6, 2003 Planning Corm'nission Staff Report and will include the following terms to ensure that the proj eot will be built and maintained as a high quality project. · Public art contribution: Developer will either pay an ageed-upon fee or install public art. · Childcare contribution: Developer will pay the required fee plu. s and an additional $600 per unit to help the City secure a site for a Childcare facility · Infi-astructure improvements: Developer will install and maintain street furnitm-e and lighting on McLellan Drive and E1 Can4no Real -220- Staff Report To: Planning Commission Subject: Study Session, Fairfield Residential Date: November 20, 2003 Page 9 Park fee contribution: Developer will provide a fee to help maintain existing parks. CC&R 's: Developer will prepare CC&R's to manage the commercial leasing space. · Affordable Housing Agreement: The developer will set aside 20 percent of the un/ts for low- and moderate-income households. Mitigated Negative Declaration In accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and City policy, an Initial Study was conducted to determine whether the following project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Initial Study was distributed for a 30-day comment period on October 14, 2003. The Initial Study analyzed potential visual impacts, air quahty impacts, geology and soil impacts, hazardous materials, noise, pubhc services, traffic, and utihties. On the basis of the Initial Study it has been determined that althougl~ the proposed project could have a sigrfificant adverse effect on the environment, there will not be a significant adverse effect in this case because the mitigation measures in the INtial Study have been incorporated into the project. The City received comments from PG&E and Caltrans. The City also received several letters from residents and interested groups regarding the proposed project. At the November 6, 2003 public hearing, two Planning Commissioners commented on the analysis in the Negative Declaration (see "Response to Comments" in Attachment 2) The comments and the City's response to the comments are described below. Comments Received fi*om Public/Quasi-Public Agencies 1) Pacific Gas and Electric Co (11/03/03): Notes that PG&E owns and operates electrical ~r~ n~mr~i gas facilities ,~,if~,P2~n o,,'q o~4 .... * +" +~' .... ;°~+ ~+~' ~°~ .... ;^-~ of ~ ~-~ hcilifies will be at developer's cost. Costs to extend these hcihties to the project site will be borne by ~e developer. PG&E. also notes ~at trek hcihties emit elec~c ~d ma~etic fields ~d t~s i~omafion shoed be disclosed. Response: Comment acknowledged. Information provided by PG&E is noted. 2) Caltrans (11/6/03) Notes that an encroachment permit is needed for any work in a state right-of-way Response: Comment acknowledged. An encroachment permit will be obtained for any work in a state-right-of-way. -221- Staff Report To: Planning Commission Subject: Study Session, Fairfield Residential Date: November 20, 2003 Page 10 Comments Received from the Public The following comment letters were received. These letters generally comment on the anticipated traffic impacts of the proposed project and potential blockage of views. Two of the comment letters (Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County and Greenbelt Alliance) offer support of the proposed project. 1) Milagfimo and Tessie Cachola (10/10/03) 2) Letter with no Signature (10/10/03) 3) Peter Gefler (10/12/03) 4) Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County (10/13/03) 5) Barbara Epis (10/20/03) 6) DennBaisa (10/15/03) 7) Judy Korte (10/28/03) 8) Jan Hopkins (11/2/03) 9) ChristineMarie Ruck (11/4/03) · 10) Greenbelt Alliance (11/5/03) Master Response: Traffic and transportation issues related to the approval and construction of the proposed project were addressed in the In/rial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. These impacts were assessed by a professional traffic and transportation engineering firm using standards of traffic impact significance adopted by the City of South San Francisco. The Mitigated Negative Declaration identifies that the project will result in more traffic on local streets near the project site, however, with adherence to mitigation measures contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, a less-than-significant impact would be created. Other comments regarding the merits of the proposed project are noted, however, these are opinions on the underlying project and are not comments on the enviromnental aspects of the project. No response is therefore needed for these comments. The comments and the Response to Comments have been incorporated into the Initial Study. The Initial Study analyzed the potential cumulative air quality impacts from the proposed project. The attached Resolution includes a confirmation of the General Plan "Statement of Overriding Considerations" regarding the cumulative impacts on air quality. Section 3: Planning Commission Meetings The Planning Commission held two Subcommittee meetings between July and October 2003 and public heahngs on October i6, 2003 and November 6, 2003 to review the Fairfield transit village -222- Staff Report To: Planning Commission Subject: Study Session, Fairfield Residential Date: November 20, 2003 Page 11 proposal. During each meeting, Planning Commissioners commented on the architectural desig-n of the project and asked that the developer prepare revised illustrations to either redesig-n a specific element or clarify an architectural concept. As a result of the Planrfing Commission's efforts, the developer redesi~maed the project and changed the proposed materials, which included Hardy Board. During the October 16, 2003 meeting, the Planning Commissioners commented that the revised proposal was more acceptable. During the November 6, 2003 meeting, the Planning Commission received a staff presentation summarizing the project and the Initial Study/lVlitigated Negative Declaration. The Commission received comments from residents and employees with the South San Francisco Unified School District, the Childcare Coordinating Council, the Greenbelt Alliance, and trade un/on representatives. The developer also prepared a presentation to address the Planning Commission comments from the first meeting. The presentation include detailed descriptions and illustrations of the following architectural components: · An illustration showing the intersection of McLellan Drive and E1 Carnino Real, which shows how the retail units will wrap around the comer for more visibility on E1 Camino Real. · An illustration showing the building elevations, pedestrian-orientation and type of amenities proposed on McLellan Drive. · A table and site plan showing the uses and location of the leasing offices (such as community areas, exercise rooms, and office space). · An illustration showing specific architectural details, including an explanation of the trim arovmd the windows, shallow French baico~es, awnings, retai! spaces, monument signage, and retail store signage in order to illustrate the standard of construction. · A site plan showing the various entry and exit locations and circulation for public access through the project area. · Illustrations showing landscaping and elevation plan for the portions of the parking structure facing Costco Drive and the Parkette. · Photographs showing the existing conditions of the surrounding properties. Planning Commission Comments, November 6, 2003 During the meeting, two Planning Commissioners indicated that they were not satisfied with the developer's responses and identified several site plmming and architectural issues that needed clarification or modification including: -223- Staff Report To: Planning Cormmission Subject: Study Session, Fairfield Residential Date: November 20, 2003 Page 12 · The project should be more innovative. · The residential density on the south parcel (proposed parcel 3) is too dense. · The applicant has significantly reduced the mount of "open space" envisioned by the Transit Village Plan. · The applicant should provide a roof on each parking structure and use the surface for open space. · The project provides an "unfriendly" environment for children and the children's play area is too small. · The French balcony should not be shallow. The applicant should provide more debth to the French Balcony space. · The interior courtyards appear to be too narrow. The applicant should provide a more detailed view of the interior courtyards. The developer will respond to the Planning Comm/ssion comments and provide additional information, illustrations and explanations at the November 20, 2003 public hearing. RECOIVIMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning CommSssion recommend that the City Council approve MND-02-0088, Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve P02-0088, Fairfield Mixed-Use Commercial/Residential Transit Village Project including, Use Permit, draft Transportation Demand Management Plan, and Tentative Parcel Map. It is also recommended that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt DA-02-0088, Development Ag-reement. Attachments: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Location Map Resolution with attachments Planning Commission Staff Report, November 6, 2003 Draft Planning Commission Minutes, November 6, 2003 Planning Cormmission Staff Report, October 16, 2003 Draft Planning Commission Minutes, October 16, 2003 -224- Stall'Report To: Planning Commission Subject: Study Session, Fairfield Residential Date: November 20, 2003 Page 13 8. 9. 10. 11. Transit Village Zoning District, Standards And Re~m.dations Table Planning Commission Tour Handout Comments from Residents and Interested Groups Tentative Parcel Map Site and Elevation Plans -225- ATTACHMENT 8 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT NOVEMBER 6, 2003 Planning Commission Staff Report DATE: TO: SUBJECT: November 6, 2003 Plarming Commission PUBLIC HEARING: FAIRF~LD MIX~D-USE, COMMERCIA_L/RES/DENTIAL TRANSIT VILLAGE PROJECT Applicant: Case Number: Fairfield Residential P02-0088 (Mitigated Negative Declaration, Use Permit, Tentative Parcel Map & Development A~eement) RECOMME~ATION: It is recommended that the Planing Commission receive the staff presentation on the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, take public comments, comment on the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the project, and continue the public hearing for the proposed mixed-use commercial/residential transit village proposal from Fairfield Residential to November 20, 2003. BACKGROUND: lXairfietd Residential is requesting adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approval of a Use Permit to construct a mixed-use, commercial/residential transit-oriented development complex adjacent to the South San Francisco BART station. The proposed project is located in the South San Francisco BART Transit Village Zoning District and the E1 Camino ReaJ Corridor Redevelopment Project Area. It comprises 360 apartment un/ts, up to 23,000 square feet of retail ...... A ~ .... +'"'~"-~ ~- ~;* -~-~':-~ l~t, applicant is -'-- requesting City of oFa~~ c.~.t~ Lvvu ~uwmwu u~,-~Le pm.~t.u~ sti-ticVdres, m~_- South San Francisco ~oproval a Tenmfive Parcel Map~ m subdivide ~ ~ing]e p~ce!~ bisected by McLellan Drive~ into three smaller parcel to accommodate the ~oce~ s~ore and the two mixed- use development si~es. The project also includes City Council approval of a Developmen~ A~eement The Planning Commission held a Study Session on May 1, 2003 and two Sub-Committee meetings between July and September 2003 to rexdew the Fairfield proposal. During the meetings, Planning Commissioners identified several land-use and architectural issues that needed clarification or modification pr/or to scheduling a public hearing. The Planning Commission field the first of three public hearings on October 16, 2003. Dm*rog the October 16, 2003 public hem-h~g, the Planning Commission voted to continue the item to the November 6, 2003 a_nd November 20.20c}~ ~,~,~,tings. -226- StaffReport To: Planning Commission Subject: Study Session, Fairfield Residential Date: November 6, 2003 Page 2 DISCUSSION: The purpose of this public heating is to rmdew the emdronmental analysis and to take public comments on the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed mixed-use transit village project. This meeting will include a presentation by staff that reviews the potential impacts and lists the mitigation measures identified in the M/t/gated Negative Declaration, comments from any interested groups and individuals regarding the adequacy of the environmental document, and comments from the Pl~nqng Commissioners. Project Description Fairfield Residential is proposing the development of a m/xed-use transit village project wtzich includes the follow/rig elements: Residential: The developer is proposing to construct 360 units on Parcels 2 and 3. The apamnent complex will consist of a mix of one- and two-bedroom un/ts, generally located on second, third and forth floors of the buildings with non-residential use on the gound floor. Affordable units: Apartment homes would be rental only, with 20 percent of the un/ts (approxknately 72 un/ts) designated affordable for low and moderate income households. The un/ts occupied by low and moderate income households would be essentially the same as un/ts occupied by market households and would be dispersed throughou~ the building. Recreational amenities: Each parcel will include spas, BBQs, gym, seating areas, as well as, play areas. Additional amen/ties may include a fimess center, commun%, room v. dth V2tchen facilities and business cemer. In addit2on, a small mini-park would be located at the intersection m ~.u~tcu wnvu and Cammo .N. eal. Commercial retail: The developer is proposing to build up to 23,000 square feet of commercial retail, including a 12,000 square feet gocery store and 11,000 square feet of gound level retail space located on both sides of McLellan Drive, between E1 Camino Real and BART Ser~dce Road 2 on the ground floor of the residential structures. Parking and circulation: The transit village project would be scm, ed by 689 partdng spaces distributed throughout the site. Fairfield Residential will locate 541 resident parking spaces and 60 _m.~e~, parring spaces ~ smmtu,'ed ~-~-4,~,~ ~,-~ The ~,,-~,;~,, ~, ;,,,~,,,q~ 64 spaces ~ surface parld_ng adjacent to the Focery store. The Transit Village Plan also perm/ts 24 on-street spaces on McLellan Drive. -227- StaffReport To: Plarming Commission Subject: Study Session, Fairfield Residential Date: November 6, 2003 Page 3 Planning Commission Study Session and Subcommittee Comments The Plmming Commission held the first of three public hearings on October 16, 2003. During the meeting, the Planning Commission received a staff presentation summar/zing the project, developer presentation, and received comments from residents and employees with the South San Francisco Un/fled School District, the League of Women Voters, Ch/ldcare Coord2nating Council, the Housing Leadership Council, and trade union representatives. During discussion, Planning Corrmfissioners identified several architectural issues that needed clarification or modification including: · The proposal' is more acceptable, but the applicant needs to provide more detail, such as the trim around the windows, in order to illustrate the standard of construction. · The Commissioners supported the public access during dayhg_&t hours through the project area. · The applicant should include commercial at the intersection of McLellan Drive and E1 Cam/no Real. The retail should wrap around the corner for more visibility on E1 Carnino Real. The corner should be more of a gateway feature. · The applicant should proxdde more detail, such as a photo survey that shows the pedestrian orientation on McLellan Drive and the BART Plaza, as well as provide a broader neighborhood context. · The apphcant needs to show how the applicant plans to use the leasing offices (such as cornmurLity areas, exercise rooms, and office space). · The applicant needs to prepare an illustration that shows the rear entr/es from the common areas. · Show the type of paving for the crosswalks. Response to Planning Commission Comments Architecture and Desi~ Features: The developer will provide additional project data and illustrations for the next Plarm_ing Commission meeting on November 20, 2003. Shuttle SeTwice: On October 13, 2003, SamTrans moved the employee shuttle transfer station from the San Bruno B_~,_T Station to the South San Francisco BART Station. Leasing Office: The developer reduced the size of the leasing office fromages on McLellan Drive. T-he leasing office space comprises a total of 5,600 square feet for offices, meeting rooms, business ~+ ~ ~:~zn./~.labhouse space on the. south parcel would be · ,mes~ veto**.,. The ~ located along the inner pathway and behind the retaSi smrefront. The Leasing/Clubhouse space -228- Staff tleport To: Planning Commission Subject: Study Session, Fairfield Residential Date: November 6, 2003 Page 4 on the north parcel would be oriented along the m/d-block driveway. The developer would leave approximately 20 feet of Leasin~Clubhouse space to front McLellan Drive in order to help the project's commercial viability. North Site Leasing (leasing area includes approx. 1,000 St: for resident meetings/functions) Fitness Center Business Center Total 2,300 SF 1,900 SF 475 SF 225 SF 3,000 SF South Site Leasing (leasing area mctudes approx. 700 SF for residem meetings/functions) Fitness Center Business Center Total 475 SF 225 SF 2,600 SF Mitigated Negative Declaration In accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and City policy, an Initial Study was conducted to determine whether the following project may have a si~m-fificant effect on the environment. The Initial Study was ddsrr/buted for a 30-day comment per/od on October 14, 2003. The Initial Smd5, analyzed potential visual impacts, sir quality impacts, geology and soil impacts, hazardous materials, noise, public services, traffic, and utilities. On the basis of the Initial Study it has been determined that although the proposed project could have a significant adverse effect on the envkonment, there will not be a significant adverse effect in this case because the mitigation measures in the In/rial Study have been incorporated into the project. The mitigation measures are listed as follows: Aesthetics ~w~.,.urs ,~ cxLu~or hums sram~ be equipped ~th cut-o~~ lenses ~d ~es to reduce spill over of unw~ted li~t ~o residential ~eas ~d ~eas off of the site. Lights for co~erciJ ~d office uses shall be 6mined or mined off d~g closed eyeing ho~s as approved by the Police Dep~ent. Air Quality Mitigation Measure ~ ~. The fo!lowing measures are recommended for inclusion in construction specifications to control fug-itive dust emissions. Water ail active consm~cfion areas at least mfice d~A!y. -229- StaffReport To: Planning Commission Subject: Study Session, Fairfield Residential Date: November 6, 2003 Pa~e $ · Water or cover stock"pi]es of debris, soil, sand or other materials that can be blown by the wind. · Cover all tracks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. · Sweep daffy (preferably with water sweepers) all paved access road, parking areas and stag4ng areas at construction sites. · Sweep streets daily (preferably with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure 3. If historic, archeolog-ical or Native American materials or artifacts are identified during project construction, work on the project shall cease until a resource protection plan conforming to CEQA Section 15064.5 is prepared by a qualified archeolog-ist and/or paleontolo~st and approved by the South San Francisco Ch/el Planner. Project work may be resumed in compliance with such plan. if human remains are encountered, the County Coroner shall be contacted immediately and the provisions of State law carried out. Geology and Soils Mitigation Measure 4. Contract specifications for this project shall require the preparation and implementation of an erosion control plan for all portions of the project that would involve trenching, excavation or stockpiling of dirt. The plan shall be prepared by a reg-istered civil engfineer and be consistent ~4th City of South San Francisco and ReDonal Water Quality Control Board guidelines and standards. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Mitigation Measure 5. Prior to issuance of a ~ading permit for the project, all contaminated material shall be removed from the site by a qualified contractor under perm/ts and/or approvals from all applicable regnlatory agencies. A clearance letter for the site shall be furn/shed to the CiD' from the San Marco County' Health Department or other appropriate regnlatory. Hydrology and Water Quality Mitigation Measure 6. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for the project, the project developer's civil engineer shall submit a drainage and hydrology report, /dentiSying existing peak hour and total stormwater runoff from the site, direction of flow, anticipated peak hour and total stormwater runoff at full pr~ect buildout and the ability of downstream drainage facilities -230- Staff Report To: Planning Commission Subject: Study Session, Fairfield Residential Date: November 6, 2003 Page 6 to accommodate ston'nwater increases. If necessary, the report shall iden~, specific measures to provide drainage improvements to meet City of South San Francisco and San Marco County Flood Control District drainage criteria to ensure that all dra/nage impacts are less-than- significant and no flooding would occur off of the project site. The report shall be approved by the South San Francisco City Engineer. Mitigation Measure 7. The project developer's civil engineer shall prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) adhering to City of South San Francisco and Re~onal Water Quality Control Board standards to assure long-term adherence to surface water quality standards. The SWPPP shall incorporate the most recent Best Management Practices, including but not limited to, frequent sweeping of the site, labeling storm drain inlets and adding a permanent cover over solid waste dumpsters. .Noise Mitigation Measure 8. Final building plans for the residential bu/ldings for all residential buildings shall include provisions for reducing noise levels to state and local noise exposure levels and ensuring that exterior spaces comply with City of South San Francisco noise exposure levels. Methods for complying with inter/or noise levels may include but are not 1/mited to sound-rated windows, noise insulation and sknilar features. Methods for meeting City exterior noise exposure levels may include construction of noise barriers, use of buildings to shield outdoor areas and similar features. Final building plans shall be stamped by a quarried acoustical consultant that the plans comply with City of South San Francisco and State of California exterior and interior noise standards. developer sh~l prep~e ~d sub~t a Cons~ction Noise M~agement Plan to the Sou~ S~ ~ ~an ..... ~n~ PI~ shau ' ' ho~s of cons~ction aa~ess operation to be consistent ~ the Ci~'s noise ord~ce, a requkement for proxdd~g mufflers on aE gaso~e or diesel powered equipment, reli~ce on elec~calty powered tools ~d s~l~ requkements. The PI~ shall specify a noise coord~ator with a 24-contact person to be posted prominently on the project site. ~e Pi~ shall be approved by ~e South S~ Fr~cisco C~ef Pla~er phor to issu~ce of a ~ad~g pe~t. Public Sero,ices Mitigation Measure ]0. Prior to issuance of the first building pe**~it for the project, the project developer shall submit a Safety and Security Plan to the City of South Francisco Pohce and P!~mJing Depm.'tments. The Plan shall include specific measures to reduce potential securiu~ -231- Staff Report To: Planning Commission Subject: Study Session, Fairfield Residential Date: November 6, 2003 Page 7 issues to a less-than-sigrfificant lextel. Items to be addressed in the Plan may include but is not limited to location and levels of security lighting, provision of locks and security dexfices, and provision for private security services. The Safety and Secmity Plan shall be approved by the Police and Planing Departments proper to issuance of a building pernzit. Transportation and Traffic Mitigation Measure J J. The project developer shall develop and implement a Transportation Demand Management Program for the proposed project consistent with CiD' of South San Francisco and C/CAG guidelines. At a minimum, the TDM Plan shall address the following topics: · Provision of bicycle racks · Provision of on-site walkways and pedestr/an access to the BART station · Participation in Guaranteed Ride Home program (office uses only) · Subsidy of transit passes (office uses only) · Provision of transit and carpool information, including schedules for BART and Sam Trans (located in the residential leasing office) · Provision of promotional programs to promote alternative mode use (located in the residential leasing office) Mitigation Measure 1_2. The project developer shall be responsible for their fair share contribution for the following roadway improvements: · At the intersection of Mission Road and Ever=m-een Drive, the four-way-stop control shall rep~ac~u w-itt~ a traffic signal control having split easffwest phasing (due to the limited space ~m the i,~_tersection.). · At the intersection of Mission Road and BART Access Road, four-way-stop control shall be replaced with a traffic sig-nal control having split east/west phasing (due ~o the limited space in the intersection). Both intersections are anticipated to operate at acceptable lex, els of service following implementation of the above mitigation measures. Mitigation Measure 13. Final building plans shall incorporate the following roadway and site access improvements: -232- Staff Report To: Planning Corm~_ission Subject: Study Session, Fairfield Residential Date.: November 6, 2003 Page 8 A left-nan pocket shall be provided at the signalized project driveway/BART driveway/McLellan Drive intersection to prevent left-mining vehicles from making their maneuvers in the middle of the intersection A stop sign shall be installed for vehicles exiting the parking garage at the intersection of the inter/or north parcel driveway and parking garage to improve circulation. A stop sign shall be installed also for vehicles exiting the parking garage in the south parcel at the intersection of the BART egTess driveway. The ri~t in/r/ght out driveway for the north parcel be straightened to eliminate a slight curve at its intersection with McLellan Drive RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission receive the staff presentation on the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, take public comments, comment on the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the project, mad cominue the public hearing for the proposed m/xed-use commercial/residential transit village proposal from Fairfield Residential to November 20, 2003. Respectfully submitted, Mi~;haei Semor PI/~er A~ac. hments: 2. 3. 4. 5. ~ocaaon ~v. Lap Draft Conditions of _Approval Planning Cormnission Staff Report, October 16, 2003 Draft Planning Commission Minutes, October 16, 2003 Mitigated Negative Declaration -233- ATTACHMENT 9 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 6, 2003 -234- l~lmm~g Uomrmss~on Minutes ~ of November 6, ~003 business. He recalted that there was no mention of crime ~tatistics and over saturation in t~is original meeting with the Police Chief. Public Hearing closed. Commission discussion: · Commissioner Giusti was concerned with the possibility of drinking and driving. · Vice Chairperson Ochsenhirt noted that the Commission has to look at the location and the day-to-day activities. Applicant is UYin~ to meet the needs of the area but citizens can be affected if the purchasers drink and drive. The Police Department has a rote in discussing the pros and cons to keep the community safe. The Council is leading the City towards community service types of uses after the denial of a gas station, · Chairperson Romero noted that gas stations have evolved over time from auto repair shops to mini-markets. He atso was concerned with drinking and the accidents that can be caused by those actions. · Commissioner Teglia noted that there is a difference between on-sale being that it is a controlled license and off-sale is not as controlled. Based on the information provided by the Police Department, crime statistics, and licensing statistics provided by the ABC he felt that the proposed use woutd be adverse to the public health, safety and general welfare of the community. He noted that Hotels do no wish to have someone take a 6 or 12 pack to the hotel and have ~ party. Hotel patrons can drink in a bar or lounge and go back to their room. He noted that there is over saturation of the off-sale type licenses, Motion Tealia / Second Giusti to deny P03-0045, Approved by unanimous voice vote. Century Theatres Continued to ~=Y, UFY ENTEP. PRZSES/Owner November 20~ 2003 SYUFY Century Theatres/Applicant 410 Noor Ave, PO3-OlO3/UPMO3-OOO3f PUDMO3-0001rSIGNSI}3-0029 and Categorical Exemption Use Permit Modification and Planned Unit Development Modification to the Century Plaza Commercial Development to allow demolition of the existing 2,800 seat, Z0-plex movie theater and amusement arcade and construction of a new 2,412 seat, !4-ptex movie complex and amusement arcade within the existing building pad location, minor parking lot modifications and new landscaping adjacent to the building in accordance with SSFMC 20.24.030(c) and 20.91. Type C Sign Permit (Special Circumstances) to allow a sign to project above the roofline, to altow an electronic readerboard with changeable copy, and to allow overall signage in excess of 100 square feet in accordance with £SFMC 20.76.170 and 20.86. Chief Planner Sparks noted that the applicant has submitted a letter to continue the item to the ne~ meeting to allow them time to review the Conditions of Approval. Motior, Ocbsenhi~/5econ~ Giusti to continue the item to November 20, ~rhqt. Annrnv~ri by nmnimn''~ voice vote. Fairfiekl Transit Village Costco $$Fr LLC/Owner Fairfiek~ Residential LLC/Appiicant 1600 El Camino Real P02-0088 and Mitigatec~ Negative Declara~on MN002-0088 Continued to November 20~ 2003 (Continue# from October Use Permit Appliratio~ to constru~ ~, mixed-use commercial/residential pro.iect consisting of 360 residential units and approximately 23,000 square feet of commercial space for a grocery store and local serving retail spaces, community recreation/leasing offices, and common recreation areas on ~o vacant sites (totaling 7.02 acres) at the interse~ion of El Camino Real and IvicLetian Drive in the SSF Bart Transit Vittage Zoning Distri~ and -235- of November 6, 2003 ~_~., the El Camino Real Corridor RedeveloPment Area in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 19 Tentative Pa~c~l Hap Application to subdivide the existing single parcel, which inciudes McLellan Drive, into two parcels. The west parcel would be bounded by Costco Drive, El Camino Real, McLellan Drive and Colma Creek.. The east parcel woutd be bounded by El Camino Real, McLellan Drive, the Bart Plaza, and Bart Service Road 2. Chairperson Romero noted that he had reviewed the videotape from the previous meeting on this item. Senior Planner Lappen gave a PowerPoint presentation Dennis Henmy noted that they have responded to the commission's comments. The pedestrian circulation main entrances have been highlighted. There is access from Costco Drive through the muse through El Camino Rea[, and the Bart area, He showed elevations along Costco Drive, They added a green wall of Redwood Coast to the east parcel that faces Costco. He showed the reveal joint profile and window treatment details. Commissioner Teglia suggested that the balcony be punched out an additional foot, Mr, Henmy replied that this could be done. He continued with his presentation: the retail wraps eastly two El Camino Real; they increased the scale of the longing af"cer the corner to make a visible and added vertical signage, He showed some examples of what to light the along the pathways and the entry light fixtures would look like, Mr, Henmy noted that the lighting conforms to all USC criteria. Ed McCoy noted that this addressed the Commission's comments, He added that they agree with the mitigation measures in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Public Hearing opened, Speakers were: Amy Liew 1265 Mission Rd Karen Stanfill 2635 Shannon Steve Savage 308 Linden Ave, Eric Dupre Greenbelt Alliance Steve Van Zant Local :2569 Commen~ were all in support of the transit village proposal. Ms. b.w f~l. that South San Francisco has become a leader in chltdcare. Childcare creates jobs and generates revenues as well as lessen parents worries. Ms, Stanfill and Mr, Savage noted that almost every teacher would qualify for the Iow cost housing offered by the developer. They felt that this type of development would help keep teachers in the South San Francisco School District. Mr, Savage also suggested lowering the cost of the Iow cost units because they still are high costs for teachers, Mr. Dupre noted that the development will help housing shortage, the location encourages transient use and these types of projects keep development outside of the green areas. Mr, Van Zant recommended approval of the project, He noted that as City employees are required to report to work in emergency cases upon making sure that their families are safe, The project would help employees because they could find a home close to work and repo?, to work faster than they wouid ii,zing outside of the CiW,, Public Hearing dosed. Cornmi~$ion discussion: Chairperson Romero noted that there have been changes to parcel three. He noted that the interior courtyard has decreased in size and would like to see what it looks like for the west and the east parcel, He added that there is not enough open space for recreational purposes for adults and children. He suggested that public amenities could be created on top of the parking structure and for the project, He noted that as Commissioner Sim had stated at the last meeting he also wanted the project to be a model for future transit oriented development, Vice Chairperson Ochsenhirt stated that open space was hard to find on transit village developments the Commission visited on their tours but that the amenities in these developments made them feel target, He noted that this type of development is not suited for a developing family and if a family starts to. grow they would seek a house at that time. The proje~ is trying to fill housing needs in the City and the Bay Area. -236- Plmming Cormafission M_b~utes of November 6, .9003 Commissioner Teglia noted that the idea of a mini park on the parking structure could be explored. He added that he wanted to see efforts on the buiidin~o aesthetics and point out examples such as !9t~ Avenue in San Francisco and Hilisdale Boulevard in San Mateo. He added that the French balcony could be pushed out about 6 inches to accent it more. He asked to see the rear and front of the promenade where the trim is located. Commissioner Teglia commented that the Mitigated Negative declaration has not properly looked at all the impacts. Costco gas and the warehouse are not changing. He noted the Costco has used some of the parking stalls as gas queuing lanes to soften queuing. He added that during the Christmas season the intersection at Costco are at a LOS F. He noted that the project would add more traffic to the area. He added that the Mitigation measures need to bring forward to Costco and they need to be creative. Some of his suggestions were that Costco cut off the gas station ingress and make it the second entrance, reorienting the Costco parking tot, adding more lanes, and building a parking structure. He noted that there are no controls on Costco and they could control it by extending the hours on the gas station. Motion Teulia / Second Ochsenhirt to continue P02-0088 to November 20, 2003. Approved by unanimous voice vote. ADM:INZ~'TRA~E BUS:INES$ 7, :Items from Staff None Xtems from Commission Commissioner Teglia and Vice Chairperson Ochsenhirt asked the meeting be adjourned in memory of City Treasurer Beverly Bonalanza Ford and 3ames Qaar. B, :Items from the Public None :LO Adjournment ::i.O::L2 P.t4. Notion Teulia / Seconc~ Giusti to adjourn the meeting in memory of Beverly Bonalanza Ford and 3ames Claar. Approved by unanimous voice vote. Thomas C. Sparks Secretary, to the Planning Commission City of South San Francisco William Romero, Chairperson Planning Commission City of South San Francisco N~'T ME~=-FING: TCS/bla Regular Meeting November 20, 2003, Municipal Services Building, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San FF~FICI$CO, -237-' ATTACHMENT 10 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT OCTOBER 16, 2003 P ann ng Staff Report remission DATE: TO': SUBJECT: October 16, 2003 Plann~,~g Cor~m~ssion PUBLIC HEAPdNG: F.AZKF!ELD MD~D-USB, COMMERCIAL/RESIDENTIAL T~NSIT h~LAGE PRO.CT Apphc~: Y~fi¢ld Residential Case N~ber: P02-00S8 ~fi~a~¢d Temafiv¢ Parcel Map ~ Dev¢lopmen~ R_E C O MZ~]5, F'~rD ATi ON: It is recommended that the Planning Commission open the public hearing on the proposed mixed-use commercial/residential ~ransit village proposal from Fairfield Residential. StaiY is requesting that the Planning Commission open the public heating, listen to the presentation, rake testimony, discuss the item, and continue the item until November 6, 2003. BACKGROUND: Fairfield Residential is requestmg adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approval of a Use Permit to construct a m/xed-use, commerc±al/residenfial transk-ofiented development complex adjacent to the South San Francisco BART station. The proposed project is located in fne South San Francisco BART Transit Village Zoning District and the E1 Casino Real Corridor Redevelopment Project Area comprising 360 apartment unks, between 23.000 square feet of r~=ta~ spaces, and ~.~o s.s. a~rm'ed on-si~e parlOmg srracrares. The applican~ is also requesting City' of South San Francisco approval a Temafive Parcel Map, to subdi¼de a stogie parcel, bisected by McLellan Drive, into three smaller parcel to aocommodate the grocery store and the two mixed-use development sires. The project also includes CiD' Council approval of a Development Ag-reemenr wh/ch would perm_it 354 to 380 residential unks and up to 30,000 square feet retail. A Planning Commission subcommittee has held two meetings on the proj eec and is expected to have useful observations and comments for the full Planning Commission. The Staff Report for the second meeting will include Conditions of .%oproval, a draft Development A~eement, and _~ffordabte Housing A~eemen+~, and approp~a~e resolutions. -238- 2taff Kcport To: Planning Commission Subj ec~:: Stud), Session.. Fairfield Residential Date: October 16, 2003 Page 2 ?roi :et Location The project is located on a 8.48 acre site adjacent to the South San Francisco BA_R.T Statiorn The site area comprises three parcels that are bisected by McLellan Drive. The northern portion of the she (Parcels 1 and 2) would include a grocery store, central parld_ng garage, apartment leasing spa:e, and residential structure w/th ground floor retail space. The smaller southern portion of the site (Parcel 3) would include a residential stracrare with ~m'ound floor r¢rail leasing space, gym, and a central paling garage. (Attachmem [) Historic Land Use Challenges The project site is located adjacent to the newly opened South San Francisco BART Station, in the northern part of the two-mile tong E1 Camino Real corridor. Tn: project site was part of the former Macy's Warehouse Center. The comdor is an impoXant automobile rome through both South San i~rancisco and the other cities on the Peninsula. Reflecting that heritage, the corridor is very diverse in terms of land use. Commercial uses such as neig. hborhood shopping centers, re~onal shopping centers, fast-food restaurants, an auto dealership, Kaiser Medical Center, and See's Candies are located in small pockets. New' housing developments along the E1 Camino Real corridor include the Promenade and Greenridge. In 1999, the CiD' Council adopted the South San ~rancisco General Plan, which contains specific policies and pro,ams that promote "rransi~ oriented development" in the area around the BART Station. The n'ansit oriented development poI/cies encourage a balance of high-deusi~ residential devetopmem and commercial uses adjacent to the BART Star/on. The balance o£uses differ si=m~ircantly from earlier proposals for the E1 Camino Real corridor, such as Lincoln no commercial ~ ---'- -- ~ ue v =,opm:re. In 2001, the CiD~ undertook a collaborative process in which Planning Commissioners, Design Review Board members, developers, property owners, regional agencies, and residents proxfided inpm and comments on specific proposals in the Zoning District. To achieve the objectives for the Transit Village, the CiW held a series of Planning Commission Subcommittee meetings, technical meetings with stakeholders (potential applicants, B.ART, CiD' staff, and SamTrans), a communky meeting at E1 Camino High School, one Open House ar the. Ma~olia Center, and several study sessions and pubhc hearings with the Planning Commission and Ciiy Council. During the process, lib Homes had expressed inter:si in building a residemial aparrmenl pro.iect on the sire, with appro--.~arety 500 units and less than 1.200 square feet of g-round floor commercial fie>: space. Uirkna~eiy, m the recommendation of the Planning Commission, '/ne Ci~ -239- Staff Report To: Planning Commission Subject: Srady Sess/on, t=ai~fieid Residential Date: October 16, 2003 Page 3 Council adopted a Zoning District that required a more balanced mix of land uses in the ~ransit village area and qualit5, design standards. South San Francisco Transit Village Zoning District And Plan Adopted in 2001, the Transit Village Plan and Zoning District is designed to promote a balanced mixed use development near the B_&RT Station. The plan also assists developers, architects and pohcy makers in obtaining the best possible desi~. The Plan emdsions McLellan Drive as a pedestrian oriented "main street" in the Transit Village. Community-serving retail could be located at the central intersection with BART Access Road 2 for a =o-roceu store, cafe, restaurants, small shops, and some serv/ces. There is a strong desire to place at least one outdoor seating/plaza area for shoppers and commurdty members to gather at one comer of this location for coffee, relaxing, gmne plasing, and chatting. Other retail uses may have smaller c~& seating areas along their frontage along McLellan Drive. Principal Design features include: The archkecrure which fronts the E1 Camino Real should be urban, in feel and have a strong presence and should address the stree~ to provide a strong edge againat this busy street. The design of the podium along E1 Cam/no Real must be inte_m'ated into the building desi~ma as a strong base, articulated by openings and punctuated by entry stoops at regular intervals to pro¼de actixdry and v/sual ~n_terest for pedestrisn~ walking along the street. The building massing should be articulated to create a strong rh~hm in the building facades and should emphasize ~oupings of units and be integral with the entry ?draper detailing and roof top forms are of ~eat importance to the overall appearance of These should be carefully designed, articulated to reinforce the building massing and rhythms and be of quati~ materials, with appropriate screening of mechan/cal units. McLellan Dr/ye is envisioned as the "main street" of the TransiI Village. Irs cen~al lo,afion and accessibility m the BART statSon creates the oppornm/ry for a lively nei~borhood center. This street connects nvo residential developmems to the BART Stat/on and is the primary pedestrian connection to E1 Camino t-iif~h School. Commercial uses must occur where designated in the land use plan, and should be encouraged in the ~ound floor of all other frontage along McLellan -240- Staff Rep. crt To: Planning Commission Subject: Study Session, Fairfield Residential Da~e: October 16, 200S Page 4 Fairfield Residential Review Process tn October 2002, Fairfield Residential submitted an application to construct a mixed use project on the site. in January 2003, members of the City Council and Planning Commission toured representative hi~-density, m/xed-use residential/corn_inertial pricers be.~een San Jose and Redwood City. Kick Williams of the consulting firm, Van Meter Williams Pollack prepared the attached handout that lists mixed-use and transit oriented development projects on the tour, IisZs other projects of interest in the San Francisco Bay A_rea, and pro¼des development information on each proj eot. PaL-field introduced the mixed-use project to the Pl~ing Commission at the special Study Session held on May 1, 2003 and held a community meeting a~ the Muzficipal Services Building on ,klay 27, 2003. The Plazming Commission Sub-committee held race, rings on July 30, 20¢3 and 9 " September 25, _00.~ to allow- the applicant to in~%rm the Ptamning Commissioners of the project's pro_m-ess; respond to concerns, and revise the plan. The also applicant sponsored a Commun/ty Meeting at the Murficipal Services Builrt~g on lViay 27, 2003 with 25 South .San Francisco residents in attendance. The developer prepared a PowerPoint presentation and answered specific questions from the participants. The majority of participants asked questions related zo n-affic, xfiew, residential densits~, the impact of new affordable housing in the neis_hborhood, and desired commercial uses. (see attachments 4,5,6, and 7) DISCUSSION: The purpOse of the meeting is to open the public hearing on the proposed mixed-use transit village project. Tn_is public hea~_ng will include an introduction and summa~ of the Transit Village Plan, a presentation by the applicant and comments from the PtanrSng Commissioners. 2003. The Staff Report for the second meeting will include, the Cond/tions of Approval, a dra5 Developmenr A~eemen:, and appropr/aze resolutions. Projeet Description Fairfield P,_esidential is proposing the developmenl of a mixed-use transh village project, with 360 resm~nr~m un/ts and ~0.000 square feet of retail commercial, on a 8.48 site adjacent to the Sou~ San _~rancisco BA_RT S'tation. The projec~ she is bisected by McLellan Drive. The north site consists of Parcels 1 and 2, ~;nich are bounded by Costco DS_ye, B1 Camino Rea!, McLellan Drive and Coloma Creek. The south size consists of Parcel 3, which is bounded by E1 Carn~no Real, McLellan Drive, the B~T pedesrriam plaza, and BA~T service road 2. -241- Staff Report To: Plszm/ng Commission Subject: Study Session, Fairfield Residential Date: October 16,2003 _Project bevelopment Data -Acres Parcel 1 0qoyth) ?arcel 2 (Grocery) Parcel 3 (South) McLellan Dedication Total Number of Residential Units ] North Parcel i South Parcel i rot~ Developmem A~eement - Commercial Square Feet i North Parcel / South Parcel Devetopmem A~eement ResidentiaI DensiW Landscape Area gu,:!d;mg Height ] Three story ! Four stow Number of Parkin~ Sl3aees Resident Only (swactured) Visitor (srmsmrecl) GroceR, (surface) McLellan Drive (street) Total Residential Parking Ratio Proposed Project ~..: acres (1>4,6.,8 square feet) 1.26 acres (54,886 square feet) 2.44 acres (106,286 square feet) 1.23 acres (53,579 square feet) 8.48 ~oss acres (369,389 square feat) 188 un/ts 172 units 360 units The Development Ag-reement would permit between 354 and 380 units 16,000 square feet for ~ocew and g-round level retail 7.000 square feet g-round level retail 23,000 square feet The Development Agreemen; would per-ink up ~o 30,000 square feet of retail 43 units/acre ~oss and 50 units/acre net 65,825 square feet (including 55,800 square fee; in;erior court-yard areas) 37 feet 47 feet 541 spaces 60 spaces 64 spaces 24 spaces 689 spaces 1.5 spaces per unit Project elements Residentiai: The developer is proposing to construct 360 units on Parcels 2 and 3, however the ~-,.,,~i,,e~, .=s~.~me~ ,~ pen-tilt a r~ge between 354 and 380 appends homes. Based on -242- Staff P~eport To: Planning Comrn/ssion Subject: Study Session, Fairfield P~esidential Daze: October 16, 2003 Page 6 ~he Developer's proposal the apartment complex will consist of a mix of approxiraatety 225 one bedroom and 135 two-bedroom un/ts. Apawments would generally be located on second, third and forth floors of the buildings with non-residential use on the ~oumd floor. SecuriB7 measures would be included as part of site construction. The proposed residential densi-D7 (43 urfits/acre) does not/nclude any request for a density bonus and would be below the perm/ned overall residential densils~/n the Transit Village Zorfi.ng Dis~ct (50 n_n/ts/acre). Affordable units: Apartment homes would be rental only, with 20 percent of the un/ts (approximately 70 un/ts) desi~ated affordable for Iow and moderate income households. The mzits occupied by low and moderate income households would be essentially the same as unks occupied by market households and d/spersed throu~oul the building. Both the apartmem complex and pound level commercial space would be professionally managed by an on-site staff. Secur/ry measures would be included as part of site construction. Recreational amenities: Each parcel will include spas, BBQs, ~.oym, seating areas, as well as, play areas. Additional amen/ties may include a fimess center, commun/ty room with ~tchen facihtie~s and business center, In addition, a small mint-park would be located at the intersection of Costco Drive and ]El Cam/no Real. Commercial retail: The developer is proposing to build approx/mately 25,000 square feet of commercial retail, including a 1~,000 square feet gTocery store and tl.000 square feet of gTound level retail space located on both sides of McLellan Drive, between E1 Camino Rea] and B.~RT SmwSce 'Road 2 on the ~ound floor of the residential stracrures. The allow for flexibi!il% the Development A~eement will permit up to 30,000 square feet of retail space can be constructed on the site. it is anticipated that retail uses along McLellan Drive woMd se2we project residents, BAPCif passengers mud surrounding nei~_Jabozhoods. Parkin£ and circulation: The ctav~,ln?,' ~r ~,,-n,,~,~4,~_~ *~ ;install a~o ~-:~ ....... :-~ .... : t~oughout the site. Fakfield Residential will locate 541 resident p~kdng spaces ~d 60 ~est p~g spaces m s~c~ed p~king g~ages. The project ~so ~cludes 64 spaces of s=face p~g adjaceni to ~e ~ocery store ~d 24 on-s=eei spaces on McLeBan Drive. Architecture and Site Design Following the appl/cation by Fa/rfield Residential in October 2002, the CiD~ pursued an active arch/teetotal review process thai included the City's consultani (Kick Will/ams), the Desig-~ Review Board, Ci~ maff, m~d the ?lammn~ Comrrfission. -243- Staff R.eport To: Planning Cornm~ ssion Subject: Study Session, Fairfield Residential Da~e: October 16, 2003 Page 7 Planning Commission Study Session and Subcommittee Comments The Planning Commission held a special Study Session on May !, 2003 and two special Sub- Committee meetings between July and September 200.3 to rev/ew the Pairfeld proposal. During the meetings, Planning Commissioners identified several land-use and architectural issues that needed clarification or modification pr/or to scheduling a public hearing. The issues included the following: The project needs to have the highest quellB, in desi_m:, site planning and amenities. The Planning Commissioners do not like "South of lvfarkef' architecture. The developer should improve the connections benx~een the project and the BART pedestrian plaza. The applicant should encourage public access through the project area. For example, the interior pathways could be opened up for pubhc use. The stoops in the applicant's presentation are not the ,type that he would like to see in the .CID,. 'The applicant should include more commercial along McLellan Drive. The retail should be moved towards the fi:out and not be hidden in the back near the Bart Station. The parking stmcn.u-es have the potential of becoming rooftops for amenities and could be a secured area for use by the tenants. The applicant should expand the retail plazas and emphasize outdoor seating areas. Revised Architectural Design and Plans As a result, the apphcant has modified the architectural desi~ several times. The appiicant'~s most recen'r modification to the site and architecture! desi~_s were in response to the lo, owing Ptann~g Cornmqssion issue that were expressed during the meetings noted above: (A~achmenr Buildings would have a mix of three and four stores ~dth an estimated height of up to 45 feet above existing ~ade. The developer would leave the gates unlocked and permit public access into the common areas during dayI/g_ht hours. · T~e retail space has been increased on McLellan Dr/ye, by relocating the leasing ofdces and the kYm. · The sidewalk area along McLellan Dfve has been widened to accommodate pedes~ans and potential outdoor searing. · The developer improved the mate~,ais, light~g and landscaping for the stoop en*~f~es. -244- Sta~ 1Kepo~t To: Planning Commission Subj est: Study Session, Fairfield Residential DaTe: October 16, 2003 Page The developer provided specific plans for street fumin~e and i/ghfing fixtures along the frontages and in the interior common areas. The developer adopted a contemporary theme, with varied roof shapes, use of smooth stucco surfaces, metal frame windows and metal railings. The varied roof shape, including pm-apet walls and select overhangs, will be used to prmdde heist vafiaZion and shadow effects. The building fagade includes mid-block breaks on E1 Camino Real, the BART pedestrian plaza and McLellan ]Drive. Stoop enrr/es will be located on E1 CarMno Real, BART Service Road 2 and the BART pedestrian plaza. Consistency with General Plan and Transit Village Zoning Standards As noted above, the PrOPosed transit village project is located in the South Sam l:rancisco BART Station Transit Village Zoning Dislzict and is subject ~o the development and design standards se! forth in the ordinance. The projee~ is consistent with the General Plan pot/ties promoting mans/t-oriented development withi~ the one-quarter m/Je area adjacent to the B,ART Station. The project is also consistent x~fith the development and design standards idemified in the Transi~ Village Zoning Distrim Ordinance. Refer m Attachment 2, table comparing the project with the Transk Village Zonqng Disrr/ct development standards. Pro~ eet Phasing The a, plicant proposes to construct the project accordin¢ to a specific, consamction that respond to the City's desires to see a ~oce~' store opened as soon as possible. The apphcant has had/cared thru the entire project would be constructed with~ a two-year period, be~nn~ng in winter 2003 to 2005. The developer amicipates that the ~ocery store would occupy the site in comprises the fonowing: (See attachment ~) Phase t' Phase~. ~' Phase 3: The developer would construct the ~ocew store and two parking garage s~ructures. Following completion .of the ~ocew store, the developer would begin constracrion of the residential strucrare with ~ound level reiail on the north parcel. Following completion of the north parcel structures, the developer would commence construction of the south parcel residential and cormmercial stmc~e. -245- Staff Report To: Planning Commission Subject: Smd>, Sessio~ Fairfield Residential Date: October 16, 2003 Page 9 Summary of the Development Agreement The City and the developer are cmrrent!y negotia6mg a Development Agreement to implement the project consistent with the objectives, pohcies, general land uses and pro.ams specified in the South San Francisco General Plan and the South San Francisco BART Transk Village Plan. The Development A~eement -~411 be at;ached to the November 6, 2003 Plm~ning Commission Staff Report and will include the following terms to ensure tha~ the project will be bulk and maintained as a high qualiry project. Range o/Devefqpment.' In order to provide flexibility, the Devdopmen~ A~eement ~11 pe~t a r~e ofresiden6~ ~d co~merciJ squ~e fee~. ~ublic art contribu~on: Developer ~tl Chifdcar~ oonv'ibu~on: Developer ~4~ pay th~ r~qulr~d f~ plus ~d ~ ad~onal $600 .p~r ~ to h~lp the Ci~ sec~e a site for a C~ldc~e fac~ Infi'as~ucrUT'e Improvements: Developer wiE NsmE ~d m~1~ s~eet ~e ~d ligh~g on McLell~ D~ve ~d E1 C~o Real ~az4-fee con~'ibution: Developer wiE proxdde a fee to help m~ntaN e~stNg p~. CC~ % Developer a~l prep~e CC&R's to m~age ~e commercial leasNg space. A~rdable Housing A~'eement: The developer ~4E se~ aside 20 percen1 of ~e uNts for low- ~d moderale-~come househol&. Condi~ons of A~provaL' The k~eement ~E Nclude a reference to the l~tiga6on Measles for ~e ~gated Negative Decl~a6on ~e En~ee~g Division, Planning Divisio~ Pohce Dep~ent, Water Qua2~ Divisiok F2e Dep~nem ~d Buil~g Di~dsion. Envi2onmenta! Renew ,,, ,~uu~um~u= v,,4th "-- provisions oft he t~aliiomla .=mm'onmentai ~um~D~ Ac~ and City policy, an Initial Srady was conducted to determine whether the follox~dmg project may have a significant ezT~,ct on the environment. On the basis of the in/t/al Study ii has been determmeo that although the proposed project could have a significant adverse effect on the emd_ronment, there will no1 be a significant adverse effect in this case because the mitigation measures in the In/rial Study hayer been incorporated into the project. The Initial Study is expected to be distributed for a 30- day comment period during the week of October 13, 2003. A cop>, of the In/rial Smd5, will be distributed to the Planning Commission m the October t6, 2003 Pubhc Hem'ing. -246- Slaff P,.epo~ To: Plaming Commission Su~e¢l: Stady Session, Fakfield Residential DaTe: October 16, 2003 Page 10 RECOMMENI)ATION: h is recommended that the Piarmmg Commission open the public hearing on the proposed m/xed-use commercial/residential transh village proposal from Fakrfield Resid~fial. Staff is requesting that the Plarm/ng Commission open the publ/c hearing, listen to the presentation, rake testimony, d/scuss the kern, and continue the item until November 6, 2003. Respectfully submitted, Mfiehael La~n Sen/or P1 a~er Attachments: 4. 5. 6. 7. Location Map Table comparing the proposed Fairfield Projecl x~dth Transh Village Development Standta'ds Construction Phasing Plan Stuff Report, Planning Commission Stady Session, May I, 200.3 IvrJnu~;es, Planning Comm,:ssion. Smdy Session, May 1,200.3 Memoranda, Van Meter Williams Pollack, July .3,200.3 Draft Meeting Notes, Augast 6, 2003 Revised Fairfield SiTe and Elevation Plans, October 9, 200.3 F'~eld Site and Elevation Plans, June i0, 2003 -247- ATTACHMENT 11 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 16, 2003 DRAFT MTNUTES OF OCTOBER ~L6, 2003 Fairfield Transit Village Costco SSF, LLC/Owner Fairfield Residential LLC/Applicant Ct600 El Camino Real P02-0088 and Mitigated Negative Declaration MND02-0088 Continued to November 6, 2003 Use Permit Application to construct a mixed-use commercial/residential project consisting of 360 residential units and approximately 23,000 square feet of commercial space for a grocery store and local serving retail spaces, community recreation/leasing offices, and common recreation areas on two vacant sites (totaling 8 acres) at the intersection of El Camino Real and McLellan Drive in the SSF Bart Transit Village Zoning District and the El Camino Real Corridor Redevelopment Area in accordance with SSFMC Chapters :19.48, 20.27 and 20.81. Tentative Parcel Map Application to subdivide the existing single parcel, which includes McLellan Drive, into three parcels. The north parcels would be bounded by Costco'Drive, El Camino Real, McLellan Drive and Colma Creek.. The south parcel would be bounded by El Camino Real, McLellan Drive, the Bart Plaza, and Bart Service Road 2. Senior Planner Lappen presented to staff report. Rick Williams, staff consultant, gave a brief summary of some changes made to previous proposal. · Roof elements have variety in interest. · Building heights were revised to be three stories along El Camino Real. · Gates will remain unlocked to permit public access to common areas. · Fa.cedes include midblock breaks · The BART Plaza has additional landscaping to provide privacy. Ed McCoy, Fairfietd development, gave a brief background on their company. Dennis Henmy, Henmy architecture, noted that the project is a transit-oriented development. It is close to schools, hospitals, interstate 280, community parks, public transportation, and is accessible to everyone. He pointed out that the Bart Plaza promotes pedestrian circulation throughout the site. They have recessed the windows, there are French balconies and awnings on the Windows. The parkette is an opportunity for public art to take place. Ed McCoy noted that the development has full amenities. They are providing 20% affordable housing and exceed the childcare contributions. There will be room for public art. He added that the city is eligible for a $960,000 grant from CCAG with this project. Mr. McCoy noted that £ALSTRS has become a partner in this deal and has provided over $21 million to provide more than 15% affordable housing. He pointed out that the project achieves City's goal for a non-auto gateway to and from the city. Public Hearing opened. -:ogu: of Women Dorothy Robbins 125 So. San Francisco LL~I L L.QIII~JLJ~II 620 Serramonte ¢.':22 L~"~IV GILy, ~,,/~ Karen Stanfill 2635 Shannon Drive ~u. San Francisco 3ames Bronson 554 Bright Street San Francisco, CA Sally Cadigan Child Care Coordinating Council San Mateo, CA Building Trades Council William Nack :2153 Chess Drive Foster City, CA Comments were all in support of the transit village proposal. Some speakers felt that affordable housing would encourage school teachers to stay in the area because they would qualify for these homes. Ms. Cadigan encouraged the City for being the first jurisdiction to adopt a childcare fee. The developer has stated that they would pay $600.00 per unit on childcare fees. The Building Trades Unions and the Housing Leadership Council were in suppo~ of the proje~. Pubtic Hearing closed. -248- Commissioner Teglia stated that there will be affordable housing and that this is an improvement form the original proposal but there needs to be more detail along the windows. He appreciated the increase in retail and street design. He asked that the retail be expanded out from McLellan on to the corner and along El Camino Real. He added that the Environmental impacts need to be looked at, such as traffic issues, and ingress and egress to Costco needs to work well in order for this project to be successful. Commissioner Sim and Mr. Henmy discussed the architectural design of the parking structure, Commissioner Sim asked that the street treatments of the facades are well taken care of at the ne~ meeting, He concurred with Commissioner Teglia with regard to adding more retail on McLellan to extend out to El Camino Real. Commissioner Sim commended the developer on interweaving the linear park took along the complex and having the gates open to the public. He asked for a photo survey showing the Commission on how the complex relates to the scenery. Commissioner Honan noted that the leasing offices were moved and asked if the size had been lowered as requested by the subcommittee. Mr, McCoy noted that they moved the offices but they remained 2500 square feet in size, The size was not lowered because the offices were moved to another location which caused them to lose 4 units to make room for the retail, Chairperson Pro-Tern Ochsenhirt asked if there would be a cross walk between the East and West buildings. Senior Planner Hike Lappen noted that there would not be any mid-block crossing and it was not in the Engineering Division requirements. Chairperson Pro-Tern Ochsenhirt asked if the angte parking in front of the market could be moved towards El Camino to serve the smaller retail areas. Mr, Williams noted that the street design has been accepted as part of the transit village plan. There is angled parking wherever it could be placed without interfering with through traffic and creating a safety issue. Closer to McLellan there is parallel parking. The traffic reports do not allow angled .parking closer to McLellan Drive. Chairperson Pro-Tem Ochsenhirt commended the applicant for allowing public access to the site. He asked which units would be designated iow-income housing. Senior Planner Nike Lappen noted that the developer will build all the units exactly the same. They will be designating a unit as affordable housing depending on how much of the 20% they have reached. Chairperson Pro-Tem Ochsenhirt asked the developer what their relationship with CALSTRS is, Mr, McCoy noted that CALSTRS has provided funds ensure that their developments have :25% below market rate units. This is an advantage to the teachers and allows them to move up on a waiting list for a unit, Chairperson Pro-Tem Ochsenhirt asked if the applicant had any bonuses on behalf of the City, Senior Planner Mike Lappen noted that the developer qualifies for the density bonus but has chosen not to opt for it. Commissioner Honan asked that the developer explore offering shuttle service for the project. She asked that they get details on the lighting of pathways from and to the BART station, Commissioner Sim asked that the developer return with a detailed profile showing revea! joints on the project, ~lll~l Planner ~,~ u ~ ~p~, asked the Commission to continue .......... ~uu.c Hearing to November 6, 2003 to comment on the Draft Negative Declaration and the Draft Affordable Housing Agreement. He explained that the Commission would continue the November 6TM meeting to November 20t~ at which meeting the Commission would take finai action. lvlotio~ Honan / Second Sim to continue the Public Hearing to November 6, 2003, Approved by unanimous voice vote, -249- ATTACHMENT 12 PLANNING COMMISSION TOUR HANDOUT ATOUR OF BEST PRACTICES IN BAY AREA TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT PREPARED BY VAN METERWlLLIAMS POLLACK PREPARED FOR CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING COMMISSION 22 FEBRUARY 2003 TOD SITES SAN' SF BAY Tour Route: I. City Center Plaza, Redwood City 2. Park Place, Mountain View 3. Avalon on the Alameda, San Jose 4. Avalon at Cahill Park, San Jose 5. Paseo Plaza and Paseo Arcade, San Jose 6. MiraidoVillage Apartments San Jose / Not Part of Tour: 7. The Benton, Fremont 8. CitywalkTownhomes, Hayward 9. Fruitvale Transit Village, Oakland 10. TheVillage at Petrini Place, San Francisco City Center Plaza, Redwood City Completion Date Development Statistics Residential Use Unit Type Number Size I-Bedroom 20 500-891 sf 2-Bedroom 35 930 sf 3-Bedroom 23 I, 153-1,260 sf 4-Bedroom 4 1,331 sf Total 82 Site area (acres) 1.9 acres Residential Density 43.2 du/acre Site Parking 1.5 spaces/unit Commercial Space Size Use 17,000 sf 2 Restauranr~, 3 Retail Shops, Cafiada College Extension Development Analysis · Retail uses took time to become established, but now are fully leased. · Ca~ada College Extension Center (Microbusiness Enterprise Program) has helped incubate other businesses in downtown. · 100% affordable for low- and moderate- income residents. · Overflow parking from residential units has impacted retail uses, despite high parking pro- vision (no dedicated retail parking provided on-site). · Project includes on-site day care. The project helps ~reate a visibk archite6Iural character for Domnto~vn area ~vhile adding, retail uses that are ~vell used b3, the community. Commerda/ uses activate the street frontage, and include t~vo restaurants, a travel agent, a nailsalon, and the Ca#ada College Mi6vo-Business Enterpffse Center. Development Site Plan Park Place, Mountain View Completed 1999 Development Statistics Residential Use Unit Type Number Size I-Bedroom 64 2-Bedroom 56 3-Bedroom Total 120 Site area (acres) Residential Density Site Parking 89,160 sf 3.2 acres 37.7 du/acre 1.2 spaces/unit I/220 sf Comm. Commercial Space Size Use 7,050 sf total Starbucks, Dry Cleaner, Restaurant Development Analysis · Park Place combines retail with residential uses well, and has a strong street presence. · Commercial spaces are occupied by restaurant/food/service uses that have been successful. · The development of Park Place IV blends well with other phases of the development and Downtown context. · Retail spaces are too small to accommodate more destination retail uses. · Residential entries could have a stronger presence on Castro Street. Park Place combines housing wtih retail and the development flts with the existing high-quality streetscape design on Castro Street. went, with commerdal uses located only in the ground floor along Castro Street. Development Site Plan Avalon on the Alameda, San Jose Completed 1999, Renovated 2000 Development Statistics Residential Use Unit Type Number Size l-Bedroom 150 712-791 sf 2-Bedroom 120 1185-1805 sf 3-Bedroom 35 1297 sf Total 305 Site area (acres) 8.0 acres Residential Density 38.0 du/acre Site Parking I. 16 spaces/unit 1/133 sf Comm Commercial Space Size Use 14,000 sf total Coffe Shop, Sandwich Shop, Video Store (Blockbuster), Dry Cleaner Development Analysis · Mature commercial develpment along the Alameda with several shops and a theater across the street and units fully leased on-site. · Commercial units are small, and with no grocery store (developer did not find strong enough market to support a grocery). · Residential units located behind commercial frontage oriented towards side streets and central open space · Open space "spine" connects resdiential areas to retail frontage along the Alameda. · Parking for commercial frontage hidden behind strorefronts. Lenzen Avenue =-)==--- -- ,0 West Julian Street GroundJloor retai/ inc/udes a co~'ee shop, a d~y cleaner, and a video store. Residential buildings are set behind the commerdal front. Gnnobar Street Development Site Plan Avalon at Cahill Park, San Jose Completed Fall 2002 Development Statistics Residential Use Unit Type Number I -Bedroom I I 0 2-Bedroom 90 3-Bedroom 18 Total 218 Site area (acres) Residential Density Site Parking Size 712-913 sf I, 185- 1,504 sf 1,297 sf 4.8 acres 45.0 du/acre 1.5 spaces/unit I/400 sf Comm Commercial Space Size Use 14,000 sf total 2 Restaurants, Coffee Shop, Sandwich Shop, Dry Cleaner Development Analysis · Combines several architectural styles and unit types in a single development, creating the feeling of a traditional city block. · Despite density and location in downtown San Jose, developers did not find the market for a grocery or small market in the develop- ment, while small, convenience commercial uses quickly occupied the space. · 1.5 parking spaces per residential unit provided in on-site parking podium with some surface parking for commercial uses. · Commercial frontage is visible and inviting from the street. Retail shops front along the main streets surrounding the development and provide for an active and interesting pedestffan expeffence. II Tomnhouses mark the transition to the surrounding neighborhood, but the project retains a high overall residential density through a variety of housing ~ypes. Development Site Plan Paseo Plaza Condominiums, San Jose Completed 1998 Development Statistics Residential Use Unit Type Number I-Bedroom 46 2-Bedroom 100 2-Bedroom TH 6 I 3-Bedroom 3 Total 210 Site area (acres) Residential Density Site Parking Commercial Space Size Use 8,000 sf total Development Analysis Size 900- I, 145 sf 1,320-1,450 sf 1,390-2,275 sf 1,935-2,030 sf 2.9 acres 73.4 du/acre 1.76 spaces/unit Combines extremely high density residential (over 70 units/acre) with on-site amentities and high quality architectural design. Approximately 1.75 parking spaces/unit provided in sub-grade podium. Built in partnership between private develop- ers and San Jose Redevelopment Agency. Adjacent to San Jose State University and three blocks from Downtown San Jose. Private residential open space on the interior of blocks creates secure environment for outdoor activities despite the high density of the project. The Paseo Mall concentrates retail activity in a pedestffan-only street ~vith apartment units above retail shops. combination of fiats and tomnhouses are arranged in an interesting site plan that include pedestffan-scakd features such as the meres above. · ~ /" ! I ~ I I I PASEO VILLA PASEO ARCADE (Next Page) Development Site Plan Paseo Arcade Condominiums, San Jose Completed 2000 Development Statistics Residential Use Unit Type Number Size I-Bedroom 8 2-Bedroom 96 1,680 sf 3-Bedroom Total 104 Site area (acres) 1.7 acres Residential Density 60.4 du/acre Site Parking 2.58 spaces/unit 1/220 sf Comm Commercial Space Size Use 8,700 sf total Blockbuster Video, Small Retail Stores Development Analysis · Built by same development team as the Paseo Village project with greater emphasis on apartment prototype. · Approximately 250 on-site parking spaces, including spaces guest and retail parking. · Paseo Villa and Arcade developments have spurred development activity in the surround- ing area that has the potential to meet com- munity needs through on-site shops, markets, and restaurants. · Retail spaces in new construction in the the area are not fully leased, but have a good blend of uses and activites. Ground floor commercial uses bknd in with residential above. High qua~ materials, architectural details, and pedestrian features add to the qualiO, of the development. Commercial entries are juxtaposed with residential entries to create an interesting and active street frontage. Paseo l/i/la and,4rcade developments have spurred development activin7 in the surround- ing neighborhood as well (lef and above left). Miraido Village Apartments, Jackson-Taylor District, San Jose Completed 1999 Development Statistics Residential Use Unit Type Number Size Studio 23 I -Bedroom 43 2-Bedroom 43 Total 109 Site area (acres) 3.2 acres Residential Density 34.0 du/acre Site Parking 2.19 spaces/unit Commercial Space Size Use 12,500 sftotal Blockbuster Video, Small Retail Stores, Jewelry Store Development Analysis · Retail uses activate and revitalize surround- ing Japandtown neighborhood and retail uses focus on "Japantown" character. · Approximately 1/3 of units affordable for very low- and lo,v-income residents. · 2.19 parking spaces/unit in surface lot (includes retail and guest parking). · Materials and architectural details are not of the highest quality. · Lacks significant amount of open space for residents. The Miraido ~'/lage mixed-use development has been part of a larger effort to revitah'ge the Jackson-Taylor DisMct. Although retail uses activate the street frontage along North Sixth Street, higher quali~y materials and architectural design would maximize the benefits of the project. Development Site Plan The Benton, Fremont -- Not Part of Tour Expected Completion Spring 2003 Development Statistics Residential Use Unit Type I-Bedroom + LiveNVork 2-Bedroom 3-Bedroom Total Site area (acres) Residential Density Commercial Space Size Number Size 150 723-1,050 sf 161 1,147-1,184 sf I I 1,421 sf 322 Use Development Analysis · Interior circulation designed to appear as small streets with residential entries. · Quality of some of the construction details and colors detract from the character of the project. · Small retail spaces and not yet fully leased (although project is not yet completed). · Combination of parking podium and surface parking joindy used by adjacent office use. · Close to Fremont BART Station near the Central Business District and City Hall with connections to BART via Linden Park (behind development) The project is designed mith small inteffor streets that break down the scale of the development and encourage pedestffan drcuatlion Retail frontageS line the exte~r of the project, ,vith residential units and courtyards above. The project provides pedestrian and bike connections to the BART Station via Linden Park. Development Site Plan Citywalk Townhomes, Hayward -- Not Part of Tour Expected Completion Spring 2003 Development Statistics Residential Use Unit Type Number Size I -Bedroom 2-Bedroom 3- or4- Bedroom TH 77 1,361-1,556 sf Total 77 Site area (acres) 2.7 acres Residential Density 28.5 du/acre Site Parking 2.25 spaces/unit Commercial Space Size Use Sales have been extremely strong and all units sold despite delay in project opening due fire. Good pedestrian scale to site plan and archi- tecture Located near Downtown shopping, Hayward Civic Center, Albertson's grocery store and B Street "main street". Connections to BART Station and City Center Plaza are good, connections to sur- rounding residential development could be stronger. Development Analysis Residential entries create a pedestfian friend[7 street frontage along the exterior street frontage (BART Dffvemqy in site plan belom). A/though Ci~ywalk To~vnhomes are adjacent to the Ha_y~vard BART Station, thfy do not take advantage of the opportunity to create neighborhood-serving retail uses. ~ ~ B C STREET BART DRIVEWAY ~ ~ Development Site Plan Fruitvale Transit Village, Oakland--Not Part of Tour Expected Completion Fall 2003 Development Statistics Residential Use Unit Type Number I-Bedroom 2-Bedroom 3-Bedroom Total 47 Site area (acres) Residential Density Commercial Space Size Use 39,000 sf total Size 4.0 acres I 1.8 du/acre Small Retail Shops (none over 5,000 si) not yet leased Development Analysis · New development seen as a means to revital- ize greater Fruitvale neighborhood by provid- ing a node for community acdvity along with affordable housing and community services. · Still under construction, will not be complete until Fall 2003. · Large amounts of public funding for the project, including major public infrastructure investments. · Planning/development structure similar to South San Francisco Transit Village process with greater public involvement in actual development process. The Fruitvale Transit ~il/age is located immediate~, adjacent to the Fruitvale BART station and involves housing, retail, o~ice, and streetscape improvements. The Fruitvale Transit l/il/age combines ptivate development ~vith pubh'c open ~pace and pubic uses, such as a health clinic serving, kcal residents and a d~ cam fad/i~. 71.' '' Deve/opmentSitePlan The Village at Petrini Place--Not Part of Tour Winter 2002 Development Statistics Residential Use Unit Type Number Size I -Bedroom 61 651 sf 2-Bedroom 66 1,014 sf 2-Bedroom TH 7 1,334 sf Total 134 Site area (acres) 2.3 acres Residential Density 43.2 du/acre Site Parking 1.28 spaces/unit I ~280 sf Comm Commercial Space Size Use 55,000 sf Albertsons 3,600 sf 5 Small Retail Spaces Development Analysis Combines on-site, full-service Albertson's grocery store with high-density residential development. · Fits into development pattern and architec- tural styles of surrounding neighborhood. · Located in relatively high-density built-out San Francisco neighborhood. · Unit sales are gorceeding well despite downturn in market. · 1 parking space per residential unit with addi- tional 37 spaces for sale on first-come/first- serve basis. ,J The architecture of Petffni Place breaks do~vn the scale of the building through vertical and horizontal articulation of the facade and changes in materials and colors. The residential courtyards provide open space for condominium residents on top of the commercial and parkJng podium. !1! The project, recently completed, has been sel~ng mell and the Albertson's supermarket is no~v open. Development Site Plan ATTACHMENT 13 COMMENTS FROM RESIDENTS AND INTERESTED GROUPS HOUS~I~G* LEADEI~ffiP Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County 690 Broadway Redwood City, CA 94063 T: 650-364-4'.576/ F: 650-364-4577 www.hiesmc.org RECEIVED OCT 4 2003 PLANNING October 13, 2003 William Komero, Chair Rick Ochsenhi~ Vzce Chair Mary.. Giusti, Judith Honan, Eugene Sim, iVmrc Teglia, Members Ptm~niug Commission City of South San Francisco 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 To the Ch~ir, Vice Chair, and Honorable Members of the Pl~nuing Commission: I am writing on behalf of the Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo CoumT to express oar support of the proposal by Fa/rfield Residential for the Fairfield Transit Village at 1600 E1 Camino Real. We have reviewed ~he proposed development and strongly endorse the project. We believe it is welt-located, well- designed, and provides much-needed affordable housing as part o£the package. Our board voted strongly to endorse this development. The Housing Leaderskip Council is a coaifdon of over 60 member o~sn~zafions working together to create and preserve adequate, access~'ble, affordable housing for residents and workers of San Marco Count),. Our goat is that everyone who lives, works, or ~ows up here cam obm/_u suitable housing in the counp- if they choose. Oar members represent a spectrmm of ~oups concerned about housing, including nonprofit developers and service providers, employers, Realtors, labor unions, and educators. We behove the Transk Villa_ge will provide much-needed housing opportunities. It is worth noting that while rents have declined since the economy has slumped, the fact is that they have simply reUn-ned to the previously high levels of the late 1990's. Meanwhile, median homeowaership prices have continued to rise, showing the pent-up demand for hou¢ing supply is st/ii ,er,/real. .in oar conversations In the community.../t is clear that people empioyed'mjoos' ' we rmv'_ on--such as teachers, chiidcare workers, and a variety ~public safety personnel such as police dispa¢chers--continue to have rti~ficultv finding adequate and affordable housing. Also, sen/ors on fixed incomes and disabled nerann.~ ~lC~q.J!y C~uOl2 compete in the r~k~ cvon as rental ccr~s ~ve so~enec~ /mporraut to continue increasing the supply of housing in g~aeral, w'~ch eau help relieve pressure in the mark~, mad in particular to provide units affordable to lower-income famiiies and indivi~als. The Transi~ ~/-~lage provides au excellent oppormmty to meet these goals, with. housing near U-ansit, that would seem to match the Transit Viti~e Zoning District. We encoarage you to approve this development. Thank you for yoar consideration_ Sincerely yours, C-h?i~opher Mo~ Execu~ve Dkec~or C:\SHARED\HLC PrDgram\Endorsements\Devalopments\SSF Tr-dnsi[ VilJBgeXTransit Viliage Endorsement.doc -263- October lC): 20D3 Plmzriug Division CkT of South San Fnncisco P.O. Box 711 Somb San Francisco, CA 94083 _As residents o£ the Pmmemde Development on McLellan Drive, we strongly oppose the phn to construct a mixed-use commercial/residential project on the parcels that are bounded by Costco Drive, E1 Camino Rea~ McLellan Drive, Coin= Creek, the Bart Plaza and Bart Service Road 2. Traffic on E1 Camino Real was ah'eadyhorrendous during peaktimes when or/Ly Costco ezis~ed in thaz area. The ope~iog o£ the South San Francisco Bart Szation and z. he extension o{ McLellan Drive t~as only exacerbated, the traffic problem '.i We cio not see a need £or an additional grocery store and other local setting retail outlets. The businesses in the strip mall 'bounded by C_amarkas Avenue, ~tckeyBouievard and E1 ' Camino Real more ~an adequately serve the communi¢-, Allov~ing {or an additional grocery store and other retail outlezs would be detrimental to ~ese already established smaller businesses and add to the already existing r. ra~ic problem Furthermore, Bell Market and Sa/eway, along with other conveniences are also alreadyin the vicinity. We do not need any more cormmerciaI or residential developments in this areal -264- ' -267- NOTICE OF PUBLIC HE_4R NG OF THE SOUTH SAN-FRA_NCISCO PL_&N_ ING CO1VE I[SS!ON Date: October 16. 2003 LOCATION: Municipal Services Building ~, Arroyo Drive South San Francisco, California Time: 7:30 PM This is to notifS~ you that the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the project that is described below. The purpose o£the homing is to allow members of the public, like you mad your neigJabors, to ask questions mad state yom: opinions about this proposal. The Planning Comm~ scion will consider your comrnents before mamma a decision on the proj eot. You should Jso be aware that any legal challenge to the Planning Commission's de.~ision wilt be limited to issues raised at foe hearing. L¢yon are not able to attend the hearing, you may re~ster yom: comments by sending them to the Planning DJ%sion, City of South San Francisco, P. O; Box 7tl, South San Francisco, California 94083. VV~tten comments MI1 be accepted for consideration i£received at least 48 hours before the meeting. PROPOSAL Fairfield Transit Village Fairfield Residential LLC/applicant Costco SSF, LLC/owner 1600 E1 Camino !/_ca! P02-0088 and _lY~.'tigated'Nega~ve Declaration ,,M~_,.-D02-0088 wse ~-ermar ~ppncanon to =o~_~t,,,=~ a mixed-use commerci~5,side r eot of 370 residsnfial ~rs ~d approx~at:ty 25,000 sqn~e fse~ o~ :omm~roi~ space for a ~oceu, store md loc~ se~Ng ret~ ~acss, oOmm~ recreafioWl~asNg offices, common recreation ~eas on ~o vac~ si~es (temPe 7.02 acres) at ~e ~tersecSon Camino ReJ ~d MoLeH~ Drive ~. the SSF B~ Tr~k Village Zo~ Dis~m ~d ~e E1 Camino Re~ Co,der Redevelopment .~ea N accordion wi~ SS~C Chaprers !9.48, 20.27 ~d 20.8t. Tentative Parcel Map _~pHeafion to subside ~e e~s~g s~e p~cel, wNch ' McL=H~ Dsve, Nrc m,o p~oets. The wes~ p~cel would be bo~ded by Costco D5ve, E1 Cam/no Re~, McLeH~ Dsve and Co~a Creek. The east p~cel would be bo~d=d by E1 Csm~no Re~, MoLeli~ Drive, the B~ PI~ ~d B~ Se~ce Road 2. For ~mlher information contact Plm~n~ng Division (650) g -268- To ' Plmm~ng Division City o£ $Sl~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ! [/~ D The proposal is no~ ~g ~Xo azzo~ ~a~ place located be~een ~o hn~e z~ p~l~g spaze - overzrowded ne~ Comzo ~d for more ~ 1000 z~ ne~ B~T. Ad~g 370 residenfia~ ~ts me~s ad~g more ~ 1000 zm' at ~ew sm~ ~¢a. ~s ~ea located YeW ¢1os¢ ~o b~g Gas station ~d ~¢nse ~po~ation along E1 B~T station. .~ these factors shows that this propos~ w~ be ecological disaster for land o~er, ~g ~ere people ~d neighbors. Please, consider my family comments and reject this proposaL It should be GREEN area with lhn~ted commercial space. Regards, Peter Gefter 176 Cymbidium Cir. SSF, CA 94080 -269- NOTICE OF PUBLIC ]:rEA.RllX _; FOR FAIRFIELD TRANSIT VILLAGE - P02-0088 ~ F C £ / V ~ D NO~CE OF AVA~.~ITY ~ ~rTENT TO OC ~ ~ 2 2~3 ~OPT A ~iGATED N~GAT~ DECL~¢~ON pLA,~NiN~ ~OR ~_~~LD T~S~T ~LAGE - P02-0088 NOTICE IS IYEREBY GIVEN that the City of South San Francisco has prepared an Initial Srady and M_kigated Negative Declaration MND02-0088 for the following projecz P02-0088 and is available for public review and comment for 30 days. Copies are available ar the Orange .&venue Library, 804 W. Orange Avenue, the Grand Avenue Library, 306 Walnut _Avenue, the office of the CiV Clerk, City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue and the Planning Division, 315 Maple Avenue. PUBLIC HE~NGS: The Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisoo, California, -~ill hold public hearings on November 6, 2003 and.November 20, 20113 at 7:3.0 P.M. in the Municipal Se~ices Building, 33 .Arroyo Dr/ye, South.San Francisco, California, on this application, at which rime and place any and ali persons i~erested may appear and be heard thereon. . ............. MITIGATED hq~. GATiWE DECLARATION COM3/~NT PERIOD: The commit pe~od for ~e I~fitigated NegaSve Decimation commences on Wednesday, October i5, 2003 ~d M~ close on Th~sday, November 13, 2003. VerbM co~ments on the ~iSgated Nega~ve Decl~a~on may be pres~ed a~ ~e Ptmg Commission he~g of Nove~= 6, 2003. ~en commits reg~g ~e ~fi~ Smdy~r~ ~fifiga~d N~gafve Decimation must be fcc,ired by ~e Ping Di%sion, 315 Maple Avenue Sou~ S~ Fr~cisco b no hter-~ ~~ Y M onNovember 1~ 2000 Please sene aE commen~ re Iv2e Dapp=n SuMo~. ~50) 87%8535 or via f= ~ (650) 829-6639. ~/ Project Title: Fairfield Transit Village Mixed-Use Development Project Description: · Use Permit Appi/cafion, Development A~eement, _A_~ord~hle Housing Am-cement to.~n-act a mixed-use comrncrci~esidential ~ ~omm~~ for a ~o:e¢- store md loci se~ rer~ ,~ b~ ~ cormV recreano~leasmg o~ces, ~d coma on recreation ~eas on a {... ~ ~' ' __ g.48 acre site at ~e ~t~secfion of E1 Cam~no Real ~d McLeS~ Drive m ~ ~'~, ~ the SS~ Bm Trait V~a~e Zon~n~ Dis~ct'~d ~e E1 Cam/no . ,~ ~ ~. ~ Comdor R~devetopmem ~sa ~ ac:oral,ce ~ SSFMC C~ptem /~/~ ~ J composes of Pm-eel ! ~d wo~d be bo~ded by Costco Drive, ~1 Cammo Real, McLeS~ Drive ~d Co~a Cref~. The south she comp~s~s of Pm-eel 2 ~d 5 ~d would be bo,~ded by E! C~m~o R~ai, McLe5~ D~ve, ~e BmX Pi~, ~d BA~T Se~:, Road 2. Project Location: APN# 0'10-212-100/010-2t2-i i 0, north and soufn sides of McL~]l.~n Drive, between El Camqnc Real and BART Service Road -270- -271 - -272- CEtVED PLANf IIN Denn ttaisa 12gCymbidium Circle South San Francisco October 15, 2003 Dear Sir/Mm: I have read the letter that you sent and I have a very short message, I wish I could attend the meeting but evidently Im working. The more the better and Im 100% support that project. Is it a condominium of houses? Thank you, (------~) "'~., 15cnn -273- NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING OF THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PLA> -iN G COMMiSSiON ,Date: October 16, 2003 LOCATION: Municipal Services-Building 33 Arroyo Drive South San Francisco, California This it to nor/fy' you t.h.m the Ptar~ni~g Commission w, fll hold a public hearing on the projec: thru is described below. The purpose of the hear/ne is to dow members of the public, tike you and your nei_mhbors, to ask quest:ions and state your opinions about this proposal. The Planning Commission will consider your comments, bet%re making a decision on the project. You should also be aware that any legal challenge to the Planning Cormn/ssion's decision will limited to issues raised ar the hem, ing. If you ate not able to attend the hearing, you may re~ster your comments by sending them to the Planning Division, CiD' of South San Francisco, ?. ©. Box ?i 1: South San ~rancisco, Califomia 94083. Written comments will be accepted for :onsiderarion if re:sired m least 48 hours before ~he meeting, Fairfield Transit Village Fai.4iekt Residential LLC/applicant Costco SSF, LLC/owner 1600 El Casino Real P02-00g8 and Mitigated Negative Declaration 1~_~."D02-008§ Use Permit ~Ppiication to construct a mixed-use cormmerciai/residentiai project of 370 residential urnts and approx/mareiy 25,000 square Get of :om_mere/a] space fbr ~oc~_%, store and local se~ing retS! spaces, co~D, recreafion/~eas~g offices, C~o Real ~d McLellan Drive ~n the SSF Bran Tr~si~ Village Zor~.g Diems md C~o Re~ Co~dor Rsdev~lopm~m .~a ~. accord~:e wi~ gSFMC C~pters 20.27 md 20.81. Tentative Parce~ Map Application to subdivide the exi~r~g singi~ p~cei, w~fich ff~ciude McL=ll~ D~ve, Sro ~-o parc. ets. The wesi p~:,~,ou]d be bo,~ded by Costa.,> C~m~ Rea!, McLetlmn Dfve~ the Ban Plaza, mhd Bz~ Ser4ce Road 2. Fo:' ?urther informa~ on contac~ PiamnJn~ Di.v_;sio~_ (650) S 77~8535 -274- October 28, 2003 Judy Korte 755 Camaritas Ave. So. San Francisco, CA 94080 lviike Lappen, Senior Plsnner Planning Division 315 Maple Avenue So. San Francisco, CA 94080 Dear Mr. Lappen: t am writflxg in response to the notice concern/ng project PO-0088. My only concern is the traffic that witI increase. I have lived on Camaritas Avenue (off of 14_ickey Blvd.) for 28 years, and have worked on Grand Avenue in SSF for the last 13, so I am very acquainted with the increased traf:fic on E1 C_am~no ar I-iickey Bird, especially bet-ween 5:45 PM and 6:00 PM on any ~ven weekday. The amotmt oftra~c has increased, of course, in the last five years. This project will further increase the traffic. First of ail, I would like to ask all of you to come to the comer of E1 Csmino and Hickey some weekday betWeen 5:45 and 6:00 PM and see what I am t~llring about. Then I would ask that some sort of trafzfic impact study be done. I do want to .thank you for the Stop Ligtxt that was installed on Hickey at Camarkas so that we can safely get on Hickey. Sincerely, I Judy Korte -275- Nov. 2,2003 Mike Lappen Planning Division Cit}~ of S.S.F. PO Box 7I 1 S.S.F., CA 04083 RECEIVED NOV l) 5 2~E) Dear Mr. Lappen, I am a resident of S.S.F. and live at 827 Camaritas Circle, a street behind Chevy's Restaurant. I have live here for 19 years. I do not want to see any more large housing complexes added to this area of our city,. Traffic has become extremely congested on I-Iickey, t~om the 280 exit all the way to E1 Camino. Traffic now backs up around the signal at Costco all the way back to Hickey. I do not believe that this area has been designed to take any more additional traffic w4thout adding a burden to the residents. The addition of housing on the old Rod McClellen and the E1 Rancho properties has already congested the area. Of course, Costco and BART have bro ~ught even more U:affic. The new Kaiser offices will be opening on Hickey near 280, which will add even more congestion. Many of us were against the Costco store being built at ks current location and were against BART going in right across from E1 Camino High School. However, their construction was approved. I hope that the planning commission w/Il listen to the local residents directly effected by the congestion that the proposed Fairfield Transit Village - P02-0088 would bring to our residential area, and would vote against its construction. Thank you for taking this into consideration when deciding this matter. Sincerely, ~,dan Hopldns?~esident ~- 827 Camaritas Cir. S.S.F., CA 94080 -276- 4 November, 2003 Mr. Mike Lappen Senior Planner -- Planning Division City of South San Francisco P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 Re: Fairfield Transit Village- P02-0088 Dear Mr. Lappen: I am writing to express my concern about further development of the El Camino Boulevard and Hickey Boulevard area. Since the arrival of Costco and BART, the vehicular traffic on both streets has multiplied considerably. Costco traffic alone can block El Camino south bound from Hickey to the cemeteries in Colma - especially just prior to the holidays. While the added traffic lights have been necessary, they have also added to the commute time on these streets. Living in the condo development at 1400 El Camino, I am finding it increasingly difficult to turn across the traffic and into our parking area. Further, while all condos in our development are one or two bedroom only, many condos have '3 or more cars. Finding parking for the additional cars is a challenge for many of our occupants. Adding additional housing and shopping will only add to the traffic congestion and parking issues. I also understand a housing development of Iow income rentals is being considered for the 1420 address of El Camino. While again adding to the traffic and parking issues, i am very concerned about this proposed development. My understanding is that my panoramic view of San Bruno mountain across to Seton Hospital and the coastal hills will become a view of a wall - 10 or 20 feet away from my porch. I have enjoyed watching a red shoulder hawk raise her nestlings every year in the trees currently on that property. The loss of view will significantly de-value my unit, which is unacceptable. When ! purchased the condo 5 years ago, I was assured that r~othin~ wou!d be build between the anticipated BART garage and our condos except the BART road. Having that view available to me was part of my decision to move to South San Francisco, in spite of the anticipated BART construction noise, dust, and disturbances. Please take into consideration the current residents you have in the Hickey / Et Camino area, before making any decision toward further development. Thank you for your time. ChristineMarie Ruck i--,uu El Camino Real ,-;;4 South San Francisco, CA 94080 -277- Electric Company November ~ ~, 2003 Planning Division City of South San Francisco P.O.Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94093 Aim: Mike Lappen R£C£1V£o tYO V 1 0 111 Almaden B~utevard P0. B~x 15005 San dos~, CA 95115-0005 Intern to adopt a Mitigmed Negative Declaration (IvPqD) For Fairfield Transit Village Mixed-used Development Plan dated: October 2003 Location: East and West sides of McLellan Rd., n/o E1 Camino Re~d, SSF APN 010-212-110 City's File: MND 02-0088 PG&E File · 402o0.~_9-y0o-MR-173 Dear Mr. Lappen: We are writing to ac'knowledge the receipt of the Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration CivlND), for Fairfield Transit Village Mixed-used Development at above referenced location. PG&E has the following comments to offer: PG&E owns and operates gas and electric facilities which are located within and adjacent to the proposed project. To promote the safe and reliable maintenance and operation of utility facilities, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has mandated specific clearance requirements between utility facilities and surrounding objects or construction activities. To ensure compliance with these standards, project proponents should coordinate with PG&E early in the development of their project plans. Any proposed development plans should provide for unrestricted utility access m~d prevent easement encroachments that might impair the safe and reliable maimenance and operation of PG&E's facilities. PG&E facilities to accommodate their proposed development. Because facilities relocation's require long lead times and are not always feasible, the requesting party should be encouraged to consult with PG&E as early in their planning stages as possible. Relocations of PG&E's electric transmission and substation facilities (50,000 volts and above) could also require formal approval from the California Public Utilities Comm2ssion. If required, this approval process could take up to two years to complete. Proponents with development plans which could affecl such electric transmission facilities should be referred to PG&E for additional infonmtion and ass/stance ~ the development ofthek project schedules. We would also like to note that continued development consistent with City's General Plans will have a cumulative knpact on PG&E's gas and electric systems and ma>, require on-site and off- site additions and improvements to the facilities, which supply these services. Because utitiry -278- Pacific 8as and Electric ~ornpan? t,ll Aim~d,~n Boulevard facilities m'e operated as m~ integrated systole, ~ pr~s~nc~ of ~ ~xisting gas or ~D05 ~ansmissfon or dis~ibution faciIiW does not necess~ily mean ~e facfliW h~ capa~i~ to c~tCA 9s~5-000~ umw loads. Expansion of distribution and transmission lines and related facilities is a necessary consequence of growth and development. In addition to adding new distribution feeders, the range of electric system improvements needed to accommodate growth may include up~ading existing substation and trm~smission line equipment, expanding existing substations to their uttimme buildout capacity, and building new substations and intercoauecting ~ransmission lines. Comparable upgrades or additions needed to accommodate additional load on the gas system could include facilities such as regulator stations,, odorizer stations, valve lots, distribution and transmission lines. ' We would like to recommend thru environmental documents for proposed development projects include adequate evaluation of cumulative impacts to utility systems, the utility facilities needed to serve those, developments and any potential enviromnental issues associated with extending utility service to the proposed project. This will assure ~he project's compliance with CEQA and reduce potential delays to the project schedule. We also encourage the Department of City Pluming of City of South San Francisco to h~clnde infonuation about the issue of electric and magnetic fields (EMF) in the Prelimhxary Negative Declaration. It is PG&E's policy to share information and educate people about the issue of EMF. Electric and Magnetic Fields (EMF) exist wherever there is electricity--in appliances, homes, schools and offices, and in power lines. There is no scientific consensus on the actual health effects of EMF exposure, but it is an issue of public concern. If you.have questions about EMF, please call your local PG&E office. A package of information which includes materials from the California Department of Health Services and other ~oups will be sent to you upon your request. PG&B remains committed to working with City of South San Francisco to provide timely, reliable and cost effective gas and electric service to the planned area. We would also appreciate being copied on furore correspondence regarding this subject as this project develops. The California Constitution vests in the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) exclusive power and sole authority with respect to the regulation of privately owned or investor o~m~ public utilities su~n as PG&E. This exclusive power extends to ail aspects of the location, design, construction, maintenance and operation of public utility facilities. Nevertheless, the CPUC has provisions for regulated utilities to work closely with local governments and give due consideration to their concerns. PG&E must balance oar commitment to provide due consideration to local concerns with our obligation to provide the public with a safe, reliable, cost-effective energ-y supply in compliance with the rules and tariffs of the CPUC. Should you require any additional information or have any questions, please call me at (408) 282- 7401. Sincerely, Alfred Pooh Land Agent South Coast Area -279- PROTECTING OP';::N SPACE AND PROMOTING LIVABLE COMMUNITIES South San Francisco Planning Commission November 5, 2003 c/o Planning Department 400 Grand Avenue, 2~a Floor South San Francisco, CA 94080 RE: South San Francisco Transit Village-- SUPPORT Dear Planning Commission Members: Greenbelt Alliance, the Bay' A_rea's leading land conservation and urban planrfing nonprofit organization, offers our enthusiastic endorsement for the South San Francisco Transit Village, the transit-oriented residential / mixed-use project proposed by Fairfield Residential LLC that will be located adjacent to the new South San Francisco BART Station. After undertaking a careful review of the development proposal -- including a site visit and other data gathering -- we concluded that the project is consistent with City policies encouraging high-density housing on i~fill sites near transit, and that it is appropriately scaled and designed for the site and surrounding area. Fmther, the project met or eXceeded all of our endorsement requirements. Greenbelt Alliance supports high quality, welt-designed {nfill development in existing cities and towns that is pedestrian-friendly and transit accessible, uses land efficiently, contributes to a mix of uses within a neighborhood, promotes affordability, and enhances community I/vability for a variety of household types and income. This development contributes m all of these important goals. The Transit V;Hlage will contain 360.apartment homes, providing critically needed work:force housing. Further, consistent with City ordinance, the developer will oft%r 72 of the 360 units (20%) as below-market-rate, more affordably priced homes. Fairfield's proposal is for 29 units at 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI), and another 43 units at The project's location adjacent to a transit hub will encourage .transit use, thus improving reg-ional air and water quality and traffic congestion associated with auto-dependency. Other important features of this Transit Village include/ts use of an underutilized infill site, its mix of residential and retail, and its pedestrian-friendly design which will improve the 'walking and biking environment and connections to transit. Further, the project's higher density makes k truly transit-oriented development. Finally, by placing higher density residential development on appropriate inz~ll sites, communities make efficient use of ihnited inffll land and reduce the pressure to develop open space and a~icultural areas on the fringe of our cities and region. MAIN OFFICE * 631 Howard Street, Suite 510, San Francisco, CA 94105 + (415) 543-6771 . Fa>: (415) 543-678] SOLA_NO/NAPA OFFICE . 725 Texas Sn-eer, Fairfield, CC. 94533 + (707) 42%2305 * Fax (707) 42%2515 SOUTH BAY OFFICE * 1922 The Alameda, Suite 213, San Jose, CA 95126 * (408) 988-0856 * Fax (408) 988-1001 E_&ST BAY OFFICE + 1601 North Main Street, Suite 105, *Walnut Creek, CA 94596 * (925) 932-7776 * Fax (925) 932-1970 SONOIvlA/M. ARIN OFFICE . 50 Santa Rosa Avenue, Sudte 307, Santa Rosa, CA 95404 * (707)575-8661 + Fax (707)575-4275 flzfo@greenbelt, org · wv ....... ~mlt. org ~.~.... -280- Letter to South San Francisco Planning Commission 11/5/03 p. 2 We commend the city of South San Francisco for establishing reduced parking requirements for this project, considering the pro 'xirnity to mass =ansit. We also support the Transportation Demand Management stipulation thai the developer participate in a Shuttle program to employers east of I-Iighway 101, and provide electric vehicle stalls in the residential garage, possibly as car share stalls. We believe that the inclusion of a car share pod would be beneficial to this site, if it proves to be feasible economically. In consideration of the above factors, Oreenbek Alliance finds that the South San Francisco Transk Village furthers important environmental, economic, and social equity goals, including reducing auto dependency and supporting the use of transit options; encouraging housing close to jobs, shops and services; providing housing options that include some affordable housing; and encouraging well-designed, pedestrian-oriented compact development that enhances community vitality. Therefore, Greenbeh Alliance extends our full support to the successful completion of the proposed Transit Village development. Sincerely, Janet Stone Livable Communities Program Director Crreenbek Alliance cc: Mike Pacelli, Bay Relations -281- John and Ann Stibdard 347 Gardenside Ave So San Francisco, Ca. 9z~080 Mike Lappen, Senior Planner, We are commenting on the proposed Fairfletd Transit Development, for what it's worth. Many years ago in the master plan for this area, the density was classified as medium. How is it then that you are ptanning on 380 units? This far too many for an area that already has a traffic problem. You will tell all of us that, ideally, the people who live there wil..~l use BART. Realistically, they m_~ use BART, but they will more than likely have two cars and according to your plan only 1.5 parking space will be alloted for each unit. in addition, retail shops are included in the plan. What about the additional traffic that these shops will bring into the area. It is also ludicrous that any grocer:,, store would want a space there so close to Costco, even Trader Joes. At one of your meetings, the question of parking for overflow cars of residents and guests came up and the answer was simply put ..... use Costco parking space. I don't think so, it is the private properzy of Costco and for the use of their patrons. The architecture of the proposed units is not in keeping with that of the homes in the area. Take a look at Sunshine Garden homes, the new townhouses that are under construction as well as those homes in the Promenade and up Arroyo Drive. We were told that these are rentals, but I don't believe for one minute that they intend to keep them as such. It is our opinion that they will De sold and then who is going to maintain the property so that it doesn't become a blight on the community? Nothing good has ever come of rental units of this size. They bring in an element of people who have no commitment to the community in which they live and .cause real estate values to decline and often cause crime to escalate. Take for instance Willow Gardens. Further more, How on earth do they figure that there are iow income units set aside? They gave us the prices for the so called iow income units and they are more than the rent on some of the homes in the are~,, considering square footage and parKin9 facilities. It would be a better .use of the space if it were used primarily for retail to reptace Grand Avenue as our downtown area. Grand Avenue is like downtown Tijuana and no matter how much money you throw into it it will always remain so. Just take a drive there, any day, any time and you will see what I mean. We will continue to obiect to this development and will tn' to get our neighbors to join us. You mal, say ifs a bit late, but it still has to pass througtq the City Council and maybe the money won't be more important than the wishes of the community. Let sanity prevail over greed. -283- TOWN OF COLMA PLANNING DEPARTMENT November 13, 2003 Mr. Mike Lappen Senior Planner, Planning Division City of South San Francisco P,O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 1190 El Camino Real · Colma, California 94014 Phone: (650) 985-2590 · FAX: (650) @85-2578 ECEIVED PLANNING (VIA FACSIMILE - HARD COPY TO FOLLOW) Dear Mr. Lappen, Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Fairfield Transit Village at the intersection of El Camino Real and McLellan Ddve proposed in South San Francisco. As you know, a portion of the property borders the Town of Colma. The Town of Colma is generally in support of the proposed development. However, there are mitigation measures that the Town is recommending as an amendment to the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. The addition of 370 residential units and almost 25,000 square feet of commercial space will create an increase in population and traffic. According to the Initial Study, the project will generate an estimated 4,646 daily trips. As the Initial Study asserts, this will create impacts on surrounding roadways and intersections that are considered significant unless properly mitigated. The Town of Colma supports the mitigation measures that further alternate modes of transportation and encourage the village concept. For example, the Town supports Mitigation Measure 11, which requires development and implementation of a Transportation Demand Management Program, which would address the provision of bicycle racks and pedestrian access to the BART station. In order to further promote the pedestrian-oriented village concept, the Town of Colma strongly recommends that the TDM Plan also include provision of safety crosswalks that activate strobe lights when crossing Mission Road in the vicinity of the BART station. These crosswalks, such as those manufactured by LightGuard in Santa Rosa, are equipped with a strobe 'light that flashes when a pedestrian steps into the road to alert motorists that a person is crossing. The Town of Colma also requests a copy of the draft TDM Plan when it is available in order to provide comments. Thanks again for the oppodunity to comment. Please feel free to call me at (650) 985-2590. Sincerely, D~puty City Planner Town of Co!ma -284- ATTACHMENT 14 TRANSIT VILLAGE ZONING DISTRICT STANDARDS & REGULATIONS TABLE Transit Village Zoning District Development Regulations Table Schedule 20.27.040: Development Regulations for Transit Village District Standards TV-C TV-RH Additional Regulations Building Scale - Intensity of Use Minimum Lot Area (square 10,000 5,000 (a) feet) Maximum Density (units 30 50 per acre) Maximum Non-resident/al 2.0 1.0 FAR Maximum Lot Coverage 100% 75% (%) (b) (c) Proposed Project 369,389 s.f. 50 units/acre net Less than 2.0 75% Standards TV-C TV-RIt Building Form and Location Max/mum Building Height (feet) Minimum Yards (feet) Front Side Street Side Build-to Lines Longest Fagade LenT& Additional Regulations 55 55 (d) No No (e) setback setback 0 0-i0 - range 0 O-lO range Map TV-03 (h) 300 250 i Proposed Project Conformance 47 feet Average 13 ft sidewalk with no building setback on McLellan. 6-16 feet setback on ECR to accommodate wide sidewalk 0 setback on BART pedestrian plaza 0 setback on BART Service Road 2 Yes Approximately 200 feet averages -285- Standards TV-C TV-RH Pedestrian Orientation Retail Frontage Continuity Depth of Retail Space (feet) 40 20 Building Transparency Yes Blank Wails Not allowed Building Entries Yes I Yes Vehicle Accommodation - Driveways and Parking Required Parking See Chapter 20.74 Driveway Restrictions Location of Par'king Yes - Podium Parking required (Map TV- 04) Percent Allowable of 20 20 parking podium visible from Principal Street Required distance (feet) 40 20 behind building facade Parking Lot Landscaping Yes Yes l~arrdng z. or ~eaesman Y es Y es Circulation Parking Structure Yes Yes Dfive-T~m Facilities Not allowed Auto-related Sales & Not allowed Services Loading and Service Areas Yes Yes Pedestrian Walkways Yes Yes Additional Regulations (i) ~) (k) (1) (m) (n) (o) (o) (o) (p) (q) (r) (s) (s) (t) (u) Proposed Project Conformance Yes Yes No blank walls Yes 1.5 parking spaces per unit Conforms Conforms No visibility from prh~cipal streets 20 Yes Y es Yes Not proposed Not proposed Yes Yes Standards Other Standards TV-C TV-R_H Additian a! Regulations Proposed Project Conformance -286- Bicycle Amenities Employee Eating Area Trash Enclosures Screening of Mechanical Equipment (a) Minimum Lot Area. Yes - (v) Yes Yes Yes (w) Yes Yes Yes (x) Yes Yes Yes (y) Yes (1) Minimum lot area required for comer residential lots shall be 6,000 square feet. Smaller lots may be approved under the provisions of Chapter 20.77, Planned Unit Development Regulations. (2) Narrow lots (not wider than 40 feet) fronting Mission Road, may have fi-om loaded parking garages for individual residential units. (b) Maximum Density. Bonus floor area, up to a maximum of 25 percent, may be granted in the Transit Village District for projects where greater than 25 percent of the units are reserved for moderate and lower-income households, as defined by the California Government Code. (c) Max/mum Non-residential FAR. The provisions of Chapter 20.66, Floor Area Regulations, are subject to the following supplemental regulations: (1) Bonus floor area, up to a maximum 0.2 FAR, may be granted in the TV-R sub-district for projects that provide a public plaza. The plaza shall satisfy all of the following criteria: (A) An open area, not greater than 3,000 square feet, open to pubhc use for walking, seating, and eating. (B) At least 60 percent of the plaza shall be hard surfaced and pedestrian accessible. (C) At least one space ofpublic seating shall be provided for every 75 square feet ofptaza area. (D) At least one tree shall be provided for every 500 square feet of area. (E) Directly handicap accessible from at least two places along adjacent pubhc sidewalks. (2) The Retail and Personal Service space exemption established in Chapter 22.66.030 does not apply in the TV-C and TV-RH sub-districts. (d) Maximum Building Height. Maximum build~g heights are shown in Overlay Map TV-02. (1) Buildings are required to have a 2-story frontage on Principal Streets (El Camino Real, McLellan Drive, or Mission Road). If a use has unique operational requirements that prohibit 2- stories, then the minimum building height shall be at least 22 feet to the top of parapet or middle of the roof structure. -287- (2) To accommodate architectural features, a maximum of 10 percent of each building facade may extend up to 4 feet above the height limit. (e) Front Yard Setbacks. Setback requirements are shown in Overlay Map TV-03. (1) Required front yard setbacks along Et Ca2nino Real include 6 feet adjacent to the sidewalk that shall be paved, similar in appearance to the pubhc right-of-way. In these setbacks, projections of 2.5 feet are allowed for porches, stoops,and sta/rway access to housing over podium parking. (2) Additional setbacks for from-loaded individual garage access to residential units may be ~anted in the TV-RM sub-district. See Overlay Map TV-04. (f) Street Side Yards. A minimum 50 percent of the street side setback shall be landscaped in the TV-RM mad TV-RH sub-districts. The maximum fence height in a street side yard shall be 3 feet. (g) Rear Yards. (t) The minimum depth ora rear yard shall be 6 feet adjacent to existing single family uses. This setback shall be landscaped and provided with a wooden or masonry fence, not more than 6 feet high (see Section 20.37.020). Chain link fencing is not permitted in the Transit Village District. (2) Rea2' yards adjacent to the BART tracks right of way or to the flood channel shall not have fences other than those required for security. Fences along these rights of way must be transparent, constructed of decorative metal or wood, and not more than 6 feet high (see Section 20.37.020). (h) Build-To Lines. The minimum percentages of the from building elevation that must be located at the required setback line (the "streetwall") are shown in Overlay Map TV-03. (1) In the TV-R sub-district, exceptions to this requirement may be ~anted for the provision of public improvements, including plazas, public art and water features, with approval of a Use Pen-tilt. (i) Retail Frontage Continuity. Retail street frontages are sho~m in Overlay Map TV-01. (1) In that portion of the Transit Village fronting on McLellan Drive, a minimum 70 percent of pound floor building space shall have a storefront appearance. In sub-districts where retail frontage is allowed but not required, the building fagade may or may not have a storefront appearance. (2) Exceptions may be ~anted for unique uses, such as commercial recreation and entertainment uses, and public and semi-public uses. (j) Transparency. -288- (1) In the TV-C and TV-R sub-districts, views into buildings shall be provided by storefront windows and doors in a zone between 2 to 10 feet above grade. Glass block shall not be considered U-ansparent. (2) In the TV-RM and TV-RI-I sub-districts, views into the ground floor are not required unless the ground floor use is a corrm~ercial use, as in a live-work unit. (k) Blank Walls. Building facades without windows that are over 24 feet in height or 50 feet in len~h shall include offsets, recesses, and projections providing shadows and visual interest for at least 50 percent of the fi'ontage. (1) Display windows, at least 3 feet deep, may be used to articulate blank wails. (1) Building Entries. Entries may include primary or secondary and shared or individual residential entries, or entries to commercial spaces. Exit stairs, utility/service entries, or other doorway not regularly used by building occupants and visitors do not apply. (1) Entries to any commercial spaces shall be from the sidewalk level, or where not feasible, a ramp entry must be designed as an integral element of the architecture. (2) Stoop access to residential units, shared or individual, must be provided at no more than 50 feet on center. The maximum distance from flrfish grade and the floor level of the first floor above the podium structure shall be no greater than 5 feet. (3) Entries into ground floor residential uses from sidewalks in the Transit Village may be directly from sidewalk level or from a stoop, not more than 5 feet to the finish Found floor level. Entries into Found floor live-work uses shall be from sidewalk level. (4) Pedestrian entrances to all buildings shall be directly from a principal building frontage. From side or rear surface parking, entrances may be accessed through a break in the building between the front and back of the parcel, or via normal pedestrian circulation along the parcel sidewalk. (m) Required Parking. Parking requirements below and in Chapter 20.74 may be reduced up to 25 percent in TV District, with approval of a Use Permit. Additional reduction of parking requirements may be ganted for shared parking, with approval of a Use Permit. (1) No off-street parMng is required for allowable commercial uses occupying less than 1,500 square feet. (2) On-street parking along a parcel's con'esponding frontage lines shall be counted towards the parking requirements. (3) In the TV-R and TV-C sub-districts, 1 space per 300 gross square feet shall be requi_red. (4) In the TV-PM sub-d/strict, 1 covered space per mzit shall be required and up to 2 spaces per -289- unit allowed. (5) In the TV-RH sub-district, between 1 and 1.75 spaces per unit shall be required, depending on provision of access to transit facilities. (n) Driveway Restrictions. In the TV-C and TV-R sub-districts, access to parking shall be from a side street or alley, wherever possible. (1) Vehicular entries through a building fagade shall be no wider than 20 feet. (o) Location of Parking. Required and allowable parking types are shown in Overlay Map TV- 04. (1) Surface parking shall be located at the rear or side of the building. No surface parking shall be visible from a Principal Street at any location in the Transit Village, except in the case of surface parking at the side of the building. (2) In the Transit Village, no parking podium shall be visible from McLellan Drive. Views to limited surface parking at the side of the buildings are permitted. (3) On other Principal Streets, up to 20% of a par ~king podium may be visible from the street. (4) All parking in the Transit Village shall be located behind the main building with frontage on a Principal Street. Exceptions may be ~anted for locations where front loaded parking is allowed. (p) Parking Lot Landscaping. (1) Shade trees shall be provided at a minimum ratio of 1 tree for every 6 spaces. (2) A minimum of 10 percent cfa surface parking lot shall be landscaped and accompanied by an irrigation system that is permanent, below-Fade, and activated by automatic timing controls. (q) Parking Lot Pedestrian CirculaTion. (1) All parking lots must contain pedestrian access within the lot to the pubhc sidewalk. Pedestrian access must be either a raised sidewalk or composed of a material different from the parking lot itself. Pedestrian access must be at least five feet wide, excluding vehicle overhangs. (2) Surface lots shall be accessed through a break in the building between the from and back of the parcel, or via normal pedestrian circulation along the parcel sidewaY. (r) Parking Structure Landscaping. A mJ~_imum 20 percent of the open area above park~,g podiums shall be landscaped. -290- (s) Drive-through Facilities and Auto-related Sales & Services. Drive-through facilities and Auto- related sales and services are not allowed in the Transit Village. (t) Loading and Service Areas. Truck docks, loading and sen,ice areas shall be located at the side or rear of the site, and screened so as not to be v/sible from public streets. Acceptable screening includes wood or masonry walls, or lattice with no more than 40 percent transparency. Chain link fencing is not permitted fin the Transit Village District. (u) Pedestrian Walk-ways. Clearly defmed and lighted walkways shall be provided between the main building entry and a public sidewalk. (1) Sidewalk widths must be at least 4 feet wide when accessing individual units and 6 feet when accessing multi-family units. (2) Pedestrian wallc~ays shall be separated from on-site circulation and parking areas by landscaping, a change in paving material, or a change in elevation. (v) Bicycle Amenities. (1) Commercial and Retail uses that are required to provide parldng must provide bicycle parking at a minimum of five spaces plus 1 additional space per 5,000 goss square feet. (2) All residential development over five units must provide four bicycle parking spaces per 10 units. (w) Employee Eating Areas. (1) In the TV-C and TV-R sub-districts, 300 square feet of outdoor eating facilities for office uses of more than 10,000 square feet shall be provided within 500 feet of the building. Rooftop or balcony eating areas ma[y' be used to meet this requirement. (2) Shared outdoor open space as part o£the development may be substituted for outdoor eating areas. (x) Trash Enclosures. All trash and recycling facilities shall be enclosed by a gated area accessible from the parking or loading area. No trash or recycling facilities may be located in a required front or street side setback. (y) Screening of Mechanical Equipment. All mechanical equipment shall be screened from public view, including streets, pedestrian paths, and upper story windows, as per the Desi~ Guidelknes. -291- ATTACHMENT 15 SITE AND BUILDING ELEVATION PLANS South San Francisco Transit Oriented Development City Council Submittal January 14, 2004 Fairfield Residential LLC South San Francisco Transit Oriented Development City Council Submittal January 14, 2004 ! KwanHenmi Fairfield Residential LLC Project: South San Francisco Transit Village Date: 11-20-03 A1 A2 A3 B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 TH1 Area of Site - AC Dwelling Units - DU Site Density- DU/AC Parking Count Building Height (4-story) Building Height (3-story) Unit Type 1 br/1 ba 1 br/1 ba 1 br/1 ba/de n 2br/2ba 2br/2ba 2br/2ba 2br/2ba 2br/2ba lbr townhouse Housing Subtotal Other Areas Commercial Retail Retail Box Commercial/Leasing Subtotal ILeasing and Clubhouse 7.3 36O 49.32 665 47' 37' West Site East Site 112 109 0 3 3 0 34 33 6 6 8 0 2 2 10 19 13 0 188 172 West Site East Site 4,O0O 7,000 12,000 0 16,000 7,000 Total P.rking Count West Site_ Fast Site Resident Parking (1.5 per unit) 283 258 Guest Parking 32 28 Mclellan 11 13 Retail Box 64 0 Parking Count Subtotal 390 299 UnitMix% UnitSF 221 61.4% 75O 3 0.8% 872 3 O.8% 1,112 67 18.6% 1,054 12 3.3% 1,266 8 2.2% t,134 4 1.1% 1,288 29 8.1% 1,103 13 3.6% 1,327 360 100.0% Total SF 165,750 2,616 3,336 70,618 15,192 9,072 5,152 31,987 17,251 320,974 Total SF 11,000 12,000 23,000 5,7751 Parking Total 541 6O 24 64 689 Fairfield Residential LLC South San Francisco Transit Oriented Development City Council Submittal January 14, 2004 ! KwanHenmi Surface Parking ' -CommUnity Plaza '-.. Bollards Costco Parking Play Area Lim~ BART Transit Station BART Plaza TREE PALETTE Site Plan Fairfield Residential LLC South San Francisco Transit Oriented Development City Council Submittal January 14, 2004 I KwanHenmi Costco Boltards Surface Parking )MMUNITYB- - Street Light Bollard Padm~j S~u~um Drive BART Transit BART PLAZA PARKETTE---',, LEGEND m} ........ PUBLIC'URBAN EDGE~EXPERIENCE CIRCULATION · · · NTERIOR GARDEN EXPERIENCE CIRCULATION D GATED ENTRY Sm~ AMENITY/GATHERING SPACES PEDESTRIAN EXPERIENTIAL DIAGRAM NORTH Fairfield Residential LLC South San Francisco Transit Oriented Development City Council Submittal January 14, 2004 ! KwanHenmi Surface 'king Structure Idren's Play Area Enlarged McLellan Drive Plan ~nity to Remain Parking Structure Drive TREE PALETFE Fairfield Residential LLC South San Francisco Transit Oriented Development City Council Submittal January 14, 2004 ! KwanHenmi " Li'mit o':f Work BBQ Gated'Entry BART Plaza Edge BART Plaza Fairfield Residential LLC BART Transit Station BART Plaza Chinese Hackberry Community Plaza NORTH Community Plaza South San Francisco Transit Oriented Development City Council Submittal January 14, 2004 London Plane Tree --~ ~L 14'-6" ~L ! KwanHenmi South San Francisco KwanHenmi Fairfield Residential LLC South San Francisco Transit Oriented Development City Council Submittal January 14, 2004 I KwanHenmi Fairfield Residential LLC South San Francisco Transit Oriented Development City Council Submittal January 14, 2004 ! KwanHenmi View along El Camino Retail at McLellan Fairfield Residential LLC South San Francisco Transit Oriented Development City Council Submittal January 14, 2004 ! KwanHenmi Fairfield Residential LLC South San Francisco Transit Oriented Development City Council Submittal January 14, 2004 1 KwanHenmi View from across El Camino Fairfield Residential LLC South San Francisco Transit Oriented Development City Council Submittal January 14, 2004 View of midblock lane Fairfield Residential LLC South San Francisco Transit Oriented Development City Council Submittal January 14, 2004 ! KwanHenmi View of interior court and children's play area Fairfield Residential LLC South San Francisco Transit Oriented Development City Council Submittal January 14, 2004 ! KwanHenmi View from BART Plaza Fairfield Residential LLC South San Francisco Transit Oriented Development City Council Submittal January 14, 2004 KwanHenmi View of large retail entry Fairfield Residential LLC South San Francisco Transit Oriented Development City Council Submittal January 14, 2004 ! KwanHenmi Fairfield Residential LLC South San Francisco Transit Oriented Development City Council Submittal January 14, 2004 ! KwanHenmi E Fairfield Residential LLC South San Francisco Transit Oriented Development City Council Submittal January 14, 2004 I KwanHenmi Fairfield Residential LLC South San Francisco Transit Oriented Development City Council Submittal January 14, 2004 KwanHenmi East Site West Site Site Section through El Camino Fairfield Residential LLC South San Francisco Transit Oriented Development City Council Submittal January 14, 2004 I KwanHenmi Sta - iIe vort AGENDA ITEM #8 DATE: January 14, 2004 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: Century Theatres - Use Permit Modification and Planned Unit Development Modification to the Century Plaza Commercial Development to allow demolition of the existing 2,800 seat, 10-plex movie theater and amusement arcade and construction of a new 2,412 seat, 14-plex movie complex and amusement arcade within the existing building pad location, minor parking lot modifications and new landscaping adjacent to the building. Type C Sign Permit (Special Circumstances) to allow a sign to project above the roofline, to allow an electronic readerboard with changeable copy, and to allow overall signage in excess of 100 square feet. Applicant: Owner: Case No.: Century Theatres Syufy Enterprises P03-0103: UPM03-0003, PUDM03-0001 & SIGNS03-0029 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission and adopt the attached Resolution to approve UPM03-0003, PUDM03- 0001 and SIGNS03-0029. BACKGROUND: The Century Plaza project, originally approved in 1984, presently consists of a 2,800 seat 10- plex movie theater, a 50,000 sfretail building (Staples/Golf Mart), and a 13,000 sfretail building at the comer of E1 Camino Real/Noor, with a shared parking arrangement throughout the complex, and including overflow parking at the Tanforan Business Park across the street on Huntington Avenue. Staff Report To: FIonorable Mayor and City Council RE: Century Theatres Date: January 14, 2004 Page 2 of 5 Century Theatres is requesting a modification to its permits to allow demolition of the existing theater building and construction of a new "state of the art" 2,412 seat, 14-plex theater in its place, with only minor modifications to the parking and landscaping proposed. A Use Permit modification and Planned Unit Development modification are required in accordance with South San Francisco Municipal Code Sections 20.81.110 and 20.84.160. Furthermore, since the original permits were approved by the City Council, the modifications are also subject to City Council review in accordance with SSFMC Section 20.91.020. Additionally, a Type "C" Sign Permit is requested to allow the building sign to extend above the roofline, to permit an electronic readerboard, and to authorize total site signage to exceed 100 square feet, in accordance with S SFMC Section 20.76.160 (Special Circumstances). DISCUSSION: (A complete discussion of the proposed project is contained in the attached Planning Commission staff report dated December 4, 2003.) PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING The Planning Commission discussed the proposed project at its December 4, 2003 meeting, minutes attached. The Commission strongly supported the proposal and unanimously adopted the attached resolution recommending City Council approval of the project. However, the Commission noted a few concerns with existing operations and questioned how they would be addressed in the revised proposal. Parking Lot Signage - The Commission recommended that additional signage be installed within the parking lot to better identify the location of available theater parking, given that much of the parking is located behind the theater, and given that there has been confusion in the past over which lots are part of the theater and which belong to the adjacent shopping center (180 E1 Camino Real). Additionally, the Commission recommended that parking information be provided as part of the pre-movie slide shows within each theater. As indicated below, conditions of approval are included to address these issues (see Resolution Exhibit A, Attachment 1), as outlined below: A.3. (c) Slide Presentations. The pre-movie slide show (or such alternative medium being used) shall include the following information: (1) a request that patrons use the signalized crosswalk when crossing Huntington Avenue to and from the theater; (2) information on the unrestricted parking in front and behind the theater (i.e., Lots A, B, and C); (3) a warning that towing may occur for parking in reserved retail Staff Report To: Ylonorable Mayor and City Council RE: Century Theatres Date: January 14, 2004 Page 3 of 5 spaces, red zones, handicapped spaces, loading zones, and in non-approved lots on the property adjacent to the theater; (4) information on the importance of parking safely and protecting belongings and to inform theater management of any inappropriate activities; and (5) a picture of the lobby diagram including directional arrows to Lot E. A.3. 09 Correction of on-site violations. The following action should be taken: (1) continue the past warning notice process for the rear of 180 E1 Camino Real and make sure that guards are supplied with an adequate supply of notices for placement on all violator vehicles; (2) security personnel and complex employees shall take proactive steps to discourage inappropriate vehicle parking while it is occurring in their presence; (3) when guards are on duty at the rear of Lot C, they shall actively deter theater patrons from parking at the rear of 180 E1 Camino Real and direct them to alternate approved parking. A.3. (h) Si~na~e and Markings. Applicant shall prepare and submit to the City a restriping, marking and signage plan for the new theater project, including parking lots A through E.. Such plan shall comply with the 1995 Parking Management Plan (PMP) and any subsequent relevant recommendations made by the City. Prior to the opening of the theater, the City and applicant shall review the on-site signage to confirm compliance with the approved plan. A.3. (i) Parkin~ Availability Diagrams. The required parking availability diagrams in the lobby, adjacent to the ticket booth and on-screen presentations shall include directional arrows to access Lot E from off-site and across Lot D. Arcade Access - The Commission questioned whether access to the amusement arcade would be restricted to ticket holders only. The Police Department conditions of approval on the existing permit restrict access to ticket holders only and the same condition is proposed for the current proposal, as follows: A. 3. (1) Arcade Conditions. The applicant shall comply with the original arcade condition to restrict access into the arcade to theater patrons holding tickets." Pedestrian Walkways/Canopy - The Commission recommended that the applicant consider modifying walkways in the project to improve pedestrian safety and extend the canopy over a deeper portion of the ticketing area to better protect patrons from inclement weather. Staff Report To: Flonorable Mayor and City Council RE: Century Theatres Date: January 14, 2004 Page 4 of 5 Walkways - Hazardous jaywalking between the theater site and the Tanforan Professional Center along Huntington Avenue has been of concern to staff for some time, despite the fact that there is a signalized intersection at the comer of Huntington and Noor Avenues. The subject plans have incorporated the recommendations of the City's consultant, as contained on page 22 of the Parking Management Plan Monitoring Program dated January to November 2002, attached, to relocate the pedestrian walkway along the Huntington Avenue side of the property and install security planting materials between the walkway and the street to discourage short cuts through this area and to direct pedestrians to the signalized crosswalk. The Commission also recommended that the applicant seek to install additional pedestrian crossings and widen pathways throughout the project. A condition of approval is included to require the applicant to work with staff to explore these additional improvements, as follows: Condition A.$: Subject to the review and approval of the Chief Planner and prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall investigate the following: If additional space is available, consider adding a pedestrian pathway through the middle of the parking lots on Parcels A & B. Alternatively, consider adding speed bumps to slow traffic and improve pedestrian safety. Also, investigate whether a crosswalk could be installed within the parking lot where the Safeway loading entry driveway divides the back parking lots from the theater parcel. Canopy - The plans have incorporated a substantial overhang of approximately 18 feet in depth above the ticketing area, replacing the existing overhang of approximately 10 feet. The Planning Commission was satisfied with the resolution of their issues and unanimously adopted the attached resolution recommending City Council approval of the subject request. CONCLUSION: The proposed project is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan, complies with the standards and requirements of the City's Zoning Ordinance and has been found to be of commendable design by the Design Review Board and the Planning Commission. As indicated in the attached Planning Commission resolution, the Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution to approve Planned Unit Development StaffReport To: Honorable Mayor and City Council RE: Century Theatres Date: January 14, 2004 Page 5 of 5 Modification PUDM03-0003, Use Permit Modification UPM03-0003 and Type C Sign Permit SIGNS03-0029. Assistant City Manag~ Mi'fhael A. Wil{on City Manager MAW:MVD:sk ATTACHMENTS: Draft City Council Resolution Planning Commission Staff Report dated December 4, 2003 Planning Commission Minutes dated December 4, 2003 Planning Commission Resolution w/attachments Parking Management Plan Monitoring Program -2002 Memo from Petrocchi Associates Building Plans dated 10-31-2002 Sign Plans dated 9-27-02 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO APPROVING A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT MODIFICATION PUDM03-0001, USE PERMIT MODIFICATION UPM03-0003 AND TYPE C SIGN PERMIT SIGNS03o0029 ALLOWING MODIFICATIONS TO A RETAIL AND THEATER COMPLEX AT 410~470 NOOR AVENUE IN THE P-C PLANrNED COMMERCIAL ZONE DISTRICT WHEREAS, the South San Francisco Planning Commission held a duly noticed public heating on December 4, 2003, and recommended that the City Council approve the requested entitlements to replace an existing theatre with a new, modem facility; and, WHEREAS, the project is consistent with the General Plan which designates this site for Business Commercial Use, a. category allowing for a variety of office, retail, visitor-serving and regional commercial uses, including movie theaters; and, WHEREAS, the proposed project is consistent with the Zoning designation of Planned Commercial; and, WHEREAS, the Design Review Board found the project, subject to minor modifications, to comply with the City's Design Guidelines. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, after considering all evidence in the record, including the staff reports, written materials and oral testimony submitted to the City Council at its January 14, 2004, public heating, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby finds as follows: 1. The Type C Sign Permit (.Special Circumstances) is warranted based on the following: a) The proposed sign program meets all the general sign standards set in SSFMC Section 20.76.150 and where applicable, the special considerations for deviating from said standards. All other signs are applied directly to building faces or upon existing approved sign structures and do not project over public property. The roof sign and the readerboard sign warrant special consideration under South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 20.76.170. b) The materials, colors, graphic style and illumination have been well integrated with the architectural features of the building and are compatible with other signage in the neighborhood. c) Special consideration is warranted for the roof sign since the use is located adjacent to E1 Camino Real, a State Highway, it is regional in nature, and the signs are generally in proportion to the size of the building and the nature of the use. d) Special consideration is also warranted for the electronic readerboard. Due to the nature of movie theaters, they have a specific need to post movie titles and show times in a prominent fashion outside of the building. The proposed readerboard would be of a reasonable size to accomplish this specific purpose and could not be used otherwise for general advertising purposes. e) The Design Review Board supports the design of the signs, noting that they enhanced the architecture and added to the spirit of a lively entertainment space. The project satisfies the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. The project is Categorically Exempt under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Class 2, Section 15302: Replacement of a commercial structure with a new structure of substantially the same size, purpose and capacity). The subject site is presently developed with a theatre substantially similar to the proposed project. The existing facility has been in operation for nearly 20 years under the approved Use Permit and Planned Unit Development Permit. No significant issues have been observed during that time. Therefore, the City Council finds that the subject site is physically suitable for the proposed project; and, Based on the current operation of the existing theatre use and the absence of any significant issues resulting from such operation, the City Council additionally finds that the project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, welfare, comfort or convenience of persons working or residing in the vicinity of the property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby approves Planned Unit Development Modification PUDM03-0001, Use Permit Modification UPM03-0003 and Type C Sign Permit SIGNS03-0029 subject to the Conditions of Approval. -2- I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a meeting held on the day of ,2004 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk S:\Current Reso's\SYUFY.reso. DOC OPlanning Co Staff mrnission DATE: TO: SUBJECT: December 4, 2003 Planning Commission Century Theatres - Use Permit Modification and Planned Unit Development Modification to the Century Plaza Commercial Development to allow demolition of the existing 2,800 seat, 10-plex movie theater and anusement arcade and construction of a new 2,412 seat, t4-plex movie complex and amusement arcade within the existing building pad location, minor parking lot modifications and new landscaping adjacent to the building. Type C Sign Permit (Special Circumstances) to allow a sign to project above the roofline, to allow an electronic readerboard with changeable copy, and to allow overall signage in excess of 100 square feet. Applicant: Owner: Case No.: Century Theatres Syufy Enterprises P03-0103: UPM03-0003, PUDM03-0001 & SIGNS03-0029 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution recommending that the City Council approve Planned Unit Development Modification PUDM03-0003, Use Permit Modification UPM03-0003 and Type C Sign Permit SIGNS03- 0029. BACKGROUND: The Century Plaza project, originally approved in 1984, presently consists of a 2,800 seat 10-plex movie theater, a 50,000 sfretail building (Staples/Golf Mart), and a 13,000 sf retail building at the coruer of E1 Camino Real/Noor, with a shared parking arrangement throughout the complex, and including overflow parking at the Tanforan Business Park across the street on Huntington Avenue. Century Theatres is now requesting a modification of its permits to allow demolition of the existing 2,800 seat theater building and construction ora new "state of the a~" 2,412 seat, 14- plex theater in its place, with only minor modifications to the parking and landscaping proposed. A Use Permit modification and Planned Unit Development modification are required in accordance with South San Francisco Municipal Code Sections 20.81.110 and 20.84.160. -4- Staff Report Subject: Century Theatres Date: December 4, 2003 Page 2 of 7 Furthermore, since the original permits were approved by the City Council, the modifications are also subject to City Council review in accordance with SSFMC Section 20.91.020. Additionally, a Type "C" Sign Permit is requested to allow the building sign to extend above the roofline, to permit an electronic readerboard, and to authorize total site signage to exceed 100 square feet, in accordance with SSFMC Section 20.76.160 (Special Circumstances). DISCUSSION: The applicants propose to construct a new 2,412 seat, 14-plex movie complex and amusement arcade within the existing theater building pad location. Very little of the remaining site is proposed to be disturbed, including only minor parking lot modifications and new landscaping adjacent to the building. · DESIGN Building/Site The new building is a contemporary designed, single story structure constructed primarily of concrete tilt-up panels, with a prominent glassed-in lobby and decorative marquee at the building entry, and neon tube accents at several locations along the front elevation. Fourteen screening rooms are proposed ranging in size from 108 to 299 seats, all featuring stadium style seating. The building also includes an arcade, with approximately 30 amusement devices, as provided for in the existing structure. Overall site improvements are to be limited in na_ture, and i~_c!ude restfiping of al! compact parking spaces to standard width, and enhancement of portions of the landscaping to address concerns noted in annual Parking Management Plan Monitoring Program review prepared by Petrocchi Associates, attached, and discussed below in further detail. As a resuk, approximately 9 parking spaces will be removed, although as indicated the attached report, these spaces are constantly being straddled by inappropriate parkers which results in a loss of several spaces in a row for long periods of time, so efficiency should actually improve even though 9 spaces will be lost. Signs Three types of signs are proposed for the site: individual lettering on the building, a reface of the existing freestanding readerboard sign, and an electronic readerboard over the ticket office. -5- Staff Report Subject: Century Theatres Date: December 4, 2003 Page 3 of 7 Lettering - Lettering includes six foot high internally illuminated individual letters ("CENTURY") extending above the roof of the theater marquee, as well as smaller individual lettering attached to the building face. Existing Freestanding Sign - The existing large (8' x 28') readerboard would be replaced with a large colorful graphic. Signage on this structure would be limited to the top two and a half feet, and includes only the business name. Readerboard - In lieu of listing all the shows and times on the existing large freestanding sign, the applicants propose to install an electronic readerboard (16 ft. w/de by 3 ½ ft. high) directly above the ticket counter to serve this purpose. Design Review Board The Design Review Board discussed the project at its September 2003 meeting. In general, the Board was very enthusiastic about the proposed redesign, noting particularly that the building entry was very festive and interesting. Additionally, the Board supported the proposed signage, noting that the roof sign accentuates the building entry. The Board did, however, offer the following comments which have been incorporated into the proposed Conditions of Approval: a. Palm trees along the front elevation add a nice framing effect to the building fagade. Consider increasing number and grouping to anchor the building ends. Also, date palms may not be the best choice given the cold, windy climate - investigate other palms species. b. Utilize London Plane trees for street trees, with Carrotwood as accent tree. c. Verify whether trees along the Safeway property, line at the rear of the site are evergreens. If not, add large evergeen component at this edge to improve screening of rear elevation. d. If additional space is available, consider adding a pedestrian pathway through the middle of the parking lots on Parcels A & B. Alternatively, consider adding speed bumps to slow traffic and improve pedestrian safety. Also, investigate whether a crosswalk could be installed within the parking lot where the Safeway loading entry driveway divides the back parking lots fi:om the theater parcel. · _TYPE C SIGN PERMIT The types and sizes of signs requested by the applicant exceed the standard requirements of the Sign Ordinance, necessitating approval of a Type C Sign Permit (Special Circumstances). The sign ordinance, SSFMC Section 20.76.170 ac?mowledges that unusual site conditions, locations, or other design factors may warrant types or sizes of signs not otherwise permitted by the sign regulations. -6- Staff Report Subject: Century Theatres Date: December 4, 2003 Page 4 of 7 One of the examples specifically cited in the ordinance refers to "Signs in the E1 Camino Real corridor which have special needs due to the regional nature of the use..." In this instance, staff supports the amount of signage since the use is located adjacent to E1 Camino Real, a State Highway, it is regional in nature, and the signs are generally in proportion to the size of the building and the nature of the use. Also, staff supports the roof sign based on the comments of the Design Review Board which noted that the signs enhance the architecture and added to the spirit of a lively entertainment space. Finally, staff supports the electronic readerboard based on the unique needs of movie theaters which have a specific need to post movie titles and show times in a prominent fashion outside of the building. The proposed readerboard would be of a reasonable size to accomplish this specific purpose and would not be ava/lable otherwise for general advertising purposes. · ZONING CONSISTENCY As indicated below, the project will meet or exceed the requirements of the City's Zoning Ordinance: General Development Standards Setbacks Front Street Side Height PC Planned Commercial 20 feet minimum 10 feet 50 feet, additional height allowed subject to obtaining a use perrrdt Proposed Project 20 ft. 17ft. Approx. 40 feet to top of roof screen; 42 feet to top of marquee Parking Approved via PUD-9542; see chart below 852 -7- Staff Report Subject: Century Theatres Date: December 4, 2003 Page 5 of 7 Approved Parking Requirement PUD-95-42: Site Parcel A (behind Safeway) Parcel B (behind Safeway) Parcel C (Century Theaters) Parcel D (Golf Mart/Staples) Parcel E (Credit Union) Tanforan Associates Total Parking Provided 66 71 212 226 128 150' 861' * 150 parking spaces at Tanforan Associates, across the street at 1405-1475 Huntington Avenue, are available during peak theater hours only. · Parking Because of the shared parking arrangement, and the overall supply of parking which falls below the City's standard requirements~, the origq_nal PUD approval contains specific conditions to require on-going monitoring of the parking situation and implementation of a Parking Management Plan to ensure that the parking situation remains workable. (No changes to this requirement are proposed with the subject application.) In late t998, after occupancy of the final retail building at the comer of Noor Avenue and E1 Camino Real, the Cit3, hired a consulting firm, Petrocchi & Associates, to monitor the parking situation at the complex and to provide periodic reports pursuant to the requirements of the ~ City's zomng Ordinance would typically require 990 parking spaces; project provides 702 on-site spaces, plus 150 peak hour spaces across Huntington Avenue at the Tanforan Professional Center Staff Report Subject: Century Theatres Date: December 4, 2003 Page 6 of 7 Parking Management Plan. Since that time formal reports have been prepared, the most recent in November 2002, copy attached. While init/ally, several of the measures outlined in the Parking Management Plan were not being adequately implemented, since that time the operators of the complex have made significant strides, and now most of the observations and recommendations of the City's consultant have been addressed and the on-going monitoring program has resulted in continued progress and cooperation. It should be noted to their credit that there have been no parking or circulation complaints since December 1998. Due to its on-going expertise in the parking situation at Century Plaza, Petrocchi and Associates was retained by the City to review the subject proposal and provide recommendations. Attached is a memo outlining these recommendations which have been incorporated into the Police Department's Conditions of Approval. Of note is a general comment that the parking supply appears adequate and acceptable for the use, particularly given the fact that the proposed project contains 388 seats fewer than the existing, and that the nine space reduction in parking spaces is insignificant since most were unusable due to their being compact spaces where drivers would straddle the spaces. Based on the findings of the City's consultant and continued implementation requirements for the Parking Management Plan, staff concurs that parking for the site is adequate and notes that there are existing conditions which provide for continued City review and control. · CEQA The proposed project is Categorically Exempt under the provisions of the California Env/ro_n_m__enta! Qua!i .ty Act - (Class 2, S ecfion ! 5302: Replacement of a com~mercial sm,~,t,,,'~ with a new structure of substantially the same size, purpose and capacity). · GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY The proposed project is consist with the goals and policies of the City's General Plan which designates the site "Business Commercial", a category encompassing a wide variety of office and regional commercial uses, including movie theaters. CONCLUSION: The proposed project is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan, complies with the standards and requirements of the City's Zoning Ordinance and has been found to be of commendable design by the Design Review Board. Consequently, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution recommending that the City Council approve -9- Staff Report Subject: Century Theatres Date: December 4, 2003 Page 7 of 7 Planned Unit Development Modification PUDM03-0003, Use Permit Modification UPM03- 0003 and Type C Sign Permit SIGNS03-0029. Pfincip~anner ATTACHMENTS: Draft Resolution Parking Management Plan Monitoring Pro.mn -2002 Memo fi:om Petroccl'fi Associates Building Plans dated 10-31-2002 Sign Plans dated 9-27-02 -10- APPROVED DECEMBER 4~ 2003 PLANN]'NG COMM]:SSI'ON MEETI'NG MI'NUTES Century Theatres Forwarded to Council SYUFY ENTERPRZSES/Owner Resolution 2629 SYUFY Century Theatres/Applicant 410 Noor Ave. P03-0103/UPM03-0003, PUDM03-0001~ SZGNS03-0029 and Categorical Exemption (Continued from November 18, 2003) Use Permit Modification and Planned Unit Development Modification to the Century Plaza Commercial Development to allow demolition of the existing 2,800 seat, 10-plex movie theater and amusement arcade and construction of a new 2,412 seat, 14-plex movie complex and amusement arcade within the existing building pad location, minor parking lot modifications and new landscaping adjacent to the building in accordance with SSFMC 20.24.030(c) and 20.91. Type C Sign Permit (Special Circumstances) to allow a sign to project above the roofline, to allow an electronic readerboard with changeable copy, and to allow overall signage in excess of 100 square feet in accordance with SSFMC 20.76.170 and 20.86. Principal Planner Kalkin gave a PowerPoint presentation. Ray Syufy, CEO Century Theatres, noted that they have been successful over the years and that they are looking to modernize the SSF facility. Mark Fellman, architect, noted that the new design has fewer seats, larger seats that will be set up in a stadium seating format, the lobby will be larger with lots of glass to provide natural lighting. He added that there will be new landscaping and the compact parking spaces will be upgraded to standard parking spaces. Public Hearing opened. There being no speakers the Public Hearing was closed. Commiss/on comments: · The Commission asked if the aisles in the theater would be on either sides or just one down the middle, and if the roof mounted Century sign would be lit on both sides or just one. App//cants response: Mr. Fellman noted that there will be aisles on both sides. He added that the sign would be lit on one side only. They questioned if the lighting along the building would be on all night or during business hours. Mr. Fellman stated that he lights wou d be on during business hours only. Although security lighting would be provided at all times. The Commission asked if the canopy above the ticketing line would be deeper than its current size and if the theaters would be all at one level or several levels. Mr. Fellman responded that the canopy would come out 18 feet with lighting along the bottom of it. He added that the entrance and exit to the theaters is at one level. A suggestion was made to the applicant that they have additional signage in the parking lot. Victor Castillo noted that part of the conditions is that they develop a sign plan with Ron Petrochi that is acceptable staff. Another suggestion was made to implement a slide show educating the public as to where they can park prior to showing the movie and also to implement an employee-parking plan. Mr. Castillo noted that the slide is being shown and will be shown in the new theater. · Will the arcade area be available to the general public? Mr. Castillo noted that the conditions allow only ticket holders to use the arcade area. Did the applicant explore adding a pedestrian pathway between parcels A & B to parcel C? Mr. Fellman noted that this was explored but there is not enough room to do this without removing a substantial amount of parking. They asked if the walkways along the side of the building could be wider. Mr. Fellman responded that this could be explored. How long will the City be without a theater? Mr. Castillo noted that the project is expected to be complete in 9 months. ° The Commission stressed that the applicant consider widening the walkways and having stronger directional signage in the parking lot. Principal Planner Kalkin was commended for the outcome of the redeveloped area. Notion Teglia / Second Zemke recommending that the City Council approve P03-0103, UPM03- 0003, PUDM03-0001 an d S:[GNS03-0029. Approved by unanimous voice vote. -12- RESOLUTION NO. 2629 PLANNING COMMISSION, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO APPROVE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT MODIFICATION PUDM03-0003, USE PERMIT MODIFICATION UPM03-0003 AND TYPE C SIGN PERMIT SIGNS03-0029 ALLO'WING MODIFICATIONS TO A RETAII, AND THEATER COMPLEX WITH LESS THAN STANDARD PARKING AT 410-470 NOOR AVENUE IN THE P-C PLANNED COMMERCIAL ZONE DISTRICT. WHEREAS, the South San Francisco Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on December 4, 2003; and, WHEREAS, the project is consistent with the General Plan which designates this site for Business Commercial Use, a category allowing for a variety of office, retail, visitor-serving and re~onal commercial uses, including movie theaters; and, WHEREAS, the proposed project is consistent with the Zoning designation of Planned Commercial. Theaters and commercial development are acceptable uses in the zone district; and, WHEREAS, the Design Review Board found the project, subject to minor modifications, to comply with the City's Design Guidelines; and, WHEREAS, the Type C Sign Permit (Special Circumstances) is warranted based on the following: With the exception of the roof sign and the readerboard sign for wi'rich special circumstances are warranted, the proposed sign program meets all the general sign standards set in SSFMC Section 20.76.150. All other signs are applied directly to building faces or upon existing approved sign structures and do not project over The materials, colors, graphic style and illumination have been well integrated with the architectural features of the building and are compatible with other signage in the neighborhood. o Special consideration is warranted for the roof sign since the use is located adjacent to E1 Camino Real, a State Highway, it is re~onal in nature, and the signs are generally in proportion to the size of the building and the nature of the use. A Special consideration is also was-ranted for the electrordc readerboard. Due to the nature of movie theaters, they have a specific need to post movie titles and show times in a prominent fashion outside of the building. The proposed readerboard would be of a reasonable size to accomplish this specific purpose and could not be used otherwise for general advertising purposes. -13- Draft Resolution Subject: Century Theatres Date: December 4, 2003 Page 2 of 3 The Design Review Board was specifically supportive of the design of the signs, noting that they enhanced the architecture and added to the spkit of a lively entertainment space. WHEREAS, the project is Categorically Exempt under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Class 2, Section 15302: Replacement of a commercial structure with a new structure of substantially the same size, purpose and capacity); and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the subject site is physically suitable for the proposed project; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission additionally finds that the project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, welfare, comfort or convenience of persons working or residing in the vicinity of the property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the South San Francisco City Council approve Planned Unit Development Modification PUDM03-0003, Use Permit Modification UPM03-0003 and Type C Sign Permit SIGNS03-0029 subject to the Conditions of Approval contained in 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 regular meeting held on the 4th day of December, 2003, by the following vote: c.o!iRYHss!oncr k.!!HS[!, ~._.o.rp._rn!ssloner 14 nan /~ ; ' '~'~" ..o .... , ,..Ol~nnSSlO .... Sim, '~"- Teglia, Commissioner Zemke, Vice Chairperson Ochsenhirt and Chairperson Romero NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Thomas C. Sparks -14- PROPOSED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL UPM03-0003 PUDM03-0001 SIGNS03-0029 EXHIBIT A Planning Division requirements shall be as follow: The project shall be constructed substantially as indicated on the design plans dated 10-30- 02, prepared by Fehlman LaBarre, the attached landscape concept plan prepared by Nowell & Associates, and the attached sign plans dated 9-27-02, prepared by Arrow Sign Company, except as otherwise modified by these conditions. All original Conditions of Approval pertaining to Planned Unit Development permit PUD- 95-42 amended in the manner set forth in Exhibit A- Attachment 1 attached hereto and as specifically modified or supplemented by the conditions of approval set forth below: The parking lot shall at all times be maintained free of trash, debris, or other materials which would interfere with the ability to utilize such spaces for vehicular parking. Prior to issuance of a building permit the applicant shall prepare final landscape plans for review and approval which incorporate the following comments of the Design Review Board: ao Palm trees along the front elevation add a nice framing effect to the building fagade. Consider increasing number and ~ouping to anchor the building ends. Also, date palms may not be the best choice given the cold, windy climate - investigate other palm species. b. Utilize London Plane trees for street trees, with Carrotwood as accent trees. ever~eens. If not, add l~ge ever~een component at ~s edge to improve screemg of · e re~ elevation. Subject to the review and approval of the Chief Planner and prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall investigate the following: ao If additional space is available, consider adding a pedestrian pathway through the middle of the parking lots on Parcels A & B. Alternatively, consider adding speed bumps to slow traffic and improve pedestrian safety. Also, investigate whether a crosswalk could be installed within the parking lot where the Safeway loading entry &dveway divides the back parking lots from the theater parcel. -15- Draft Resolution - Exhibit A Subject: Century Theatres Date: December 4, 2003 Page 2 of 3 Electrorfic Readerboard - The readerboard is permitted to post movie titles, policies, ticket prices, on-line ticketing information and show times only and is not to be used otherwise for general advertising purposes. 7. The applicant shall comply with all applicable Standard Conditions Of Approval. (Contact Person: Susy Kalkin, 877-8535) B. Engineering Division requirements shall be as follow: The building permit application plans shall conform to the standards of the Engineering Division's building permit application plan submittal requirements, including the submittal of grading, drainage and utility plans for the new building and its surrounding site. Copies of our submittal requirements are available from the Engineering Division at no cost to the applicant. In accordance with the Standard Conditions, new storm water pollution control devices and filters shall be installed within the site drainage system, as required to prevent pollutants deposited on the impervious surfaces within the site from entering the street. Plans for these facilities shall be prepared by the applicant's consultant to conform to the County of San Mateo pollution control requirements and submitted to the Engineering Division and to the City's Environmental Comphance Coordinator, for review and approval. (Contact Person: Richard Harmon, 877-8542) CJ Police Department requirements shall be as follow: The report submitted by Ron Petrocchi and Associates dated October 8, 2003 has been reviewed by the Police Department. The Police Department recommends incorporating the following conditions: Minimum Security Standards Ordinance. The applicant shall comply with the City's Minimum Security Standards Ordinance, Chapter 15.48 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. Security Plan. Applicant shall coordinate with the Police Department and submit a security management plan for review and approval by the Chief of Police. Such plan shall include: 1) the proposed robbe,D~ and intrusion alarmo.,~,~*~,*,~,,~,lo, 2) safes to be installed on site (minimum TL-15 or class 'c' rating), 3) employee theft procedures, 4) security personnel deployment and their authority, a~nd 5) procedures in the event of a robbery, serious crime or bomb threat. Such plan shall be submitted and approved prior -16- Draft Resolution - Exhibit A Subject: Century Theatres Date: December 4, 2003 Page 3 of 3 to occupancy and shall be periodically reviewed by both parties to assess adequacy of measures and to make adjustments if deemed necessary by the Chief of Police. c. Notice. The applicant shall contact the Police Department in advance of the showing of controversial movies, which may draw patrons with hostile intent, to coordinate deployment of additional security personnel and supplemental police resources. (Police Department contact person: Sergeant Jim Thane, 877-8927) D. Fire Prevention requirements shall be as follow: 1. The applicant shall comply with all building and fire code requirements, i.e. fire sprinkler and fire alarm system and e~ess. (Fire Department contact person: Maurice (Mo) Dong, 829-6645 -17- EXHIBIT A ATTACHMENT 1 PLrD 95 '12 Planned Unit Development to allow modifications tca retail mad theater complex located in the P C Planned Commercial Zone District including: I) a 300 seat, W¢c theater expansion ts the cinema; 2) removal of ar, existing condition restricting hours of operation for the existing 50,0002 sq. ff. retail building; 2) a new 12~,000 sq. ff. cormmercia! building pad; and, 4) a reduction ~ ¢,¢ standard number ofparldng spaces, together with landscaping and parldng improvements, in accordance with the provisions of SSFMC Chapte:' 20.84. Applicant: Centuu Plaza (SyruPy Enterprises and Aliotc Fish Cc., owners), 410 470 Noor _&yen'ac; Negative Declaration No. 792. At the September ~.~, 1995, the City Comncil appro~ ,,,~ Neg~,,,ve Declaration Nc. 792 an PUD 95 'I2 based on the = '~' ~ ~m,~mg~, and subject ts modified conditions of approval. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SEPTEMBER 13, 1995 PUD-95-42 (As proposed for modification December 4, 2003, pursuant to Planning Application P03-0103) A. Planning Division requirements shall be as follow: .The project shall be constructed substantially as indicated in the site plan dated 4 7 95, floor & roof piano, and elevations dated 2 t6 95 prepared by Blurfi~ Dema~ei %ssociates ?a:chitects, and landscape plans dated ~. 7 95 prepared by Melvin Lee Associates, except as othemfise modified by these conditions. 2.1f .... p~ovem,m,o zu-e ts be phased, the applicant shall submit ,~ ph ...... ~o~ t~ approval ..... . ~ ~ ..... ~ to ~nng any buiid~g ps,its or business iicenses/cemificmes of occupancy. .Prior to receiving building permits the applicant shall record a final propcsaI. The applicants shall reserve 70 parking spaces on Parcel D for use of patrons of the building on Parcel D during its operating hours and an additional 20 spaces for its exclusive use prior to 6:00 p.m. Similarly, the applicants shall reserve 20 spaces for patrons of business(es) on Parcel E during its hours of operation (once the building is '~ ~;~ ~ op~rau,,,,~;. The spaces shall be provided generally as outlined in the in the agreement entitled "Syufy Enterprises Allots Fish Company Memorandum of Agreement for Desi~mnated Parking", dated 6/9/95, and shall be subject to review and approval of the Chief Plarmer. The modifications to UP-84-688 and the 1992 modification thereto we,-~ based in pm~ on the 1995 traffic report prepared for the r,;,,, This report identifies a peak parking demand for the subj eot theater complex of. 19 spaces per seat, however, the report also states that LF~I standard is .30 spaces per seat -18- Draft Resolution (P03-010) Exhibit A - Attachment 1 Page 2 of 9 and that a theater complex in Mountain View has a .31 space per seat ratio. Based on these differing standards and the potential impact to the project and surround/ng area in the event peak parking demand factor increases, the applicants shall also comply with the following requirements. ac Syufy Theater, Century Theatres, or its successor, shall no later than the fifteenth day of each month, submit to the Chief Planner a report, in a format acceptable to the Chief Planner, identifying the total evening attendance for each day of the preceding month. Evening attendance is defined as persons attending the theater between 5:30 P.M. and closing each night. The report shall also show how many times the evening attendance has exceeded 4,360 within the prior twelve months. In the event that the daily evening attendance has exceeded 4,360 more than ten (10) times within the prior twelve months, the City Council may require that the applicants (1) obtain and provide for additional parking on or within 300 feet of the project site (identified as Parcels A, B, C, D and E) or reduce demand for parking by, for example, removing seats from the theater complex or any other similar action that reduces parking demand. The additional parking or other remedial actions shall be sufficient to meet 95% of annual evening attendance demandl, plus an additional number of spaces equal to 10% of the spaces necessary to meet that demand. Pursuant to the ofienal conditions of PUD 95-42. the armlicant was recmired to r~reeare a Parking Management Plan P,ficr to. issuance of any building pe,~--mAt the applicant shall s'a'bmit a parldng management plan_for review and approval by the City Attorney, Chief Planner and Chief of Police. Such a plan must include, but :,hal! not be limited to the ~nllnwin~' a.provisions fo:' one or more on site parking control officer(s) to physically direc*~ theater patrons to available pafidng areas and away eom the designated retail spaces. These officers must be on duty on the subject site, at a minLmum, dinting the peal: theater times as follow (and other times as needed): All F~day and Sat-arday evenings from ~:00 pm tc i0:00 pm from May 15 tc August 15, mad tl~ Friday preceding Thanksgiving througl-~ Jan. 15; (V~en unusual siraations m--ise on dares or times other thar~ those listed above, the secu~ty patrol shall be responsible to talm on these duties or to info ~rm management of the ~ed to m~'ange for~, ~ parldng control ozIlc~r to handle ~c o,~:+'~um~,~ +' ^-.2x 1 As outlined in the Parking Demand and Traffic Impact Analysis for Century Plaza, prepared by Barton Asclunan Associmes, dated june 6, 1993. -19- Draft Resolution (P03-010) Exhibit A - Attachment 1 Page 3 of 9 b.a signage plan, both on t,he theamr '~ "~' z:L~ ml,~ at Tanformn Associates, indicating the availability of parldng in the Tanforan Associate's lot; c.an implementation plmn for directing employee "-' ~ pmkm. to outlying lots; d.a ~,gn,,=e/m~,=emem pl~ for the pazldng areas reset'ced fo, ,,,L,~,z uses e.a security pl~ for patrons and employee~~o***~,,o4,,~ the outlying lots including the Tanforan Associates lot; ~'~ o~ ~.,, plmn for addressing on site ' ~+~ ~ _ v~o .... Oho which does not necessitate involvement City staff to resolve on site parldng and circulation related problems; On December 12, 1995~ the Parldn~ Management Plan ("1995 PM?") was reviewed and approved. Except as amended below~ the 1995 PMP shall remain in full force and effect. The amendments to the 1995 PMP are as follows: (a) News~ar}er L~s/ing. Publish a comr~lete Iistina of ali movies and sta~ times in the primary medium used by the major/tv of the theaters in the San Francisco Metror~olitan area. (For exmnple, the appropriate medimm today is the newspaper.5 (b) Star/and End T~mes. Diiiaentlv review movie-running times and coordinate theater sta~ and end times to limit on-site r)edestrian and vehicular congestion. (c) SI~de Presentations. The pre-movie slide show (or such alternative medium bein~ used) shall include the following information: (1) a reouest that patrons use the si_o-naiized crosswalk when crossing Huntington Avenue to and from the theater: (2) information on the unrestricted parking in front and behind the theater (i.e., Lots ~nd C~: (% a w~m_jn~, that t~wh~o mn zones, h~dicKDped spaces, loading zones, ~d in non-approved lots on the property adjacent to the theater; (4) inG~ation on the imDo~ance ofparhn~ safely ~d protecting beionhn~s ~d to info2 theater manaeement of ~v inKDDrophate activities: ~d (5) a picture of the lobby diagam inciudin~ directional a~ows to Lot E. (dt Guards/Par~n~ Contro~ Officers. in addition to the reouirements sr>ecified in the 1995 PIv~. applicant shall com¢Iv with the following: (1) develop a r)lan for directing traffic away from con,,e, ested locations to available or)eh parking st)aces (especially Lot Ek and (2) Parking Control Officers (and security guard who may potentially be parking control officer) should receive formalized trainint on tra£fic direction. (e} Ligktin~ Outages. Secuhtv Guards shall re¢om !i_~htint fixture outate or ma!~nction as soon as it is obsem, ed on all ~areels to theater management for timely correction. -20- Draft Resolution (P03-010) Exhibit A - Attachment 1 Page 4 of 9 (f~ Correction of on-site violations. The followin~ action should be taken: (i) continue the vast warning notice r>rocess for the rear of 180 E1 Camine Real and make sure that guards are su_r~ptied with an adequate supply of notices for placement on all violator vehicles; (2) security personnel and comr>lex employees shall take a Croactive ster~s to discourage inappropriate vehicle parking while it is occurring in their r>resence: (3) when guards are on duty at the rear of Lot C, they shall actively deter theater rmtrons from parking at the rear of 180 E1 Camino Real and direct them to alternate approved parhnz. (g] LiChting. All -oroject r~arkin¢ lots (Lots A throu,oh E) shall meet cument city li,~htin¢ standards for parking lots. In connection with its building application submittal the ar~plicant shall submit a r~hotomerric study showing its compliance. (h} Si~naCe and Markings. Ap-0ticant shall r~rer~are and submit to the City a restfipin¢, lnarkin¢ and signage plan for the new theater project, including parking tots A throuCh E.. Such plan shall comply with the 1995 PMP and any subsequent relevant recomrnendations made by the Ciw. Prior to the opening of the theater, the City and aCpiicant shall review the on-site signage to confirm com¢iiance with the approved plan. (~ Parkina Availability D~a~rams. The reouired r~arking availability diaarams in the lobby, adjacent to the ticket booth and on-screen r~resentations shall include directional arrows to access to Lot E fi'om off-site and across Lot D. (i~ Engineering. At the main entry drive, the inbound lane should be widened into the landscape strip to facilitate right turn movements onto the site when both outbound lanes m-e occurfied. (k} Park~na and SecnriW Manaaement Monitoring. See Condition 4.d. below. (F~ Arcade Conditions. The applicant shalI comp!v with the original arcade condition to restrict access into the arcade to theater r~atrons holdine tickets. (m~ Securitw Plant Measures. The aor>iicant shall incomorate security r~lant materials along the Huntinaton Avenue side of the buildin~ on Lot C to encourage circulation onto improved walkwavs. (n) Employee Park~n~ Plan. Based on r>fior PMP rer~orts, the City deemed the employee partdng plan as ulmecessa~w. Conseouentlv, the Plannina Commission rescinded this requirement on February 3, 2000. (ol Marketin~ ~roeram. Based on prior PMP rer~orts, the City found that (1) the p,-;ntln~ of the narkin~ ~ian ~ th~ fiv~te ..... ; ..... ~4,01 ~ ;~r~,+;~,~ and (% *~ printing of the parking plmn in the vellow ¢a~es ~d the newspacer was inconsistent with -21- Draft Resolution (P03-010) Exhibit A - Attachment 1 Page 5 of 9 industry standards and ineffective. Consequentlv, the Piannin~ Commission rescinded these reouirements on February2," 2000. In the event the Director of Economic and Community Development determines that the approved Par-king Management Plan does not accomplish the parking mitigation identified in the traffic report, he or she may require removal of up to 675287 theater seats. The theater owner/operator shall remove the seats within 60 days of receipt of written notice from the City. Appeal from the Director of Economic and Community Development's decision may be made pursuant to the procedures set forth in Chapter 20.90 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. As an alternative to removal the theater owner/operator may provide additional parking or mitigation pursuant to Condition 5;b,2.b. The following criteria will be used to detem4ne whether the approved Parldng Management Plan is accomplishing adequate parking mitigation: Staff shall conduct random field observations to confirm whether the various portions of the required mitigation plan are being implemented (ex. parking control officer d/recting traffic to outlying lots, security measures in place, etc.). Random field observations indicate that illegal parking or parking inconsistent with the Parking Management Plan is occurring and/or observations that fewer than 10% of parking spaces in the various lots are available during random staff monitoring. Repeated complaints are registered by a number of neighboring property owners, TItc parkh~g situation wi![ bc moniwred three timex c year (duri~tg Ma33 September a~d December9 dm'ir~g pcak hour~ idea:tiffed i~ t]~c Park#:g Demoted AnaCsix tc detcrmin~ wketJ, er c parking problcm exists. S~clt monitors sha![ bc dcsig;~atcd ~y thc Ci~' and all costs shalJ bc paia' by Sy~.Continue to evaluate the 1995 PMP a~uallv. ~ lieu of conductint p~king soace counts, the consuit~t shall conduct six ~o-hour un~ounced site evaluation visits d~ng v~n~ pe~ ho~ use t~es with continued detailed ~alysis ofp~kint and scace vac~cv detail. This evaluation should be conducted for the Citv, paid by applicant. The consultant should cont~ue the cu~ent process of interactin~ with theatc, m~agernent after each ins¢ection to continua!!v co~ect cromems. The evaluation should start 3 months after occus~cv. This condition shall replace Condition 6 of the Special Agreement between the City and the applicants entered into on June 1, 1988, as condition of UP-84-688/Mod3. -22- Draft Resolution (P03-010) Exhibit A - Attachment 1 Page 6 of 9 In no event shall any enforcement proceeding commence except and until all of the parties have made efforts to revise the Parking Management Plan in an effort to reduce the then existing parking problem. All relevant provisions of Use Permit UP-84-688 and subsequent modifications remain in full force and effect, unless superseded by these conditions, w/th the exception of Condition 6 of the Special Agreement between the City and the applicants entered into on June 1, 1988, as a condition of UP-84-688/Mod 3, and the condition restricting the hours of operation on the retail building on Parcel D, Assessor's Parcel No. 014-183-250. Hours of operation for all uses shall be subject to standard zoning ordinance requirements. o Use of the Parcel D retail building (470 Noor Avenue) shall be limited to general retail, office and similar uses which, in the opinion of the Chief Planner, have similar or lower parking demand peaks or fluctuations to those identified in the Parking Demand and Traffic Impact Analysis, dated June 6, 1995, prepared by Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. Other uses may be permitted by the Planning Cormnission, subject to an acceptable parking demand analysis. Use of the Parcel E retail building (comer of Noor Avenue and E1 Camino Real) shall be lim/ted to general retail, office, and other commercial use types listed as permitted uses in the zone district, but excluding any eating and drinking establishments, including delicatessens, which provide customer seating or other uses with similar higher parking requirements. Modify the proposed circulation scheme on Parcels A and B to ..... ;,-1 ~ .......... ' .... l~.'~- ~.. ~.a.a: ....... It)U[z' ...... :J_ cp.!rD -tr~ F~u v ,ue ,wu-w ay v., vu~,uu,~ uy~,_,u. ug a [wu wmu concrete .v the center parking strip so that spaces can be accessed fi.om one side only, and add sig-ns between the parking areas direction. Five tree wells, subject to recommendation/approval of the City Landscape Architect, shall be included in this center aisle (between light poles). 12.The following .;o,. ' · deo~ concerns shall be aadre;sed m the building peri'nit plans tc the satis~fction of tM Chief Plamner and/or City Landscape Pd-~hitect: a. Area shown as ~.~,~,~. area tc ..... a**. shall be planned and :'-~ *o~ · ~..ga~,~ to the same stm~dard as me rest of the s:te ko~d ~urzj. ~o.=~=~o~[=~-~: .... which .... [. =, spemes ,.~,~1~ be used for entry drives at Noor Avenue. c.Provided trees at pkmm= d,mmo..ao within D.e p~idng ~ea. -23- Draft Resolution (P03-010) Exhibit A - Attachment 1 Page 7 of 9 d. Palm trees are o,.=~ ........ e pmn.ng a~ ...... ~.~ ,,~ the th ...... adal,mn and the e.Remove triangular voids at each side ~' +'~'~ b~,dm= be?~v~n the ex/sting theater (at audito~um exit). £Cla~.fy where the parapet shown on NorJ~ and Sough elevations appears in the West elevation and the roof plan. g. Jmy unused loading doors on the easterly side of the big box retail building on Parcel D shall be removed and the operkngs firfished to match the su~ounding wall. j ~ to City Staff approval, a drop c- o~r area shalI be developed witl~Jn the large concrete area at the theater entrance in order to improve tramc flow by permitting ~affic to ' ~he t.~ec counter. ckculam ~ound ve~cles w~Jch ~e &~oppmg patrons at + ;~ ~ This permit shall be subject to review by the Plan_rfing Commission six months after the "~+~ , ~ ' . ' ..... 1 bu.d~ng on Parcel D:s approved for occupmncy, and annually thereafter to assess the on-going parking situation. 10. The applicants shall comply with all applicable standard conditions of approval. · (Contact Person: Susy Kalkin, 877-8535) B.Engineering Division requirements sha~,[ be as faI~w: The Engineering Division has reviewed the "Sim Plarf', Drawing Al, Sheet 2 of ~., dated Associates and submitted by the applicants, A!iotc Fish Company and Syu$' EnterpMses, in ,~omnecao_ with the subject m .... ~ Urn, D~wlopme.. applicaticn. B. **~ e a~so reviewed the "Parldng Dem~d ~d Traffic Lmpact )malysis", dated Jmne fi, t995, prepped for t~ Ci~ by Breton Asc~m~ Aooo~mceo, hnc. a. The developer shall comply with tlhe applicable requiremems of the "Stmndm-d Conditions for Con,inertial and *-.~',o+-;~.'~ D~ve!~,~--,,~'' section of the S~anda. a Conditions forou,,~.°"~'~:'~: ~:~ .o.,~, .... ,~.~J Private Developments" booklet cared September 199!. ...... w- o improvement plans shall Lncorporats ,h~ ~ ..... ~-+;~- ~o ....... ed In the "Park~g De~.an~ ~nd ~.,~5~ hmpacr ?maiys:s" referenced -24- Draft Resolution (P03-010) Exhibit A - Attachment 1 Page 8 of 9 2.NOOR AVENU-E IMPR©VEMENTS a. Ln addition tc the ~quirements of the "Standard Conditions" referenced above, the developer shall re sMpe Noor Avenue, as required to accorrmaodate the westerly driveway relocation, in accordance with plans and specifications prepared by the developer's consukant and submitted to the City En~neer for review and approval. b.All work within Noor Avenue shall be accomplished pursuant to an Encroach_ment Permit issued by the City's Engineering Division. (Contact Person: Pdchard Hmo--mort, S77 85 ~.2) C.PMiee Department requirements shall be as follow: i.Orizinal Project Condidong The applicant shall cornply wi~h all conditions of the original and oubsequem conditional permits for t~Js site and shall exrena such conditions tc all new expansion or alteration areas. 2.Municipal Code Compliance The applicant shall cornp!y with the provisions of Chapter 15.:8 of the Municipal Code, "Mir2mum Building Security Standards" Ordflnanc-e, revised May ! 995. The Police Department rese~wes the fight to make additional security and safety conditions, if necessq~y, upon receipt of detailed/revised building planz. (Police Department contact person: Sergeant Ron Petrocchi, ~77 8927) and c,motra~Jm~~ ~ ^+' -~ of alt building/site alterations shall comply with m~ ~' app!icab~ bmtmng p e~ ~ ~u~e. coa~o/r~maaono in effect at the timeo~ ~p~ submi~al ~d .... ~ ..... ~.L appncable, a separate building pe.wnit ~ ~' ~+: ~ _ appnc~.m, shall be submitted for each independent structure proposed on the site. Applications shall be accompanied by five (5) complete sets of construct/on drawings tc include: -25- Draft Resolution (P03-010) Exhibit A - Attachment 1 Page 9 of 9 ~Site/civi! plans i_.}Su-actura! Calculations jjTmss Calculations k)Soils reports 1)Title 2~ energy documentation 3_.The proposed facility shal! be desi~.ed to provide access to the physically disabled in accordance with the requirements of Title 2d, Ca!ifomia Code of Regulations; i.e., one disabled accessible parking stall 9' wide with an 8' loading/mnloading area, path of travel, primary enhance, interior travel path ~,md restrooms. Plans as submitted do not comply. 4_. i ne applicant ~s responsible ~or completing al! conditions '~*~'~ o~ m~o Use Perrnn, contacting each City department and re~e~w,~ fins! approval prior to ,cheduling ~* inspection with the Building Division. Be advfsed, our office will not schedule Final ~nspeetfan nor grant occupancy unti~ receiving approval on our master sign off sheet from eac~ CMom**ca,,on, 5.The occupancy (e~.otm, plus addition) of ~e ~eater building shall be spec:ned on tk~ p!ans m addition to juo~,fi~n calculations rot ~he allowable ~ea. g. Show utilities on pl~s. CorJact Person: T~resa "T.C." Cayssials, 887 8545) -26- Century Plaza South San Francisco, California PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN MONITORING PROGRAM Prepared for: City of South San Francisco Planning Department and century Theaters inc. and Alioto Fish Co. Prepared by: Petrocchi and Associates January to November 2002 -27- TABLE OF CONTENTS Ii. III. IV. V. VI. ¥11. VIII. tX. X. Xi. Introduction ..................................................................................... Pages 2 - 3 Project Description .......................................................................... Page 4 Project Data Discrepancies and Assumptions ................................ Page 5 Data Gathering Process and Observation Dates ............................ Page 6 Site Visit Observations .................................................................... Page 7 A. Changes to the Site Since December 2000 B. Current Observations Complaints ....................................................................................... Pages 8 - 9 ,Adequacy of Parking Supply ........................................................... Pages t0 - t 1 'Parking Management Plan Assessment A. Marketing Program ............................................................... Pages 12 - 13 B. Parking Control Officers/Guards .......................................... Pages 14 - 15 C. Signage and Markings Plan ................................................. Pages 15 - 16 D. Employee Parking Ptan ........................................................ Page 16 E. Retail Signag~lM~n~gemen~ P~,', ~"'"'~ !6 17 F. Security Plan ........................................................................ Pages 18 - 20 G. Correction Plan for On-Site Violations .................................. Pages 20 - 21 H. Monitoring Program .............................................................. Pages 21 - 22 Engineering issues and Recommendations .................................... Pages 22 - 23 Summary of Findings and Recommendations 2002 Year End .......Pages 23 - 25 Overall Recommendations; 2002 Year End ..................................... Pages 25 - 26 i -28- I. Introduction The conditions of approval for the Century Plaza project originally required that an independent consultant conduct parking surveys three periods during the year on the entire site at 410-470 Noor Avenue, including the new strip commercial building at 150 El Camino Real (formerly 490 Noor Avenue) and the Tanforan Professional Center at 1405-1475 Huntington Avenue. The conditions required that the consultant: Record the number of vehicles parked on these sites in half-hour intervals from 12:00 noon to 12:00 midnight with comparison to the approved parking supply of 894 spaces. Report on whether the following components of the complex parking management plan (PMP) dated December 12, 1995, were being or have been implemented. a. Information is displayed in the theater regarding available parking locations behind the theater and at the Tanforan Professional Center. b. Newspaper and telephone advertisements note the parking availability at the Tanforan Professional Center. c. Parking control officers were deployed properly and on duty. d. Theater parking signage plan was in place for peak and typical day use. e. Reserved parking for retail uses was clearly identified and strictly enforced. f. Security personnel patrolled all parking lots at least every 30 minutes. g. The correction plan for on-site violations was being enforced. h. An implementation plan was in place for directing cinema employee parking to designated outlying areas. i. A security plan for cinema patrons and employees using outlying and close-in lots had been implemented. 3. Provide an overall assessment of the effe~-liveness of parking circulation ' systems and make recommendations for improvements. The Planning Commission reviewed and heard testimony on the first full-year end report at their February 3, 2000, meeting. As a result of their review of the 2 -29- positive efforts of the theater to comply with the elements of the Parking Management Plan, the Commission directed that the consultant change the monitoring plan to provide only one second-year report based on parking counts conducted on one Saturday in May, with several random two-hour site observation visits during the year. At the direction of Planning Staff, the 2001 evaluation period eliminated specific parking space counts (as unnecessary to confirm compiaince) and multiple random 2 hour site visits were conducted'to determine compliance. The following was determined to constitute evidence that the parking management plan was not providing adequate parking mitigation: Random site observations by city staff or the independent consultant indicate that one or more elements of the parking management plan are not being implemented as required. Random field observations indicate that illegal parking or parking inconsistent with the parking management plan is occurring and/or on-site circulation problems are spilling over onto the public right-of-way. ¸3. Fewer than 10 percent of the parking spaces in the various lots are available during either random or routine monitoring on evenings when theater attendance has not exceeded 4,360. ' 4. The City of South San Francisco receives complaints from neighboring property owners, neighboring tenants, and/or customers. Parking space usage counts on one Saturday in December, May and September indicate that the project provides inadequate, convenient parking space to support the use. (Modified on 2-3-00 to one count in May 2000 and eliminated in January 2002.) Current Process - The referenced previous processes have for the most part, been observation of site conditions over a one-year period, with results and recommendations published at year-end. This process has resulted in slow to no change in negative site issues. During the 2002 observation period a problem solving, rather than a problem reporting approach has been taken, where immediately following each 2 month spot check, theater or other parcel management were immediately advised of perceived problems for correction. This approach has resulted in timely positive change on-site. Current Market Condition - There has been a dramatic drop in theater patronage and parking demand since the Daly City. Century 20 Complex opened in July this year. Theater management estimated 40% to 50% below normal in July and August with a continual small increase in return patronage to November. Theater management estimates current patronage is off by 40%. 3 -30- I!. Proiect Description The project site is located on the north side of Noor Avenue between El Camino Real and Huntington Avenue. The entire project site contains five parcels designated as parcels A through E. Currently parcels A and B contain surface parking lots, parcel C contains a cinema complex with a total of 10 screens and 2,800 seats, parcel D contains a 50,000 sq. ft. "big box" retail building occupied by Staples Business Supplies and the Golf Mart, and parcel E contains a 13,000 sq. fi.. retail building, currently divided for three tenants with the largest tenant area now occupied by the San Mateo Credit Union (SMCU). The city's zoning ordinance would typically require a total of 1,125 parking spaces for the combined uses. However, based on parking analysis prepared for the project, the city approved a parking supply of 711 on-site spaces, plus 150 parking spaces across Huntington Avenue at Tanforan Professional Center's lot (1405-1475 Huntington Avenue) where overflow parking is available, during selected peak hours only, for a total of 861 peak hour spaces. This city approval was granted subject to on-going monitoring of the parking situation to ensure that mitigation measures are effective. With current improvements completed on parcel E at 150 El Camino Real and the restriping of Tanforan Professional Business Center's parking lot, there is now a total of 698 and 196 spaces available respectively for an available total of 894 spaces. 4 -31- III. Proiect Data Discrepancies and Assumptions The following issues need to be kept in mind when analyzing and comparing the data in this report to the previous 1995 parking management plan and city space count assumptions. The strip commercial building at 150 El Camino Real has been redesigned with a different parking count and circulation plan since the 1995 documentation. The Tanforan Professional Center has redesigned their on-site circulation and parking layout so that their current parking count is 196 spaces as compared to 179 previously approved and assumed by the city. The redesign did not result in a loss of parking spaces. However, the one-way circulation patterns installed do not compliment theater patterns as well as the old layout did and pose conflicts at the rear of buildings with two directional flow and wrong way angled spaces. This writer assumed that the boundaries of parcel C included the 51 parking spaces in the rear flag lot ending at the driveway into the rear of Safeway and the two rows of 32 total spaces on the west side of the main front to rear access aisle. Four parking spaces at the rear of the theater (north west side closest to building) are unusable for parking any longer as they have been fenced and converted into a trash enclosure area. Six additional spaces have been lost at the rear of lot "C" where a large cargo storage box has been placed to store materials to control the theateds rodent problem. ~ ~-'".s~, of *~--., ,... SMCU ~-;,,"-, ,~, ,~,'" T~,~,., not ...... ~. were counted as~..,'-'- ~....e,,'4 ,,~ ~,..,..., ,=y w.--~..=, .. queued or using the ATMs. On 2-3-00, the Planning Commission, based on recommendations by this writer, modified the Parking Management Plan by deleting the following elements: a. Mandatow employee parking in one specific area on lot B. b. Mandator3, parking availability notice on theater tibet stubs and media advertising. IV. Data Gathedn.~ Process and Observation Dates 1. A two-hour observation visit was conducted on Fdday, ,January 24, 2002, to assess changes to on-site signage and markings since September 2000. 2. A two-hour random observation visit was conducted, including viewing of pre- movie slide presentations on February 9, 2002. 3. Petrocc~hi and Associates compared existing on-site conditions to suggested processes in the Sept.2000 report. 4. Petrocchi and Associates met with City Staff and the Applicant on February 21, 2002 to discuss the serious problems (deterioration) on site. 5. On February 28, 2002 signage correction issues were transmitted to theater administrative staff. 6. Signage site inspection with Applicant Staff was conducted on April 11, 2002. 7. Complaint contacts with adjacent parcel neighbors and Police CFS Analysis was completed on May 6, 2002. 8. Signage re-inspection took place on May 9, 2002. 9. A three-hoUr random observation visit was conducted on June 1, 2002, including theater manager contact for correction. 10. Theater Management was given a to date status and correction report on June 3, 2002. 11. A three-hour site visit was conducted on Friday, August 2, 2002 including Theater Manager contact. 12. Lot "E" Credit Union Manager was contacted on August 5, 2002 to correct lighting deficiencies on Lot "E" and the Theater Manager was given a August 2, 2002 Correction Report. 13. September 6th & 18th, spot checks on guard deployment, attendance reductions and lighting on Lot "E' were made. 14. October 5, 2002, a two-hour observation visit took place. 6 -33- V. Site Visit Observations Since implementation of the process described on page 3, Se~ion E, signage and lighting issues for the most part, have been positively resolved, (August 2002). o Guard deployment appears to be adequate considering the dramatic decrease in theater attendance and parking demands since the opening of the Daly City Cerftury 20 Complex in July 2002. There has been a very high profile presence of Theater Management inside and outside the theater building since Manager Ben Suller has been on-site, starting May 15, 2002. 4. On all observation dates there has been a better staggering of movie let-out times, which has significantly reduced congestion. 5. The majority of restricted parking spaces on parcel "D" and "E" was always available. There have been no vehicle parking violations warranting action except the continued unauthorized use of spaces at the rear of Safeway 180 El Camino Real. The lighting on Lots "AT, "B", "C', "D", "E" and TPC has been repaired and maintained to the extent that illumination is now adequate under current circumstances and design. There has been little evidence of lo,t.., ~n~, inappropriate or otherv¢,se, on-site by juveniles or young adults, even under current conditions where free access is given to arcade and lobby areas by non-theater patrons. 9. Reourify g~ ,ard.are ~r,-.n~ ~.'~nflw nk~.'.n,--ri rib'-L-in. ,,. +~ k .-.ii ....... -,. ...... ., ........~, ...... ~ ~F ,, as,,_ on parcels. 10. Vehicle congestion and violations immediately in front of the box office has significantly decreased due to the guard's process of blocking Lot "C" front aisle access when all parking spaces are full. 11. There has always been available open parking spaces in excess of the required 10% minimum set in the report. For more detailed comments and correction recommendations refer to Section VIII. ? -34- VI. Comolaints A. All of the major theater neighbors primarily affected by this project, and city staff were contacted to determine past and current parking and circulation complaints connected with the theater use. ' 1. Retail The following adjacent neighbor store (property) managers were contacted: Art Hogan (Golf Mart, 650-583-4653); Richie Maharha (Staples, 650-869- 6882); Joan Ciampi (TPC, 650-615-0635); and Jennifer Srabian (San Mateo Credit Union, 650-363-1760). All indicated that there had been few problems associated with shared parking and circulation use during the past year. The managers advised that the current theater manager, Ben Suller (Century Theaters, 650-742-9396) has been responsive in dealing with problems when advised and that he has made it a point to contact them in advance of problems with offers of assistance. All property and business representatives indicate that the theater's relationship with adjacent businesses is positive, and there have been no complaints from the public on issues. The only area of concern raised by the Golf Mart Manager was that the lighting level along the east wall of the building is still not addressed and should be improved. The recommendations for addressing this issue follows in later sections of this report. ;2. Police Department Police Department supervisory, management and dispatch personnel advise of no recent parking complaints made to them about theater users. Called for services (CFS) request printouts were obtained for parcels A-E and TPC for the period, and no theater parking, circulation, or accident related problems were noted. No significant increases in CFS crime related calls on site was noted. My analysis of the data tends to indicate that the CFS at all areas controlled by the Applicant are not extraordinary for a high volume traffic use with a large volume of parked vehicles for long period of time. The Police Department staff impression of site impacts and CFS are similar. The follo,~ng breakdown in two year CFS requests data supports the position that CFS are well within acceptable minimal limits. a) 410 Noor- 253 Total CFS April i6,2002 - April 16, 2000 470 (460) Noor = 15 outside CFS i50 ECR = i9 outside CFS 8 -35- b) 287CFS over 2 years =143.5 CFS per year =11.9 CFS per month =1.7 CFS per week c) 24 traffic or accident CFS = 1 per month d) 50 Disturbance or 647F CFS = 2.08 per month e) 27 459A or 10851 CFS = 1.1 per month f) 10 serious other CFS = .4 per month 3. City Planning Staff City Planning Staff was contacted and they advised that they have not been informed of any recent parking or circulation problems on the "greater* theater site by any citizens or City Commissioners. Vii. Adeouacv of Parkino Su~)DIv Based on the 2002 monitoring period, the following observations are made in comparison to the December 1995 Barton-Aschman Associates Inc. Report, the initial December 1998 monitoring period report, and the 1999 and 2000 reports. Assessment - The on-site parking supply appears to be adequate to meet projected parking demands, especially in light of the significant decrease in patronage since July 2002. 1. The existing occupied retail buildings have sufficient restricted, reserved parking spaces. 2. The overall parking supply (including TPC) is sufficient to supplement the overall parking demand of the cinema. 3. The number of restricted Parking spaces for the retail uses on parcel "D" and "E' are more than sufficient for the current tenants' uses iDuring this evaluation period, the peak hour parking demand never exceeded the 1995 recommended, supply figures. At all other hours the actual demand ~,as well under the 1995 recommended supply. 5. The available parking supply has always exceeded parking demands by more than 10%. The parking supply manager is doing a good job getting theater attendees to use outlying lots "A" and "B" and the TPC and there has been an increase in use of Lot "E". (However, the parking supply manager is still underutilizing its' ow~ parking facilities on parcel "E"). Security personnel are currently encouraging use of ....... , ...................... ~ 'P,.me$. 7. The reciprocal spaces available at TPC are being adequately utilized. The average space occupancy during peak theater operating times has been 36%. 8. The average space occupancy for lot "E* during peak theater operating times is approximately 40%. 9. Past worst case scenarios during periods when physical parking counts were taken were as follows: a. in December 1998 maximum theater parking demand occupied 68% of available usable spaces. lO -37- b. In May 1999 maximum theater parking demand occupied 82% of available usable spaces. c. 'in October 1999 maximum theater parking demand occupied 69% of available useable spaces. d. In May 2000 maximum average theater parking demand occupied 66% of " available useable spaces. 10. The parking supply available during peak hour use never fell below the 10% maximum allowed by the parking management plan. The 6-year average peak hour parking supply available has been 29%. 11. During theater peak hours, theatergoers less frequently park to the rear of 180 ECR. Recommendation: Continue all positive efforts to encourage use of outlying lots, especially deployment of sandwich board signs through lot "D" to lot "E" when retail spaces are closed for busi.ness. 11 -38- VIII. Parkin.~ Mana.~ement Plan Assessment Year 2000 Review Period A. Marketing Program The Barton Aschman Report states the following on this element: "One of the main purposes of the parking management plan is to inform cinema patrons of the available parking spaces on parcels A, B, E and in the TPC. The first step in getting people to park in these spaces is to let them know that they are available and how to get to them. This will be accomplished by setting up a display in the lobby of the cinema with a map showing the locations of the spaces and vehicular access routes. The same information will be presented during the slide shows before the movies, printed on the tickets, made part of the newspaper and yellow pages advertisements, and included on the recorded message announcing movies being shown. Additionally, the consequences of parking in the designated retail spaces (towing) will be clearly identified. While this information may not alter the current parking locations of the patrons, it will influence their parking locations the next time they go!to the theater." Assessment - There is one very good, legible, color-coded displays posted in the lobby of the cinema with a map showing the locations of outlying spaces and vehicular access routes to them. (This display also lists selected holiday parking availability at TPC.) There is one 8 % x 1 1 reduction of the lobby diagram posted on the glass in front of the ticket booth. ~'-:,,.u info~ation is printed, on tickets r~r_. made a .D"~-.. _.~,¢ new~paper ~,r.., ,,"~,,,*,¢ ...... page advertisements. However, the Planning Commission has determined that: Printing data on the rear of a ticket appears to be useless given that an 8 % x 11 reduction is not readable and that people seldom even look at their ticket unless it was an advance purchase. b. No theaters have ads in the yellow pages, only single line address and telephone number listings. c. Newspaper listings and ads do not appear to be conducive to this type of information and detail. 12 -39- d. The recorded telephone message announcing movies is so long and rapidly stated that added parking location information would be lost in the mix. The following information has been presented in the past during the slide shows before the movies: a. A slide requested that patrons please use the signalized crosswalk when crossing Huntington Avenue to aC~d from the theater. b. A slide informed of approved parking anytime being provided in front and behind the theaters in nonrestricted spaces. A slide warned that vehicle towing may occur for parking in reserved retail spaces, red zones, handicapped spaces, loading zones, and in non approved lots on property adjacent to the theater. d. A slide informed patrons of the importance of parking safely, protecting belongings and to inform theater management of any inappropriate activities. ,e. Since July 2002 a slide duplicating the lobby-parking diagram has been available on some but not all screens. Current observations of pre-movie slide presentations disclose no use of slides ".b", "c", or "df presently. In addition, some screens do not show slides "a" or "e" .at all, even though these are the two most important messages to get across to the public. The theater general information telephone message at 650-742-9200 was reviewed on several occasions. The recorded voice clearly advises that theater parking is available at the TPC. The PMP requirement for ticket and newspapedyellow page advertisement detail on parking appeared to be a good concept but in reality impractical and has been,~- ...., ,,""'"~-',,,-,,, '"" '~--,, Planning Recommendations: The pre-movie slide presentation on all screens at a minimum should include a replica of the front lobby color-coded parking availability diagram (slide "e") and the pedestrian jaywalking waming (slide "a*.) 13 -40- B. Parking Control Officers (PCO)/Guards The plan calls for the theater manager to determine when PCOs should be deployed and to order deployment when activity on site merits it. The provision of on-site PCOs is to physically direct cinema patrons to available parking areas and away from designated retail spaces and to alleviate on-site circulation congestion. Assessment - Except for typical congestion and circulation problems directly in front of the theater passenger loading zone, there did not appear to be any circulation or parking issues on any inspection dates that would have warranted mandatory deployment of PCOs to direct traffic. A security guard is for the most part permanently stationed in front of or to the east side of 470 Noor Avenue to attempt to control inappropriate parking in restricted spaces by theater patrons. This guard does a good job of controlling use of most restricted retail spaces. o '.:The individual movie let-out times appeared to be well staggered. Whether :coincidental or intended, it has a positive impact on theater let-out chaos that :has been witnessed in the past. The PCO's currently block access to the front aisle of lot "C" when available :parking is full in front of lot "C" and patrons are directed to alternate passenger drop-off locations. This has significantly reduced congestion and inappropriate parking in front of the box office. 5. PCOs and all security personnel are highly visible in distinguishing uniforms and reflective orange traffic vests. PCOs working at the main theater driveway are ....... ,.,_,,,,,nn~_~ ~,,, -t,,~-,_~--~,, radio communi~tion. 6. Guard image and command presence has significantly improved under current Theater Management. Recommendations - Continue to comply with the conditions of the parking management plan. The PCOs have no formal or informal plan for directing traffic away from congested locations to available open parking spaces or to exits when site conditions warrant it. 14 -41- a. A plan needs to be developed that detail conditions and a process to implement the PCO plan when changing conditions on site warrant it. b. Different plans of action should be developed for routing patrons away from congested areas to open spaces (especially to lot E). c. Guards on remote posts or roving should inform main driveway PCOs continually where open parking exists so traffic can be diverted accordingly. d. PCOs (and security guards who may potentially be PCOs) should receive formalized training on traffic direction technique. if the theater manager or his supervisory staff do not feel they have the expertise to develop such action plans or to adequately train PCOs in proper traffic direction technique, then a consultant should be sought to assist with the process. C. Signage and Markings Plan The parking management plan details fixed and temporary signage recommendations to direot patrons to outlying parking areas and additionally references changes that were in ,order relating to private property tow authority signage, including more descri¢ive signage language detailing the shared nature of some lots. Assessment - 1. All signage issues have been resolved through the current problem solving assessment process. 2. All driveways on parcels A, B, C, D, and E are now posted with adequate acceptable tow signage per section 22658(a) CVC. 3. There are sufficient signs at appropriate locations on parcels A, B, C, D, and E that advise of additional parking available on TPC property. There is no permanent signage that directs or encourages patrons to traverse lot D to get to vacant spaces on lot E. An additional sign advising patrons of additional parking on lot E should be deployed when retail spaces close for business during peak hour use (sandwich board sign). There are pole mounted signs in front of retail reserved spaces advising of restricted parking information to supplement existing pavement and tire stop/curb markings, as required by the PMP. This signage is especially helpful during hours of darkness when pavement markings are less distinct. 15 -42- ' ' Temporary sandwich board signs are adequate, meet the intent of the conditions of the PMP and are deployed well ahead of need for TPC parking spaces. These signs are not the best design to stand alone in the gusty winds along Huntington Avenue. These signs can easily be modified to be sandwiched around poles or trees already in place in areas of deployment. Such installation should lessen the likelihood of signs falling down and/or being damaged or stolen. In addition, several of the signs directing drivers only have markings on one side of the sign, when the information is necessary on both sides. The parking stalls marked and sized as compact spaces on parcel D are constantly being straddled by inappropriate parkers which results in a loss of three or seven spaces in a row for long periods of time. VVhen the lot is eventually repainted, the applicant should consider resizing all on-site spaces to 8 % x 18; there may not be a net loss of "usable~ spaces as current standard sized spaces are 9 x 20. Recommendations - 1. Continue to comply with signage recommendations and requirements of the ;parking management plan. 2. install signage and markings/painting recommendations detailed by this writer in .this most current report. D. Employee Parking Plan No longer a requirement, per the Planning Commission. E. Retail Signage/Management Plan The parking management plan explains the necessity to maintain availability of ~,, ,~L~. , ,,~ F,~,, states that the following measures shou~u be employed to clearly identify restricted spaces: 1. The spaces themselves should have painted legends (pavement markings). 2. The curbs and tire stops should be painted with the same information. 3. Pole (wall) mounted signs should be posted in these parking areas identifying the spaces as reserved and indicating the hours of enforcement. 4. Additional signs should be placed at each driveway entrance indicating vehicles parked in unauthorized spaces are subject to tow. 16 -43- 5. Signs and markings were to have been reviewed and approved by the police department. Assessment - Pavement markings have been installed with spaces outlined in green paint. These markings appear to be adequate to meet the condition. These spaces have been re[dainted in June 2002. The perimeter curbs in front of 470 Noor Avenue have been painted green. Tire stops and curb faces have been painted with green or white markings with reserved/restricted language that indicates "No Theater Parking'. This wording tends to meet the intent of the PMP to limit unauthorized use of these spaces. 3. There are now supplemental signs adjacent to these spaces that meet the requirements of item 3 of this section. The presence of a security guard during 470 Noor Avenue hours of operation is effective in restricting unauthorized use of retail-reserved spaces in front of the .~!building. 'The reserved retail spaces (9:00 am to 6:00 pm) on the east side of Golf Mart are infrequently monitored by the front guard. The Theater Manager has posted · additional wall mounted parking restricted signage on the east wall of 470 Noor :to discourage inappropriate use of these restricted spaces. Recommendations - As was indicated in previous sections of this report, existing white pavement markings have been in place for a period of time now and are in need of repainting. All signs and pavement/curb/tire stop markings shall be kept and maintained in ........ a .~t.~t~. mere they. ~r~ r~J,~,r ..... ~.~,,4'"~'~'"-l"~'i~'~' ~,~,,., users. The ~..~,,,ca,o-,",l~' "'*,: should take steps over the next few months to repaint and restripe all lots A-E. At such time that this is done, all references in other sections of this report for repaintinglrestriping/resigned should be completed at the same time. The Applicant has recently re-striped restricted retail spaces (green/areas) so they are more visible and useable, however, this process may have to be repeated if all necessary lot re-striping is mandated. F. Security Plan The parking management plan dictates measures to safely get pedestrians to and from the theater entrance. Security guard coverage and patrol guidelines are detailed. Lighting within the site is to meet South San Francisco Police Department standards to assure adequate illumination during all hours of diminished lighting. Assessment - Except for the later comments about pedestrians unsafely and illegally crossing Huntington Avenue, pedestrians who do not cross a street are afforded reasonably safe access from outlying spaces to/from the theater entrance. A high profile security presence is provided throughout the facility with periodic patrols at TPC on high attendance days. in the past, on high attendance days guards were observed to be typically deployed as follows: one in front of 470 Noor Avenue until 9:00 pm; at least one in front of the theater ticket windows continually; one guard inside the theater building at all times; at least one guard somewhere in the rear of lot C, usually between lot C and B; periodically an added rear guard at the rear of the theater building and when the security vehicle was on the property, one guard continually patroliing all lots, including TPC from about 8:00 pm to 11:00 pm. There appeared to be some guard supervisory presence. The guard inside the building periodically walked each cinema viewing theater aisle at least once during a performance. Under current Management, guard deployment has been lower than in the past, but has been better deployed and more effective and professional. Typically, Management and Staff control inside the building. The former loading zone guard has been re-positioned to control access to the front parking aisle. One guard controls lot "D" and patrol's lot "E". One guard patrols rear lots and TPC. There is still no security vehicle available to facilitate guard patrols every half Ivu~ a.~ _.., ,~!~ F.!¥!.F. r~---.,,'~. ,. ~C!u,reu hv '~-- "~" "' ~'--'- hour deployment on "' n;~;n~- ~..,,..~i-.4 4 uniformed guards on duty. Pedestrians that utilize TPC parking are provided with a safe signalized crossing at Noor and Huntington Avenues but decline to cross at this location. They appear to focus on the theater front access path from Noor Avenue and deliberately jaywalk directly from the TPC main driveway curb cut to the head of this path. The installation of signs at strategic locations on TPC and lots A, B, and C, and the pre-movie pedestrian cautionary notice has done little to discourage jaywalking. Current lighting for the most part is adequate when maintained and provides adequate minimal acceptable levels of illumination, except for a] periodic lamp 18 -45- outage or malfunction, b] when lenses and lamps are not regularly maintained, c] and when light timers are not properly set or coordinated between parcels. Lighting on TPC meets city requirements and is adequate and acceptable. The lighting system at the rear and south sides of the Safeway parking and loading lots has been significantly improved. On 10/05/02 all site lighting (A, B, C, D, E, & TPC) was functional except for two pole light heads being out. Lighting was on well in advance of sunset. It appears that illumination issues have been resolved through persistent contact with the Property Owner and individual Retail Space Managers over the past 10 months. Recommendations - Comply with the requirements of the original use permit (plus amendments) to provide at least three security guards on duty whenever the theater is open for use, with one guard periodically patrolling all available parking in a security vehicle. o .Consider four guards, one having supervisory duties as well as guard duties, as :a minimum compliment on typical weekday, night time hours if no security vehicle is available, with increased coverage when site conditions warrant PCO deployment. Continue the positive effort in maintaining a high security profile on all parcels; current deployment gives the impression that there are more guards than are actually on duty. It appears that a minimum workable guard compliment during peak hours, on peak attendance days, should be five guards including one with part-time supervisory responsibility; workable is meant to include all necessary guard tasks that are suggested in this and past reports. There has been no security vehicle available for some period of time now. On site observation tends to indicate that al._j parcels do not receive patrols every hour as required by the P.M.P., without a patrol vehicle. Redeployment of a security vehicle would not only enhance security presence, but also serve as parking space availability assessment tool to coordinate where main aisle PCO's should be routing theater traffic looking for vacant space. The security patrol vehicle should be deployed on al_.[ evenings that the theater is open for business. 19 -46- 6. Lighting a. Guards should report fixture outage or malfunction (flickering on and off) as soon as it is observed to the theater manager for timely correction. b. Trim appropriate trees so that adjacent lighting is not blocked or shielded. c. A lighting specialist should be hired to re-lamp and re-lens, clean and maintain fixtures immediately and on a regular basis hereafter. d. Modify all parcel lighting controls to have illumination on at an earlier hour and at the same time. Supplemental high intensity discharge walipacks should be installed on the east elevation of the Golf Mart tenant space to provide increased illumination. Lighting all lots should be photocell controlled, or timers should be reset at least one-half to one hour earlier for fixtures to become fully functional during periods when diminished illumination caused by fog or cloud cover occurs. G. Conrection Plan for On-Site Violations The parking management plan cells for vigilant observation and reporting of on-site parking 'violations by PCOs, security personnel and retail employees, as well as an ~,ctive program of identifying improperly parked vehicles by chalking tires, etc. The correction plan also dictates deployment of PCOs by the theater manager to identify illegally or inappropriately parked vehicles and to direct traffic to available spaces. Assessment - o As indicated in past reports on days of high officer deployment, the PCO!guards were continuously vigilant in moving inappropriately parked and double:.parked vehicles in front of parcel "C ~ and in the main Noor entry driveway, or reducing these impacts by diverting traffic away from the front spaces on Lot "C". The signage and markings additions that have been installed as a result of recommendations from past reports have had a significant.positive impact on illegal/inappropriate parking on site that would warrant correction. Security guards were never observed taking any written action (including written .wamings on windshields) against illegally or inappropriately parked vehicles on lots A-E as no violations were observed that might have warranted it. 2O Recommendations - I. Comply with the conditions of the parking management plan. Continue the past warning notice process for the rear of 180 El Camino Real and make sure that guards are supplied with an adequate supply of notices for placement on all violator vehicles. Security personnel and complex employees should take proactive steps to discourage inappropriate vehicle parking while it is occurring in their presence. When guards are on duty at the rear of lot C they should actively deter theatergoers from parking at the rear of 180 ECR and direct them to alternate approved parking. "Space straddling" continues to occur in spaces marked as compact. Spaces are undersized and difficult to negotiate without a ripple effect typically resulting in a loss of 7 useable spaces all day. The entire site should be re-striped to the City's current 8 % x 18 standard. There would be an elimination of compact spaces ,.with perhaps an increase in the total number of spaces through downsizing existing 9x20 spaces. H. Monitoring Program The mitigation monitoring program calls for an independent assessment by a consultant to determine: !. If sufficient parking spaces are available for all users of the complex. 2. Whether elements of the parking management plan and PCO plan are being implemented when appropriate. Whether the parking management plan provides adequate parking mitigation and whether the owner/operator shall be required to either remove theater seats or provide additional parking or mitigation measures. Assessment - 1. Sufficient spaces are provided on parcels A-1= and TPC to address the needs for all uses. It is obvious that most elements of the parking management plan are now being implemented. Activity on site is orderly and significant improvement is obvious in that theater parkers are being directed through signage and diagrams to lots , P,.,. The PCOs and signage and marketing eiements must A, B, E and-r r- 21 -48- continue to expand all efforts to divert theater traffic to available spaces on parcel E also. It does not appear that drastic measures such as providing more parking or removing theater seats is in order at this time - there are plenty of spaces available on typical high attendance days; the applicant has taken significant steps to direct patrons to use less convenient parking areas. Recommendation - Continue consultant yearly evaluation under the current format. IX. Enc~ineerin.q Issues and Recommendations Hazardous pedestrian jaywalking frequently occurs between the front theater pathway onto Huntington Avenue and the TPC south entry driveway despite the close proximity of a signalized intersection. This hazardous problem has been deceased due.to the decrease in theater patrons use of TPC spaces during peak hours. Despite installation of adequate signage on lots A, B, C, and TPC encouraging pedestrians to use the signalized crosswalk and premovie slide presentation warning to utilize the legal crosswalk, virtually all theater patrons that cross Huntington Avenue do so illegally. The problem has been decreased · recently due to lower patronage, not deterrence. Recommendations - (a) (b) The illegal hazardous crossing of Huntington Avenue appears to be encouraged by the direct visual connection between the TPC entry driveway and the front theater footpath location on Huntington Ave. Perhaps more use of the signalized crosswalk might occur if the existing pedestrian foot-path were tom out, and reinstalled with direct access to the corner of Noor and Huntington Avenues along the top of the slope, east of the 9 perpendicular parking stalls. Security plant materials should be installed at the existing path ...... ,, ,, ,~ building ,~ , ~U~,,~Ci I! !blr~!~!!l I~-J ~_! _u! discourage continued use of the slope, and encourage crossing at the signal/footpath intersection. The pedestrian sign at this location to encourage safe crossing should remain with an added sign facing the street. This writer has noted in the past that the resources of the guard typically posted in front of Golf Mart could be broadened, if the design of the connecting driveway between parcels C and D were altered (theater main entry driveway). Re-designing the western edge of the aisle to prevent through traffic from and onto parcel D from and to parcel C and providing an internal circulation loop on parcel D at this location to facilitate traffic flow on parcel D basin front of 470 Noor Avenue. This design improvement could improve on-site Peak circulation problems by forcing theater traffic to the rear lots and will reduce the likelihood of theater traffic utilizing front lot restri~ed 22 -49- lots and will reduce the likelihood of theater traffic utilizing front lot restricted retail spaces on parcel D. Retail customers suffer little inconvenience and theatergoers that enter the westernmost Noor Avenue driveway are more likely to utilize unrestricted spaces in this row. The downside to this design change is that it would be more inconvenient to divert vehicles to available spaces on parcel E as the loss of the connecting aisle would necessitate diverting main aisle traffic onto westbound Noor Avenue 2002 Year End Summary of Findin.~s and Specific Recommendations The 1995 Barton Aschman PMP states that the following constitutes evidence that the PMP is not providing adequate parking mitigation: Random site observations by the city staff or the independent consultant indicate that one or more elements of the parking management plan are not being implemented as required. Random field observations indicate that illegal parking or parking inconsistent with the parking management plan is occurring and/or on-site circulation problems are spilling over onto the public right-of-way. Fewer than 10 percent of the parking spaces in the various lots are available during either random or routine monitoring on evenings when the theater attendance has not exceeded 4,360. 4. The City of South San Francisco receives complaints from neighboring property owners, neighboring tenants, and/or customers. 5. Parking space usage counts indicate hat the project provides inadequate, convenient parking space to support the use. A. Summary 1. The applicants have substantially complied with conditions of their use permit and conditions of the PMP for the site. The significance of the fact that there have been no parking or circulation complaints since December 1998 from public elected and appointed officials, city staff, the police, neighboring retail tenants, and theater patrons cannot be stressed enough and is a reflection of positive steps taken to date by the applicants. 3. The parking supply on parcels A-E and overflow space availabili~ on TPC is still adequate and acceptable to meet demands even during peak theater use 23 -50- Most outlying parking spaces on lots A, B, E and TPC are now being adequately utilized. It appears that implementation of PMP and PCO plan elements from December 1998 to present has achieved positive results. 5. Signage and markings - the only issues remaining for correction are (a) Adequate supply and depJoyment of sandwich board directional signage to remote lots. The most significant point is placement of a directional arrow sign at the front aisle of Lot D intersection with Lot C main entry drive to direct patrons to available Lot E spaces after closing of Lot D businesses on peak days. (b) Markings and pavement striping have worn off on the majority of Lots C, D, and E. Refer to Section VIii for recommendations. Current theater management appears to be well informed as to the contents and their responsibilities under the parking management plan and direction of city staff, the Planning Commission, and this evaluator. Current theater management has taken positive steps towards meeting with affected neighbors for problem resolution and compliance with the PMP. Current theater management is a very active participant in the site security safety process, through a process of "management by walking around". There appears to be the need to make engineering changes to limit hazardous jaywalking by theatergoers who are being encouraged to utilize parking at TPC, (pg.22). o The current P.M.P. Evaluation Plan, with continual problem resolution contact with appropriate personnel should be continued. The on-going correction and feedback process has been effective in providing a user and neighborhood B. PMP Conditions Not Implemented Adequately To Date 1. None C. Consultant Recommendations Not Implemented To Date It is important to this process that the applicant's representatives and city staff representatives meet in a timely fashion to comment on and critique each report after distribution so that direction for change is understood and timelines for completion are set. 24 -51- in order to acceptably meet the intent and requirements of the PMP, it appears that a minimum guard compliment (with direction and supervision) is still necessary to accomplish the goals of all components. This writer's recommendations in section F, page 25, #2, #3 and fl4 are encouraged. The applicant should also keep in mind that quality performance of a smaller number of guards is more beneficial than mere quantity of guards. Periodic quality control by guard supervisors and periodic patrols of all lots by theater management is encouraged. 3. Lighting The lighting level prescribed and required by the city as part of the original and amended approvals of the use permit for this site, were based on dated I.E.S. standards and optimum operating efficiency. b. As mentioned in various sections of this repod., lighting has deteriorated to a level below which may be below the City requirements and below past and current I.E.S. standards, in order to maintain adequate levels the Applicant should: 1) Have supplemental wall packs installed on the east wall of 470 Noor Avenue and have all existing fixtures maintained, cleaned, re-lamped and re-lensed. 2) Either conVert lot C lighting to photocell control or reset timers one hour earlier than current policies employ. 3) The applicant should consider employing a lighting professional to assess existing conditions, recommend improvements to attain minimum current recommended I.E.S. standards for medium to high use facilities and then reassess the site after installation. 4) Miscellaneous Comply with the following additional recommendations listed in each section of this report: a) Sandwich board sign deployment to lot "E", (pg. 11) b) Pre movie slide presentation minimums, (pg.13) c) Sandwich board sign design and anchoring, (pg. 16) d) Re-striping and re-sizing all lot parking spaces, (pg. 16,17,21) e) Security vehicle provisions, (pg. 19) 0 Lighting maintenance and control, (pg. i9,20,25) g) Pa~king violation warnings, (pg.21) 25 -52- XI. 2002 Year End Overall Recommendations Comply with all recommendations of the 1995 Barton Aschman Report (cu,'Tent conditions of the use permit) and recommendations of this writer that are based on existing circulation patterns and guard deployment. Continue to evaluate the on site PMP through the following steps annually: a. In lieu of conducting parking space counts have the consultant conduct five two-hour unannounced site evaluation visits during varying peak hour use times with continued detailed analysis of compliance with PMP conditions and general comments on adequacy of parking and space vacancy detail. bo The applicant should strongly consider the engineering change recommendation for jaywalking control in the engineering and security sections of the report, (pg.22). The applicant should take steps to improve traffic direction activities on site to direct patrons to outlying underutilized spaces and correct circulation problems by providing a coordinated plan and training for guards and traffic control personnel, (pg. 15). do The Planning Commission should continue to require as conditions of the use permit on this project a minimum of three guards deployed at all non peak times with four to five guards minimum during peak use hours and peak days, (pg.19). 26 -53- DATE: October 8, 2003 TO: Susy Kalkin, Planning Division Jim Thane, Police Department FROM: Ron Petrocchi, Petrocch/and Associates SUBJECT: Review of Century Theaters PUD Application, Dated September 9, 2003, t4-Plex Theater Complex, 410-490 Noor Avenue Petrocch/and Associates has completed a review of the applicant's submittal. I have the following comments and concerns and propose the following conditions on the project to limit potential impacts. These comments are based on review of the application, on-site inspection, and review of the January to November 2002 Parking Management Plan Monitoring Pro,am Report. A. General Comments and Concerns 1. Par ~king Par'king for the proposed modification appears adequate and acceptable for the use. There is a reduction in seat count of 388, with a reduction in parking space count of only nine spaces due to restriping of compact spaces. The nine-space reduction is insi~mfificant, as an average of seven spaces were continually unusable due to straddling of compact spaces in the past. 2. Circulation Pedestrian circulation is adequate and acceptable and si~m'fificantly improved with the front pathway redesig-n towards the corner crosswalk, to discourage jaywalking on Huntin~on Avenue. Vehicular circulation is adequate and acceptable. I would recommend more flaring of the driveway and narrowing of the landscape strip adjacent to the main entry dr/veways to facilitate right turn movements onto the site, when both outbound lanes are occupied. 3. Sig-nage The si~age pro,am for all parcels utilized for parking and circulation is covered by the Parking Management Plan (PMP) and all its amendments through November 2002. For the most part sig-nage is adequate and in place and complies with the PMP, including consultant recommendations. Page 1 ,-~ a -54- 4. Parking Management Plan and Monitoring Program The plan and monitoring program is effective m providing a safe, secure environment for pedestrian and vehicular users of the site. I would recommend continuation of the process under the November 2002 format starting three months after occupancy of the new facihty. 5. Theater Operational Impacts The key to success of a 14-screen multi-plex is a diligent effort by management to coordinate movie start and letout times to avoid conflict and congestion. In addition, the public needs the ability to assess and select times before responding to the site. Suggested Conditions 1. Parking Management/Security Plan Comply with the Parking Management Plan, dated December 1995, including all amendments through November 2002, and comply with all recommendations of the monitoring program dated November 2002, including but not limited to the following: a. Newspaper Listings Publish a complete listing of all movies and start times in newspapers serving San Francisco and the Peninsula. b. Start and Letout Times Diligently review movie running times and coordinate theater start and let out times to limit on-site pedestrian and vehicular congestion. c. Shde Presentations Pre-movie slide shows in every auditorium shall include: 1) A slide requesting that patrons please use the signalized crosswalk when crossing Huntin~on Avenue to and from the theater. 2) A shde infomzing of approved parking anytime being provided in front and behind the theaters in non-restricted spaces. 3) A slide warning that vekicle towing may occur for parking in reserved retail spaces, red zones, handicapped spaces, loading zones, and in non- approved lots on proper!y adjacent to the theater. 4) A slide informing patrons of the importance ofparkh~g safely and protecting belongings and to irkform theater management of any inappropriate activities. Page 2 ,.4- ~ -55- 5) A slide which duplicates the lobby parMng diagram including directional arrows to lot E. d. Guards/Parking Control Officers 1) Comply with the requirements of the ori~nal use permit (plus amendments) to provide at least three security guards on duty whenever the theater is open for use (non-peak hours) with one guard periodically patrolling all available parking in a security veh/cle. 2) Provide four guards, one having supervisory duties as well as guard duties, as a minimum compliment on typical weekday fright time hours, especially if no security vehicle is available, with increased coverage when site conditions warrant PCO deployment. 3) It appears that a minimum workable guard compliment during peak hours, on peak attendance days, should be five gaards including one with part-time supervisory responsibility. 4) A security patrol vehicle shall be deployed on all evenings that the theater is open for business. A secure, covered parking space should be prov/ded for storage at the rear of the theater. 5) The PCOs have no formal or informal plan for directing traffic away from congested locations to available open parking spaces or to exits when site conditions warrant it. a) A plan needs to be developed that details conditions and a process to implement the PCO plan when changing conditions on site warrants it. b) Different plans of action should be developed for routing patrons away from congested areas to open spaces (especially to lot E). c) Guards on remote posts or roving should i~f_orm main driveway PCOs continually where open parking exists so traffic can be diverted accordingly. d) PCOs (and security guards who may potentially be PCOs) should receive formalized training on traffic directiox techniques. e) If the theater manager or his supervisory staff do not feel they have the expertise to develop such action plans or to adequately train PCOs in proper traffic direction technique, then a consukant or the Police Department should be contacted to assist with the process. 6) Guards shall report lighting fixture outage or malfunction as soon as it is observed on all parcels to theater management for timely correction. 7) Correction of on-site violations a) Continue the past warning notice process for the rear of ! 80 E1 Camino Real and make sure that guards are supphed with an adequate supply of notices for placement on al! violator vehicles. eo b) Security personnel and complex employees shall take proactive steps to discourage inappropriate vehicle parking while k is occurring in their presence. c) When guards are on duty at the rear of lot C they shall actively deter theatergoers fi.om parking at the rear of 180 E1 Camino Real and direct them to alternate approved parking. Lighting l) The lighting level prescribed and required by the city as part of the original and amended approvals of the use permit for this site, .5 to one foot-candle minimum maintained at ~ound level, are based on dated I.E.S. standards and optimum operating efficiency. Lighting has deteriorated to a level which may be below the city requirements and below past and current I.E.S. standards. In order to maintain adequate levels the applicant shall: a) Have supplemental wall packs installed on the east wall of 470 Noor Avenue and have all existing fixtures on all lots maintained, cleaned, relamped and relensed. b) Have all parking area and building perimeter lighting on parcels A through E controlled by photocell. c) Employ a lighting professional to assess existing conditions, recommend improvements to attain minimum current recommended I.E.S. standards for medium to high use facilities and then reassess the site after installation. A photometric and distribution plan shall be provided for police review when lighting /_mprovements are complete. f. Sig-nage and Markings 1) Comply with the sig-nage and markings recommendations of the PMP and ~11 nma~rt~rr~eB, tS' 2) The applicant's si~m~ representative should meet witli the PMP monitoring consultant on site prior to occupancy to correct minor sig-nage deficiencies. 3) Pavement and tirestop markings on all parcels, A through E, shall be repainted. Care shall be taken to paint restricted retail spaces so they are more obvious after dark. Parking Availabih~ Diagams Required parking availability dia~ams in the lobby, adjacent to the ticket booth and on-screen slide presentations shall include directional m-rows to access lot E fi.om off site and across lot D. Page 4 - 5 7 - h. Engineering It is very difficult to pull into the sites main entry drive when the two outbound lanes are occupied. The inbound lane should be widened into the landscape strip. i. Parking and Security Management Monitoring Continue to evaluate the PMP and security plan annually. In lieu of conducting parking space counts, have the consultant conduct six two-hour unannounced site evaluation visits during varying peak hour use times with continued detailed analysis of comphance with PMP conditions and general comments on adequacy of parking and space vacancy detail. This evaluation should be conducted for the city, paid by the apphcant. The consultant should continue the current process of interacting with theater management after each inspection to continually correct problems. The evaluation should start 3 months after occupancy. j. Arcade Conditions The applicant shall comply with the orig-inal arcade condition to restrict access into the arcade to theater patrons holding tickets only. k. Security Plant Measures The apphcant shall incorporate security plant materials along the Huntin~on Avenue side of the building on lot C to encourage circulation omo improved walt~'ays. 1. Minimum Security Standards Ordinance The applicant shall comply with the city's Minimmn Security Standards Ordinance, chapter 15.48 of the Municipal Code. m. Security Plan 1) The apphcant shall coordinate with the Pohce Department and submit a security management plan for review and approval which includes: a) Robbery and intrusion alarm systems proposed. b) Safes to be installed on site (minimum TL-15 or class 'c' rating. c) Opening and closing procedures. d) Cash ~m:~sfer procedures. e) Employee theft proceduresCrevention f) Security personnel deployment and their authority. g) Procedures in the event of a robbery, serious crime or bomb threat. 2) The applicant shall comact the Police Department well in advance of the showing of' controversial movies which may draw patrons with hostile intent, to coordinate deployment of additional security personnel smd supplemental police resources. The Police Depamment reserves the right to postpone events at times when needed polJce resources are unavailable. Page 6 2~¢_ 20' WK[IB{IJN£ 2~' WAERLINE  4,5~ B~tllll Avane Sam A ARCHIT~CTUR£ P LANN I N~ (PER ~ UAPS 5) C-P (PLANNED COI~4EF~CAL) LOT COVERAGE: (44,21~ s.f. bu~¢im] ~ ~5,~,564 ~f. site BUILDING 8EI'BACKB OkENSI~ ~ALL 8£ IOLO" MIN.) OVERALL EXIDTING CENTER PAFIKING OOUNT: 891 8PACES Parcel 'A' & 'B' = 135 spaces + 196 spaces (across the street in the Tanoan Professional Center) OVERNJ- ~ CENTBq PAFKI'iG ~: 887 ~PAC:E~ New Parking on Sit~ Parcels A, B, C: D & E Parcel 'A' & 'B' = 135 spaces Parcel 'D' = 219 spaces (less 3 spaces from what's existing) + 196 spaces (across the street in the Tanforan Profeesional Center) Existin§ Building -~ ~ ~, Parcel 'E' ~__ 1; -~ £AS~IE3~T (P~IVATE (~0C. NO. ~41t8~54) WA'I~ UlI. JTY 81~1V1C~ C~UF~RNIA WATER SEq~lC[ COMPANY aN~ITAJqff' 8EWER I~rI. JTY ~ PUBUC ~RKS, 01Y OF SOUTH SAN FRANCSCO la I;,"'ITICAL AI~I~ C~,e~8 8~dC~8 P.~OF1C ~A$ AND ELECTRIC COMPANY P.~QRC BELL TB.E~oNr COUPANY ~- ~ Lrl0SllN~ ~ARglN~ STI~PPINO Existing Building Parcel 'D' STANDARD PARKING ST~ RE~I~ 10' C~M~ICAr~S -~S~G ~-~ RRE (PER 1~29 ~R. 237) NOTES Noor Ave. rx,.~.~ s'~rrT .m~--~-L' (~ .o. ~?-e..~) - ~ - Overall Site Plan South San Noor Ave. & Francisco 14 Huntington Ave. M~ 5) Tan~oran Pmfessioml Cente~ i i© (19~ ,~V,U_NXE P~,R~m. iG S~m ~ i~ ~' AND UAINTNNAN~ A~ENT, 97-0101~) O 2~' 40' 80' SCALE: 1° =~0'-0= A0 CENTURY THEATRES ~ho~t (415) 448-8462, lox:. (¢15) 44&8475 KEYNOTE8 1. NE~/COflC, ~URB 2. ~ '[RASH EHffi_OSURE PAINTED 18. 6'-0" WDE Pk~TEO S'TEL ARCf*ITECTURE T~ I~ 23t,~ New Site Plan Parcel 'D' ZONE: C-P ~ COMIvlE~) LOT COVERA~: (44.213 s,f. buil~ng ~ 153,56¢ s.f. site BU~ ~E'rBACK8 ~II//ENSIC~ ~ALL BE 1~'-0" MIN.) South Noor Ave. San Francisco 14 & Huntington Ave. 0 15' 30' 60' SCALE: A2 CENTURY THEATRES ~one: (415) 44~ 84~2, fax: (415) 448-8475 PE~ORAI~ UETAL PANI~ PAINI~) ~ etu~/mm~ sYsr~ S~lgd NE]AL DOORS, PNNTEO SOUTH ELEVATION NEON UOHllN$, RANIX1; AND st,sa, Ou.~.s) {~ PROPOS[D IqJ'[OR[ ~ ~ C(~',ICR[1[ TILT-UP PANB.S W/HORIZ IN~T I~EcALS, pa4~ ('ff.X~JREO) rm. ALarUM STO~FRa141 I(YHN~ COLOR IqJ~Sl~ EAST ELEVATION EXISTING BUILDING BUILDING HEIGHT: 38'-6".+ NORTH ELEVATION TI_T-UP P/~ELS CAST IN R[TA#NG/GUARDRM. YeLL P~.~ ('~.~) ~ CAST 14 PL~ CONCI~+'IT E[TAINING/OUA,I~RNL WALL J 452 E4hth Avenue Suite A Se~ Oi~o, CA 92101 ARCHITECTURE Tet [$19] 2~786 P L A N N I N G F~[619] Noor and CONO~T[ flL1-Urp pAN~S W/HORIZ. II'SET RE'VEALS. pAI4TED (~.X~UR~D) Ptp, Exterior E/eva tions South San Francisco 14 Huntington, South San NEW I~ASH COMPACTOR AREA CONi:~E ~T-~P PA~8.S WJ HOFaZ. INSET EE~r_&LS, PA~4~O [~cru~:o] rfP. SI[EL y[IAL PAND,. DOORS PN~1[O. ?~P. [~] WEST ELEVATION Francisco CENTURY THEATRES ~me: (4.is) 44s-~4~2. k~c (¢~S) 44s-as7s 32' 9" 27' 8" · C ENTLIKy THEATRES Sign Elevation Manufacture & install one (1) sat internally illuminated channel letter& Item Description Vendor "Century" Faces Polycarbenate GE "Century" Faces Vinyl 3M Decoration "Theatres" Faces 3/16" acrylic Acrylite "Theatres" Faces Vinyl 3M Decoration "Century" .050 aluminum Ratainers Matthews Acrylic Polyurathane "Theatres" 1" Silvatrim Trimcap scale: 3/16' = 1' O" Specification White Lexan Light Tomato Red #3630-43 with white 1-1/2" show-thru outline White #015-2 Light Tomato Red #3630-43 with white 5/8" show-thru outline Faces painted white #282-202, satin sides painted Blue PMS #287, satin Painted Blue PMS #287, satin Raturns .050 aluminum Matthews Acrylic Polyurathane Painted Blue PMS #287, satin, insides painted white 1051 46th Avenue Oakland, CA 94601 Phone 510.533.7693 Fax. 510.533.0815 Lic. #314794 "Century" Ilium. Four tube Voltarc #6500 White/Argon Neon Specifications Manufacture and install various neon border tubing as shown "Theatres" Ilium. Doubletube Voitarc #6500 White/Argon Item Description Vendor Specification O Single tube Technolux Purple #22 / Argon Single tube Technolux Ruby Red (coated)/Neon Single tube Technolux Cobalt Blue #16/Argon  Single tube Technolux Pure Gold / Argon O Single tube Technolux Emerald Green / Argon East Elevation scale: 1/16" = 1' 0" Job Name: Address: City: Date: Sales: Design: Design: Filename: Sheet: Century Theatres Noor & Huntington South San Francisco, CA 9-27-02 Nicole Salmon J. Cruz 20940 2002/C/Century/Ce ntury South San Francisco I Customer Approval: Revision Dale Descriptefl l~is is an original unpeblid~ed drmdng pn~pared br you by ~aTow S~gn Co. in a sign Fogmrn designed for your business It is nol to h shotm to an~mne out*Jde o~ yam ~anizafim nor to be reproduad, wpied or exhibitad in any [ashim. L 1051 46th Avenue Oakland, CA 94601 Phone 510.533.7693 Fax. 510.533.0815 Lic. #314794 Plan View scale: 1/16"= 1' 0" 7'9-1/8" Sign Elevation Furnish and install two (2)) LED units provided by others Item Description Vendor LED Unit Data Display 7' 9-1/8" scale: 3/8" = 1' 0" Specification Model DB750 seven (7) lines of 2" copy Job Name: ~ldress: City: Date: Sales: Design: Design: Filename: Sheet: Century Theatres Noor & Huntington South San Francisco, CA 9-27-02 Hicole Salmon J. Cruz 20940 2002/C/Century/Century South San Francisco 2 Customer Approval: RevisionDate Descriplm 1his is on orighml unpublished drm~ng prepard for y~u b7 program d esi~ned for y~ur busines~ It is nd to be ~own to anyor~ ou~de ~ your eeganizafl ee nor to be reFoduced, cop~d or ech~itod Sign Elevation Reface one (1) double faced internally illuminated pylon sign. Item Description Upper cabinet Repaint Safe mil Repaint Lower cabinet Repaint Catwalk Repaint Pole Repaint Upper face Polycarbonate Upper background Vinyl Upper copy Polycarbonate Lower face Printed Vendor 1 Shot 1 Shot 1 Shot 1 Shot Kelly Moore w/texcoat GE 3M GE Metromedia scale: 1/4" = 1' O" Specification Black 199-L Black 199-L Black 199-L Black 199-L To match building White Lexan Black#3630-22 Light Tomato Red #3630-43 with white show-thru outline Per customer provided artwork 1051 46th Avenue Oakland, CA 94601 Phone 510.533.7693 Fax. 510.533.0815 Lic. #314794 Job Hame: Address: CW: Date: Sales: Design: Design: Filename: Century Theatres Noor & Hunfinglon South San Francisco, CA 9-27-02 Nicole Salmon J. Cruz 20940 2002/C/Century/Century South San Francisco Customer Approval: ?~eYision Ogre Descripiml This is an miginal unpublished dnz~ ng prepared fa- you by ~ ~ Co. in a sign Fog m m designed for y~zr buttress. ~t is nar to be shown ro anyone o~e o~ ~,mJr a~nizafia~ nor to be repreduad, ~p=l or exhibited in aw fashien, 41'- g" -C. ENTU RY T'HE RES: ~Future Sign Elevation scale: 3/16' =1' O" Manufacture and install two (2) sets of internally illuminated, self-contained letters as shown Item Description Vendor Specification Faces 3/16" acrylic Acrylite White #015-2 Face Decoration Vinyl 3M Light Tomato Red #3630-43 with 1" white show-thru outline Trimcap 1" Silvatrim Painted Blue PMS #287, satin Returns .050 aluminum Matthews Acrylic Polyurethane Painted Blue PMS #287, satin, insides painted white Illumination Double tube Voltarc #6500 White/Argon 1051 46th Avenue Oakland, CA 94601 Phone 510.533.7693 Fax. 510.533.0815 Lic. #314794 CENTURY THEATRES CENTURY THEATRES Job Name: Address: City: Date: Sales: Design: Design: Filenome: Sheer: Century Theatres Noor & Huntington South San Francisco, CA 9-27-02 Nicole Salmon J. Cruz 20940 2002/C/Century/Century South San Francisco 4 Customer Approval: RevisionDate Des~ipion South Elevation scale: 1/16"= 1' 0" North Elevation scale: 1/16" = 1' 0" 'ibis is afl ~dginol unpublBhed dros~ng pr~por~d for you by .krow .~gn C~ in o alga program desiomd for your business. It is nd' to be shown to, nyons outside d your mganizafi on nor ~ be reproduced, copied or exhibited in any f~shim. TH MT EAT y ES Sou :h San Fra cisco 14 OWNER (parcels A, ~, C & £) SYUFY ENTERPRISES 150 PEU~N WAY ~ REFAEL, ~ 94901 Conte~: Ro~v Padkh, Co~. Development [moil: rajiv_ podkh~ 150~licon.com Sou 15 OWNER (pcrcel D) Nioto ~qsh Comp(3ny, LTD., o California carl)oration 360A JEFFERSON SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94133 Contact: Nunzio A~iot~, President (415) 675-8300 (dir.) Ja$sem Bohroni, Controller (415) $73-0183 (dir.) 14-PLEX TH EA-'i- E R San FrancJsc© APPUCANT (parcel C) CENTURY THEATRES, INC. 150 PELICAN WAY SAN R£FAEL, CA 94901 (415) 448-8400 (main office) Contact: Victor CostillOr Cor~. E~eveiopment 415 448-9462 dlr. Emaih victo r_ castilloOcentur,/(heatres.¢om ARCHITECT FEHLMAN LABARRE ARCHIT~DTdRE 452 EIGHTH AVE., STE, A SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 619 234-0789 t619} 234-8136 (fox) Contract: Mark Fehlmon - Principe[ E-MAIL: mfehlma nO fehlmonloborre.com Dennis Ginn - Proiect Architect E-MA~L: dginnOf ehim<3nloborre.com BRIO Engineerin~ A~sociotes, Inc. 2858 STENS CREEK BLVd.. SuEe 102 408) 241 --5494 40~) 2~1--5493 (fox) L~NSCAP£ ARCHITECT NOWELL AND ASSOCIATES 4010 OOLDF]NCH STREET SAN DIEGO, CA 92103 619 325-1997 (F) SHEET INDEX AO OVERALL SITE PLAN PARCEL MAP SIGNATURE SHEET PARCEL MAP 96-025 EA0 EXISTING PROJECT DATA (PUD-95-42) EA1 EXISTING SITE PLAN (PUD-95-42) C-1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION, SURVET DATA C-2 ALTA SURVEY A1 DEMOLITION SITE PLAN A2 NEW SITE PLAN A3 FIRST FLOOR PLAN A4 PROJECTION BOOTH FLOOR PLAN ~' ~ A5 ROOF PLAN A6 EXTERIOR ELEVATION A7 BUILDING SECTIONS L1 LANDSCAPE CONCEPT PLAN PUD PERMI-I Oct. 31, 2002  ' 452 Eighth Avenue Suite A ~ San Diego, CA g2101 A R C H ll E C T U R E Tel [619] 254-0789 P L A N N IN O Fox[619] 234-8156 S1 EXTERIOR SIGNAGE VICINITY MAP N M 452 EIg~ Avenue ARCHITECTURE Tel BI9] 234-0789 PLANN IN ~ Fax b'~]234-SBB 24' P.U.E. & RRE ZONE: C-P (PLANNED COMMERiCAL) LOT COVERAGE: 28.8Z (44,213 s.f. building 4 153,564 s.f. site = BULDING ~-'rBACK$ (WHERE A BUILDING SlOE ABUT A SIRBET THE BEIBACN O~4~SION SHAU. BE tO'-O' WIN.) PARCEL AREAS PAJ=ICI~ 'A' ~7.4~J~ BI=. (0,~ AC) PARCEL ~' 2A~0 ~. (~s ~) P~ ~ ~ ~, (~ AC) P~ ~' ~,~75 ~. (~ AC) ~ ~,~97 ~. (9~ ~) OVERALL EXlSllNG CENTER PARKING COUNT: 891 SPACES (711 S~ACES ON SITE + 196 ADDF)loNAL SPACES ACROSS THE SI~EET Parcel 'D' = 222 spaces Parcel 'E' = 126 spaces Total on-site 695 spaces OVERALL NEW CENTER PARKING COUNT: 887 SPACES (ACCES~BLE PARKING STALLS COUNT R~aAIN AS THEY EXIST ONSITE) New Parkinq on Site Parcels A, B, C, D & E Parcel 'A' & 'B' = 135 spaces Parcel 'C' = 211 spaces Parcel 'D' = 219 spaces (isss 3 spaces from what's existing) Parcel 'E' = 126 spaces Total on-sita 691 spaces + 196 spaces (across the street in the Tanforan Professional Center) 887 total spaces existing 10' EASEMENT (PRrVAI[) (DOC. NO. 84118454) CALIFORNIA WAlE~ ~RV1CE COMPANY PUBLIC WORKS, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FBANCISCO PACIFlC GAS AND ELECTriC COWPANY ~ WA~RLBiE MAPS S) ~ ~ ~ EASEMENT (PRIVAIE) (D~C, NO. 84118454) NOTS NO MAJOR R6-~RADING OF SITE IS INTENDED, ALL NEW GRADING ~ OCCUR WITHIN l~E E~C tN~D[ FACE ~ ~RB OF NO UND~OR~ND U~U~ M~IF~CA~S ~E~CA~Y REQ~RED TO FACIUTA~ ~E HEW PRiDeD S~U0~, ACCESS EASEMENT ~ ~ J3 _ J~ (pER $6 NAPS 5) I ~ ~ ~ ~ 4EW F AINIT. D tm~PPING TOI~iCET Cl~ '~ , _ , ~ ~ · ~- ::::.:.:. =========================== ' ~ Exstn~ Buldn ~ / STANDARD PARK.G ST..~,REUEN~ ~ STANDARD PARKING STALL REQUIR~N~ (PER 8033 O.R 78) ~ ~E [X~P~ON Or ~E STOL D~ Overall Site Plan 20' 40' SCALE: 1" =AO'-O" South San Noor Ave. & Francisco 14 Huntington Ave. AO CENTURY THEATRES 150 Pelican Woy, San Rafoet, CA 94901 pnone: (415) 448-8462, fax: (415) 448-8475 VOL. 69 PG. 28 OWNFR'S STATEUENT: ~ HERF. BY STAT THAT ~ A,RE 'IHE O~NERS OR THE HOLDER ~ IN~EST ~ HA~ S~E RI~T, ~, ~ IN~EST IN ~D TO ~[ ~ ~O- ~E ~LY PER~S HA~NG ~Y ~ ~ IN~EST IN ~ ~B~ED PRO- PER~ ~ C~NT IS NECE~Y TO PA~ A ~ ~ TO SND ~ ~O- PER~; ~AT ~ HER~Y C~T TO ~E M~ING ~D REC~D~G nAY ~ . 1996, OIMl~cR: sYUFY [NIF..RPRISES, A CALIFORNIA UulTED PARTNERSHIP OWNER'S ACKNO~/! FDGEkiENT: STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ~S~Y ~0. TO ~ (~ ~0~ TO ~ ~ ~E B~S ~ SA~ACT~Y E~) TO BE ~{S} ~0~ N~E(S) IS/~E ~8~ TO ~E ~mN INS~U~T ~D A~NO~ TO UE ~AT HE~E~EY E~ ~E S~E mN HIS~DR ~IZED C~AO~(I~S),~D ~AT BY ~S~ER~R D~A- ~RE(S) ~ ~E INS~W~T ~ ~(S), ~ ~E ~ ~ ~ ~ (sEAL) gITY ENGINEER'~ STAllE~FNT: I HEREBY STAle THAT I HAVE EXAYlNED THIS MAP; THAT THE SUBDiVISiON AS SHOVel IS SUBS'fANliALLY THE SAI~ AS IT AP~EARF. D ON 'DIE TDiTA'~'~ MAP, AND ANY APPROVED AL'il[RAllONS ~.IEREOF; THAT ALL PROVISK)NS OF 11-1E CALIFORNIA SkJB~4SiON MAP ACT AND ANY LOCAL ORDINANCES APPUCA~LE AT THE lli, i£ OF APPROVAL OF THE TENTATIVE CORRECT. l, :: ;'~ OTY ENCJNF_.EE ; ~,' , 'q'Hl~ ~ '~ / CITY OF SO~TH S/el FR~OSCO ENGINEER'S STA'EEMENT: THis MAP WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER~t.¥ DIREC*IIO~ AND IS BASED ON A RELD SURVEY IN CONFORMANCE NTH 1t-le RE(X~JR~J~_NTS OF THE SUBDI~4SIOR YKp ACT AND LOCAL ORDINANCE AT THE RE(}UE.~I~,gF' ERNIE FURMAN O~ I:"~BRUARY 1, 199§. I HEREBY STAll[ THAT THIS/I:~i~CEL~ ~ SUBSTANTI~~ TO THE APPROVED RECOEDER'5 STAT[MENT: FILED THIS grd DAY OF JULY , 1996 , AT 4:17 P.y. IN PARC>'I UAP B~ VOL 69 OF PARCEL MAPS AT PAGES ?8 .TO 29 !NCLU~VE, AT ~ REQUEST OF KCA E. hiGiNE. F.J~S, INC. C~N~ OF SAN ~AIEO BAS~S OF BEARINGS: THE BEA~INGS SHO~ ARE BASED ON FOiJND brONUMENTS ~ N~ A~UE ~D HUN~NGT~ A~U[ PER ~AT ~TNN P~ ~ ~ 'P~ M~-~N~RY ~k A C~ERO~ ~1~' REC~D~ ~ ~T~ 19, 1984 IN ~UUE 55 ~ P~C~ ~ AT PA~ 23, ~ ~E ~CE ~ ~E RE~ ~ ~E C~N~ ~ S~ ~A~O. OWNER'S STATEMENT: 1AE HEREBY STALE ll~AT ~E ARE ~[ O~S OR ~[ H~ OF ~RI~ IN.REST ~ HA~ ~E RI~T, ~, ~ IN.REST IN ~D TO ~E RE~ PRO- P~ INCLUDED ~mN ~E ~l~ ~o~ UPON ~tS M~; ~AT ~ ~E ~E ~LY P~NS HAMNG ~Y RE~D ~ IN~EST IN ~E ~BDI~D~ PRO- P~ ~OSE C~T IS NE~Y ~0 P~ A ~ ~ TO SND RE~ PRO- P~; ~AT ~ H~EBY ~NT TO ~E ~)NG ~D RECEDING OF SND M~ ~D SUBDIMSI~ ~ ~0~ ~IN ~E DIS~NC~ B~D~ UNE. IN ~1~1.[~,.~ 1AHEREOF ~ HAVE CAUSED THESE PRESENTS TO BE EXECUTED THIS ~:' DAY OF '~';.L:'Z~ . 1996, Ol~l[R: ALIOTO FIS4-1 COYPANY, LTD., A OAUFORNiA CORPORAllON (SEAL) PARCEL MAP 96-025 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT-BEING PARCELS "C","D"&"E" OF CENTURY PLAZA, A COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION RECORDED IN VOLUME 55 OF PARCEL MAPS AT PAGE 2.3, SAN MATEO COUNTY RECORDS SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO SAN MATEO COUNTY CALIFORNIA KCA ENGINEERS INC. CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS MAY 1996 SCALE: AS SHOWN SHEET 1 OF 2 SHEETS VOL. 69 PG. 29 , _ _ _ _ ___~_--._-- _--, - -- ~P~R DOCUUENT No. 85125516 _. ~ ~ -- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ L = 15g.42'(MAP) ~ ~_~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~Y~ ~E BENE~T ~ PARCEL ~R~ (~R~ PARCEL -- -- ~ ~ "~ , ~ PER DOC. N~. 84,,8454 * .. FU~RE 10' SANITARY ~R EASEMENT (PRIVA~) ~ ~ ~20' WA~RLINE EASEMENT - ~ EXISBNG 10' LANDSCAPE RAIMENT TO BE ABANDONED  A = STUS'52" " III I R = ,32.00' I t0' WATERLINE EASEMENT I11 . ~..~3' , - -~ -- 44~.~'- ~~ NOOR AVENUE 20'x20' UTILITY EASEMENT PER 6035 O.R. 78-~ 721.61' M-M GRAPHIC SCALE 1 mob = 50 fL I FGEND: (C,LC) U-u CALCUL~IED DiI, IENSON ~EE 55 P.W. 23 FOUND UONUUENT IN HANDHOLE WO~4UUENT TO bIONUWENT DiWENS~ON EX'E. RICe I)(YJ~DARY OF TinS PARCEL MAP 96-0;85 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT-BEING PARCELS "C","D"&:"E" OF CENTURY PLAZA, A COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION RECORDED IN VOLUME 55 OF PARCEL MAPS AT PAGE 2,3, SAN MATEO COUNTY RECORDS SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO SAN MATEO COUNTY CALIFORNIA KCA ENGINEERS INC. CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS MAY 1996 SCALE: 1" = 50' SHEET 2 OF 2 SHEETS SYUFY ENTERPRISES CENTURY PLAZA EXPANSION ABBREV~'r1ONS ARCHiTECTLRAL LEGEND PROJECT DATA SHEET INDEX AO TITLE A1 S~TE PLAN A2. FLOOR PLANS & ROOE PLAN A3 ELEVA~ & S'¢JFY D,F~R FRL~S VICtNiTY MAP 2-~-g5 BSG4 EAO NOOR ^Vl~J~E LEGAL DESCRIPTION' TITLE REPORT DA SURVEYOR'S NOTES: SURVEY DA TA: SURVEY NO'I'IES: BENCH MARK: BASIS OF BEARING ABBREVIATIONS: LEGEND, SURVEYOR'S CERT//=ICA TE Z ABBREViATtON$: LEGEND: Z Parcel '^' KEYNOTES REMO~D (TfE) 8, EXISltN¢ CONC. WAL~S TO ~E REklO~D ~ BUI~ING CURB UNE (~.) 9. EXIS~NG PErSiAN PA~WAY TO REUAI~ 10 EXIS~NG PARKING U~NG TO R~AiN It E~SDNG LANDS~E ~ IRRIGADON TO BE REMO~D N~IN BUILDING ~RB UNE (~.) NOTES EXISTING /,;," THEATRE Parcel 'C' " Parcel 'D' Demofition Site Plan South San Noor Ave. & Francisco 14 Huntington Ave. 0 15' .t0' 60' ~ A1 SCALE: 1" ~50'-0' CENTURY THEATRES 150 Pelican Woy, Son Rofoel, CA 94901 phone: (415) 448-84~2. fox: (415) 44B-B475 jl Parcel 'B'~ Parcel PAINTED (TEXIURED) NOTES 1. NO MAJOR R£.ORADING OF SIIE IS INIENDED. ALL NEW G~ADIN¢ ~LL OCCUR W)THIN THE EXISllNG INSIDE FACE OF CURB OF llAE EXISllNG BUILDING AREA. New Site Plan M 452 E~ Ave'm Suile A ARCHITECTURE Tet B19] ~4~/~ PLANNING Fax ~B~ ~34'0~6 South San Noor Ave. & Francisco 14 Huntington 'C' Parcel 'D' ZONE: C-P (PLANNED COMMERICAL) LOT COVERAGE: 28.8Y. (44,213 s.f. build~ng ~ 153,564 s.f. site = 28. B~) BUILC~NG SETBACKS (V,~ERE A BUILDING SIDE ABUT A SIRE~ THE SETBACK DIMENSION SHALL BE 10'-0' MIN,) Ave. SCALE: A2 CENTURY THEATRES 150 Pelican Way, Son Rafael, CA 94901 phone: (415) ~48-8462, fax: (415) 448-8475 to~dsc3pe 322'-6" B IILDING TYPE: OCCUPANCY TYPE: NUMBER OF STORES: ZOkE: ~ [~e~, CA 92101 lei [619] 234-07B9 Fox [619] 2~-Bl,~ 'TYPE ¥, ONE HOUR, FULLY SPR1NKLERED A3, with ~,ccesa(x~ uses B AND S2 ONE PLANNED COMMERICAL (C-P) ~ ~, ~ EXISTING E~JILJ:)ING SEAT COUNT: 2800 SEATS o & ~ ~ NEW BULDING 8F-.AT COUNT: 2412 SEAT8 {Re~uctio~ of 388 ,eot.) SCALE: 3/~2" =~'-¢ EXISTING FIRST FLOOR BUll.DING SQUARE FOOTAGE: 47,513 SF. '~'-' NEW FIRST FLOOR BUILDING 8OUARE FOOTAGE: 44,213 S.F. (R~u~io, of 3,~ ~q. ft.) NEW COMBINED TOTAL BUll.DING SQUARE FOOTAGE 49,338 S.F. FIFIS'T FLOOR AND PROJECTION BOOTH: Firs t FIo or Pla n A3 Noor and South San Francisco 14 Huntington, South San Francisco CENTURY THEATRES M 452 Dghth Suile A S~n Diego, Ok 92101 A R C H I T E C T U R E Tel [619] 2~4~0789 P LA N N I N G Fax[619] 12: ~' SCALE: TOTAL PROdECTION BOOTH FLOOR SQUARE FOOTAGE: 5,125 OF. Projection Booth Floor Plan Noor South San Francisco 14 and Huntington, South San Francisco A4 CENTURY THEATRES 150 Pelicon Woy, Son Rofoel, CA 94901 phone: (415) 448-8462, fox: (415) 448-8475 35'-5' 3B'-5' / T.O,P, 452 Dghth Avenue Suite A S~n Diego, CA 92101 Tel [619] 234-0789 Fox~6~9] 35'-5' RIDGE Noor and 39'-10" T.0.P. lee 39'-10' 39'-I0" T.O.P. ~ ~ T.0.P. T.0. P (~'~ SCALE: 3/32" = 1 '-(7' Roof Plan EXISTING BUILDING BUILDING HEIGHT: 38'-6'd- South San Francisco 14 Huntington, South San Francisco T.0.P. 35'-5' ~=~NOTES 1. MECH. E~4JlP. SCREEN, PNN1EI) ('P~.), 7'-0' ~0~ HmGHEST RmD~ U~ 2, MAINTAtN 3/8" ~R ~. ~[ ~ R~ (T~.) CAP SHET (~AY), ~. 6. R~ DRNNS (~,) 7. ~0P0~ ~RE A5 CENTURY THEATRES 150 Pel)c~n W~y, Son Rofoe~, CA 94901 phone: (415) 44§-8~2, fox: (415) 448-8475 ur~ ~m.p ~N BLUE/GREEN llNTED GLAZiNC ~ ~ CANllLEVERED SHADE / ,~[XTERI,OR~ INSrUL~AIING FI~SHING ~COflCRE1E TtLT-UP PANELS pAINTED, l~, [~ ~ ~ J .... ~ / //% / / PAINI[D (II[XTURED) TYP* ~ PERFORATED METAL PANELS, ~ SPANDREL GLAZ)NG (BLUE/~ \ METAL ~mS. PNN~ ~ NLm LICH~NG, R~D~~ -- POSER C~S SOUTH ELEVATION [)~ERIGR INSULAllNG F1NISH)NG ~-~ ~ MECH~ EQUIP, SORE. D~ PROPOSED FUI1JRE SIGN- SYSEM (U,nS,) [~ ~ ~ ~N~D, ~. [~ COWC~EIE llLT UP PANELS ~ Y ! "' ' w/,oR~z. ,,s~ ,E~ALS, h ' ' '/ ' r~' ' ' ~'  CONCREIE llLT-UP PANELS w/N~lZ. INSET RD&ALt PAINTED (TEX~RED) TfP. ~"~'~'"'"'"- '~' ' ' ~ NORTH ELEVATION ~AIN~N~I~ANOR~L WAL, 6'-0" ~IDE SLED_ FRAMED WALKWAY CANOPY COVER P~D (~X~RED) ~ 452 Dghth Argue Suite A San Diego, CA 92101 Tel [619] 234-0789 Fox [619] 234-8136 METAL DOORS, PAINTED ~ CAST I~ PLACE CONCRETE IYP, RETAINING/GUARDRNL WALL W/HORIZ. INSET RE~ALS, PAINTED (IIEXTURED) IYP, Exterior Elevations Noor and South San Francisco 14 Huntington, South San NEW l~ASH CO~4PAC'[OR AREA-- CO~CRETE llLT-UP PANELS w/HORiZ, iNSET REVEALS. PAINIED (TEX1URED) STEEL METAL PANEL DO0~S WEST ELEVATION Francisco SCALE: 3/32' =i'-O" CENTURY THEATRES 150 Peticon Way, Son Rofo~, CA 94901 phone: (415) 448-84~2, fax: (415) 44B-8475 LEGEND: LARGE SCREENING EVERGREEN TREE ~8' BOX, SUGGESTED 8PECFJI: SEQUOIA 8EMPERV1REN8 (COAST REDWOOO) $1REET BOX, 8UGGF. STED ~=ECIF.8: CUPANIOPSI8 ANACARDIOiDE8 (CARROT WOOD) pI. ATANLI8 X ACERIFOLLA 'COLUMBIA' (LONDON PLANE TREE) ACCENT TREE 20' BTH, 8UGGEBT-r.D 8PECIEB: PHOENIX DACTY1.FERA (DATE PAJ..M) LARGE ACCENT SHRUB 15 GN..LON, SUGGESl~D SPECIES; PHORMIUM TENAX (NEW ZEALAND FLAX) ERiOBOTRYA 'COPPERTONE' (LOQUAT) SCREENING HEDGE $ GALLON, SUGGESTED SPECIES: UGus'n~.UM JAPONIOJM (JAPANESE PRIVET) SECURITY HEDGE (ALONG HUNTINGTON AVE,) 5 G,N.LON. 8UQ~-STED 8PECIE~: ELAGNU8 PUNGF. N8 (81LVERBERRY) ACCENT 8HRU~ $ GN..LON, SUGGESTED 8PECIE~: PENN18ETUM 'RUBRUM' (FOUNTAIN PHORMIUM COOKIANUM (MOUNTAIN FI,AX) LOW ~11ON SHRUB t AND 5GALLON, 8UGGF-b"IT:.D SPECIES: I~.IAP~IOLEPIE INDI~A 'CLARA' (INDIAN HAW'T~IORN ) HEMEROCALLI~ 8PP. (DAYULY) 8OD, SUGGE81~D SPECIES: D~NARF TALL FESCUE MARAll. ION lie Huntington Avenue, October 4, 2002 ARCHITECTURE W NOWELL & ASSOCIATES LANDSCAI~ ~ LANDSCAPE CONCEPT PLAN South San Francisco 14 Noor Ave. & Huntington Ave. CENTURY THEATRES 0 15' 50' 60' SC, N~ 1"=50'-0° L1 Ct'T: H A T !K :E $~ 452 ~hth Avenue Suite A Son D~e~o. ~ g2101 Tel [619] 234-0789 Fax [619] 254-8156 Noor and Exterior $igna ge South San Francisco 14 Huntington, South San Francisco S1 CENTURY THEATRES phone: (415) 44~-~62, fox: (415) 44~-~75 Staff Report AGENDA ITEM #9 DATE: January 14, 2004 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission decision to deny a Use Permit MOdification to allow sales of beer and wine for off-site consumption at an existing service station in the Planned Commercial (P-C-L) Zoning District in accordance with SSFMC 20.24.070(0 and 20.91. Site Address: Owner: Applicant: Case Nos.: 300 So. Airport Blvd. American River Properties Greiner Service Stations P03-0045/UPM03-0001 RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council continue the item to the regular City Council Meeting of January 28, 2004. BACKGROUND: On Tuesday, January 6, the applicant called to request that the item be postponed to January 28. For medical reasons, the applicant will be unable to attend the meeting on January 14. City Manager FROM :3M CRMPRGNA FAX NO. :650 ?37 9009 Jan, 06 2004 ll:34RM P2 Chevron Greiner Service Stations, inc. 300 so. Airport Bird, So, San Francisco. CA 940~0 Phone 650 583 3251 Fax 650 583 7881 January 6, 2004 Dear Courlci[ Members: :1 request fhc .Public t-:Ica, ring scheduled fi)r .lanuary 14, 2004, regt~rding our appeal for the modification of our use permit, be postponed until January 28, 2004 I request tl~is postponement due to unforeseen surgery scheduled l'br thc week of January '12~h. Thank you t'or you]' cooperation in this matter, Chief Financial Officer StaffReport AGENDA ITEM #10 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: January 14, 2004 The Honorable Mayor and City Council Director of Public Works EMINENT DOMAIN FOR WET WEATHER PROGRAM - PHASE 1 PROJECT ENGINEERING FIIJE SS-02-1, PROJECT NO. 71-13235-0351, BID NO. 2323 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that City Council adopt a Resolution of Necessity and directing the filing of Eminent Domain proceedings for the acquisition of certain real property interests in connection with the Wet Weather Program Phase 1 Project. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The Wet Weather Program consists of improvements to the wastewater collection system and pump stations to control sewer system overflows. This project is required to comply with the Cease and Desist Order (CDO) issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Compliance is required by November 1, 2007. The City will use state revolving funds to finance the project. This project consists of the following: · Upgrade to San Mateo Pump Station. · Construction of new Shaw Road Pump Station. · Construction of new 36-inch Lowrie Avenue Force Main. · Construction of new 42-inch Shaw Road Force Main. · Construction of new Effluent Storage Pond and Pump Station. · Construction of new Vactor Truck Unloading Station. · Installation of new Influent Pumps and Effluent Pumps at WQCP. · Construction of new Gravity Sewer Mains in Lowrie Avenue and San Mateo Avenue. Staff Report To: Re: Date: The Honorable Mayor and City Council EMINENT DOMAIN FOR WET WEATHER PROGRAM - PHASE 1 PROJECT January 14, 2004 Page: 2 of 4 The matter to be considered at this hearing is whether or not the Council should adopt a Resolution of Necessity, the common term for a resolution authorizing the filing of Eminent Domain lawsuits to acquire the real property interests that will allow the City to construct the improvements contemplated by the Wet Weather Program Phase I Project. California Eminent Domain Law requires a public agency to do the following prior to adopting a Resolution of Necessity: a. Appraise the property interests that need to be acquired by the City for the public improvements. b. Offer the owner of the property interests the appraised value of those interests. The City has contracted with Associated Right of Way Services to appraise the property interests that are required for the project and has offered the appraised value to the property owners. In particular, offers to purchase the required property interests were mailed to the following property owners on the following dates: NAME DATE EASEMENT/AREA SQ/FT Pacific Gas and Electric Company Leonid and Ina Mezhvinsky Trust Costco Wholesale Company Union Pacific Railroad Company McClellan Trustee S.M. County Flood Control AMOUNT/OFFER March 6, 2003 Permanent and temporary $45,100 construction easements / PE 2016, TCE 11668 March 6, 2003 Permanent easement / 3521 $40,000 December 30, Temporary construction $20,337 2003 easement / 32670 March 21, 2003 March 6, 2003 March 6, 2003 (1) Fee simple / 3870 (2) Fee simple / 1800 Fee simple and temp. const. Easement / Fee simple 2219, TCE 5339 Fee simple / 2226 $106,550 $67,871 $164,000 $26,700 Staff Report ro~ Re: Date: The Honorable Mayor and City Council EMINENT DOMAIN FOR WET WEATHER PROGRAM - PHASE 1 PROJECT January 14, 2004 Page: 3 of 4 As of the date of this report, no offer has been accepted. In order to construct Phase I of the project in a timely fashion, the Public Works Department must commence construction in the next several months. California Eminent Domain Law provides that the City may obtain an Order of Prejudgment Possession immediately after it files an Eminent Domain lawsuit and deposits into the State Treasury Condemnation Fund, the appraised value of each property interest to be acquired. In the event of property that is being used for business, residential or agricultural purposes, the law requires that the possession order be operative not earlier than 90 days following the date that the possession order is served on the property owner. This period may be shortened upon a showing of urgent necessity. If the Resolution of Necessity is adopted by the Council, it is the intent of the City's City Attorney to request 90-day possession orders. Such orders would allow the City to award a contract that requires construction to begin not earlier than 90 days following service of the order on each owner. The only issues to be discussed at the hearing on the Resolution of Necessity are as follows: 1. Whether the public interest and necessity require the Project; 2. Whether the Project is planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; 3. Whether the interests sought to be acquired are necessary for the Project; and 4. Whether the offer to purchase required by Government Code Section 7267.2 has been made to the owners of record. Notices of the hearing have been mailed to each of the property owners in question. In the event that any property owner appears and desires to speak to any of the above issues, the Council should permit the owner to state his or her objections or observations. The Council should not permit any discussion of the amount of compensation to be paid for the property interests to be acquired. Compensation is not a proper issue or matter for discussion. In order to adopt the Resolution of Necessity, a 2/3 majority vote is required or 4 affirmative votes on a five member Council. Staff Report ro~ Re: Date: The Honorable Mayor and City Council EMINENT DOMAIN FOR WET WEATHER PROGRAM - PHASE 1 PROJECT January 14, 2004 Page: 4 of 4 The project was originally analyzed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City Council adopted a resolution for a Mitigated Negative Declaration and a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Sewer Improvements on October 23, 2002. The Mitigated Negative Declaration included an assessment of potential environmental impacts as set forth in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines and recommends a number of mitigation measures to reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels. This project is included in the City of South San Francisco's 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 Capital Improvement Program (C~/71 - 13235-0351 ) in the amount of $23,505,904.00. The City has received an approved preliminary funding commitment of $45,000,000 for phases I through V from the State Water Resources Control Board for the Wet Weather Program. By: JD~i~~~t/6r of P'ublic Works ATTACHMENTS: Resolution of Necessity Exhibit A - Easement Descriptions RB/BB/SM/JG/ed RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION DETERMINING THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN LAND AND DIRECTING THE FILING OF EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS WET WEATHER PROJECT Parcel Nos: SBE 872-41-27C - No Site Address, South San Francisco SBE 872-41-18C -No Site Address, South San Francisco APN 015-171-040- 140 Beacon Street, South San Francisco APN 015-162-060 - 251 Shaw Road, South San Francisco APN 015-115-500 - Property is West of San Mateo Avenue, South San Francisco SBE 135-41-30 - Property located near Beacon Street, South San Francisco APN 015-180-170 - No Site Address, South San Francisco APN 015-180-180 - No Site Address, South San Francisco IT IS RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco, California, as follows: WHEREAS, it is desirable and necessary for the City Council of the City of South San Francisco to acquire the fee simple title, permanent easements, and temporary construction easements in and to real property more particularly described in Exhibit "A," attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference, to construct the Wet Weather Program and related facilities and appurtenances in connection with the above-captioned Project. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco is vested with the power of eminent domain to acquire said real property interests by virtue of Article 1, Section 19, of the Constitution of the State of California, Health and Safety Code Section 5001 and Sections 1240.010,1240.020, 1240.030,1240.040,1240.050,1240.110,1240.120,1250.110 ofthe Code of Civil Procedure of the State of California; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Section 1245.235 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of California, notice has been duly given to the owners of the subject property and whose names and addresses appear on the most recent San Mateo County's equalized assessment roll, all of whom have been given a reasonable opportunity to appear and be heard before the City Council of the City of South San Francisco on the following matters: (a) Whether the public interest and necessity require the Project; (b) Whether the Project is planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; (c)Whether the interests sought to be acquired are necessary for the Project; and (d) Whether the offer to purchase required by Government Code section 7267.2 has been submitted to the owners of the real property interests. WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Section 7267.2 of the Government Code of the State of California, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco has made an offer to the owners of subject property for just compensation; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS FOUND, DETERMINED, AND ORDERED as follows: 1. 2. o o The public interest and necessity require the Project; The Project is planned and located in the manner which will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; The property interests sought to be acquired are necessary for the project; The offer required by section 7267.2 of the Government Code of the State of California has been made to the owners of subject property; The City Attorney of the City of South San Francisco or his duly authorized designee be, and he is hereby authorized and directed 2 o to institute and conduct to conclusion an action in eminent domain for the acquisition of the estates and interests aforesaid and to take such action as he may deem advisable or necessary in connection therewith; An order for prejudgment possession may be obtained in said action and a warrant issued to the State Treasury Condemnation Fund, in the amount determined by the Court to be do deposited, as a condition to the right of immediate possession. [Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank.] 4 The foregoing Resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of South San Francisco held on the day of January, 2004 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk S:\Current Reso's\Wet Weather Project. DOC OWNER: PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY ACQUISITION: PERMANENT & TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT EXHIBIT A ~PFDesktop\::ODMA/MHODMA/EBMAIN;676437; 1 Legal Description for a 12 foot wide Sanitary Sewer Easemeat The land referred to herein is situated in the State of Califom..!a! C. ~..~_ ~...o_f..San .M..a..t~p~ .Q.ipj.0f South ..5..a._.a ......................... .......................... Franeisce;-descrit~'d-avfoltr~ws; ................................. A poaioa SBE 135-41.30 Parcel 1, described as follows; Bcflinning at a point on the west line of'Lot 4, Block 2, as designated on the map titled "Amended Map of Airport Boulevard Industrial Tract", recorded March 4, 1937 in Book 47 of Maps, Page 5, being distant South !-02-07 West, 0.73 feet fromth~ northwest comer of Lot 4~ thence North 45-23..43 West, 101.50 feet, thence South g9.36.17 West, 66.48 feet~ more or less to the westerly lirte of'said Parcel I. The sidelines of said easement being lengthened or shortened to intersect with the boundaries of said parcel. Containing 2,016 square feet, more or less. Legal Description for a Temporary Construction Easement The land referred to herein is situated in the State of California, County of San Marco, City of South San Francisco, described as follows: A"p°rti°n"$B'l~"f35'41-30'Parcel I, described as follow~; PARCEL A Beginning at a point on the west line of Lot 4, Block 2, aa designated on the map titled "Amended Map of Airport Boulevard Industrial Tract", recorded March 4, 1957 in Book 47 of Maps, Page 5, being diatant South 1-02-07 West, 9.01 feet from the northwest comer of Lot 4, thence South 1-02-07 West, 13.80 feet, thence North 45-23-43 West, 88,88 feet, thence South $9-36-17 We~t, 66,48 feet to the westerly right of way line of said SBE Parcel I, thence along said line, North 1-02.07 East, 25.00 feet, thence leaving said line North 89-36-17 l~ast, 66.48 feet, thence South 45-23-43 East, 104.72 foet to the Point of Beginning. Containing 2,707 square feet, more or less. PAR. CEL B Commencing at a point on the west line of Lot 4, Block 2, as designated on the map titled "Amended Map of Airport Boulevard Industrial Tract", recorded March 4, 1957 in Book 47 ot~Map~, Page 5, being distant South 1-02-07 We~c, 9.01 feet from the northwest corner o~'Lot 4, thence North 45-23-42 Went, 104,72 feet, thence South l~9-36-17 West, 66.48 feet to the westerly line or' ~aid SBE Parcel 1, thence along ~aid line, North t-02-07 East, 12.5 feet to the Tree Point of Beginning of this description; thence, continuing on sa~d linc North 1.02-07 East 128,04 feet, thence leaving said line, North 89-36-17 East, 70.00 feet, thence South 1-02.07 West, 129.20 feet, thence North 45-23-43 West 1.63 feet, thence South 89-36-I7 West, 65~$2 feet to the True Point or Beginning. Containing 8,961 ~quare foot, more or less. OWNER: ACQUISITION: LEONID and INNA MEZHVINSKY PERMANENT EASEMENT EXHIBIT A @PFDesktoi~\::ODMA/MHODMA/EBIVt^IN:676435; 1 Exhibit Legal Description Sanitary Sewer Easement The land referred 1o herein is situated in the State of California, County of San Marco, City of South San Francisco, described as follows; A portion Lot 4 in Block 2, as designated on th6 map ~ntltled "Amended Map of Airport Boulevard Industrial Tract South San Francisco, San Marco Coungt, Califomla", filed March 4, 1957 in Book 47 of Maps, Page $, described as follows; Beginning at a point distant South 1-02-07 West, 1230 feet from the northeast comer of Lot 4, said point being at the intersection eta 12.50 foot wide public utilities easement (PUE) recorded in Book 5848 Official Record~ Page 109 and the westerly right-of-way line et' Beacon $~x¢¢t; &¢nce South 89-36-21 West, 227.92 feet, thence North 45~23-43 West, 25.51 feet to a point on said PUE, South 8g-57.53 East, 246.33 feet to the point of beginning. The sidelines of said easement being lengthened or shonenecI to inter-~ect with the boundaries ofsald parcel. Containing 3,521 square fe~t, more or less. OWNER: ACQUISITION: COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT EXHIBIT A @PFDe~ktop\;;ODMA~MHODMA/EBM^IN;67643~;I Exhibit Lel~al Description for Proposed Temporary Construction Easement rh~ la~ refereed to l~:r~.in i~ ~ituate in tlxe State of California, County t>f San Ma.b~o, City of South San Ft~ta¢isco~ dascr/b~d a~ A O~,rdon of'parcel l of thc [aacts of the City of South San l~rat~¢isco as shown~ on th~ map ~nritl~d "PARCEL MAP'BEtNG ALL THE LANDS DBSC. IL~BBD IN TH]~ DIaleD TO THE CITY Of; SOLrI-B SAN FRANCISCO RI~CORDI~D BOOK 2320, PAGE 18 AND A POI~TION OF Till{ LANDS DJ2~CIt. Ii~t~D IN THE DEED TO 'I/rE CiTY OF SOUI'it SAN FRANCISCO RECORDI~D IN BOOK I758, PAGE 296 OFPICIAL RE, CORDS Ol~ SAN MATED COUNTY", nl~ct in the OIl'icc o~'~he San Matted Count), Re¢or, det, S~al;~ of California, F~bmary 6, 1979 ia Volume 45 ofPazc,el M~p,~, Fage 41, mor~ particularly described as A strip of land 40 feet in widtlh the southerl'y line ofwlfich is doscribcd as follows; commencing ~t the ~oa~we~terly eome~ of said Pardi L, ~enc~ slang th~ w~terly 1~ ofP~cel ! Nor~ 24-1g~I West, 203.92 feot tv the Tt~c Point ot'gegmning, ~ea~ North 6~i-59 E~l~ 3038 f~et, ~cnec South 22-5~ 40 E~t 187.3 l f~; thence North 82-07-09 East 591.56 feet m a po~t on ate easterly linc of said Pamel 1, said point berg North 7-52-25 West 23.36 feet slot, or tCSs fi~m ~e southerly Itu: of'Parcel l. 0.75 acr~, more or less. ground distances divide '~W 0,9999,98. OWNER: ACQUISITION: UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY FEE SIMPLE TITLE EXHIBIT A ~PFDe~I~top\::OIDMA~MHODMA/EBMAIN:6764@9;1 Exhibit A Legal Description Proposed Union Pacific Railroad Property to be Acquired The land referred to herein is situated in the State of Caiifomia, County of San Marco, City of South San Francisco, described as follows; A portion of the Union Pacific Railroad lands as described in SB£ 872.41-27C, Parcel,5, described as follows; Commencing at the intersection of the easterly line of the lands of the San Marco County Flood Control District (formerly lands of the City and County of San Frar~cisco) with the northerly line of thel00 foot wide drainage easement for Colma Creek, as said lines are designated on the map titled "Person and Swanson Industrial Tract" recorded September 5, 1961, Official Records of time County of San M~teo, thence northerly along the West line or,aid San Marco County Flood Control District, North ! 5-07-37 East, 126.50 feet; thence South 75-08-45 East, 10.07 feet to the westerly line of said Union Pacific Railroad lands also being the True Point of Beginning; thence South 75.0848 East, 34.23 feet; thence southerly along the easterly line of said UPILP, lands atong a curve to the left with a radial bearing of North EasL a radius of 270.3tt feet, and an arc length of 104,40 feet; thence South 60-35~0g West, 33,15 feet to the wegterly line of sald UPRR. lands; thence northerly along the westerly line of said uPrt. R lands along a curve to the right with a radius of 303.34 feet and 130.13 feet in length to lhe True Point or' beginning. Containing 3,870 square feet, more or less. i'3~arings and Distances are based on thc California Coordinate System or' 1983 (CCS83) Zonu 3 to obtain gro~md distances divide by 0.99993,8, F. xh[bit A Legal Description for Fee Parcel '?h~ land rcf~r~l to hcrcm is ~itu:ate in the State of Cali£omia, County .f San Malco, City of Sou~h San I:m~cisco, de~¢~'ibed as tbllows; /:'lvit~ ~ portion o1' 8,I~, I~, No- 872a1~. igc Puree! 12, al~o ~i~ a ~/on office pamel described in the de~ to Union Pacific Rail~ad Company recorded on Jul.y 18, 1927 in Book 292 ot'Uff~cial ~ecor0s a~ page 449, Rccot~ of San Malco County, mo,c pmlcu[arty d~scribed ~s folto~; Beginning at the inos! ell.~terly cort~r of Pm'col 4, as d~o~ on tim ~t't~in n~p entffi~ "PAKOBL MAP, BEING A ~$~DIVIS1ON OF PARCEL 2, PARCEL MAP RBCORDBD ~ VOL, 3, PAO~ 44 OF PARCffL MAPS", Bled on AUGUST 8, .1968 in Boo~ 6 of Parcel Maps ,t page 2, R~or~ of San Mateo Count, said comer al~o being on fits ~outherly line of Soufll. Canal 80cot ~s sho~ on ~id m~p; thcnc~ ,long sai~ souflmrly line of South Canal StTCe~, South 74"28' F. ast, a dist~c~ of lg.00 fe~[ to a point on ~e ,~erly line of said lands of Un[on P~cific Railroad Conlpany; fl~ence lc,vfllg said southerly line of South Canal S~cet along sa.id easterly line, Soulh 15033' West, a dtslance or I o0.00 reel; thence lovving said ¢~stPrly line, North 74°2S' West, a dist~ce of 18,00 feet m a point on fl~c westerly line of said lands of Union Pacific Railroad Con,reV, sa.id tMe ~lso being the ,aslerly line oI said Parcel 4; O~cnce along last s~id liars, Norfl~ 1~033' E~t, a distance oF lO0.O0 feet to the uohxt ur Bcgin:~ing. Cont~fiag 1 gO0 square feet, more or less. OWNER: ACQUISITION: DALE C. MCLELLAN and VIRGINIA B. MCLELLAN FEE SIMPLE TITLE & TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT EXHIBIT A @PFDesktop\::ODMA/MHODM~JEBMAIN;676444:1 Exhibit A ' Legal Description Shaw Road Property to be Acquired Francisco, descTibed zs follows; A portion of Lot $ as designated on the map entitled "Industrial Acres, South San Francisco, Calif.", in San Marco County, California", May 23, 19~2, in Book 35 of Maps Page 1 I, described as follows; Beginning at a point on the northerly linc of Shaw Rd. at the northerly terminus of the lia~ designated as "South $0-21-00-East, 419.45 feet", on said map, said point aisc being ac the intersection of said northerly linc with an e×i~ting City of'South San Francisco parcel as shown on said map; thence alon$ said northerly line South 79.17-30 Hast, 37,26 feet; thence leaving said northerly tine North 01.34.11 West, 114.26 feat; thence South 88-48-37 West, 85.16 feet; thence South 20-42-00 West, 7.46 feet; thence North 88-26.30 East, 73,00 feet; thence South 01-33-30 East, 99.99 feet; thence South 88-26-30 West, 21.40 feet to the Point of Beginning. Containing 2,219 sctuarc feet, more or less. Bearings and Distances are based on the California Coordinate System of 1983 (CCS83) Zone 3 to obtain grotlM distances divide by 0.999938. l~albit A Legal. De,criptl0n $11aw Road Temporary Construction Easement FranCia¢o, described az folluw~; portion of Lot $11.~ ¢J~'~[Imd,'~ oa fl.l~ m,~p ,n(i~Tcd "Industrial Act=s, South ~n ~a~co Cntmty, Olifom!a", filed May, 19~2 in Book 35 o£Maps [=.~g~ II, d,'~e~ibcd .~ Cornm=neil~.~ a~. a point on r.l~= norf. h=d:, ibis: orgl~a~ Ad. at th= notch=fly ~¢nldnus o/' thc lin= d=~ignated ns d,c,cc Nor;l~ 01-~4-11 W~I, 127.~ g:m; d~e~ce gouth ~g4g-37 ~c~t. }05.0~ ~eet: thcnc~ South 01-I 4.50 r~¢t: Thence North g8~8-37 ~[st, 65.01 feet; ~l~=nec South 01-34-I I ~asE. 114.26 fcct t~ thc OWNER: ACQUISITION: SAN MATEO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTR~ICT FEE SIMPLE TITLE EXHIBIT A ~PFDesktep\;;ODMNMHODMAJEBMAIN;676441 ;1 Exhibit A Legal Description Proposed San Marco County Property to be Acquired Francisco, described as follows; A portion of the Lands of thc San Marco County Flood Control District, described as follows; Commencing at the intersection of the easterly line of the lands of the San Marco County Flood Control District (fornacrly lands of the City and County oCSan Francisco) with thc northerly line ofthel00 foot wide drainage easement for Cotton Creek, as said lines are designated on the map titled "Person and Swanson Industrial Tract" recorded September 5, 196 l, Official Records of the County of Sa~ Marco, thence Northerly along Ihe East line of said San Marco County Flood Control District, North 13-07-:37 East, 0.99 feet to the Tn~e Point of'Beginning, thence North'?S-09-01 We~t, 17.44 feet, thence North 14- 51-08 East, 125.$0 feet, thence South 75.0g-48 East, IS.04 feet to said easterly line or'San Marco County Flood control District, thence atot~g said llne. ~outh 15-07-~ 7 West, 1:~$.50 feet to the True Point of BeBinning. Bearings and Distances are based on the Caliron~ia Coordinate System ol' 1983 (CCSg3) Zone 3. To obtain ground distance~ divide by 0.959938.