Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-02-23 Planning Commission Meeting AgendaThursday, February 2, 2023 7:00 PM City of South San Francisco P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA VIRTUAL MEETING Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda 1 February 2, 2023Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda WELCOME If this is the first time you have been to a Commission meeting, perhaps you'd like to know a little about our procedure. This meeting is being held in accordance with the Brown Act as currently in effect under the provisions of Assembly Bill 361 which allows attendance by members of the Planning Commission, City staff and the public to participate and conduct the meeting by teleconference. Teleconference locations are not open to the public. Planning Commissioners teleconferencing: Michele Evans, Norm Faria, JulieAnn Murphy, Sam Shihadeh, Alex Tzang, Luis De Paz Fernandez, Sarah Funes. You may need to also install the Zoom app on your device prior to joining the meeting: Please click the link below to join the webinar: https://ssf-net.zoom.us/j/82584801637 Or One tap mobile: US: +16699006833,,82584801637# or +13462487799,,82584801637# Or Telephone: Dial(for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location): US: +1 669 900 6833 or +1 346 248 7799 or +1 253 215 8782 or +1 929 205 6099 or +1 301 715 8592 or +1 312 626 6799 or 888 475 4499 (Toll Free) or 833 548 0276 (Toll Free) or 833 548 0282 (Toll Free) or 877 853 5257 (Toll Free) Webinar ID: 825 8480 1637 International numbers available: https://ssf-net.zoom.us/u/kcIkA6wMWz Please note that dialing in will only allow you to listen in on the meeting. To make a public comment during the Zoom Meeting session, join the meeting from your computer or mobile device, enter your name, and request to comment through the “Chat” function and a staff person will add you to the queue for comments and unmute your microphone during the comment period. In the alternative, you may also provide email comments received during the meeting will be read into the record. Under Oral Communications, at the beginning of the meeting, persons wishing to speak on any subject not on the Agenda will have 3 minutes to discuss their item. The Clerk will read the name and type of application to be heard in the order in which it appears on the Agenda. A staff person will then explain the proposal. The first person allowed to speak will be the applicant, followed by persons commenting on the proposal. The Commission has adopted a policy that applicants and their representatives have a maximum time limit of 20 minutes to make a presentation on their project. Non-applicants may speak a maximum of 3 Page 2 City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/27/2023 2 February 2, 2023Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda minutes on any agenda item. Questions from Commissioners to applicants or non-applicants may be answered by using additional time. Remote Public Comments: Members of the public wishing to participate are encouraged to submit public comments in writing in advance of the meeting. The email and phone line below will be monitored during the meeting and public comments received will be read into the record. The City encourages the submission of comments by 6:00pm on the date of the Public Hearing to facilitate inclusion in the meeting record. A maximum of 3 minutes per individual comment will be read into the record. Comments that are not in compliance the Planning Commission’s rules of decorum may be summarized for the record rather than read verbatim. Email: PCcomments@ssf.net Electronic Comments received by email will be monitored during the meeting and read into the record. We ask that you limit your electronic comments so that they comply with the 3-minute time limitation for public comment. Planning Division Hotline: (650) 829-4669 Voice messages will be monitored during the meeting, and read into the record. Your voicemail should be limited so that it complies with the 3 minute time limitation for public comment. Observing the Meeting: This teleconference meeting may be observed via livestream: https://www.ssf.net/government/city-council/video-streaming-city-and-council-meetings/planning-com mission Additional Meeting Materials Additional meeting materials received or provided after initial publication of the Public Hearing agenda may be found here: https://www.ssf.net/government/boards-commissions Any interested party will have 15 calendar days from the date of an action or decision taken by the Planning Commission to appeal that action or decision to the City Council by filing a written appeal with the City Clerk as provided under Chapter 20.570 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. In the event an appeal period ends on a Saturday, Sunday, or any other day the City is closed, the appeal period shall end at the close of business on the next consecutive business day. If any interested party, other than the applicant, wishes to obtain a copy of a Notice of Action for any Planning Commission action or decision at a hearing, the interested party must file a written request of such notification with the Planning Division in advance of that Planning Commission hearing. Page 3 City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/27/2023 3 February 2, 2023Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda When the Commission is not in session, we'll be pleased to answer your questions if you will go to the Planning Division, City Hall, 315 Maple Avenue or telephone (650) 877-8535 or by e-mail at planning@ssf.net. Alex Tzang, Chairperson Norm Faria, Vice Chairperson Sam Shihadeh, Commissioner Michele Evans, Commissioner Sarah Funes, Commissioner Luis De Paz Fernandez, Commissioner Tony Rozzi, Secretary to the Planning Commission City of South San Francisco Staff Tony Rozzi, Chief Planner Adena Friedman, Principal Planner Billy Gross, Principal Planner Christopher Espiritu, Senior Planner Christy Usher, Senior Planner Stephanie Skangos, Associate Planner Victoria Kim, Associate Planner Kelsey Evans, Clerk Individuals with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services to attend and participate in this meeting should contact the ADA Coordinator at (650) 877-8505, five working days before the meeting. In accordance with California Government Code Section 54957.5, any writing or document that is a public record, relates to an open session agenda item, and is distributed less than 72 hours prior to a regular meeting will be made available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office located at City Hall. If, however, the document or writing is not distributed until the regular meeting to which it relates, then the document or writing will be made available to the public at the location of the meeting, as listed on this agenda. The address of City Hall is 400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California 94080. Page 4 City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/27/2023 4 February 2, 2023Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda CALL TO ORDER / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL / CHAIR COMMENTS AGENDA REVIEW The Planning Commission will inquire and staff will report on any change or order, deferral and/or removal of items on this meeting agenda. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS This portion of the meeting is reserved for comment on items not on the agenda. Under the Brown Act, the Commission cannot act on items raised during public communications, but may respond briefly to statements made or questions posed; request clarification; refer the item to staff; or place the item on the next meeting agenda. DISCLOSURE OF EX-PARTE COMMUNICATIONS This portion of the meeting is reserved for Planning Commissioners to disclose any communications, including site visits, they have had on current agenda items, or any conflict of interest regarding current agenda items. CONSENT CALENDAR Consideration of draft minutes from the January 19, 2023 Planning Commission1. 01-19-23 PC Final MinutesAttachments: ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS Report regarding the Lindenville Specific Plan Preferred Land Use Alternative (Billy Gross, Principal Planner) 2. Att 1 - LSP Preferred Alternative Att 2 - 12.25.22 Planning Commission Presentation Att 3 - LSP Existing Conditions and SWOT Analysis Attachments: Report regarding consideration of an application for Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map related to a previously entitled mixed-use development consisting of 20 condominium units, approximately 5.200 square feet of commercial space at 889 McLellan Road in accordance with SSFMC Title 19, and determination that the project is within the parameters analyzed within the Addendum to the 2000 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. (Billy Gross, Principal Planner) 3. Att 1 - 2011 City Council Approved Project Drawings Att 2 - City Council Reso 44-2011 Entitlements Att 3 - City Council Reso 43-2011 Adopting Addendum to 2000 SEIR Attachments: Page 5 City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/27/2023 5 February 2, 2023Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda Resolution making findings and recommending that the City Council determine that the proposed Vesting Tentative Map for the mixed-use development located at 889 McLellan Drive in the T5 Corridor (T5C) Zoning District is covered by the 2000 SEIR Addendum and approve the map. 3a. Exhibit A - Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map Exhibit B - Draft Conditions of Approval Attachments: Appointment of a subcommittee to serve as the appeals panel for appeals regarding Chapter 8.70 of Title 8 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code related to property owner obligations to tenants displaced from unsafe or substandard units (Tony Rozzi, Chief Planner and Alexandra Wolf, Assistant City Attorney) 4. ITEMS FROM STAFF Staff may report on items of general interest. ITEMS FROM THE COMMISSION The Commission may report on items of general interest. ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC This portion of the meeting is reserved for additional comment on items not on the agenda. ADJOURNMENT Page 6 City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/27/2023 6 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:23-79 Agenda Date:2/2/2023 Version:1 Item #:1. Consideration of draft minutes from the January 19, 2023 Planning Commission City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/27/2023Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™7 January 19, 2023 Minutes Page 1 of 3 MINUTES January 19, 2023 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION CALL TO ORDER / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TIME: 7:00 PM AGENDA REVIEW No changes. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Consideration of draft minutes from the December 15, 2022 Planning Commission Motion to approve Consent Calendar – Commissioner Faria, Second – Commissioner Evans, approved by roll call (5-0-0) Meeting Video: Planning Commission on 2023-01-19 7:00 PM - VIRTUAL MEETING (granicus.com) 2. Master Sign Program for signage at the Safeway project at 180 El Camino Real in the Planned Development Zoning District in accordance with Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code and determination that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA. (Billy Gross, Principal Planner) Motion to approve Consent Calendar – Commissioner Faria, Second – Commissioner Evans, approved by roll call (5-0-0) ROLL CALL / CHAIR COMMENTS PRESENT: Chair Shihadeh, Vice Chair Tzang, Commissioners: Evans, Faria, Fernandez ABSENT: Funes STAFF PRESENT: Tony Rozzi - Chief Planner – Billy Gross – Principal Planner - Adena Friedman – Principal Planner 8 January 19, 2023 Minutes Page 2 of 3 Meeting Video: Planning Commission on 2023-01-19 7:00 PM - VIRTUAL MEETING (granicus.com) PUBLIC HEARING 3. Staff Report regarding a recommendation to the South San Francisco City Council to adopt the Housing Element of the General Plan for the period of 2023-2031 in compliance with State Housing Element Law and determination under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). (Tony Rozzi, Chief Planner) Public Hearing opened 7:18 pm Public Hearing closed 7:48 pm 3a. Resolution making findings and determination under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) that the Housing Element Update for the Period of 2023-2031 is covered by prior environmental analysis prepared for the Updated General Plan and there are no new impacts not previously analyzed and is also exempt from CEQA under Section 15061(b)(3) Motion to approve: Commissioner Faria, Second – Vice Chair Tzang, approved by roll call (5-0-0) Meeting Video: Planning Commission on 2023-01-19 7:00 PM - VIRTUAL MEETING (granicus.com) 3b. Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a General Plan Amendment (GPA23-0001) to repeal the 2015-2023 Housing Element and adopt the Housing Element for the Period of 2023-2031 in compliance with state housing element law. Motion to approve: Commissioner Faria, Second – Commissioner Fernandez, approved by roll call (5-0-0) Meeting Video: Planning Commission on 2023-01-19 7:00 PM - VIRTUAL MEETING (granicus.com) ADMINISTRATIVE 4. Report regarding submission of the 2022 Genentech Annual Report for Planning Commission consideration. (Adena Friedman, Principal Planner) Report was made and accepted by Planning Commission. No other action taken. 5. Annual Reorganization of the Chair and Vice Chair of the South San Francisco Planning Commission (Tony Rozzi, Chief Planner) 9 January 19, 2023 Minutes Page 3 of 3 Reorganize – Alex Tzang as Chair Motion to vote: Commissioner Evans, Second – Commissioner Faria, approved by roll call (5-0-0) Norm Faria as Vice Chair Motion to vote: Commissioner Fernandez, Second – Commissioner Evans, approved by roll call (5-0-0) ITEMS FROM STAFF • None. ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC • None. ADJOURNMENT Chair Shihadeh adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 8:32PM. Tony Rozzi, Chief Planner, AICP Sam Shihadeh, Chairperson or Alex Tzang, Vice Chairperson Secretary to the Planning Commission Planning Commission City of South San Francisco City of South San Francisco TR/tr 10 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:23-75 Agenda Date:2/2/2023 Version:1 Item #:2. Report regarding the Lindenville Specific Plan Preferred Land Use Alternative (Billy Gross, Principal Planner) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission receive a presentation and recommend the City Council accept the Lindenville Specific Plan Preferred Land Use Alternative and authorize the preparation of the associated technical studies and environmental analysis. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION In October 2022,the City adopted a comprehensive update of the General Plan,Zoning Code and Climate Action Plan,providing an updated vision for the city.The new General Plan identifies the Lindenville sub-area as an important opportunity to add housing adjacent to the downtown transit-rich core,to support a creative arts and maker community,and to continue the city’s industrial heritage.To ensure that new development within Lindenville proceeds in an organized and well-planned manner and includes new housing opportunities,the City Council authorized the preparation of a Lindenville Specific Plan and associated environmental analysis. While the General Plan is a required document for each city in California,a specific plan is an optional planning and zoning tool that implements the goals and policies of the General Plan in a particular geographic area.It takes the community’s vision developed during the General Plan process and defines the detailed policies,City programs,and development standards to implement that vision for the area.Typically,the plan addresses areas of change that need special attention and integrated/holistic planning. Like the General Plan,a specific plan covers a 10-15 year timeline,and includes land use guidance,design and development standards,necessary infrastructure investment,financing tools,and implementation schedules and phasing.To assist in preparing the plan,technical studies related to infrastructure,transportation,equity, economics,climate change and the environment are now being completed by the project team.To inform these technical studies,the project team is also reviewing alternative development scenarios that are comprised of frameworks related to the following topics: ·Mixed-use residential ·Open space and blue-green infrastructure ·Life sciences, office, and retail/services ·Industrial ·Arts and Makers ·Mobility The proposed Lindenville Specific Plan alternatives and frameworks have been presented in multiple venues over the last two months: City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/27/2023Page 1 of 3 powered by Legistar™11 File #:23-75 Agenda Date:2/2/2023 Version:1 Item #:2. Communitywide Outreach A series of events were scheduled to allow community member review in December;a Community Workshop at the SSF Emergency Operations Center on December 12,2022;a Pop-up event at 47 Hills Brewery on December 13,2022;and a virtual Stakeholder meeting on December 14,2022.An online survey was also launched on December 12,2022,and closes on February 5,2023.Public comments received as of this staff report include the following: ·Mix of housing types supported,and new residential development should be mindful of adjacencies with existing residential uses ·Preserve and support businesses with industrial and light industrial uses ·Preserve uses that support daily needs ·Determine appropriate areas for life science uses so that Lindenville also allows the preservation of industrial uses ·Prioritize blue-green infrastructure strategies ·Establish new parks and public spaces that are linked and near residential uses ·Facilitate the transfer of development away from Colma Creek to encourage active recreation,flood management and naturalization ·General support for arts and cultural experiences in Lindenville Parks & Recreation Commission The Parks &Recreation Commission reviewed the Alternatives and the Park/Open Space &Blue-Green Infrastructure frameworks at its January 17,2023 meeting.At that meeting,the Parks &Recreation Commissioners provided the following comments: ·Preference for greater amount of open space shown in Alternative 3. ·Preference for arts & makers uses along S Linden Ave rather than Victory Ave. ·Emphasize formal connections between existing parks/open spaces,to allow residents and employees to use these existing amenities more easily while new parks and open space are developed in the Lindenville area over time. ·Add more blue-green infrastructure options,such as rain gardens,infiltration basins and permeable paving. ·Consider non-typical park/open space solutions, such as on roof-tops. ·Consider acquiring private property for recreation-related buildings, such as a recreation center. ·Encourage more aggressive bicycle lanes. ·Encourage dog parks, which could benefit both residents and workers. City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/27/2023Page 2 of 3 powered by Legistar™12 File #:23-75 Agenda Date:2/2/2023 Version:1 Item #:2. ·Determine feasibility of open space trail(s) in proximity to the Caltrain corridor. ·Consider air quality impacts of the broader area to open space locations. ·Encourage the planting of more trees in the entire sub-area. Cultural Arts Commission The Cultural Arts Commission reviewed the Alternatives and the Cultural Arts framework at its January 19, 2023 meeting. At that meeting, the Cultural Arts Commissioners provided the following comments: ·Allow a range of uses that create a more integrated arts community -public and private galleries,artist studios, creative arts instruction, art classes, music halls, practice spaces, and other similar uses. ·Include arts and art-related policies throughout the Lindenville subarea,not just within the Arts & Makers District. ·Locate the Arts &Makers District such that it has a presence within the residential,commercial and industrial communities, and is not confined within just one use area. ·Incorporate community educational elements within new art installations/parks/open space areas created on previously industrial lands. ·Research other arts districts that have been incorporated into industrial areas,such as Funk Zone in Santa Barbara. Other Meetings The Alternatives and Frameworks are being presented to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Commission at their regular meeting on February 1,2023.Staff will provide an update regarding those discussions at the Planning Commission meeting on February 4.The City Council is scheduled to consider the Preferred Land Use Alternative at a regular meeting on February 22, 2023. Next Steps Following acceptance of the Preferred Land Use Alternative,staff will initiate work on the additional technical studies and draft policy elements for the Lindenville Specific Plan.The actual adoption and amendment of a Specific Plan would also considered a “project”under CEQA,so staff will also initiate work on the associated environmental analysis. CONCLUSION Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend the City Council accept the Preferred Land Use Plan and authorize the preparation of the associated technical studies and environmental analysis. Attachments 1.Lindenville Specific Plan Preferred Alternative 2.Planning Commission Presentation from December 15, 2022 meeting 3.Lindenville Specific Plan Existing Conditions and SWOT Analysis City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/27/2023Page 3 of 3 powered by Legistar™13 Planning Commission February 2, 2023 14 Give an overview of the Lindenville Specific Plan Review the toolkit and alternatives and describe what we heard Review the draft Preferred Land Use Map Discuss key questions about the Preferred Land Use Map The Purpose of Today’s Meeting is… Planning Commission /2 15 Lindenville Specific Plan FAQ Planning Commission /3 16 What is a Specific Plan? What it is? •A comprehensive planning and zoning tool for a small area •Refines the vision and guiding principles •Defines policy and development standards •Strong focus on implementation What’s Required? •Distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land, including open space •Proposed distribution, location, and extent and intensity of major components of transportation and infrastructure •Development standards •A program of implementation measures •A statement of the relationship of the specific plan to the general plan Planning Commission /4 17 What Existing Plans and Studies Will We Build Off of? •2022 General Plan, Zoning Code, Climate Action Plan, and EIR •Resilient South City •Public Arts Master Plan (in progress) •Urban Forest Master Plan •Active South City •Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan •Sewer System Management Plan •Urban Water Management Plan •San Mateo County Green Infrastructure Plan Planning Commission /5 18 What Technical Studies are Being Completed? Infrastructure Water Supply Assessment Utility Master Plan Update Transportation Bike and Pedestrian Circulation/Complete Streets Plan Traffic Impact Analysis Parking Demand/Transportation Demand Management Level of Service (LOS) Analysis Equity Equity, Health, + Environmental Justice Analysis Economics Market Analysis + Affordable Housing Strategy Economic Impact Analysis Climate Change Sea Level Rise + Adaptation Study Climate Adaptation Analysis Evaluation of Community Assets and Analysis of Colma Creek Environmental Air Quality + Greenhouse Gas Assessment Evaluation of Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Planning Commission /6 19 When will the Specific Plan be Done? Existing Conditions Summer 2022 Alternatives Fall 2022 Preferred Plan Winter 2023 Technical Analysis Winter 2023 Specific Plan Winter – Summer 2023 Adoption August 2023 We are here! Planning Commission /7 20 General Plan Direction Vision and Key Policies Planning Commission /8 21 Lindenville is a vibrant and inclusive neighborhood that maintains a base of job opportunities, promotes the creative economy, and creates a new residential neighborhood where all people can thrive. Vision Statement Planning Commission /9 22 Land Use Policy •Creates new complete mixed use residential neighborhood along Colma Creek •Retains a large portion of its land area for service, transportation, and industrial uses •Provides buffer of lower intensity industrial uses between higher intensity industrial uses and adjacent residential neighborhoods •Facilitates creation of a mixed use corridor on South Spruce Avenue 23 •Mixed-Use Residential •Mix of housing types, unit types •Best practices for pollution mitigation •Arts & Makers •Arts and cultural district •Incentive space creation / preservation •Open Space and Blue-Green Infrastructure •System of community, neighborhood, mini, linear, and special use parks that achieves a standard of 3.0 acres of improved parkland per 1,000 residents •Plan for new parks in Lindenville; co-locate park and open space patches along Colma Creek •Use green infrastructure to reduce flooding •Mobility •Smaller block sizes to facilitate active transportation •Add trail and bicycle connections identified in the Active South City Plan •Transit-oriented, connected network Planning Commission /11 Other Related General Plan Policy 24 Kit of Parts & Alternatives Lindenville Specific Plan Planning Commission /12 25 •Mixed-use residential •Open space and blue-green infrastructure •Life sciences, office, and retail/services •Industrial •Arts and makers •Mobility Kit of Parts Planning Commission /13 26 Example Alternatives Planning Commission/14 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 27 Engagement Opportunities •Online survey (launching 12/12) •Community workshop @ SSF Emergency Operations Center (12/12) •Colma Creek CAC (12/13) •Pop-up event @ 47 Hills Brewery (12/13) •Virtual stakeholder meeting (12/14) •Planning Commission (12/15) •Parks and Recreation Commission (1/17) •Cultural Arts Commission (1/19) •Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission (2/1) •City Council (2/22) Planning Commission /15 28 What We Heard about the Toolkit? Mixed Use Residential •Mix of housing types supported •Be mindful of adjacencies with existing residential uses •Ensure housing is affordable to all income levels Industrial •Preserve and support businesses with industrial and light industrial uses that continue to provide essential services •Allow for maximum flexibility (zoning & use) Life Sciences, Offices, Commercial •Preserve uses that support daily needs •Allow continued use of existing life science •Be careful about allowing additional life sciences Planning Commission /16 29 What We Heard about the Toolkit? Open Space and Blue-Green Infrastructure •Prioritize blue-green infrastructure strategies such as water-efficient landscaping, stormwater management, and planting more street trees •Connect new Lindenville residents via trails and active transportation routes to other parks and destinations in the city •Facilitate the transfer of development away from Colma Creek to encourage active recreation, flood management, and naturalization Arts and culture •Support for arts and cultural experiences in Lindenville, including public art, spaces for artists and makers, and an Arts & Makers area •Don't make regulations too restrictive within Arts & Makers area for non-arts uses Planning Commission /17 30 What We Heard about the Physical Design Alternatives? High-level takeaways •So far, respondents have gravitated towards either Alternative 1 or 3. •Reasons for choosing Alternative 1: •Retains more land for industrial uses and creates limited space for mixed use •Reasons for choosing Alternative 3: •More flexibility in land uses and building types •Lower building heights •More opportunities for green and open spaces •Arts & Makers area connects to Downtown Planning Commission /18 31 What We Heard about the Physical Design Alternatives? •Linden Avenue so far is the preferred location for the Arts & Makers area •Spruce Avenue may be an ideal place to emphasize mixed use due to greater land use compatibility with nearby residential use and less risk of industrial conversion •Commercial condos north of Colma Creek will make it very difficult for mixed use and Colma Creek transformation to happen •Need to closely consider industrial/residential land use compatibility •Open space and park area shown is desired but ambitious. Use creative strategies, like green roofs,private open spaces,and transfer of development rights to achieve open space and park goals Planning Commission /19 32 Preferred Land Use Planning Commission /20 33 Preferred Land Use •Mixed Use Residential •Concentrated in three primary areas: •Along both sides of Colma Creek between Railroad Ave and Victory Ave •Along South Spruce •Adjacent to Centennial Way Trail •Variable mixed use residential intensities •Industrial and PDR •Retain existing industrial between US-101 and Caltrain tracks •Retain industrial core between Victory Ave, Myrtle Ave, and the South Linden •Arts & Makers •Arts & Makers along S Linden Ave •Maintain some existing industrial uses Planning Commission /21 LOW-DENSITY MIXED USE MED. DENSITY MIXED USE HIGH-DENSITY MIXED USE MED. DENSITY RESIDENTIAL BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY PARK HIGH BUSINESS & PROFESSIONAL OFFICE MIXED INDUSTRIAL MIXED INDUSTRIAL HIGH PUBLIC & INSTITUTIONAL PROPOSED TRAIL PROPOSED STREET ARTS + MAKERS OVERLAY 34 Planning Commission /22 Medium-Density Mixed Use High-Density Mixed Use Mixed Industrial Business Technology Park High Life Sciences Business & Professional Office Arts & Makers OverlayMedium Density Residential Mixed Industrial High LOW-DENSITY MIXED USE MED. DENSITY MIXED USE HIGH-DENSITY MIXED USE MED. DENSITY RESIDENTIAL BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY PARK HIGH BUSINESS & PROFESSIONAL OFFICE MIXED INDUSTRIAL MIXED INDUSTRIAL HIGH PUBLIC & INSTITUTIONAL PROPOSED TRAIL PROPOSED STREET ARTS + MAKERS OVERLAY 35 How Does the Preferred Land Use Map Differ from the General Plan? Planning Commission /23 LOW-DENSITY MIXED USE MED. DENSITY MIXED USE HIGH-DENSITY MIXED USE MED. DENSITY RESIDENTIAL BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY PARK HIGH BUSINESS & PROFESSIONAL OFFICE MIXED INDUSTRIAL MIXED INDUSTRIAL HIGH PUBLIC & INSTITUTIONAL Changed from Industrial Transition to Mixed Use Established a lower-density residential transition Changed from Mixed Industrial High to Mixed Industrial Changed from Mixed Use to Business & Professional Office Changed from Business & Professional Office to Mixed Industrial High Changed from Mixed Use to Mixed Industrial High Changed from Mixed Use to Business Technology Park Changed from Mixed Industrial to Business Technology Park 36 •Mix of housing types at varying heights and densities •Provide rental and ownership opportunities •Meet housing target of 5,600 units Planning Commission /24 Mixed-Use Residential Townhomes Live/Work Mid-Rise Podium Example Housing Types LOW-DENSITY MIXED USE MED. DENSITY MIXED USE HIGH-DENSITY MIXED USE MED. DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PUBLIC & INSTITUTIONAL 37 Planning Commission /25 Mixed-Use Residential Wrap Mass Timber Tower Neighborhood Mixed Use Vertical Mixed Use LOW-DENSITY MIXED USE MED. DENSITY MIXED USE HIGH-DENSITY MIXED USE MED. DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PUBLIC & INSTITUTIONAL 38 Planning Commission /26 Mixed-Use Residential Wrap Mass Timber Tower West Berkeley Example LOW-DENSITY MIXED USE MED. DENSITY MIXED USE HIGH-DENSITY MIXED USE MED. DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PUBLIC & INSTITUTIONAL 39 Planning Commission /27 Mixed-Use Residential Mass Timber Tower Area (Acres)Housing Units Existing 0 0 Existing + Pipeline 10 1,330 General Plan 125 4,700 –9,700* Preferred Land Use 126 4,400 –8,700* Area devoted to Mixed Use and Residential types Medium Density Residential and Medium Density Mixed Use area High Density Residential Mixed Use area Lower maximum amount of housing likely but still within range (5,600 units) studied in GP EIR *Ranges calculated as follows: Lower Range = (Minimum density defined in Housing Element × Area × Redevelopment Percentage) Upper Range = (Maximum density defined in General Plan × Area × Redevelopment Percentage) Preferred Land Use Compared to General Plan = <> < LOW-DENSITY MIXED USE MED. DENSITY MIXED USE HIGH-DENSITY MIXED USE MED. DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PUBLIC & INSTITUTIONAL 40 Planning Commission /28 Mixed-Use Residential Mass Timber Tower •Demand for a variety of housing products in Lindenville if supportive amenities and infrastructure are added •Housing demand driven by: •Local biotech job access •Transportation connections to job centers / regional destinations •Nearby retail and other amenities •Relative value compared to southern San Mateo County, San Francisco Drivers of Housing Demand LOW-DENSITY MIXED USE MED. DENSITY MIXED USE HIGH-DENSITY MIXED USE MED. DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PUBLIC & INSTITUTIONAL 41 Planning Commission /29 Mixed-Use Residential Mass Timber Tower •Anticipate piecemeal housing development due to varying site sizes, conditions, development opportunities •Midrise housing development (up to 8 stories) most likely on 2+ acre sites with single ownership •Parcel assembly required for most housing development •Townhomes potentially feasible at peripheral locations •Maintain flexibility in envisioned housing product types •Life science development outcompetes housing development if allowed on the same site Housing Development Considerations LOW-DENSITY MIXED USE MED. DENSITY MIXED USE HIGH-DENSITY MIXED USE MED. DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PUBLIC & INSTITUTIONAL 42 Planning Commission /30 Industrial Logistics and Storage Industrial Spaces •Industrial building types that support the "Industrial City 2.0" •Emphasis on preserving regionally- important industrial uses and local jobs, while providing modern industrial spaces Example Industrial Types Industrial Spaces MIXED INDUSTRIAL MIXED INDUSTRIAL HIGH 43 Planning Commission /31 Industrial Mixed Industrial High PDR logistics facility @ 900 7th Street, San Francisco Prologis Georgetown Crossroads @ 6050 E Marginal Way, Seattle •Examples being developed in urban areas •Projects may be for built-to-suit tenants •FARs range from 1 to 4 MIXED INDUSTRIAL MIXED INDUSTRIAL HIGH 44 Planning Commission /32 Industrial Area (Acres)Building Inventory Existing 328 (77% of Lindenville)~6 million sf General Plan 202 acres, 169 solely industrial 3.5m to 18.2m sf* Preferred Land Use 172 acres, 172 solely industrial 3m to 14.2m sf* Area devoted to industrial types Area devoted to solely industrial types Lower maximum amount of industrial square footage possible but capacity more than 2x existing building inventory *Ranges calculated as follows: Lower Range = (Minimum density defined in General Plan × Area) Upper Range = (Maximum density defined in General Plan × Area) Preferred Land Use Compared to General Plan < <> MIXED INDUSTRIAL MIXED INDUSTRIAL HIGH 45 Professional Office Food and Beverage •Strategic amount of transit-adjacent life science and office uses •Daily amenities, such as food and commercial sports, that will support residents Planning Commission /33 Life Sciences, Office, and Commercial Business Technology Park BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY PARK HIGH BUSINESS & PROFESSIONAL OFFICE 46 Planning Commission /34 Life Sciences, Office, and Commercial Area (Acres)Building Inventory Existing 37 acres 30,000 sf Existing + Pipeline 37 acres 2.73m sf* General Plan 48 acres Up to 5m sf** Preferred Land Use 74 acres Up to 7.3m sf** Area devoted to Office and Business Technology Park Allows up to 2.3m sf more building area *Includes SouthLine ** Upper range calculated as follows: Maximum density defined in General Plan × Area Preferred Land Use Compared to General Plan > > BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY PARK HIGH BUSINESS & PROFESSIONAL OFFICE 47 •Public art and creative uses to enhance the identity of Lindenville •Activation of ground floor creative uses •Complements live/work uses for artists from mixed use residential kit Planning Commission /35 Arts & Makers Arts and Makers Public Art 48 •Spaces that enhance the quality of life, improve ecology, and support resilience •Builds on existing City typologies •Landscapes contribute to stormwater management as an overlay Planning Commission /36 Open Space and Blue-Green Infrastructure Neighborhood Parks Mini Park Linear Parks Plazas Trails & Paths Green Streets 49 Open Space Context Centennial Way Trail Orange Memorial Park San Francisco Bay Trail Colma Creek 50 to Bay Trail Open Space and Blue-Green Infrastructure Planning Commission /38 Mini Parks Colma Creek Linear Park & Open Space Green Streets Centennial Way Trail Linear Park through the mixed-use area SouthLine Open Space Trail Connection 51 Next Steps & Discussion Planning Commission /39 52 Next Steps •Revise the draft Preferred Alternative based on Planning Commission recommendation •Conduct City Council study session on the Preferred Alternative –February 22 •Complete a series of technical analysis on the Preferred Alternative, including: •Level of Service Analysis •Fiscal Impact Analysis •Utilities Analysis •Begin drafting the Specific Plan –tentative public release in Q2 2023 Planning Commission /40 53 Areas Where Further Analysis and Discussion is Needed Planning Commission /41 LOW-DENSITY MIXED USE MED. DENSITY MIXED USE HIGH-DENSITY MIXED USE MED. DENSITY RESIDENTIAL BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY PARK HIGH BUSINESS & PROFESSIONAL OFFICE MIXED INDUSTRIAL MIXED INDUSTRIAL HIGH PUBLIC & INSTITUTIONAL Prologis site Residential transitions to existing homes Caltrain Grade Separation Project 54 Discussion •Does the Planning Commission have any additional comments on the draft Preferred Land Use Map? Including: •Shifting residential east of Caltrain and south of Colma Creek to the area west of Caltrain and north of Victory? •Allowing Business Technology Park on the Produce Terminal site north to Colma Creek? •Developing an Arts & Makers overlay on S Linden Ave? •Other comments or ideas Planning Commission /42 55 Recommendation for Tonight •Recommend the City Council accept the Preferred Land Use Plan and authorize the preparation of the associated technical studies and environmental analysis Planning Commission /43 56 Planning Commission December 15, 2022 57 Give an overview of the Lindenville Specific Plan Review existing conditions, opportunities, and challenges Discuss General Plan direction Discuss ideas for how to achieve the vision described in the GPU The Purpose of Today’s Meeting is… Planning Commission /2 58 Lindenville Specific Plan FAQ Planning Commission /3 59 What is a Specific Plan? What it is? •A comprehensive planning and zoning tool for a small area •Refines the vision and guiding principles •Defines policy and development standards •Strong focus on implementation What’s Required? •Distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land, including open space •Proposed distribution, location, and extent and intensity of major components of transportation and infrastructure •Development standards •A program of implementation measures •A statement of the relationship of the specific plan to the general plan Planning Commission /4 60 What Existing Plans and Studies Will We Build Off of? •2022 General Plan, Zoning Code, Climate Action Plan, and EIR •Resilient South City •Public Arts Master Plan (in progress) •Active South City •Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan •Sewer System Management Plan •Urban Water Management Plan •San Mateo County Green Infrastructure Plan Planning Commission /5 61 What Technical Studies are Being Completed? Infrastructure Water Supply Assessment Utility Master Plan Update Transportation Bike and Pedestrian Circulation/Complete Streets Plan Traffic Impact Analysis Parking Demand/Transportation Demand Management Level of Service (LOS) Analysis Equity Equity, Health, + Environmental Justice Analysis Economics Market Analysis + Affordable Housing Strategy Economic Impact Analysis Climate Change Sea Level Rise + Adaptation Study Climate Adaptation Analysis Evaluation of Community Assets and Analysis of Colma Creek Environmental Air Quality + Greenhouse Gas Assessment Evaluation of Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Planning Commission /6 62 When will the Specific Plan be Done? Existing Conditions Summer 2022 Alternatives Fall 2022 Preferred Plan Winter 2023 Technical Analysis Winter 2023 Specific Plan Winter – Summer 2023 Adoption August 2023 We are here! Planning Commission /7 63 Who will be Engaged in the Process? •Stakeholder and focus group meetings •Technical Working Group meetings •Pop-Up meetings •Community workshops •Online surveys •Boards and commission meetings •Project website: https://shapessf.com/plan-lindenville Planning Commission /8 64 What Did We Hear in Round 1? •Strong desire for new parks, open spaces and revitalization of Colma Creek •Promote the growth of arts, culture and a creative economy •Evaluate current fee structures to incentivize new affordable housing developments that the Lindenville workforce can afford •Lindenville has a rich history that should be preserved as an industrialized area that continues to evolve and meet the needs of local communities, residents and biotechnology business needs •Create a balance between incoming tech/life sciences and brick & mortar businesses Planning Commission /9 65 What Round 2 Activities Are Planned? •Online survey (launching 12/12) •Community workshop @ SSF Emergency Operations Center (12/12) •Colma Creek CAC (12/13) •Pop-up event @ 47 Hills Brewery (12/13, 4-6pm) •Virtual stakeholder meeting (12/14) •Planning Commission (12/15, 7pm) •Parks and Recreation Commission (1/17) •Cultural Arts Commission (1/19) •Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission (2/1) •City Council (2/22) Planning Commission /10 66 Lindenville Today Overview Planning Commission /11 67 History •Originally inhabited by the Ramaytush Ohlone people •Later used for cattle grazing, dairies, and packing plants •1890, SSF Land and Improvement Company acquired land to develop town next to packing plants •Industrial uses arrived early part of 20th century •Residential uses until the late 1950s •Industrial legacy remains today 1894 map of SSF Source: Historical Society of South San Francisco South City Lumber office in 1910 Planning Commission /12 68 Existing Land Use (Acres) 77% 12% 4% 3%2%1%1% Industrial Transportation, Utilities, Vacant Retail and Services Office, R&D, Biotech Public and Institutional Parks and Common Greens Stormwater Channels Planning Commission /13 69 Industrial Strength % of County Industrial Inventory, 2021 % of City Industrial Inventory, 2021 40%15% Planning Commission /14 70 Employment •Top 3 sectors: •Wholesale trade •Transportation and warehousing •Manufacturing •Highest total number of small employers (1 –19 employees) in the city 123 101 93 219 43 53 83 120 20 56 65 86 23 71 60 58 6 72 39 39 0 50 100 150 200 250 Downtown East of 101 North East of 101 South Lindenville 1-4 5-9 10-19 20-49 50 or more Number of Firms by Employment Size, 2018 Planning Commission /15 71 Connectivity Narrow sidewalks …But significant challenges to walking + biking Obstructions Limited crossings Missing sidewalks Excellent Access to Regional Transportation… Planning Commission /16 72 Current Projects Underway •Development projects •772 Units •Southline: 2.8 million SF •Housing Element •Colma Creek resilience study •Public Art Master Plan Current Development Colma Creek Citizens Advisory Committee /17 73 Limited Access to Parks and Green Spaces •No parks •Few street trees •Paved surfaces •Lack of recreational opportunity along Colma Creek Community Workshop #1 /18 Impervious Surfaces (highlighted in orange) and permeable surfaces (highlighted in teal) Planning Commission /18 74 Environmental Challenges •Sea level rise •Ground contamination •Residential/industrial land use compatibility •Particulate matter •Noise •Odors Community Workshop #1 /19Planning Commission /19 75 General Plan Direction Vision and Key Policies Planning Commission /20 76 Lindenville is a vibrant and inclusive neighborhood that maintains a base of job opportunities, promotes the creative economy, and creates a new residential neighborhood where all people can thrive. Vision Statement Planning Commission /21 77 Land Use Policy •Creates new complete mixed use residential neighborhood along Colma Creek •Retains a large portion of its land area for service, transportation, and industrial uses •Provides buffer of lower intensity industrial uses between higher intensity industrial uses and adjacent residential neighborhoods •Facilitates creation of a mixed use corridor on South Spruce Avenue 78 •Mixed-Use Residential •Mix of housing types, unit types •Best practices for pollution mitigation •Arts & Makers •Arts and cultural district •Incentive space creation / preservation •Open Space and Blue-Green Infrastructure •System of community, neighborhood, mini, linear, and special use parks that achieves a standard of 3.0 acres of improved parkland per 1,000 residents •Plan for new parks in Lindenville; co-locate park and open space patches along Colma Creek •Use green infrastructure to reduce flooding •Mobility •Smaller block sizes to facilitate active transportation •Add trail and bicycle connections identified in the Active South City Plan •Transit-oriented, connected network Planning Commission /23 Other Related General Plan Policy 79 Kit of Parts Lindenville Specific Plan Planning Commission /24 80 •Mixed-use residential •Open space and blue-green infrastructure •Life sciences, office, and retail/services •Industrial •Arts and makers •Mobility Kit of Parts Planning Commission /25 81 •Mix of housing types at varying heights and densities •Provide rental and ownership opportunities •Most types provide ground floor commercial space to activate streets Planning Commission /26 Mixed-Use Residential Townhomes Live/Work Wrap Mid-Rise Podium Mass Timber Tower 82 •Spaces that enhance the quality of life, improve ecology, and support resilience •Builds on existing City typologies •Landscapes contribute to stormwater management as an overlay Planning Commission /27 Open Space and Blue-Green Infrastructure Neighborhood Parks Mini Park Linear Parks Plazas Trails & Paths Green Streets 83 •Industrial building types that support the "Industrial City 2.0" •Emphasis on preserving regionally- important industrial uses and local jobs, while providing modern industrial spaces Planning Commission /28 Industrial Logistics and Storage Industrial Spaces Production, Distribution, and Repair Trails & Paths Green Streets 84 Life Sciences Food and Beverage •Strategic amount of transit-adjacent life science and office uses •Daily amenities, such as food and commercial sports, that will support residents Planning Commission /29 Life Sciences, Office, and Commercial Office Commercial Sports Retail and Production 85 •Public art and creative uses to enhance the identity of Lindenville •Activation of ground floor creative uses •Complements live/work uses for artists from mixed use residential kit Planning Commission /30 Arts & Makers Arts and Makers Public Art Trails & Paths Green Streets 86 •Balanced mobility approach to ensure all users to can get around •Minimize conflicts between freight and residential uses •Develop strong multi- modal mobility to connect people to/from regional transit Planning Commission /31 Mobility Complete Streets New Street Connections Transit TDM and Parking Freight Trails and Paths 87 Example Alternatives Planning Commission /32 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 88 Alternative 1 •Concentrates mixed use residential around Colma Creek •Proposes an Arts & Makers area on Victory Avenue that would provide a transition between residential and industrial land uses •Preserves the most land for industrial land uses Colma Creek Citizens Advisory Committee /33 89 Mixed Use Residential Design Concept 1 •Retains more existing buildings and businesses •Mixed-use residential uses primarily located along Colma Creek and South Spruce Ave •Smaller mixed-use area requires a higher density to accommodate same number of units, resulting in a more significant transition into the surrounding area •The site-by-site approach creates pockets of development, rather than a holistic development of a community in the neighborhood Planning Commission /34 90 Alternative 2 •Colma Creek is proposed to be naturalized on the south side, and a linear park connects the creek to Victory Avenue •Proposes more land for mixed uses,allowing a broader mix of housing types •Less industrial land than Alternative 1 •The Arts & Makers area is moved to South Linden, creating a connection between Downtown and the San Bruno BART station areas 91 Mixed Use Residential Design Concept 2 •New green space south of Colma Creek and continuation of existing bike trail and Sister Cities Park along South Canal Street •More variety of housing options can create an increased diversity in new residents •Some townhomes help meet du/ac requirements Planning Commission /36 92 Alternative 3 •Colma Creek is proposed to be naturalized on the north and south sides •Transforms a yet larger area to mixed use residential uses allowing a broader mix of housing prototypes (townhomes to mass timber buildings) •Less industrial area than Alternative 2 •A linear park would connect Colma Creek to the Centennial Way Trail 93 Mixed Use Residential Design Concept 3 •Expanded green space adjacent to Colma Creek and continuation of existing bike trail and Sister Cities Park along South Canal Street •Transition between existing context and the new development •More mixed-use area allows a broader mix of housing types, including lower-density townhomes •More development opportunities can attract a variety of development styles and options •Requires more work in reparcelingfor redevelopment Planning Commission /38 94 Discussion Planning Commission /39 95 Discussion •What example alternative do you like best? Why? •Are there any additional tools should we include our toolkit? Toolkits include: •Mixed-use residential •Open space and blue-green infrastructure •Life sciences, office, and retail/services •Industrial •Arts and makers •Mobility •Other comments or ideas Planning Commission /40 96 Lindenville Specific Plan 1 SWOT Analysis 97 Lindenville Specific Plan 2 SWOT Analysis Introduction The Lindenville Specific Plan Area is an approximately 400-acre area located in the southern portion of the City of South San Francisco. As shown in Figure 1, the Plan Area is bounded by US Route 101 (US-101) to the east, the City of San Bruno and Centennial Way Trail to the south, Fir Avenue and Magnolia Avenue to the west, and Railroad Avenue to the north. Lindenville is south of the Downtown neighborhood, which is home to many of the City’s administrative offices, locally-owned shops and businesses, and cultural institutions. Colma Creek runs through the northern part of the Plan Area en route from the San Bruno Mountains to the San Francisco Bay. In the past, Colma Creek supported wildlife and community uses, but was channelized to provide flood control. Lindenville has historically been the industrial neighborhood of the city, supporting light industrial, manufacturing, and service and repair businesses, all of which contribute to the city’s legacy as “The Industrial City.” The City’s General Plan sets a vision for Lindenville that aims to preserve small businesses and legacy industrial uses while also creating a vibrant and inclusive neighborhood with opportunities for new housing development, improved mobility options, new green spaces, and increased access to public services. Figure 1: South San Francisco Citywide Context 98 Lindenville Specific Plan 3 SWOT Analysis The City of South San Francisco is home to approximately 66,105 people.1 The City’s economy is anchored by a thriving biotech community that continues to grow. Between 2009 and 2018, employment growth in South San Francisco was primarily driven by jobs in biotechnology and logistics (warehousing and distribution) businesses. While employment opportunities have boomed in South San Francisco in recent years, housing costs increased and the availability of housing relative to jobs worsened. As of 2020, South San Francisco approved development of approximately 12,000 jobs and 800 homes, which translates to 15 jobs per housing unit. As of 2019, only 8 percent of people who work in South San Francisco also live in the city.2 Most trips in South San Francisco are made in a car. However, many employees who work in South San Francisco get to work by riding transit or walking, with Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) and San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) being the most popular transit services in the city. The South San Francisco and San Bruno BART stations lie outside the Plan Area, but the Centennial Way Trail connects the San Bruno Station to southern Lindenville. US-101 and Interstate 380 connect Lindenville to the larger Bay Area region. The San Francisco International Airport lies just outside the Plan Area. 1 QuickFacts, 2020 Decennial Census, United States Census Bureau, https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/southsanfranciscocitycalifornia/POP010220. 2 OnTheMap LEHD Data, United States Census Bureau, https://onthemap.ces.census.gov/. 99 Lindenville Specific Plan 4 SWOT Analysis History of Lindenville The land now known as South San Francisco was inhabited by the Ramaytush Ohlone people, specifically the Urebure Tribe who lived at the base of the San Bruno Mountain until the late eighteenth century, when Spanish settlers moved into their land.3, 4 During the 1800s, the area was owned by the Mexican government, then divided into ranches mostly used for cattle grazing, dairy operations, stockyards, and packing plants. In 1890, the South San Francisco Land and Improvement Company acquired land in the area to develop a town next to the packing plants. With the completion of the Southern Pacific Railroad between San Francisco and San Jose in 1907, South San Francisco’s convenient transportation access made it a prime location for industrial uses, including steel manufacturing. The City of South San Francisco incorporated in 1908, with industrial uses located to the east of the Southern Pacific Railroad and residences to the west in a grid pattern in the Downtown area. Around this time, Colma Creek still supported wildlife, recreational uses, and movement through South San Francisco. During the first half of the twentieth century, steel manufacturers, shipbuilders, lumber companies, and other industries began to call South San Francisco home. Most factories and industrial buildings during this time were located in the area east of San Bruno Road (now US-101), with some companies establishing manufacturing buildings in the Lindenville area, such as Morrill Ink and South City Lumber.5 3 “History of South San Francisco,” City of South San Francisco, 2019, http://www.ssf.net/home/showdocument?id=128. 4 “The Ramaytush Ohlone,” The Association of Ramaytush Ohlone, 2021, https://www.ramaytush.org/ramaytush- ohlone.html. 5 “The Making of ‘The Industrial City,’” Historical Society of South San Francisco, https://ssfhistory.org/city-history. Image 1: 1894 Promotional Map of South San Francisco Historical Society of South San Francisco, https://ssfhistory.org/1894-map-of-the-city 100 Lindenville Specific Plan 5 SWOT Analysis Population boomed during the first and second World Wars. During World War II, Bethlehem Steel and other military contractors had nearly 10,000 workers at their plants and factories in South San Francisco. The U. S. Government constructed emergency housing for Federal wartime defense workers in Lindenville in 1942, specifically on the land between what is now Victory Avenue and Railroad Avenue. At its peak, this site had 720 units housing over 4,000 people.6 These homes were constructed so cheaply and poorly that they were abandoned in 1957 and later demolished.7 These parcels were replaced with industrial uses in the 1960s, and no residential uses have been developed in Lindenville since then. Historic Structures and Markers Lindenville’s history as the industrial engine of South San Francisco is reflected in the built environment today. Though Lindenville does not have any cultural resources listed on the California Register of Historic Places or the National Register of Historic Places, it has eight sites on the City’s Historic Landmarks and Markers lists. The City of South San Francisco recognizes 40 designated Historic Landmarks that are designated based on criteria evaluating the property’s significance to the heritage of the city, the involvement of important people in its development or story, exemplification of a special architectural style, or its careful attention to detail and craftsmanship. South City Lumber, which has been in operation since 1898 and has been at its present location since 1927, is the only Historic Landmark in Lindenville. Historic Markers, designated by the Historic Preservation Commission, identify other historic or culturally significant sites throughout South San Francisco, as shown in Figure 2. There are 50 Markers throughout the city in total and seven are in the Lindenville. Many of these Markers represent the original locations of important historical companies that are no longer in operation. Lindenville also contains one of the oldest surviving historic structures in the city. The Cut Stone Bridge is a culvert portal of cut granite stones located just north of South Spruce Avenue at the BART right-of-way. It was originally constructed in 1863, and when BART was constructed in the 1960s, this historic structure was removed and put back into place. The Cut Stone Bridge is not on the City’s Historic Landmarks or Markers lists. 6 “Lindenville,” City of South San Francisco, https://www.ssf.net/home/showpublisheddocument/5462/636466152034700000. 7 “Lindenville Ends in a Burst of Profit,” San Francisco Chronicle (1957). https://sfchronicle.newsbank.com/search?text=lindenville&content_added=&date_from=&date_to=&pub%5B0%5D= 142051F45F422A02. Image 2. 1910 South City Lumber Office South City Lumber, southcitylumber.com/ 101 Lindenville Specific Plan 6 SWOT Analysis Figure 2: Historic Landmarks and Markers 102 Lindenville Specific Plan 7 SWOT Analysis Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats Following extensive mapping, research, and review of prior plans and studies, the planning team identified a series of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) related to land use and the environment, economic conditions, transportation, and infrastructure in Lindenville. The SWOT analysis identifies existing conditions that pose potential weakness and threats to Lindenville, and outlines strengths and potential opportunities to explore through the development of the Lindenville Specific Plan. The first part of this section includes the SWOT analysis. The second includes an “opportunities and constraints” diagram that graphically summarizes urban design, public realm, and other opportunities that exist in Lindenville, as well as the constraints that must be overcome in order to realize those opportunities. SWOT Summary Strengths • Industrial heart of the city. Lindenville has traditionally been the city’s home for industrial uses, and today is still home to about 43 percent of the city’s industrial land. Lindenville has a diverse mix of industrial uses that power the city’s economy, including auto-oriented services, logistics, food processing, research & development (R&D), and manufacturing. • Location. Continued growth of amenities, housing, and accessibility to the South San Francisco Caltrain station in the Downtown area will further enhance the desirability of northern Lindenville for both workers and residents. In addition, portions of Lindenville are in close proximity to BART and Caltrain, where there is 15-minute transit service in place already or planned to start with the implementation of Caltrain’s electrified service. • Topography: Lindenville is generally flat (though it does slope down eastward towards the San Francisco Bay) which makes travel easy for all modes. Weaknesses • Park access. Currently, Lindenville has limited access to parks, with the exception of the Centennial Trail and Sister Cities linear park. New residents and visitors to Lindenville will likely need improved access to parks and recreational opportunities. • Access to community resources. Lindenville has many auto-oriented retail uses and a few restaurants and mini markets, but it does not currently have many of the community uses (laundromats, educational and childcare facilities, banks, etc.) that will be needed to support its transition into a residential, mixed-use neighborhood. • Site contamination: Site contamination or environmental constraints likely impact some properties after decades of industrial use, raising potential costs for a new development project. • Street network and connectivity. The street grid is disjointed and unintuitive, with constrained right-of-way, many dead ends, and large blocks. Infrastructure and natural features, such as 103 Lindenville Specific Plan 8 SWOT Analysis Colma Creek, San Bruno Canal, Caltrain tracks, US-101, and the BART right-of-way impede transportation connectivity to other neighborhoods. In addition, Lindenville has indirect freeway access and ramp capacity challenges at US-101 interchanges. • High-stress pedestrian and bicycle environment. Lindenville has incomplete or narrow sidewalks cluttered with obstacles (utility poles, trees, etc.) and few shade trees, which make the environment difficult to walk or bike in. • Impervious surfaces. Lindenville has a large amount of industrial and auto-oriented commercial uses. Consequently, there is a high percentage of impervious surfaces across Lindenville, which include concrete and asphalt roads, parking lots, and truck staging areas, as well as large building roof surface area. Heat is accentuated in Lindenville due in part to the large expanses of impervious surfaces. • Water pollution. There are hydrological concerns related to the treatment of water bodies in the neighborhood, specifically Colma Creek and the San Bruno Canal. These water bodies course through a heavily industrialized section of Lindenville, picking up specific and readily identifiable chemical compounds. Water pollution is concentrated within a few subsectors, mainly in the form of toxic wastes and organic pollutants, resulting in water quality, stormwater management, and ecological issues in Colma Creek and the San Bruno Canal — and consequently, to the quality of life for the community. Opportunities • Redevelopment opportunities. Many property owners own multiple parcels on contiguous lots. Aggregating these parcels could create greater opportunity for redevelopment and master planning. In addition, Lindenville has vacant sites and sites with low Improvement to Land Value (LI) ratios where there may be greater opportunity to redevelop. • Industrial modernization. Where industrial zoning remains in place in Lindenville, continued strong demand for industrial space will incentivize owners and tenants to modernize industrial buildings through reinvestment and redevelopment over time—especially to meet strong demand for last-mile delivery and emerging interest from businesses requiring flexible space for advanced manufacturing and R&D activities. • Housing: Housing development projects generally support higher property values than industrial uses in Lindenville, creating opportunities for redevelopment over time if allowed by the Specific Plan. • Transportation improvements. There are opportunities in Lindenville for dedicated and/or low- stress connections through Lindenville that connect to BART and Caltrain. New street connections could break up the street grid and enable east-west travel. Lindenville’s multiple north-south parallel streets create an opportunity for a layered network approach. • De-graying and re-contouring. Implementing potential de-graying and re-contouring strategies such that any drainage in the neighborhood flows through public green spaces and the existing creeks within the neighborhood limits, would help green the neighborhood and potentially reduce frequency of flooding. In addition, it may alleviate flooding in local and regional transportation facilities serving the neighborhood and adjacent communities. • Stormwater retention best management practices. Stormwater management in Lindenville prioritizes water detention over retention, which does little to mitigate the neighborhood’s flood risk. A potential opportunity to explore is integrating stormwater retention best management practices in strategic locations while phasing out some stormwater detention facilities. This will 104 Lindenville Specific Plan 9 SWOT Analysis enable the area to collect and hold stormwater on a more permanent basis, which will help reduce flood risk while managing water as a resource and placemaking element. • Dry utility improvements. Potential opportunities to consider include burying some existing and proposed overhead electrical and communications lines. This will help organize utility infrastructure, reduce likelihood of power outages and fires, and improve community appearance. Secondly, with the implementation of new programmed street corridors, there exists a viable option to route new utilities to support and enhance these new uses. Lastly, it would benefit the future of Lindenville and its growth to align the implementation of dry utilities to meet future needs, such as the installation of fiber network infrastructure. • Reduce heat island effect. One opportunity to reduce the heat island effect and improve stormwater conveyance is strategically replacing impervious pavement with permeable pavement. This approach carries many benefits - it would improve drainage, mitigate flood risk, and encourage vegetative growth in the neighborhood. Lastly, a network of greenspaces, connected by green streets (i.e., roadways that incorporate stormwater management, vegetation, and engineered systems to slow and filter stormwater runoff) in combination with the use of lighter colored pavements and roofing materials would also mitigate the urban heat island effect and flood risk. In combination, these strategies would reduce overall surface temperatures, promote the growth of flora and fauna, and improve overall quality of life for the community. • Riparian corridors. A landscaped riparian corridor along the waterways in Lindenville could protect and promote biodiversity, mitigate the heat island effect, and reduce air and noise pollution. At a larger scale, this concept could be implemented by installing tree-lined green streets along principal roadways such as South Linden Avenue and San Mateo Avenue, which would provide additional spaces for tree canopy and linear expanses of tree lawns and green infrastructure to soften the landscape and reduce surface temperatures. • Green infrastructure. The most critical hydrological opportunity is bringing water into the neighborhood by constructing “blue-green corridors” on signature streets and exposing previously culverted waterways (commonly known as daylighting). This would introduce a network of green infrastructure that would improve stormwater management, filtration and water quality, provide aesthetically pleasing moments in the public realm, and serve as interpretive educational opportunities that explain the functioning and importance of these waterways. Threats • Seismic factors. No fault lines run through Lindenville, but the majority of the Plan Area is susceptible to soil liquefaction in the event of an earthquake. • Life science uses outcompeting residential and industrial uses: Although the South San Francisco General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Update do not envision allowing major life science projects in Lindenville, it is important to note that life science uses, if allowed, would likely outcompete both industrial and residential uses for development opportunities. • Property owner motivations: Property owner motivations and interests may vary; property owners are less likely to pursue redevelopment if they are satisfied with their current revenues and have little appetite for risk. • Industrial redevelopment: Several challenges for redeveloping industrial properties potentially exist in Lindenville. Areas with multiple smaller parcels and multiple owners—including the presence of industrial condos—create challenges for assembling larger sites that allow construction of efficient industrial or residential projects. 105 Lindenville Specific Plan 10 SWOT Analysis • Incompatibility between industrial uses and transportation improvements. Desire to retain industrial uses (noise, debris, smells, large trucks) may be incompatible with a pleasant bike/pedestrian or reliable transit environment. • Parked cars. Desire to retain auto shops and their impact to parking in the surrounding neighborhood pose a unique challenge to pedestrian comfort. • Transportation improvement dependencies. Modernization of the transportation network depends on several big projects (Southline, Utah Ave, South Linden Grade Separation, Colma Creek upgrades, etc.) and there are weak connections between these projects due to right-of-way constraints. • Topography and flooding. Given its proximity to the San Francisco Bay, the elevation of Lindenville generally descends eastward yet is very flat. This topographical characteristic likely leads to slow stormwater runoff toward US-101, a major thoroughfare across California, as well as San Francisco International Airport. This could potentially lead to flooding, causing delays and dangerous conditions for motorists. This slope intensity could also lead to regular localized flooding in parts of Lindenville. • Wet utility capacity. Utility capacity issues resulting from outdated infrastructure and pipe sizing will become more substantial with rising populations and increased water demands. These issues can be addressed through planning, major public works programs, and capital investment. As Lindenville grows, it is imperative that redevelopment plans be well-coordinated with public utility expansion plans to support urban growth and economic development. • Dry utility capacity. Similar to the concerns surrounding wet utilities, dry utilities will also need to address the rising demand in capacity and outdated infrastructure in order to accommodate the influx of residents in Lindenville. 106 Lindenville Specific Plan 11 SWOT Analysis Urban Design Lindenville is filled with a bustling industrial business community at a great variety of scales. From large warehousing to small manufacturers, the community is the center of a large jobs base. The character of the community, while largely reflective of the area’s industrial past and present, also contains an interesting fine grain of structures and architecture that give it a distinctive character. This section lays out perceived urban design opportunities and constraints for the community to leverage and/or improve upon to make Lindenville more livable for those that live in or visit the area. These opportunities and constraints are summarized in Table 1 and are mapped in Figure 3. Table 1: Opportunities and Constraints # Title Description Mixed Use 1 Spruce Business Park This area’s adjacency to an existing neighborhood, access along a key street, as well as proximity to Colma Creek make it a great candidate to receive higher intensity development, including medium-to-high density residential. However, the office/condo ownership structure is a constraint at the large central site. 2 West South Spruce This area’s adjacency to an existing neighborhood as well as the large existing parcels and low-slung existing structures make this area ripe for redevelopment. This could serve many uses such as medium- to high- density residential, office, and open space or some combination therein. 3 South San Francisco Public Works Block Large parcels and warehouses lie wedged between single family residential and Colma Creek. These factors along with its proximity to Grand Ave make it attractive for redevelopment, likely in the form of medium- to high-density residential uses. 4 South Colma Creek Edge As a result of the Creek’s planned enhancements, this creates an opportunity to transition land uses directly adjacent to the creek. Medium- to high-density residential could help to invigorate the area and add life to the open space along the Creek’s edge. Ecology and Open Space 5 Colma Creek Per the work for Resilient South City, the Creek provides a critical connection to nature with the potential to naturalize and expand its ecological value. Continuation of the Sister Cities Park Trail will add active mobility connectivity for the area. This project also highlights the need to reimagine North and South Canal Streets. There is the potential to vacate one or both, or to reduce/modify one or both to provide a better experience along the Creek. 107 Lindenville Specific Plan 12 SWOT Analysis 6 Centennial Way Trail This network provides a critical and beautiful recreation corridor for running, cycling, and other recreation. There is an opportunity to strengthen connections to/from the facility as well as enhance and expand upon the corridor. Mobility & Connectivity 7 South Spruce Ave., South Linden Ave., San Mateo Ave. There are opportunities on these streets to provide complete streets treatment. These streets can provide enhancements to make the corridors safe and comfortable for all mobility types and better complement future land use changes. 8 New road connection to Huntington Ave. The planned new road as part of the Southline project will create a critical connection to the Tanforan area and San Bruno BART station. This will bring greater value to the South Linden corridor. 9 Rail Spurs Abandoned/underutilized railroad spurs offer opportunities for conversion to linear open spaces and trails. 10 Moments The South Linden/South Colma Creek and South Linden/New Street intersections provide opportunities to highlight the significance of the Lindenville industrial character as well as its potential artists and makers corridor. Physical celebrations at these locations could help to brand the area. Transit-Oriented Development Zones (1/4-mile & 1/2-mile radii) 11 South San Francisco Caltrain Station and San Bruno BART Station TOD Zones Rezone/upzone and redevelop as mixed-use/residential that supports transit and provides mobility options. FAA land use and height restrictions are key factors, particularly within the San Bruno BART Station area. The promised redevelopment of Tanforan Mall into a mixed-use community is a great example that could set the tone for such a larger-scale transformation of the area. Industrial Heart 12 South Maple Ave. and Victory Ave. This intersection lies at the center of an existing, vibrant industrial area. 13 East of Caltrain tracks This bustling industrial area’s location between the Caltrain tracks and Hwy 101 make this area great for its current uses. 14 Concrete Plant The property has been identified as a constraint, but also as a key facility that is part of the area’s legacy industrial character. 15 Bimbo-Entemann’s Building The plant has been identified as a legacy site that the community wants to preserve due to Bimbo’s ties to the community. Per the direction in the General Plan, if this site were to redevelop, future development must be consistent with the Low Density Mixed Use designation. 108 Lindenville Specific Plan 13 SWOT Analysis 16 Prologis Warehouse This warehouse occupies a large parcel and provides a key logistics hub for various businesses and resultant jobs for the community. Makers and Artists 17 South Linden Ave. Makers and Artists Corridors The South Linden Avenue corridor, from Colma Creek to the New Street intersection, contains many ingredients that make it attractive as a maker and artist area. First, existing development along the corridor is human scale, with many interesting businesses and architectural styles. Second, the corridor already contains businesses such as restaurants, breweries, cabinet makers, and other businesses that support an arts and makers district. Finally, the corridor is anchored on both ends by dense mixed-use areas that are or will soon be filled with dense residential and office uses along with transit connections to the rest of the Bay Area on Caltrain and BART. Opportunity Sites 18 Produce Terminal The opportunity to right-size the facility is possible if maintaining the use is important. The entire site could be reimagined to reuse some or all of the site, or completely redevelop it as office/biotech or other viable uses. 19 Park N Fly Lots With biotech office in high demand in the near-term, these large lots offer excellent visibility and access for potential office and R&D development. 20 Bimbo-Sara Lee Site The site has been identified as a place of interest for potential redevelopment. It’s location at the corner of South Spruce and Colma Creek make it particularly attractive. Pipeline Projects 21 Southline Southline is a planned 3 million square foot class A office and R&D development near the San Bruno BART station. The proposal includes street realignments as well as a new street that would connect Huntington Avenue to South Linden. 22 Residential There are three residential projects planned for these parcels that promise to contribute nearly 1,500 residential units. These projects include 7 South Linden (over 550 units), 40 Airport Blvd (292 units), and 100 Produce Ave plus 124 Airport Blvd (480 combined units). 109 Lindenville Specific Plan 14 SWOT Analysis Figure 3: Opportunities & Constraints Diagram 110 Lindenville Specific Plan 15 SWOT Analysis Land Use and Community Design The current land use pattern and community design of Lindenville exemplify the industrial and auto- oriented characteristics this area is known for. The majority of the land in Lindenville is devoted to industrial uses, many of which operate on blocks with limited pedestrian connections. However, with the direction of the General Plan to allow residential uses into Lindenville, residential development projects underway, and the availability of opportunity sites for redevelopment, Lindenville may have potential to undergo significant change following implementation of the General Plan and this Specific Plan. Existing Land Use Lindenville is comprised of manufacturing, processing, warehousing, storage and distribution, and service commercial land uses. Some parcels with industrial and retail uses border residential parcels in areas outside of Lindenville, particularly to the west and north of the Plan Area. Lindenville contains a significant portion of all industrial parcels in the city, with 327 acres making up 43 percent of the city’s entire industrial land. The Centennial Way Trail on the southwestern edge of Lindenville and Sister Cities Park to the south of Colma Creek east of South Spruce Avenue are the only public recreational spaces in the Plan Area. Institutional facilities in Lindenville include South San Francisco Fire Station #61 and the Public Works Department. Many of the office, retail, and service buildings are located along the Plan Area’s main avenues: South Spruce, South Linden, and San Mateo. Table 2 lists the total acreage and percentage of land in the Plan Area devoted to each use type. Figure 4 shows the relationship between the buildings located in Lindenville and the land uses of the parcels they occupy. Table 2: Land Use Parcel Acreage Land Use Category Acres Percent Industrial 327.7 77% Vacant/Utilities/Transportation 49.2 12% Retail and Services 18.2 4% Office, R&D, Biotech 10.7 3% Public and Institutional 8.8 2% Parks and Common Greens 5.4 1% Water 5.3 1% TOTAL 425.3 100% Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding and do not include the public right-of-way. Source: City of South San Francisco, 2022 111 Lindenville Specific Plan 16 SWOT Analysis Figure 4: Existing Land Use and Building Inventory 112 Lindenville Specific Plan 17 SWOT Analysis Parcel Size The parcel size of Lindenville has driven the scale of development and shaped the character of the area. Most of the parcels (about 63 percent) are less than 0.5 acres in size and cover only 11 percent of land area. Smaller parcels can be combined to create greater opportunities for development. The largest parcel is 25 acres and is used as a FedEx facility. Only 48 parcels (10 percent of parcels) cover about 53 percent of land in Lindenville. This means that redevelopment of any of these parcels could result in major change in the overall urban design and land use mix of Lindenville. Parcel size is depicted in Figure 5 and detailed in Table 3. Table 3: Parcel Size Parcel size Number of parcels Percent of parcels Acres Percent of Acres 0 to 0.5 acres 333 63% 44.9 11% 0.5 to 2 acres 150 28% 154.8 36% 2 to 4 acres 35 7% 94.9 22% 4 to 8 acres 7 1% 40.0 9% 8 or more acres 6 1% 91.0 21% Total 531 100% 425.5 100% 113 Lindenville Specific Plan 18 SWOT Analysis Figure 5: Parcel Size 114 Lindenville Specific Plan 19 SWOT Analysis Property Ownership Most parcels in Lindenville are owned by private landowners. Some landowners own multiple parcels and often these parcels are on contiguous lots. Contiguous parcels under the same ownership are depicted as colored parcels in Figure 6. Contiguous properties owned by the same property owner are an opportunity for parcel aggregation, which could create greater opportunity for redevelopment and master planning. In fact, some of these parcels are the location of current planning efforts, as shown in Figure 7. Figure 6: Property Ownership 115 Lindenville Specific Plan 20 SWOT Analysis Current Development The City of South San Francisco is currently reviewing three proposals for projects within the Lindenville Plan Area and has recently entitled a project that will redevelop two parcels, as seen in Figure 7. The entitled and proposed projects include residential, office, and commercial spaces that will add new apartment units, retail and dining areas, life science offices, and pedestrian infrastructure improvements. The entitled and proposed projects are located on the periphery of Lindenville: along the southern border at Tanforan Avenue and on Airport Boulevard and Produce Avenue north of Colma Creek. There are no projects under construction within the Area. Table 4: Current Development Project Uses Square Feet/Units Total Area Status 124 Airport Blvd. and 100 Produce Ave. Residential 294 units (7- story building), 186 units (7- story building) 2.56 acres, 1.56 acres Entitled 40 Airport Blvd. Residential 292 units (8- story building) 1.63 acres Under review Southline Development (30 Tanforan Ave.) Office, R&D 2.7 million sqft 26 acres Under review 7 South Linden Ave. Residential 558 units (5- story building) 4.22 acres Under review - inactive Source: City of South San Francisco, 2022 116 Lindenville Specific Plan 21 SWOT Analysis Figure 7: Current Development 117 Lindenville Specific Plan 22 SWOT Analysis Block Structure and Size Streets in Lindenville have large frontage setbacks and existing buildings are often buffered by parking, creating large distances between the street and building facades. Space within roadway rights-of-way, however, can be redesigned to allow streets to work better for people and contribute ecologically through traffic calming, street-activating uses, and stormwater treatment. Figure 8 illustrates the existing block structure within Lindenville, with major streets typically separated by 1,000-2,000 feet distance. Most block lengths are over 1,000 feet long, some greater than 3,000 feet. Long block sizes (over 1,000 feet) may discourage walking and biking because they have fewer street connections and therefore less direct access to destinations. Smaller, more walkable blocks (400-600 feet block lengths) are located on the western side of Lindenville, close to the residential neighborhoods right outside the Lindenville boundary. The longer blocks mostly contain industrial and transportation uses and are proximate to US-101 and the Caltrain railroad tracks. The east side of South Linden Avenue runs uninterrupted for approximately 4,300 feet and connects the northern and southern edges of Lindenville. As identified in the General Plan, Lindenville contains a variety of opportunities for new approaches in street design and circulation. For instance, interstitial pedestrian and bicycle connections within these large blocks and ownership holdings could be introduced to create more direct routes and a more walkable environment. 118 Lindenville Specific Plan 23 SWOT Analysis Figure 8: Block Structure and Size 119 Lindenville Specific Plan 24 SWOT Analysis Site Character Through visual analysis, this section describes key urban design conditions and site character along the major corridors in Lindenville: South Spruce Avenue, South Linden Avenue, and Colma Creek. South Spruce Avenue, from Railroad Avenue to the Centennial Way Trail Landmarks and Activity Centers • Colma Creek and the Centennial Way Trail cross South Spruce Avenue • South City Lumber at 425 Railroad Avenue is a City Historic Landmark Land Uses • Industrial, including auto repair, logistics operations, storage facilities, and food processing • Offices, including medical offices, business parks, and other professional offices. • Retail and dining, including a corner market, bakeries, fast food establishments, and restaurants Development Pattern and Building Form • South Spruce Avenue has one- to two-story buildings • There are few street connections, making walking distances between blocks long • Buildings are set either adjacent to the street or are set back by parking lots Frontages and Streetscapes Development is primarily auto- oriented, with ample space for parking. Façades are often separated from the street by parking lots. There is limited pedestrian infrastructure, such as marked crossings, median refuges, crossing beacons, and seating. Buildings often have limited windows and entryways. Entrances are sometimes oriented away from the street. Overhead power lines line the east side of South Spruce Avenue. Narrow sidewalks are set close to the street. Sidewalks are sometimes obstructed by utility poles. There are little to no street trees. Some properties have landscaping, but landscaping is inconsistent throughout the corridor. 120 Lindenville Specific Plan 25 SWOT Analysis Colma Creek from Magnolia Avenue to US-101 Landmarks and Activity Centers • Sister Cities Park lines the southern bank of Colma Creek from Magnolia Avenue to South Spruce Avenue. Land Uses • Industrial, including auto repair facilities, light manufacturing, and storage facilities • Offices, including professional offices and business parks • Public, including City offices and the Fire Department Development Pattern and Building Form • Colma Creek is lined with one- to two-story buildings. • From South Spruce Avenue to South Linden Avenue, North and South Canal Street borders the Creek on both sides. East of Linden Avenue, there are no roadways or paths lining the Creek, limiting east-west connectivity. Frontages and Streetscapes Sidewalks are not present along the entire length of the Creek. Where sidewalks are present, they are narrow, lack amenities, and sometimes obstructed by utility poles. Along North Canal Street, buildings are separated from the Creek by front setbacks which often include parking. Along North Canal Street, the Creek is bordered by blank, inactive walls. Sister Cities Park creates an engaging interface along the Creek with a Class 1 path, seating, and landscaping. East of South Linden Avenue, the Creek is channelized and mostly unkempt greenery lines the Creek. Privately-owned parcels adjoin the Creek, meaning there is limited public access. Many buildings facing the Creek have blank facades with limited windows. Along North Canal Street, many of the buildings’ entryways are oriented towards the Creek. 121 Lindenville Specific Plan 26 SWOT Analysis South Linden Avenue, from Railroad Avenue to Tanforan Avenue Landmarks and Activity Centers • Colma Creek crosses South Linden Avenue in the northern part of the Plan Area Land Uses • Industrial, including storage and delivery centers, bus and truck rental storage, food processing, construction material and equipment manufacturing • Offices, including office parks and professional offices • Retail and services, including auto repair shops, pet boarding, and a brewery Development Pattern and Building Form • South Linden Avenue has one- to two-story buildings. • There are few street connections, making walking distances between blocks long. • Buildings are either adjacent to the street or are set back by parking lots. Frontages and Streetscapes Many of the sidewalks have long driveway curb cuts or intersect with parking lots, two features that can create unsafe situations for pedestrians. There are little to no street trees. Some buildings have landscaping, but very few produce shade and mitigate extreme heat. This section of South Linden Ave. has over 20 auto repair and auto body businesses. Many park clients’ cars in driveways, street-adjacent parking lots, and on-street parking spaces. These conditions can create unsafe situations for pedestrians and create unvaried street frontages. Overhead power lines line the east side of South Linden. There is very little pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure. Pedestrian crosswalks are not painted, and there are no benches or streetlights. Most buildings have entrances oriented away from the street, while others have driveways and parking lots separating facades from the street. 122 Lindenville Specific Plan 27 SWOT Analysis Opportunity Sites Opportunity sites are those that may have the potential to redevelop into another use and/or intensify following adoption of the Specific Plan. The majority of parcels in Lindenville are developed, with only 4.9 acres, or 11 parcels, classified as vacant land. As seen in Figure 9, about 26.4 acres, or 39 parcels, are devoted to parking, which may indicate a greater development opportunity in the future. For example, the entitled projects and projects under review identified in Figure 7 replace surface level parking with structured and underground parking. This allows residential, commercial, and park uses to occupy a greater percentage of the parcel surface area. The total area of land used for parking in Lindenville is likely higher, due to the area’s auto-oriented development pattern where most parcels have ¼ to ½ of the parcel area reserved for employee and guest parking, and/or for company vehicles and equipment. Some parking lots are privately owned by the same owners of adjacent parcels. Many parcels in Lindenville have low Improvement to Land Value (LI) ratios, where the value of the improvements on the parcel are less than the land value of that parcel, resulting in an LI ratio of less than 1.0. These are sites that may have opportunity for redevelopment in the future. As seen in Figure 9, some of the parcels with LI ratios less than 1.0 are vacant parcels or parcels exclusively used as parking lots. Though most parcels in Lindenville have LI values less than 1.0, not all will redevelop. 123 Lindenville Specific Plan 28 SWOT Analysis Figure 9: Opportunity Sites 124 Lindenville Specific Plan 29 SWOT Analysis Environmental Considerations Lindenville has long catered to a variety of industrial activities. While many facilities continue to operate, several sites contain contaminated or sensitive land resulting from decades of industrial operations. Initial analysis identified the following environmental conditions. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Man-made hazards in South San Francisco have particularly impacted Lindenville, an area with proximity to San Francisco International Airport (SFO), US-101, railroad lines, and industrial land uses. Each of these items have shaped the environment’s noise, air quality, and health and set an environmental foundation for the future of Lindenville. Hazardous Materials Lindenville has a history of containing industrial uses that have generated hazardous material. Federal, State, and local agency databases maintain comprehensive information on the locations of active and historic sites generating hazardous waste. Figure 10 showcases the hazardous sites identified by the US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA), and the California State Water Resources Board (CA SWRB) within Lindenville. Common contaminants that may be present in Lindenville include lead, oil, tar, solvents, pesticides, and contaminated soil and groundwater. Because of the age of some existing buildings in the city that may be redeveloped in the future, asbestos may be present in those structures. Similarly, lead may be present in paint that was sold prior to 1978 or in soil that was contaminated by leaded gasoline or improperly discarded batteries. 125 Lindenville Specific Plan 30 SWOT Analysis Figure 10: Hazardous Materials 126 Lindenville Specific Plan 31 SWOT Analysis United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) The EPA Superfund Program is responsible for cleaning up the nation’s most contaminated land. A query of the EPA’s Superfund Sites was performed for South San Francisco for National Priorities List (NPL) Sites, Non-NPL Sites, and Superfund Alternative Approach Sites. Based on this search, no sites were listed. The EPA Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) Search allows access to basic facility information, aggregate chemical release data for all years reported, and relative risk information. The results display any facility that has reported from 1987 to present, even though the facility may or may not have submitted TRI data in the most recent reporting year. The sites listed below are those located in Lindenville and are also shown in Figure 10.8 • Central Concrete Supply (1305 San Mateo Avenue) • Heat & Control, Inc. (225 Shaw Road) • Simpson Coatings Group, Inc. (111 S. Maple Avenue) California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) The Cortese List is a planning document used by the State as well as local agencies and developers to obtain information about the location of hazardous materials release sites. Government Code Section 65962.5 requires Cal EPA to update the list annually. The DTSC is responsible for a portion of the information contained in the Cortese List, which is supplemented by other State and local government agencies. According to a Cortese List search, no sites are listed within Lindenville.9 DTSC’s Brownfields and Environmental Restoration Program (Cleanup Program) includes an Annual Workplan (now referred to State Response and/or Federal Superfund), and also includes backlog sites listed under Health and Safety Code Section 25356. In addition, DTSC’s Cortese List includes sites Certified with Operation and Maintenance. The EnviroStor database tracks cleanup, permitting, enforcement, and investigation efforts at hazardous waste facilities, sites with known contamination, and sites where there may be reasons to investigate further. According to EnviroStor, there are a total of 11 sites within Lindenville, many of which are Certified and shown in Figure 10.10 • Active: o Morena Trust (111 Starlite Street and 437, 439, 441 and 441 and 447 Canal Street) o Union Pacific (Adjacent to 69 South Linden Avenue) • Inactive – Needs Evaluation: o Cycle Shack, Inc. (1104 San Mateo Avenue) o West Coast Automotive Service Center (160 South Linden Avenue) 8 “Toxics Release Inventory,” United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2021, https://www.epa.gov/enviro/tri-search. 9 “Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List,” Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), 2022, https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/search.asp?cmd=search&reporttype=CORTESE&site_type=CSITES,OPEN,FU DS,CLOSE&st atus=ACT,BKLG,COM&reporttitle=HAZARDOUS+WASTE+AND+SUBSTANCES+SITE+LIST. 10 “EnviroStor Database,” Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), 2022, https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=south+san+francisco+ca. 127 Lindenville Specific Plan 32 SWOT Analysis • Referred to the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) o L & D Equipment Company DBA Laundry & Dry Cleaning Equipment Co. (220 South Linden Avenue) • Certified: o E.I. Dupont De Nemours (169 South Linden Avenue) o Reichold Chemicals, Inc. (120 South Linden Avenue) o Basapco, Inc. (27 South Linden Avenue) o Sun Chemical Corporation (20 South Linden Avenue) o Union Pacific Railroad Linden (East of 27 South Linden Avenue) • Closed o Merry X-ray Chemical Corporation (131 South Maple Avenue) California State Water Resources Control Board There are no solid waste disposal sites with waste constituents above hazardous waste levels or active Cease and Desist or Cleanup and Abatement Orders within the Planning Area.11, 12, 13 GeoTracker is the State Water Board data management system for sites that impact, or have potential to impact, water quality in California, with emphasis on groundwater. GeoTracker contains records for sites that require cleanup, such as Leaking Underground Storage tank (LUST) Sites, Cleanup Program Sites, and Department of Defense Sites. GeoTracker also contains records for various unregulated projects, as well as permitted facilities including operating Permitted USTs, Irrigated Lands, Oil and Gas production, and Land Disposal Sites (landfills). According to a GeoTracker search performed on March 3, 2022, a total of 46 open sites are located within South San Francisco.14 Of the 46 open sites, one is a LUST Cleanup Site located within Lindenville. • Union Carbide Corporation (7 South Linden Avenue) 11 “Site Portal,” California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA), 2020, https://siteportal.calepa.ca.gov/nsite/map/results. 12 “Sites Identified with Waste Constituents Above Hazardous Waste Levels Outside the Waste Management Unit,” California State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board). 13 “List of “active” Cease and Desist Orders and Cleanup and Abatement Orders,” California State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board). 14 “GeoTracker Database Map,” California State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board), https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/. 128 Lindenville Specific Plan 33 SWOT Analysis Air Quality Air quality is a function of both the rate and location of pollutant emissions under the influence of meteorological conditions and topographic features. Atmospheric conditions such as wind speed, wind direction, and air temperature inversions interact with the physical features of the landscape to determine the movement and dispersal of air pollutant emissions and, consequently, their effect on air quality. Average daily temperatures are relatively cool for most of the year, even during summer months. In the winter, average daily temperatures across the county range from mild to moderate. In San Mateo County, ozone almost never exceeds health standards, and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) exceeds the national standard only on about one day each year. San Mateo County frequently receives fresh marine air from the Pacific Ocean, which passes over the coastal hills. In winter, PM2.5 may be transported into San Mateo County from other parts of the Bay Area, adding to wood smoke, which may lead to elevated concentrations, but these are rarely high enough to exceed health standards. The local air quality can be evaluated by reviewing relevant air pollution concentrations near the city. The air quality monitoring station closest to South San Francisco is the San Francisco Arkansas Street monitoring station, approximately 7 miles north of the city. The next closet air monitoring station to the city is the Redwood City monitoring station, approximately 15 miles southeast of the city. Table 3.2-3 in the South San Francisco General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report summarizes the recorded ambient air data at the representative monitoring stations for the years 2018 through 2020, which is the most current data available for this analysis. As shown in Table 3.2-3, the air quality in South San Francisco has no exceedances of nitrogen dioxide during the most recent 3 years of available data. However, ozone exceeded the State and National standards for one day in 2018. PM10 exceeded the State 50 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) 24-hour standard 24.6 days in 2017 and 23 days in 2020. In addition, PM2.5 exceeded the national 150 µg/m3 24-hour standard for 7.3 days in 2017, 14.6 days in 2018, and 8 days in 2020. It should be noted that most of these exceedances were due to wildfires that create large amounts of particulate matter. Noise Roadway Noise South San Francisco has excellent road access; however, this access also results in fairly high noise impacts over much of the city. Traffic noise depends primarily on traffic speed - high frequency tire noise increases with speed and the proportion of truck traffic - that generates engine, exhaust, and wind noise. The proximity of freeways and major streets, and the large amount of truck traffic serving industrial, warehousing, and freight forwarding uses in Lindenville, make the area especially susceptible to traffic noise. As traditional industrial uses make way for less intensive research and development, office, and residential activities, it is expected that truck traffic will decline in the city, particularly in Lindenville. Industrial noise is generated from on-site activities or from associated truck traffic off-site. While industrial uses in Lindenville do generate noise, impacts on noise sensitive land uses are minimal due to distance from sensitive receptors. The Southern Pacific Railroad line runs through the entirety of Lindenville, creating rail noise from commercial and passenger train activity. Currently, the line is surrounded by industrial and commercial land uses, but the City may need to mitigate noise impacts on new residential projects along the rail line. 129 Lindenville Specific Plan 34 SWOT Analysis Figure 11: Rail and Roadway Noise Exposure Map 130 Lindenville Specific Plan 35 SWOT Analysis Air Traffic Noise The City of South San Francisco experiences air traffic noise impacts due to its close proximity to San Francisco International Airport. Aircraft noise in South San Francisco results from aircraft departing from Runway 28 and, to a lesser degree, southbound flights departing from Runway 1. According to the SFO Airport Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, Runways 28 and 1 accommodate approximately 95 percent of departures from the airport. Flights departing from Runway 28 climb directly over noise- sensitive land uses at altitudes between several hundred feet and 2,000 feet, resulting in high pass by noise levels in Lindenville. International flights bound for Pacific Rim destinations use Runway 28 exclusively, using large aircraft such as B-747s, which are heavily laden and climb slowly over the noise sensitive uses located below its flight path. A primary determinant of aircraft noise level is the aircraft classification. The SFO Airport Master Plan established projected increases in aircraft operations as well as predicted noise contours. The SFO Airport noise contours encompass the majority of Lindenville. As aircraft operations increase over time, the areas of the city that lie within the 65 dBA CNEL noise contours of the SFO Airport are expected to expand. As such, the City will need to ensure future residents and employees in these areas are not substantially impacted by noise generated by aircraft operations. The SFO Airport’s most recently available noise contours are shown on Figure 12. 131 Lindenville Specific Plan 36 SWOT Analysis Figure 12: San Francisco International Airport Noise Exposure Contours Map 132 Lindenville Specific Plan 37 SWOT Analysis Airport Hazards SFO is located just outside of the Lindenville Plan Area Boundary. In addition to the air traffic noise impacts generated by the airport, there are safety and hazard considerations that impact future development in Lindenville. The Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport (ALUCP) specifies how land near airports is to be used based on safety and noise compatibility considerations, develops height restrictions for new development to protect airspace in the vicinity of the airport, and establishes construction standards for new buildings near airports, including sound insulation requirements. The ALUCP has established Airport Safety Zones that identify the areas that aircraft use for approaching, departing, and turning into the SFO runways. Per General Plan Action SA-12.6.1, the City will review the ALUCP and over time make updates as needed to conform with the plan. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) establishes maximum heights and elevations for the land around an airport. The maximum height limits around SFO cover about half of South San Francisco and the entire Lindenville area. Building heights in Lindenville cannot exceed 163.2 feet and those along South Spruce Avenue and Starlite Street cannot exceed 200 feet. The City’s recently updated General Plan and Zoning Ordinance are in compliance with these regulations. 133 Lindenville Specific Plan 38 SWOT Analysis Figure 13: Airport Safety Zones 134 Lindenville Specific Plan 39 SWOT Analysis Environmental Hazards Natural hazards in South San Francisco are primarily related to flooding, sea level rise, and seismic activity. Unlike man-made hazards, these environmental hazards are not controlled by people and can only be mitigated or adapted to. Flooding and Sea Level Rise Lindenville is in close proximity to water, via the San Francisco Bay to the west, Colma Creek to the north, and San Bruno Canal to the southeast. These water sources expose the area to flood hazards, especially as climate change accelerates sea level rise and coastal flooding. Periodic flooding occurs in South San Francisco but is confined to certain areas along Colma Creek. Colma Creek handles much of the urban runoff generated in the city; since South San Francisco is highly urbanized, runoff levels are high and there is increased potential for flood conditions during periods of heavy rainfall. Projected sea level rise will worsen existing coastal flood hazards, increasing the depth and elevation of flooding and expanding the flooding further inland. These coastal flood hazards will include temporary flooding from storm surges and tides, permanent inundation areas, elevated ground levels, and shoreline erosion. As part of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) conducts nationwide flood hazard mapping to identify flood-prone areas and to reduce flood damages. The maps identify the flooded extent that have a 1 percent annual chance of being equaled or exceeded, called the “100-year flood.” The flood elevation associated with the 1 percent chance event is referred to as the base flood elevation. Areas predicted to be inundated in a 1 percent chance event are delineated on the Flood Insurance Risk Map and commonly referred to as the “100-year floodplain.” Buildings and other structures in the 100-year floodplain must meet certain requirements to receive a floodplain development permit and to qualify for NFIP insurance and federally backed mortgages. Figure 14 shows the projected sea level rise and coastal flooding by 2100 and its reach into Lindenville. A significant number of facilities, infrastructure, and buildings are likely to be affected based on a vulnerability assessment conducted by San Mateo County. Portions of US-101, Fire Station 61, South San Francisco-San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant, and the San Francisco International Airport are among the large public assets exposed to future sea level rise.15 15 “Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment,” Sea Change San Mateo County, 2018, https://seachangesmc.org/vulnerability-assessment/. 135 Lindenville Specific Plan 40 SWOT Analysis Figure 14: Sea Level Rise Risk 136 Lindenville Specific Plan 41 SWOT Analysis Seismic Hazards South San Francisco is in one of the most seismically active regions in the United States. There are approximately 30 known faults in the Bay Area with the potential to generate earthquakes; eleven of which are within forty miles of the city. The Peninsula segment of the San Andreas Fault, the predominant fault system in California, passes through the westernmost corner of the city in the Westborough sub- area. Within the city, earthquake damage to structures and infrastructure can be caused by ground rupture, ground shaking, ground failure, and land sliding. The level of damage in the city resulting from an earthquake will depend upon the magnitude of the event, the epicenter distance from the city, the response of geologic materials, and the strength and construction quality of structures. Nearly all South San Francisco’s population, critical facilities, housing, and commercial properties would be exposed to violent or very strong ground shaking from a M7.2 earthquake on the San Andreas fault. Areas near the San Francisco Bay have high ground failure potential, including liquefaction and settlement during earthquake shaking. Liquefaction is the rapid transformation of saturated, loose, fine-grained sediment to a fluid-like state because of earthquake ground shaking. Most of the lowland areas of South San Francisco have the potential for liquefaction hazards, with very high liquefaction potential in Lindenville, high potential along Colma Creek, and moderate potential in the alluvial fan of Colma Creek. As seen in Figure 15, the vast majority of Lindenville is situated in liquefaction areas. 137 Lindenville Specific Plan 42 SWOT Analysis Figure 15: Areas of Geological Investigation 138 Lindenville Specific Plan 43 SWOT Analysis Economic and Market Overview Business and Industry Mix Industrial zoning in Lindenville has allowed the area to retain a flexible industrial building stock that serves the needs of distribution, service and repair, and manufacturing businesses. Analysis completed for the South San Francisco General Plan Update found that the area’s largest industry sectors, by number of jobs, included Wholesale Trade, Transportation and Warehousing, Manufacturing, and Construction—as shown in Figure 16. Jobs in the Wholesale Trade, Transportation and Warehousing, and Construction industries are especially concentrated in Lindenville compared to South San Francisco overall: while Lindenville jobs constituted 16.7 percent of all employment in South San Francisco in 2018, Lindenville jobs in these three industry sectors constituted 32 percent of the citywide total in these sectors. Businesses in each of these sectors focus on serving residential and business customers throughout South San Francisco and the surrounding San Francisco and northern San Mateo County area. Numerous businesses in major subsector such as Merchant Wholesalers of both durable and nondurable goods, Food Manufacturing, and Food Services and Drinking Places provide commercial food preparation and distribution to Bay Area businesses such as bakeries, cafes, and stores. Major Transportation and Warehousing subsectors, such as Transit and Ground Passenger Transportation, are linked to serving transportation needs for area goods, services, and passengers – including operations related to the San Francisco International Airport. Similarly, Construction subsectors are tied to development activity and business or residential property services in the region, with large concentrations of jobs in subsectors such as Specialty Trade Contractors and Repair and Maintenance. The fastest-growing industry sectors in Lindenville also reflect the area’s strengths in providing ready access to residential and business customers throughout San Francisco and San Mateo Counties, as well as growth in demand for last-mile delivery and distribution services. The Wholesale Trade, Transportation and Warehousing, Arts, Accommodation, and Food Services, and Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate industry sectors all added large numbers of jobs from 2009 to 2018, as shown in Figure 16. Due to South San Francisco’s policy and zoning efforts to prioritize retention of production, distribution, and services activities in Lindenville, jobs in the area constitute a minimal share of industry sectors associated with the city’s large and rapidly-growing biotech industry. Compared to the city as a whole, Lindenville has a much smaller relative share of employment in the Education and Health Care, Information, and Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services industry sectors. However, employment in these industry sectors in Lindenville have increased since 2009. Lindenville also includes only a small share of the city’s Manufacturing jobs since many biotech employers are classified as in this industry sector. However, Lindenville does include non-biotech manufacturing business activities such as commercial food production and precision metal products manufacturing. 139 Lindenville Specific Plan 44 SWOT Analysis Small Businesses Lindenville accommodates a high share of South San Francisco’s small businesses due to the area’s concentration of relatively small parcels, smaller industrial spaces, and relative affordability compared to the East of 101 area. In 2018, Lindenville included the highest number of small businesses—those with less than 20 employees—of all major employment subareas in South San Francisco. Lindenville’s concentration of businesses with between one and four employees was largest among the subareas, as shown below in Figure 17. Figure 16: Lindenville Employment by Industry Sector, 2009 and 2018 [1] Includes Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation; and Accommodation and Food Services [2] Includes Finance and Insurance; Real Estate and Rental and Leasing; and Management of Companies and Enterprises [3] Includes Information and Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services [4] Includes Agriculture; Utilities; Public Administration; and Unclassified establishments Note: Data reflects analysis completed for the South San Francisco General Plan Update based on a nearly identical geography for Lindenville, except for limited minor variations. Sources: California Employment Development Department, 2009-2018; Strategic Economics, 2020. 60 259 320 452 494 797 818 858 991 1,107 1,618 1,752 22 58 221 539 165 315 1,221 1,006 1,054 1,094 690 1,401 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000 Public Admin. And Unclassified establishments [4] Education and Health Care Information and Professional Svcs. [3] Retail Trade FIRE and Management [2] Arts, Accommodation, and Food Services [1] Admin. and Support/Waste Management Other Services Construction Manufacturing Transportation and Warehousing Wholesale Trade 2009 2018 Total Jobs 2009: 7,789 2018: 9,527 140 Lindenville Specific Plan 45 SWOT Analysis Figure 17: Number of Firms by Employment Size Category in Major South San Francisco Employment Subareas, 2018 Note: Data reflects analysis completed for the South San Francisco General Plan Update based on a nearly identical geography for Lindenville, except for limited minor variations. East of 101 North and South are primarily divided along Grand Avenue. Sources: California Employment Development Department, 2018; Strategic Economics, 2020. Workforce and Commutes The unique mix of businesses in Lindenville provides a concentration of job opportunities for workers without college degrees. Jobs in Lindenville’s major industry sectors engaged in distribution, service, and production activities typically require lower educational attainment than jobs in industries concentrated in other areas of South San Francisco, such as biotechnology, advanced manufacturing, and other R&D jobs located in the East of 101 area. The top industry sectors in Lindenville are typically associated with a wide range of average annual wages. In 2018, the average annual wage in San Mateo County for a worker at a business classified in the Wholesale trade industry was $106,300. For Transportation and Warehousing workers, the average annual wage was $65,100 and for Manufacturing, the wages were higher at $159,200.16 As seen in Table 5, 55 percent of jobs in Lindenville were available to workers without a college degree as of 2019, compared to 48 percent of jobs citywide in South San Francisco. 16 Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages for San Mateo County, State of California Employee Development Department, 2018. 123 101 93 219 43 53 83 120 20 56 65 86 23 71 60 58 6 72 39 39 0 50 100 150 200 250 Downtown East of 101 North East of 101 South Lindenville 1-4 5-9 10-19 20-49 50 or more 141 Lindenville Specific Plan 46 SWOT Analysis Table 5: Educational Attainment of Lindenville Workers and South San Francisco Residents, 2019 Educational Attainment Lindenville Workers South San Francisco Residents Count Share Count Share Less than High School 1,320 15% 7,006 11% High School or Equivalent 1,414 16% 9,443 15% Some College or Associate Degree 2,071 24% 15,557 25% Bachelor's Degree or Advanced Degree 2,458 28% 22,022 35% Educational Attainment Not Available (workers aged 29 or younger) 1,460 17% 9,005 14% Total 8,723 100% 63,033 100% Source: OnTheMap, 2022. Strategic Economics, 2022. Robust local and regional transportation access are critical for enabling Lindenville employers to compete for workers from throughout the region, especially as the high cost of housing in northern San Mateo County limits opportunities for low- and moderate-income workers to reside nearby. The largest shares of workers in Lindenville live in San Mateo County and San Francisco, which account for the home locations of 31 percent and 18 percent of Lindenville workers, respectively. However, the map in Figure 18 demonstrates that Lindenville draws workers from throughout the central Bay Area, with 15 percent of workers coming from Alameda County. 142 Lindenville Specific Plan 47 SWOT Analysis Figure 18: Home Location of Workers in Lindenville, 2019 143 Lindenville Specific Plan 48 SWOT Analysis Market Conditions and Trends Lindenville’s building inventory almost entirely consists of industrial space. The industrial building inventory includes nearly 6 million square feet of space, representing 40 percent of citywide industrial inventory and 15 percent of all industrial space in San Mateo County, as seen in Table6. Service, Manufacturing, and Warehouse space comprise nearly 87 percent of the industrial inventory in Lindenville, with the majority consisting of warehouse space, as shown in Table 7. Table 6: Industrial Inventory in Lindenville 2010 2021 Square Feet of Industrial Inventory in Lindenville 6,529,078 5,957,165 % of South San Francisco Inventory 39% 40% % of San Mateo County Inventory 15% 15% Source: CoStar, 2022. Strategic Economics, 2022 Strong demand for industrial space exists throughout San Mateo County, but businesses are competing for a shrinking supply of space as industrial properties are redeveloped for residential, office, and life science uses. In San Mateo County, there was a loss of over 3.5 million square feet of industrial building space from 2010-2021, constituting an eight percent total loss. Manufacturing and Warehouse buildings represented the largest declines, losing 11 and 8 percent of their inventories respectively. During this time, job density increased in Lindenville, with combined industrial and R&D space per worker decreasing from 838 square feet in 2009 to 625 square feet per worker by 2018. This increasingly efficient use of space may be attributable to a shift in industrial uses to advanced manufacturing and R&D which typically require fewer square feet per worker. Declines in industrial inventory throughout South San Francisco—though primarily outside of Lindenville—have historically been driven primarily by redevelopment in favor of higher-value life R&D uses and residential uses. From 2010 to 2021, the total square feet of R&D inventory grew by 59 percent in South San Francisco and 30 percent in San Mateo County. As Table 77 shows, R&D space in South San Francisco commands average monthly asking rents of $4.50 per square foot—three times the $1.50 per square foot for industrial space. Allowing residential development in Lindenville will likely result in redevelopment or conversion of industrial properties over time due to the higher land values supported by residential uses. Historically, industrial zoning in Lindenville has prevented properties from being redeveloped for other uses. Development of residential uses in Lindenville may lead to displacement of businesses from South San Francisco unless public policies and programs exist to support relocation of these businesses within the city. 144 Lindenville Specific Plan 49 SWOT Analysis Table 7: Industrial and R&D Inventory, Vacancy, and Rents, 2021 Product Type Existing Inventory Vacancies Average Monthly Asking Rent (NNN) Total Square Feet Square Feet Vacancy Rate R&D Lindenville 28,441 No Data No Data No Data South San Francisco 5,892,498 239,037 4.1% $4.50 San Mateo County 11,874,071 922,666 7.8% $3.88 Industrial Lindenville 5,957,165 518,213 8.7% $1.50 South San Francisco 15,060,208 861,327 5.7% $1.53 San Mateo County 40,380,395 1,949,458 4.8% $1.78 Industrial Subcategories Warehouse Lindenville 3,725,429 120,296 3.2% $1.50 South San Francisco 10,182,952 441,019 4.3% $1.53 San Mateo County 24,904,333 988,234 4.0% $1.72 Manufacturing Lindenville 654,758 34,702 5.3% No Data South San Francisco 1,918,271 16,766 0.9% $1.59 San Mateo County 7,292,441 95,440 1.3% $2.01 Service Lindenville 782,744 41,110 5.3% $1.50 South San Francisco 1,108,111 46,735 4.2% $1.50 San Mateo County 4,523,994 180,797 4.0% $1.97 Source: CoStar, 2022. Strategic Economics, 2022. 145 Lindenville Specific Plan 50 SWOT Analysis As competition for the shrinking supply of industrial space in San Mateo County intensifies, high and rising rents are contributing to businesses relocating from Lindenville to lower cost areas of the region. Average industrial rents in Lindenville were $1.50 per square foot (NNN) in 2021, comparable to South San Francisco overall. In Lindenville, this is a 30 percent increase from just five years ago. Local industrial brokers interviewed for this study noted that businesses requiring industrial space frequently relocate outside of San Mateo County—often to the East Bay—because they are unable to find affordable space at properties that also meet modern industrial tenant needs for parking, on-site truck circulation space, larger parcel sizes, and buildings with high ceiling heights and large clear spans between walls or columns. Businesses that stay in Lindenville tend to do so partly because the specific location is critical to their operations. Examples include last-mile delivery services, food and beverage wholesalers and distributors, food manufacturers serving nearby businesses, automobile repair, construction contractors, construction and machinery suppliers, and equipment rentals. Despite the need to remain close to their customer bases, small service businesses such as plumbers, contractors, and moving companies may be especially at risk of displacement due to competition for remaining industrial spaces. Given this risk, the Lindenville Specific Plan process should explore what types of businesses the community wishes to prevent displacement of and evaluate potential policy tools for preventing displacement. A longer-term opportunity exists for Lindenville to attract businesses engaged in advanced manufacturing and R&D activities. Recent examples in South San Francisco include businesses related to robotics, automation, and renewable energy. These businesses are currently locating primarily in the East of 101 area, but Lindenville’s flexible building stock may attract increasing interest from similar businesses. South San Francisco brokers indicated in interviews that reuse of older building stock for advanced manufacturing and R&D may require substantial investment in upgrades to power capacity, access points, other utility connections, and raising ceiling heights. The Lindenville Specific Plan process should consider these needs and the appropriate role of the City, if any, in encouraging such upgrades and investments. 146 Lindenville Specific Plan 51 SWOT Analysis Transportation Introduction Lindenville’s transportation network is built around the industrial uses that have characterized the area for over a century. Roads are sized for trucks, pedestrian and bicycle facilities are limited and often blocked by parked cars or freight loading activity, and the network is disconnected from surrounding neighborhoods by features that once supported freight transport like canals, the railroad, and the freeway. These characteristics continue to support the industrial businesses located in Lindenville but pose a challenge to new land use types and more multimodal travel needs. A more modern transportation system has evolved around Lindenville, offering a largely untapped opportunity to connect to the rest of the region. Highway 101 creates the eastern border of the district and yet the district only has one, highly congested access point through the intersection at San Mateo Avenue/Produce Avenue/South Airport Boulevard. San Bruno BART station is a few blocks from the edge of the district and provides a direct connection to San Francisco and the East Bay. South San Francisco Caltrain Station and San Bruno Caltrain Station are less than a mile from the northern and southern edge of Lindenville, respectively, and connect the district directly to San Francisco and cities in San Mateo and Santa Clara counties. Circulation Network This section describes the existing conditions of the circulation network in Lindenville, including key features of the local street, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit networks. Street Network Regional Access The main regional freeways near Lindenville include US Route 101 (US-101) and Interstate 380 (I-380) which lie adjacent to the eastern and southern boundaries of the district. US-101 is a major north-south freeway with Lindenville access via the southbound entrance and exit ramps on Produce Avenue and northbound entrance and exit ramps on South Airport Boulevard. I-380 is an east-west freeway connecting US-101 with El Camino Real and I-280. El Camino Real, just west of Lindenville, functions as a local and regional hybrid. Local roads such as San Mateo Avenue, South Spruce Avenue, and South Linden Avenue are the primary gateways to these regional facilities. Local Access The local circulation system is shown in Figure 19 and described in further detail in Error! Reference source not found. in the Appendix. Each street in the Project site is classified by one of the following typologies: • Boulevards: These facilities serve as primary routes that carry large volumes of travelers. They are designed to prioritize movement for all road users, typically with four to six lanes, larger sidewalks and dedicated bicycle facilities. 147 Lindenville Specific Plan 52 SWOT Analysis • Connectors: These facilities are primary or secondary streets that carry moderate volumes of travelers. They generally have two lanes, sidewalks, bicycle facilities, and/or on-street parking. • Neighborhood Streets: These facilities are generally located within residential or mixed-use neighborhoods, designed to provide local access within the city. They typically have two lanes and may incorporate design features that prioritize their function as slow streets. • Industrial Streets: These facilities are similar to neighborhood streets but are designed to accommodate larger and heavier vehicles. Figure 19: Lindenville Street Network 148 Lindenville Specific Plan 53 SWOT Analysis Truck Routes Lindenville has an extensive truck network, with most streets in the area identified as part of the South San Francisco truck network. These streets typically have design elements that cater to larger vehicles such as wide lanes, large curb radii, and stronger pavement types. The network is expected to evolve over time, with several streets in northern Lindenville proposed for future weight restrictions and additional capacity proposed in southern Lindenville with the extension of Sneath Lane and the Utah Avenue interchange. Bicycle Network Bicycle facilities are typically separated into four classes: • Class I (Bicycle Path): These facilities are located off-street and can serve both bicyclists and Pedestrians. • Class II (Bicycle Lanes): These facilities provide a dedicated area for bicyclists within the paved street width through the use of striping and appropriate signage. Class IIB bicycle lanes include a striped buffer on one or both sides to increase distance from vehicles. • Class III (Bicycle Routes): These facilities are installed along streets that do no provide sufficient width for dedicated Class II bicycle lanes. The street is designated as a bicycle route through the use of on-street markings and signage, which inform drivers to expect bicyclists. • Class IV (Cycletrack/Protected Bicycle Lanes): These facilities are for the exclusive use of bicycles and require a vertical element that separates the bikeway and adjacent vehicular traffic. Currently, Class III bicycle routes are provided along South Spruce Avenue, South Linden Avenue, San Mateo Avenue (the main north-south corridors), and the section of Railroad Avenue between South Spruce Avenue and South Linden Avenue. Centennial Way Trail connects at two points on South Spruce Avenue (South Canal Street and at the southwestern edge) but does not extend into the district. As illustrated in Figure 20, the South San Francisco’s Active South City Plan (2022) proposes several new facilities within Lindenville, including upgrades to existing bikeways. South Linden Avenue and San Mateo Avenue will be upgraded to Class II bicycle lanes, whilst South Spruce Avenue and Railroad Avenue will be upgraded with separated bikeways. North Canal Street is proposed to become a Class IIB bicycle boulevard, extending the new facilities proposed for Centennial Way Trail and improving connectivity to Lindenville. New facilities are proposed for several east-west streets, as well as the Sneath Lane and Utah Avenue extensions. Pedestrian Network Lindenville has many instances of missing and broken sidewalks. Much of the district also has rolled curbs and faces challenges with vehicles parking on the sidewalk as a result of the rolled curbs. Many sidewalks are narrow and contain obstructions such as utility poles and tree wells in the middle of the pedestrian path of travel. Error! Reference source not found. illustrates the condition of pedestrian crossing infrastructure in the district. 149 Lindenville Specific Plan 54 SWOT Analysis Figure 20: Lindenville Bicycle Network 150 Lindenville Specific Plan 55 SWOT Analysis Figure 21: Lindenville Intersection Conditions 151 Lindenville Specific Plan 56 SWOT Analysis Transit Network The southwestern corner of Lindenville is within the ½ mile transit zone of the San Bruno BART station and the northeastern corner is within a ½ mile transit zone of the South San Francisco Caltrain station. While Lindenville is close to both of these stations, access is limited due to poor internal street connectivity. Transit service in Lindenville is provided by the San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans). SamTrans route 141 is the only route with stops in Lindenville. It operates along South Spruce Avenue, with stops at Bimbo’s, Victory Avenue, and North Canal Street. None of these stop locations have bus shelters or seating. Route 141 provides local transit connectivity to downtown South San Francisco and the San Bruno BART station. Right outside Lindenville boundaries, El Camino Real is an active bus corridor, particularly for regional bus travel. The Samtrans ECR route provides regional connectivity between Daly City BART to the Palo Alto Transit Center, stopping at the San Bruno BART station. Routes 292, 397, and 38 stop along South Airport Boulevard on the other side of US-101; there are currently no stops on Airport Boulevard within Lindenville. The 292 runs between downtown San Francisco and San Mateo. The 397 is an early morning service between San Francisco and the Palo Alto Transit Center. The 38 is an early morning and late evening service stopping at the Colma and Millbrae BART stations, and Safe Harbor Shelter. 22 illustrates transit near Lindenville. Several recommendations from the Reimagine SamTrans plan will impact services near Lindenville, with implementations beginning in Summer 2022. The 141 route alignment between San Bruno BART station and downtown South San Francisco remains relatively unchanged. The recommended changes to the service include routing the service east towards East San Bruno via Sneath Lane, rather than continuing south via Huntington Avenue. The plan would also expand hours of operation both earlier in the morning and later in the evening with less service in the evenings. The ECR route remains relatively unchanged, with minor recommendations to improve reliability and weekend frequency. Parking and Loading On-street parking is permitted on many streets and most businesses have at least a small number of off- street parking spaces for employees and visitors. Businesses along South Spruce Avenue have large surface parking lots. Figure 23 illustrates parking allowances on Lindenville streets. Almost all streets restrict parking between 3AM and 5AM to prevent long term parking and to make space for early morning freight loading and unloading activity. Loading activity is concentrated in the early morning hours but continues consistently throughout the day. Loading activity is busy on all streets that allow parking and loading with the exception of Railroad Avenue, which primarily serves residential parkers. 152 Lindenville Specific Plan 57 SWOT Analysis Figure 22: Transit Network 153 Lindenville Specific Plan 58 SWOT Analysis Figure 23: Lindenville On-Street Parking 154 Lindenville Specific Plan 59 SWOT Analysis Vehicle, Bicycle and Pedestrian Activity Historic, pre-COVID, traffic counts in the area show that there is a high level of vehicle activity, with higher proportions of heavy vehicle movements along identified truck routes. Counts on South Maple Avenue, Victory Avenue, San Mateo Avenue, Airport Boulevard and South Linden Avenue have a high proportion of heavy vehicles during the AM peak hour which starts at 7:45 AM and a slightly lower proportion in the PM peak hour which starts at 4:45 PM. The highest proportion of truck volumes were observed at the intersection of San Mateo Avenue and South Linden Avenue, where trucks accounted for 20 percent and 10 percent of observed vehicles in the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. Whilst South Spruce Avenue is part of the truck network, counts do not show a high proportion of heavy vehicles. This could be due to the function of South Spruce Avenue being a high-volume connector serving other destinations and purposes in the circulation network. There is low volume of bicycle and pedestrian activity in Lindenville. This is, in part, due to the lack of appropriate infrastructure and facilities for comfortable walking and biking in the area. The highest area of pedestrian activity was at Huntington Avenue and Tanforan Avenue, which observed nearly 100 pedestrians over the AM peak hour and 70 in the PM peak hour. This intersection is next to the San Bruno BART station, Centennial Way Trail, and surrounding retail. Bicycle volumes are low across the board but are slightly higher in areas where there are existing bicycle facilities. Counts at San Mateo Avenue and South Linden Avenue recorded approximately 20 or fewer bicycles in both the 2-hour AM and PM periods Despite existing facilities along South Spruce Avenue, less than five bicycles were observed across the 2- hour AM and PM periods. Safety/ Collison History Figure 24 illustrates the high-injury network (HIN), which is a collection of streets that have been identified as having the highest risk of collisions in South San Francisco based on historic collision trends. Within Lindenville, South Spruce Avenue, South Linden Avenue, and Railroad Avenue are on the HIN. While there are very few pedestrian and bicycle collisions due to the low volumes of such activity in the area, there were numerous vehicle collisions in the 5-year period between 2015 and 2019. Consistent with the HIN, there are clusters of vehicle collisions that occurred along the three aforementioned corridors, in addition to the intersection of South Linden Avenue and San Mateo Avenue. 155 Lindenville Specific Plan 60 SWOT Analysis Figure 24: Lindenville Collision History 156 Lindenville Specific Plan 61 SWOT Analysis Infrastructure Introduction Lindenville is supported by a network of utility infrastructure that provides the community with potable water, stormwater management, wastewater treatment, power generation, and communications technology. This infrastructure enables the neighborhood and City of South San Francisco to function on a day-to-day basis and supports the physical and economic growth of the community. As the community grows, this utility infrastructure requires annual maintenance to extend its life, which is essential to the successful operation of this network today and well into the future. As part of this maintenance, the City and/or utility providers regularly plan for infrastructure improvement projects that comply with local and State requirements and targets. Equally important is aligning planned improvements with the needs of residents, businesses, and visitors. The age of Lindenville’s utility infrastructure varies. Maintenance of this infrastructure is key to taking advantage of and extending its design life. The City owns and operates Lindenville’s storm and sanitary sewer mains. Other utility services are provided by separate, independent entities. These include water provided by CalWater,17 and electricity and natural gas provided by PG&E.18 Currently, no wastewater is recycled for direct reuse within the district. The following sections provide a summary analysis of Lindenville’s utility infrastructure using information and data supplied by the City and other applicable agencies. Potable Water Systems Water Service Water service for South San Francisco (of which Lindenville is a part) is provided by California Water Service (CalWater), a public utility company under the regulation of the California Water Service Group. CalWater provides water for the roughly 62,000 residents living in the city. CalWater’s sources of water supply come from a number of locations; 80 percent of its water from the San Francisco Regional Water 17 “City of South San Francisco Sewer System Management Plan,” City of South San Francisco, 2019, https://www.ssf.net/home/showpublisheddocument/20236/637233419128970000. 18 “PG&E Electric and Gas Service Area Maps,” PG&E, 2021, https://pgesupport.zendesk.com/hc/en- us/articles/235756988-How-do-I-know-whether-the-place-I-m-moving-into-is-served-by-PG-E-for-electricity-or-gas-. 157 Lindenville Specific Plan 62 SWOT Analysis System (SF RWS) from 11 turnouts off the San Andreas and Crystal Spring pipelines, with the remaining water pumped from 8 local district wells.19 South San Francisco is also provided with water by the Westborough Water District, which provides water and sewer services to roughly 13,500 residents within 1 square mile in the City of San Francisco. This district receives its entire water supply from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) through a single 6” turnout located on Westborough Boulevard.20 This district’s distribution system includes 3 storage tanks, 2 pumping stations, 5 pumps, and 24 miles of mains. However, Lindenville does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Westborough Water District.21 The water system for Lindenville is fed by 14 reservoirs, which have a total available capacity of 8.125 million gallons.22 66 percent of Lindenville’s water supply is imported from the Sierra Nevada and Delta diversions.23 The CalWater South San Francisco District - a region that serves the communities of the Cities of South San Francisco, Colma, Broadmoor, and a small portion of Daly City - is depicted in Figure 25. In 2007, CalWater began operating its wells again after closing well operations indefinitely as part of its participation in the Conjunctive Use Pilot Program, in which the South San Francisco District received 100 percent of its supply from the SF RWS. Water management initiatives, such as the 2020 San Francisco Urban Water Management Plan, set policies and priorities for the long-range planning of water supply and systems. Initiatives such as these also serve as a data source for population, housing, water demands, water supplies, and capital improvement projects. Water Distribution Network The South San Francisco District currently distributes roughly 13 million gallons per day - or 6,800 acre- feet (AF) per year of potable water - to more than 16,000 service connections, as seen in Figure 26.24 The network also provides fire protection, as noted in Figure 27, which includes fire hydrants throughout the City of South San Francisco. The entire District operates 5 groundwater wells, 21 booster pumps, 12 storage tanks, and 144 miles of pipeline.25 There do not seem to be any water storage tanks within the Lindenville boundary. 19 “California Water Service – South San Francisco District,” Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency, https://bawsca.org/members/profiles/cws-san-francisco#. 20 Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency, https://bawsca.org/members/profiles/cws-san-francisco#. 21 California Natural Resource Agency, https://datahub.io/dataset/california-water-district-boundaries. 22 “California Water Service – South San Francisco District,” Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency, https://bawsca.org/members/profiles/cws-san-francisco#. 23 “South San Francisco Urban Water Management Plan,” City of South San Francisco, 2020, 12, https://www.calwater.com/docs/uwmp2020/SSF_2020_UWMP_FINAL.pdf. 24 “South San Francisco District Conservation Master Plan,” in South San Francisco District Conservation Master Plan, 2021 3, https://www.calwater.com/docs/uwmp2020/SSF_2020_UWMP_FINAL.pdf. 25 “South San Francisco District Conservation Master Plan,” in South San Francisco District Conservation Master Plan, 2021 3, https://www.calwater.com/docs/uwmp2020/SSF_2020_UWMP_FINAL.pdf. 158 Lindenville Specific Plan 63 SWOT Analysis Capacity Per available data, CalWater has not reported any current operating capacity issues. Regular maintenance and operation of independently-owned systems, in addition to necessary system upgrades, will enable the system to continue serving demand and can be reliably conveyed through available as well as proposed infrastructure. Figure 25: The South San Francisco District 159 Lindenville Specific Plan 64 SWOT Analysis Figure 26: Potable Water Infrastructure in Lindenville 160 Lindenville Specific Plan 65 SWOT Analysis Figure 27: Fire Hydrants and Water Storage Tanks in Lindenville 161 Lindenville Specific Plan 66 SWOT Analysis Demand Over 80 percent the South San Francisco’s District water demand is from commercial uses and single- family residential uses, with industrial, multi-family residential, and government uses accounting for the remaining demand, as illustrated in Figure 28.26 Figure 28: Shares of Water by Land Use (2016-2020) The region’s 2020 water use target per capita is 124 gpcd, which is an approximately 20 percent reduction from the City’s base daily per capita use. In 2020, the South San Francisco District reduced its water use to 98 gallons per capita per day (GPCD), meeting its target goal of 124 GPCD established in the Department of Water Resources (DWR) and the Regional Alliance’s 2020 water of 130 GPCD.27 Cumulative water use within the majority of the South San Francisco Water District has increased by 5 percent from 2016 to 2020, as shown in Table 9.28 While conservation measures may dampen demand, water demand projections are based on the anticipated population and housing growth, both of which were forecasted to increase- as can be seen in Figure 29. From 2025 to 2045, there is a projected 12 percent increase in water demand, as shown in Table 10. This increased demand will require additional 26 “South San Francisco District Conservation Master Plan,” in South San Francisco District Conservation Master Plan, 2021 3, https://www.calwater.com/docs/uwmp2020/SSF_2020_UWMP_FINAL.pdf. 27 “South San Francisco Urban Water Management Plan,” City of South San Francisco, 2020, 19, https://www.calwater.com/docs/uwmp2020/SSF_2020_UWMP_FINAL.pdf. 28 “South San Francisco Urban Water Management Plan,” City of South San Francisco, 2020, 36 https://www.calwater.com/docs/uwmp2020/SSF_2020_UWMP_FINAL.pdf. 162 Lindenville Specific Plan 67 SWOT Analysis imported water supplies.29 Additional demand must be met by CalWater’s increased supply of imported water from San Francisco Public Utilities Commission and groundwater from the Westside Subbasin. The Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA) is currently studying opportunities to develop desalinated water supplies as part of its Long-Term Reliable Water Supply Strategy.30 Figure 29: Total Demand and Sources of Supply in the South San Francisco District (1980 - 2020) 29 “South San Francisco Urban Water Management Plan,” City of South San Francisco, 2020, 37, https://www.calwater.com/docs/uwmp2020/SSF_2020_UWMP_FINAL.pdf. 30 “South San Francisco Urban Water Management Plan,” City of South San Francisco, 2020, 75, https://www.calwater.com/docs/uwmp2020/SSF_2020_UWMP_FINAL.pdf. 163 Lindenville Specific Plan 68 SWOT Analysis Table 9: Past and Current Water Use in the South San Francisco District by Use Type, from 2016 - 2020 Use Type Volume 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Single Family Residential 2,365 2,437 2,486 2,476 2,682 Multi-Family Residential 336 333 33 356 396 Commercial 3,026 3,082 3,190 3,189 2,840 Institutional 205 233 288 291 295 Industrial 651 620 565 536 505 Other Potable 27 44 -153 -393 37 Landscape 0 0 0 0 0 Losses 77 94 143 410 181 Total 6,687 6,842 6,856 6,866 6,936 Source: South San Francisco Urban Water Management Plan 2020 Table 10: Projected Water Use in the South San Francisco District by Use Type, from 2025 - 2045 (South San Francisco Urban Water Management Plan 2020) Use Type Volume 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Single Family 2,568 2,490 2,483 2,540 2,620 164 Lindenville Specific Plan 69 SWOT Analysis Residential Multi-Family Residential 587 600 614 639 667 Commercial 3,361 3,377 3,499 3,739 4,004 Institutional 306 319 340 377 419 Industrial 508 508 508 508 508 Other Potable 39 39 39 39 39 Landscape 0 0 0 0 0 Losses 174 150 152 159 166 Total 7,543 7,483 7,635 8,000 8,423 Source: South San Francisco Urban Water Management Plan 2020 Planned Improvements Senate Bill X7-7 of 2009, titled “The Water Conservation Act,” required a 20 percent reduction in urban per capita water use across the state of California by December 31, 2020. Retail water suppliers were required to report existing baseline water usage and produce targets for reduction. Furthermore, with the impending threats of drought and water needs through 2035, the BAWSCA is developing a Long‐Term Water Supply Strategy. Brackish groundwater and San Francisco Bay Water sources were identified as one group of water supply management projects that could be developed to meet future dry-year water needs of the BAWSCA through 2035. As currently envisioned, brackish groundwater or Bay Water - extracted from aquifers under the San Francisco Bay - would be desalinated and conveyed directly to individual member agencies or through the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) RWS.31 31 “Brackish Groundwater Desalination Feasibility Assessment – BAWSCA’s Strategy Groundwater Model Development,” CDM Smith, https://bawsca.org/uploads/userfiles/files/BAWSCA_Phase_IIA_TM_GW_model_Mar_12_2013_FINAL_v3_w_Figures.pdf. 165 Lindenville Specific Plan 70 SWOT Analysis Sewage and Wastewater Wastewater Treatment Sewage in Lindenville is transported through a series of forced mains, gravity mains, and pump stations that are owned and maintained by the City of South San Francisco. The South San Francisco District relies on two facilities for wastewater treatment - the North San Mateo Wastewater Treatment Plant (NSMWTP), owned and operated by the North San Mateo County Sanitation District (NSMCSD), and the South San Francisco and San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant (SSFWQCP), owned and operated by the cities of San Bruno and South San Francisco. Cal Water coordinates with the NSMCSD and SSFWQCP for wastewater collection, treatment, and recycling.32 The NSMWTP provides primary and secondary wastewater treatment, with a capacity to treat up to 10.3 million gallons per day (mgd) average daily flow, but currently receives 6.2 mgd from the service area. Effluent is discharged to an outfall at Thornton Beach in Daly City via pipeline. Secondary treated water is currently recycled from the NSMWTP for irrigation of landscaped medians in Westlake. Currently, the NSMWTP does not provide recycled water anywhere in the South San Francisco District.33 The SSFWQCP undergoes primary and secondary treatment with chlorination and dechlorination before being discharged to the San Francisco Bay. The SSFWQCP also provides dechlorination for Burlingame, Millbrae, and the San Francisco International Airport. The SSFWQCP has the capacity to treat 13 mgd average daily flow, while average dry weather flow through the facility is 9 mgd, and peak wet weather flows can sometimes exceed 60 mgd. The SSFWQCP does not provide recycled water in the district.34 Collection Network Sewage in Lindenville generally moves through forced mains, gravity mains, and pump station systems and is conveyed to the SSFWQCP for full secondary wastewater treatment. The facilities consist of gravity pipelines of various materials including mostly vitrified clay pipe (VCP). As shown in Figure 30, all forced main pipelines are owned by the City of South San Francisco, ranging from 6” to 36” in diameter. As identified in a 1991 survey of utility infrastructure, there are two sewer pump stations within Lindenville, located on Shaw Road and San Mateo Avenue. These pump stations handle wastewater fed from underground gravity pipelines and stored in an underground pit or wet well. The wastewater is pressure lifted upward through a pipe system that discharges the wastewater into a gravity maintenance hole until it reaches its destination, which is usually a wastewater treatment plant. 32 “South San Francisco Urban Water Management Plan,” City of South San Francisco, 2020, 66, https://www.calwater.com/docs/uwmp2020/SSF_2020_UWMP_FINAL.pdf. 33 Ibid. 34 Ibid, 67. 166 Lindenville Specific Plan 71 SWOT Analysis Figure 30: Sewer Collection Map of Lindenville (City of South San Francisco) 167 Lindenville Specific Plan 72 SWOT Analysis Recycled Water Systems There is currently a coordinated effort between CalWater and other partners to generate recycled water for various uses in the San Francisco Peninsula region. However, there is no projected recycled water supply for Lindenville and the South San Francisco District through the year 2045. Furthermore, CalWater has not implemented any incentive programs to encourage recycled water use. Stormwater Hydrology As shown in Figures 31, 32, and 33, there are two major watersheds within Lindenville - the San Francisco Bay Watershed and the San Mateo Creek Watershed. The majority of Lindenville drains into the San Francisco Bay Watershed, accounting for approximately 75 percent of Lindenville’s drainage. The Lindenville region comprises roughly 0.25 percent of the watershed’s overall area, which is almost 317 square miles in total. The San Francisco Bay Watershed encompasses the southern portion of the San Francisco Bay, ranging from the City of San Francisco down south to Milpitas. Within Lindenville, Colma Creek is carried in a partially engineered channel with water flowing eastward past US-101 to San Francisco Bay, as shown in Figure 34.35 The remaining 25 percent of Lindenville drains into the San Mateo Creek Watershed, a roughly 133 square mile watershed that spans from San Francisco to Mountain View in Santa Clara County. Stormwater and surface runoff from Lindenville also flows east, discharging into San Francisco Bay, as seen in Figure 31.36 35 “National Hydrography Dataset,” United States Geological Survey, https://www.usgs.gov/national- hydrography/national-hydrography-dataset. 36 “National Hydrography Dataset,” United States Geological Survey, https://www.usgs.gov/national- hydrography/national-hydrography-dataset. 168 Lindenville Specific Plan 73 SWOT Analysis Figure 31: San Francisco Bay Watershed and its relationship to Lindenville 169 Lindenville Specific Plan 74 SWOT Analysis Figure 32: San Francisco Bay Watershed and its relationship to Lindenville (Zoom) 170 Lindenville Specific Plan 75 SWOT Analysis Figure 33: San Mateo Creek Watershed, and its relationship to Lindenville 171 Lindenville Specific Plan 76 SWOT Analysis Drainage Collection Stormwater in Lindenville is collected and conveyed through the storm drains owned and maintained by both the City of South San Francisco and San Mateo County. These lines generally drain toward Colma Creek, depending on their location within Lindenville, before discharging into larger conveyance pipes that outfall into the San Francisco Bay. Figure 34 below illustrates surface topography and primary stormwater flow paths. Lindenville has a network of storm main pipelines oriented generally in a northeast to southeast direction along major streets and arterials, as shown in Figure 35. These storm mains are all owned by the City of South San Francisco and range in size from 6” to 36” in pipe diameter. Major outfalls between 18” and 36” in pipe diameter are found along the two bodies of water present in Lindenville, primarily along Colma Creek. There are seven storm pump stations within Lindenville, the majority of which are located along Colma Creek. These pump stations help mitigate flooding in Lindenville by pumping away large volumes of water, preventing flood risks when possible. 172 Lindenville Specific Plan 77 SWOT Analysis Figure 34: Drainage flow paths across Lindenville 173 Lindenville Specific Plan 78 SWOT Analysis Figure 34: Stormwater Collection System Map of Lindenville 174 Lindenville Specific Plan 79 SWOT Analysis Water Quality Protection and Runoff Control Requirements The City of South San Francisco follows the stormwater management regulations and hydraulics and hydrology guidance of San Mateo County. Established in 1990, the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program (SMCWPPP) institutes guidelines to reduce the pollution carried by stormwater into local bodies of water. The SMCWPPP created the Green Infrastructure Design Guide, a comprehensive design guide helping build and maintain green infrastructure in San Mateo County. The County’s Green Infrastructure Plan allows communities to transition from engineered, impervious solutions to greener, more sustainable, and natural solutions. The SMCWPPP requires that projects between 2,500 and 10,000 square feet of impervious surface implement at least one of the following site design strategies: ● Direct roof runoff into cisterns or rain barrels for use. ● Direct roof runoff onto vegetated areas. ● Direct runoff from sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios onto vegetated areas. ● Direct runoff from driveways/uncovered parking lots onto vegetated areas. ● Construct sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios with permeable surfaces. ● Construct bike lanes, driveways, and/or uncovered parking lots with permeable surfaces.37 The SMCWPPP also requires that projects creating or replacing 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface must implement stormwater treatment, source control measures, and site design measures.38 The program also requires Special Land Use Categories (restaurants, retail gasoline outlets, auto service facilities, and surface parking) that create or replace 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface to implement stormwater treatment, source control measures, and site design measures. 37 San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program, Page 395. 38 San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program, Page 40. 175 Lindenville Specific Plan 80 SWOT Analysis Electric The City of South San Francisco is a member of the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), an American investor-owned utility overseen by the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC), which provides natural gas and electricity to over five million households across California. Throughout its service area, PG&E consists of an extensive hydroelectric system, one operating nuclear power plant, one operating natural gas-fired power plant, and another gas-fired plant under construction. Furthermore, 33 percent of PG&E’s delivered electricity comes from renewable sources, including solar, wind, geothermal, small hydroelectric and various forms of bioenergy.39 Natural Gas Natural gas services are conveyed and delivered to Lindenville by PG&E. PG&E’s broader natural gas system spans Central and Northern California, using a combination of storage and pipeline facilities. The system includes both residential and public services, providing roughly 970 billion cubic feet of natural gas per year to 15 million residents. As part of public services, PG&E has made use of natural gas to run 833 vehicles in their fleet, with almost 300 vehicles running solely on natural gas. Natural Gas Distribution Network Lindenville’s natural gas distribution travels along US-101, and crosses over along Airport Boulevard, towards San Francisco International Airport, as seen in Figure 36. Planned Improvements As of June 2021, the City has joined several other cities around the country to ban the use of natural gas in new residential construction, in an effort to encourage future development to be powered entirely by electricity. Figure 36: Lindenville Electric Network Figure 37: Gas Pipeline Network 39 “Renewable Energy,” PG&E Corporation, https://www.pgecorp.com/corp_responsibility/reports/2018/bu07_renewable_energy.html#:~:text=PG%26E%20deliver s%20some%20of%20the,and%20various%20forms%20of%20bioenergy. 176 Lindenville Specific Plan 81 SWOT Analysis Communications Communications Distribution Network Topography Lindenville’s topography generally slopes eastward to the San Francisco Bay, as can be seen in Figure 38. There is a grade change of roughly 15 feet from the western boundary toward South Linden Avenue, as well as shallower slopes along Colma Creek and San Bruno Canal. The slope intensity across Lindenville is very low and could cause slow runoff onto US-101 and the San Francisco International Airport. This could potentially cause dangerous conditions and local and regional transportation delays. Lindenville’s generally flat topography may also lead to regular localized flooding. 177 Lindenville Specific Plan 82 SWOT Analysis Figure 37: Site Topography of Lindenville 178 Lindenville Specific Plan 83 SWOT Analysis Pavement As depicted in Figure 39, Lindenville has a very high percentage of impervious coverage. Most of this coverage is made up of concrete, asphalt, and other hard surfaces. Lindenville’s principal land uses are commercial and industrial, which require large expanses of asphalt and concrete for parking, circulation, and truck staging, and the primary reason for the extent of impervious coverage. Industrial and large commercial buildings also tend to require more roof space than typical residential neighborhoods, which also contributes substantially to the percentage of impervious coverage. In combination, these impenetrable surfaces lead to extremely high surface temperatures and an urban heat island effect that drives up temperatures across the Lindenville neighborhood, as can be seen in Figure 40. Figure 39: Impervious Surfaces (highlighted in orange) and permeable surfaces (highlighted in teal) across Lindenville and its outer context 179 Lindenville Specific Plan 84 SWOT Analysis Figure 40: Average Surface Temperature in Lindenville 180 Lindenville Specific Plan 85 SWOT Analysis Climate Due in part to South San Francisco’s proximity to San Francisco Bay, daytime temperatures are relatively cool for most of the year, even during summer months. The temperature typically varies from 45°F to 71°F and is rarely below 39°F or above 82°F, per Figure 19. The warm season lasts for approximately four months, with an average daily high temperature above 68°F. The cool season lasts for approximately two months, with an average daily high temperature below 58°F. Figure 41: Average High and Low Temperatures in South San Francisco (Weather Spark) The rainy period of the year in the City of SSF lasts for nearly 7 months, with a sliding 31-day rainfall of at least 0.5 inches. The month with the most rain in the city is February, with an average rainfall of 3.8 inches, as shown in Figure 42. 181 Lindenville Specific Plan 86 SWOT Analysis Figure 42: Average Monthly Rainfall in South San Francisco (Weather Spark) The average hourly wind speed in South San Francisco experiences mild seasonal variation over the course of the year. The windier part of the year lasts for 5 months, with average wind speeds of more than 8.8 miles per hour. The calmer time of year lasts for the remainder of the year, with an average hourly wind speed of 7.6 miles per hour, as depicted in Figure 43. Figure 43: Average Wind Speeds in South San Francisco (Weather Spark) 182 Lindenville Specific Plan 87 SWOT Analysis Appendix Transportation Table 8: Local Street Network Street Name Description Features Proposed Infrastructure Improvements South Spruce Avenue Connector that runs north- south along the western boundary of Lindenville between Centennial Way Trail and Railroad Avenue. Lanes/direction: 2 Speed limit: 30 MPH Median: Raised pavement markers south of Colma Creek, painted median north of Colma Creek On-street Parking: No Bicycle Facilities: Class III bicycle route Sidewalk: Yes Truck route: Yes High Injury Network: Yes • Upgrade to Class IV separated bikeway. • Pedestrian spot improvements at North Canal Street and South Canal Street intersections with South Spruce Avenue. • South Spruce Street between Colma Creek and Railroad Avenue is proposed for weight restrictions. South Linden Avenue Connector and Transit Priority Corridor that runs Lanes/direction: 2 north of Colma Creek, 1 south of Colma Creek • South Linden Grade Separation and Tanforan Avenue Pedestrian Undercrossing 183 Lindenville Specific Plan 88 SWOT Analysis north-south between Railroad Avenue and Tanforan Avenue / Shaw Road. Speed limit: 25 MPH Median: Painted On-street Parking: Yes Bicycle Facilities: Class III bicycle route Sidewalk: Yes Truck route: Yes High Injury Network: Yes • South Linden Avenue between Colma Creek and Railroad Avenue is proposed for weight restrictions. • Upgrade to Class II bicycle lane. North Canal Street Neighborhood Street that runs east-west between South Spruce Avenue and South Linden Avenue. Lanes/direction: 1 Speed limit: 30 MPH Median: Painted On-street Parking: Yes (westbound direction) Bicycle Facilities: Class III bicycle route Sidewalk: Yes (westbound side) Truck route: Yes High Injury Network: No • Pedestrian spot improvements at intersections with South Spruce Avenue and South Linden Avenue. • Recommended sidewalk project. • Proposed for weight restrictions. South Canal Street Neighborhood Street that runs east-west between Lanes/direction: 1 Speed limit: 30 MPH • Pedestrian spot improvements at intersections with South Spruce Avenue. • Recommended sidewalk project. • Proposed for weight restrictions. 184 Lindenville Specific Plan 89 SWOT Analysis South Spruce Avenue and South Linden Avenue. Median: Painted On-street Parking: Yes (eastbound direction) Bicycle Facilities: None Sidewalk: Yes (eastbound side) Truck route: Yes High Injury Network: No Railroad Avenue Connector that runs east- west between South Spruce Avenue and South Linden Avenue. Lanes/direction: 1 Speed limit: 30 MPH Median: Painted On-street Parking: Yes (eastbound direction) Bicycle Facilities: None Sidewalk: Yes (eastbound side) Truck route: Yes High Injury Network: Yes • Proposed for weight restrictions. Starlite Street Neighborhood Street that runs north-south and east- east between South Canal Street and South Spruce Avenue. Lanes/direction: 1 Speed limit: 25 MPH Median: None On-street Parking: Yes • Proposed for weight restrictions. 185 Lindenville Specific Plan 90 SWOT Analysis Bicycle Facilities: None Sidewalk: Yes, (interrupted by driveways) Truck route: Yes High Injury Network: No Victory Avenue Industrial Street that runs east-west between South Spruce Avenue and South Linden Avenue. Lanes/direction: 1 Speed limit: 25 MPH Median: Raised pavement markers On-street Parking: Yes Bicycle Facilities: None Sidewalk: Yes (obstructed by parked cars) Truck route: Yes High Injury Network: No Ryan Way Industrial Street and cul-de- sac that runs north-south and connects Victory Avenue to a mixed industrial zone. Lanes/direction: 1 Speed limit: 25 MPH Median: None On-street Parking: Yes Bicycle Facilities: None Sidewalk: Yes 186 Lindenville Specific Plan 91 SWOT Analysis Truck route: Yes High Injury Network: No South Maple Avenue Classified as a Neighborhood Street north of Victory Avenue and an Industrial Street south of Victory Avenue. It runs north-south between South Canal Street and Tanforan Avenue. Lanes/direction: 1 Speed limit: 25 MPH Median: None On-street Parking: Yes Bicycle Facilities: None Sidewalk: Yes Truck route: Yes High Injury Network: No • Connect Maple Avenue between Railroad Avenue and South Canal Street, including a bike and ped bridge. • South Maple Avenue between Victory Avenue and South Canal Street is proposed for weight restrictions. • Designation as a Pedestrian Priority Area in the Active South City Plan 2022. Browning Way Industrial Street and cul-de- sac that connects South Maple Avenue to a Business & Professional Office. Lanes/direction: 1 Speed limit: 25 MPH Median: None On-street Parking: Yes Bicycle Facilities: None Sidewalk: Yes Truck route: Yes High Injury Network: No 187 Lindenville Specific Plan 92 SWOT Analysis San Mateo Avenue Boulevard that runs north- south between Airport Boulevard / Produce Avenue and Tanforan Avenue / Shaw Road. Lanes/direction: 1 Speed limit: 30 MPH Median: Raised pavement markers On-street Parking: Yes Bicycle Facilities: Class III Bicycle Route Sidewalk: Yes Truck route: Yes High Injury Network: No • Upgrade to Class II bicycle lane. • Protected intersection as part of the Utah Avenue extension. Lowrie Avenue Connector that runs north- south, parallel to San Mateo Ave. Lanes/direction: 1 Speed limit: 25 MPH Median: None On-street Parking: Yes Bicycle Facilities: None Sidewalk: Yes Truck route: Yes High Injury Network: No Airport Boulevard / Boulevard that runs north- south parallel to US-101 from Railroad Avenue to Lanes/direction: 1 lane northbound, 2 lanes southbound • Proposed Class IV separated bikeway. • Potential extension to connect to the extension of Utah Avenue. 188 Lindenville Specific Plan 93 SWOT Analysis Produce Avenue Terminal Court, where it merges with the US-101. Speed limit: 35 MPH Median: Painted On-street Parking: No Bicycle Facilities: None Sidewalk: Yes (southbound side) Truck route: Yes High Injury Network: No Terminal Court Cul-de-sac that connects Produce Avenue to mixed use industry. Lanes/direction: 1 Speed limit: 25 MPH Median: Painted On-street Parking: Yes Bicycle Facilities: None Sidewalk: Yes (southbound side) Truck route: No High Injury Network: No Tanforan Avenue Neighborhood Street that runs east-west between South Maple Avenue / Huntington Avenue and Lanes/direction: 1 Speed limit: 25 MPH Median: None • Proposed Class I shared-use path. 189 Lindenville Specific Plan 94 SWOT Analysis San Mateo Avenue and is bisected by the Caltrain tracks. On-street Parking: Yes Bicycle Facilities: None Sidewalk: Yes, west of the railroad track. Partial, east of the track (vehicles parked on the sidewalk) Truck route: No High Injury Network: No Shaw Road Industrial Street that runs east-west and north-south between San Mateo Avenue and 7th Avenue (in San Bruno). Lanes/direction: 1 Speed limit: 30 MPH Median: None On-street Parking: Yes Bicycle Facilities: None Sidewalk: Yes Truck route: No High Injury Network: No Dollar Avenue Connector that runs north- south between South Linden Avenue and Tanforan Avenue and parallels the Caltrain tracks. Lanes/direction: 1 Speed limit: 30 MPH Median: Painted On-street Parking: Yes • Recommended sidewalk project. • Upgrade to Class II bicycle lane. 190 Lindenville Specific Plan 95 SWOT Analysis Bicycle Facilities: Class III bicycle route Sidewalk: Yes (southbound direction) Truck route: Yes High Injury Network: No Proposed: Sneath Lane Extension Extension of Sneath Lane from South Maple Avenue to South Linden Avenue, connecting at Dollar Avenue. Proposed: Utah Avenue Interchange Extension of Utah Avenue from South Airport Boulevard to San Mateo Avenue with new interchange with US-101. Proposed: Myrtle Avenue Extension Extension of Myrtle Avenue from South Spruce Avenue to South Maple Avenue between Victory Avenue and Browning Way. Proposed: South Maple Avenue Extension Extension of South Maple Avenue from Railroad Avenue to North Canal Street. Proposed bike and pedestrian bridge connection across Canal. 191 Lindenville Specific Plan 96 SWOT Analysis 192 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:23-74 Agenda Date:2/2/2023 Version:1 Item #:3. Report regarding consideration of an application for Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map related to a previously entitled mixed-use development consisting of 20 condominium units,approximately 5.200 square feet of commercial space at 889 McLellan Road in accordance with SSFMC Title 19,and determination that the project is within the parameters analyzed within the Addendum to the 2000 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report.(Billy Gross, Principal Planner) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution making findings and recommending that the City Council approve a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (SA19-0002),subject to the attached draft Conditions of Approval,and determine that the project at 889 McLellan Road is within the parameters analyzed within the Addendum to the 2000 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. MOTION TO ADOPT STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1.Move to adopt a resolution making findings and recommending that the City Council determine that the proposed project is covered by the 2000 SEIR Addendum and approve the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION Project Overview The subject site is located at the corner of Mission Rd and McLellan Dr,directly across from the South San Francisco BART station.In March 2011,the City Council approved entitlements for a Use Permit,Design Review,Tentative Subdivision Map,Affordable Housing Agreement and an Addendum to a certified Environmental Impact Report to allow a mixed-use development consisting of 20 residential condominium units above approximately 5,200 square feet of ground floor commercial space,and on-site parking at ground level to accommodate the commercial space and in the subterranean garage for the residential units. Due to financing difficulties and other setbacks,the construction of the project was previously delayed multiple times but is now moving forward and completion of the project is anticipated in 2023.The originally approved Tentative Subdivision Map expired prior to obtaining approval of a Final Map by the City Council,so the applicant has submitted an updated Tentative Subdivision Map for review and approval by the City Council. Under Title 19 of the Municipal Code,the Planning Commission makes a recommendation on a tentative map before City Council consideration. Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map The proposed Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map,prepared by Pacific Crest Surveying and dated January 16, 2023,would subdivide the parcel to create 20 residential condominium units and 4 commercial condominium units.The City Engineer has reviewed the proposed map and determined that it complies with applicable City Standards. Section 19.40.090 of the Municipal Code requires the Planning Commission to make a recommendation to theCity of South San Francisco Printed on 1/27/2023Page 1 of 3 powered by Legistar™193 File #:23-74 Agenda Date:2/2/2023 Version:1 Item #:3. Section 19.40.090 of the Municipal Code requires the Planning Commission to make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the approval or denial of the map and specifying the reasons for the recommendation. The Subdivision Map Act,implemented through Title 19 of the Municipal Code,requires the City to deny approval of a tentative map if it makes certain adverse findings,such as consistency with the general plan, physical suitability of the subject site,or design of the subdivision resulting in environmental or public health harms (see Gov.Code section 66474).In this case,the tentative map conforms with applicable City standards and there are no grounds to find that it should be denied.For instance,the property is located in a developed, urban setting,and is not subject to a Williamson Act contract,an open space easement,a conservation easement,or an agricultural conservation easement.The surrounding land uses and resulting parcels would not support agricultural uses;the resulting parcels would result in mixed-use development not incidental to commercial agricultural use of the land.The map was also previously approved by the City and this updated version does not result in any substantive changes to the previously entitled project but will continue to facilitate that project. The proposed vesting tentative map,including the proposed designs and improvements,is consistent with the City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance because the tentative map would facilitate the infill and development of a mixed-use residential project which would create additional residential units and retail uses in proximity of the South San Francisco BART Station. GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING CONFORMITY The Project site is part of the El Camino Real Planning Sub-Area as defined by the City of South San Francisco’s recently updated General Plan.The General Plan identifies strategic locations to support increased housing density and mixed uses along El Camino Real.One of these strategic locations is the South San Francisco BART station,which has the potential for more housing production and increased daily services to serve new and existing residents.The site’s General Plan designation is Medium Density Mixed Use,which allows for a broad range of commercial,office,and residential uses and public spaces serving both surrounding neighborhoods and visitors from nearby areas.The allow FAR range is 0.5 up to 3.5,of which up to 0.5 FAR can be non-residential; maximum residential densities are allowed up to 120 dwelling units per acre. The Project site is located within the T5 Corridor Zoning District (T5C),which supports a comfortable and walkable high-intensity urban core, with diverse frontages that provide space for active ground floor uses. The Project is consistent with the guiding and implementing policies in the General Plan and the intent of the T5C Zoning District as it has been designed as a mixed-use development with for-sale residential units in proximity to the South San Francisco BART station.The Tentative Subdivision Map will not result in any substantive changes to the previously entitled project,and the overall project will remain consistent with the intent and purpose of the originally entitled project and comply with all development standards. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In March 2011 the Council found that the Mission/McLellan Project was within the parameters analyzed within the Addendum to the 2000 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (Addendum to the 2000 SEIR)prepared for the 2000 El Camino Real Redevelopment Plan Amendment.The 2000 EIR included a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)that identified mitigation measures required of development projects within the redevelopment plan area,to show that the project components are within the environmental parameters analyzed in the DSASP EIR. The proposed Tentative Subdivision Map does not propose any modifications to the project,and it is therefore found to continue to be consistent with the analysis included in the previously entitled projects,and the City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/27/2023Page 2 of 3 powered by Legistar™194 File #:23-74 Agenda Date:2/2/2023 Version:1 Item #:3. found to continue to be consistent with the analysis included in the previously entitled projects,and the approval would not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified effects beyond those disclosed and analyzed in the Addendum to the 2000 SEIR approved by City Council,nor do the proposed modifications constitute a change in the Project or change in circumstances that would require additional environmental review.Therefore,no further CEQA action is required by the Planning Commission at this time. CONCLUSION The Tentative Subdivision Map is in keeping with the originally entitled project and facilitates the infill and development of a mixed-use residential project which would create additional residential units and retail uses in proximity of the South San Francisco BART Station. Therefore,staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution making findings and recommending that the City Council determine that the proposed project is covered by the 2000 SEIR Addendum and approve the Tentative Subdivision Map (SA19-0002)based on the attached draft Findings and subject to the attached draft Conditions of Approval. Attachments: 1.2011 City Council Approved Project Drawings 2.2011 City Council Approved Conditions of Approval 3.2011 City Council Approved Addendum to the 2000 SEIR Associated Files and Exhibits: 1. Draft Entitlements Resolution (23-91) A.Exhibit A - Tentative Subdivision Map B.Exhibit B - Draft Conditions of Approval City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/27/2023Page 3 of 3 powered by Legistar™195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 RESOLUTION NO. 44 -2011 CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS AID APPROVING A USE PERMIT, DESIGN REVIEW, A TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP AND AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT FOR A MIXED -USE DEVELOPMENT AT 1309 MISSION WHEREAS, Metron, PTP (Owner) and Stuart Welte, AIA (Applicant) have proposed construction of a four -story mixed -use residential and commercial development, consisting of 20 residential condominiums above approximately 5,200 square feet of ground -floor commercial space and 35 on -site and six on- street parking spaces ( "Project ") on an approximately 17,582 square foot (0.41 acre) site, which is currently vacant, located at the northwest corner of McLellan Drive and Mission Road ( "Project Site ") in the City of South San Francisco ( "City "); and, WHEREAS, Applicant seeks approval of Zoning Amendments, Use Permit, Design Review, Tentative Subdivision Map, and Affordable Housing Agreement for the Project; and, WHEREAS, approval of the Applicant's proposal is considered a "project" for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act, Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21000, et seq. (CEQA), and in accordance with CEQA, an Addendum to the Supplemental Environment Impact Report for the 2000 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment (2000 SEIR) was prepared, analyzing the Project and explaining why a subsequent EIR was not required; and, WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed and carefully considered the information in the Addendum and the Final 2000 SEIR, and by separate resolution, adopts the Addendum, as an objective and accurate document that reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City in the discussion of the Project's environmental impacts; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on December 2, 2010, to consider the Addendum to the 2000 SEIR, the proposed Zoning Amendments, Use Permit, Design Review, Tentative Subdivision Map, and Affordable Housing Agreement for the Project and take public testimony, at the conclusion of which, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council certify the EIR and approve the Project; and, WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on March 9, 2011, to consider the Addendum to the 2000 SEIR, the proposed Zoning Amendments, Use Permit, Design Review, Tentative Subdivision Map, and Affordable Housing Agreement and take public testimony; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the record before it, which includes without limitation, the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq. ( "CEQA ") and the CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of Regulations § 15000, et seq.; the South San Francisco 1999 General Plan and General Plan 208 Environmental Impact Report, including the 2001 updates to the General Plan and 2001 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report; the El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan, and the 1993 Environmental Impact Report, including all attachments and technical reports thereto; the 2000 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment, and the 2000 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, including all attachments and technical reports thereto; the Addendum to the 2000 SEIR prepared for the Project; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Design Review Board meetings held on July 21, 2009 and May 18, 2010; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission's meeting held on December 2, 2010; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the City Council's duly noticed public hearing on March 9, 2011; and any other evidence within the meaning of Public Resources Code § 21080(e) and § 21082.2), the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby finds as follows: I. General Findings 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution. 2. The Exhibits attached to this Resolution, including proposed Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A), proposed Affordable Housing Agreement (Exhibit B), proposed Project Plans (Exhibit C) and Tentative Subdivision Map (Exhibit D) are each incorporated by reference as part of this Resolution, as if each were set forth fully herein. 3. The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco, 315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 94080, and in the custody of Chief Planner, Susy Kalkin. 4. The proposed Project, including the Use Permit, Design Review, Tentative Subdivision Map, and Affordable Housing Agreement are consistent and compatible with all elements in the City of South San Francisco General Plan. The 1999 General Plan includes policies and programs that are designed to encourage the pedestrian and transit oriented mixed - use development in the El Camino Real corridor. Further, the land uses, development standards, densities and intensities, buildings and structures proposed are compatible with the goals, policies, and land use designations established in the General Plan (see Gov't Code, § 65860), and none of the land uses, development standards, densities and intensities, buildings and structures will operate to conflict with or impede achievement of the any of the goals, policies, or land use designations established in the General Plan. 5. The proposed Project, including the Use Permit, Design Review, Tentative Subdivision Map, and Affordable Housing Agreement are consistent with the standards and requirements of the City's Zoning Ordinance (as proposed for amendment) and with the provisions of the Transit Village Commercial and Transit Village High Density Residential Districts. The parcelization and development of the Project Site would result in a 20 residential condominiums above approximately 5,200 square feet of ground -floor commercial space, and would meet minimum design standards. 6. The site is physically suitable for the type of development and density proposed, as the mixed -use development will benefit from being located on a major thoroughfare, and the 209 size of the retail and the number of residential units is appropriate for the location and meets the City's land use and zoning standards. 7. The environmental impacts of the proposed Zoning Amendment have been fully analyzed in accordance with CEQA in the 2000 SEIR and Addendum to the 2000 SEIR, and mitigation measures proposed in the 2000 SEIR are proposed to be readopted as part of the Project. II. Use Permit 1. The proposed use will not be adverse to the public health, safety, or general welfare of the community, nor detrimental to surrounding properties or improvements, because the Project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, as well as development standards for the zoning district in which it will be located, and the City's General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and development standards are designed to avoid incompatibility of uses and protect and preserve the public health, safety, and general welfare. 2. The proposed use complies with the Transit Village Commercial (TV -C) and Transit Village High Density Residential (TV -RH) zoning districts, and the development standards established therein, because the Project would not violate minimum or maximum thresholds of development for either district. 3. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed Project are compatible with the existing and reasonably foreseeable future land uses in the vicinity because the Project proposes a mixed -use residential and retain development near other such mixed -use development, in an area of the City that is planned for pedestrian and transit oriented mixed -use development. III. Tentative Map 1. The tentative map complies with and meets all of the requirements of SSFMC Title 19 (Subdivision Ordinance) and with the requirements of the State Subdivision Map Act. 2. The site is physically suitable for the type of development and density proposed, as the tentative map will facilitate a Project that will be compatible with the existing and reasonably foreseeable future land uses in the vicinity because the Project proposes a mixed -use residential and retain development near other such mixed -use development, in an area of the City that is planned for pedestrian and transit oriented mixed -use development. 3. The design and improvements of the tentative subdivision map are not in conflict with any existing public easements. 4. The property is located in a developed, urban setting, and is not subject to a Williamson Act contract, an open space easement, a conservation easement, or an agricultural conservation easement. The surrounding land uses and resulting parcels would not support agricultural uses; the resulting parcels would result in residential development not incidental to commercial agricultural use of the land. 210 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby makes the findings contained in this Resolution, and hereby approves the Use Permit, Design Review, Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A), Affordable Housing Agreement (Exhibit B), Project Plans (Exhibit C) and Tentative Subdivision Map (Exhibit D), and for the Project. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby authorizes the City Manager or his designee to execute an Affordable Housing Agreement, in substantially the same form as the attached Exhibit B, for the Project. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption. I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting held on the 9 day of March, 2011 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers Mark Addiego, Pedro Gonzalez, and Karyl Matsumoto, NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Vice Mayor Richard A. Garbarino and Mayor Kevin Mullin ATTEST: 211 Exhibit A Conditions of Approval P144 212 A. Pia ing Division requir CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL P09-0002: UPO9-0001, EIR10-0001, DRO9-0003, SA10-0002 & AHA10-0001 Mixed Use Development 1309 Mission Rd As approved by the City Council on March 9, 2011) ents shall be as follows: 1. The applicant shall comply with the Pia ing Divisions standard Conditions and Li itations for Co ercial Industrial and Multi-F. ily Residential Projects. 2. The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures outlined in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Progrd and the Addend to the 2000 El C. ino Real Redevelopment Plan endment Suppl ental EIR. 3. by Enviro ental Innovations in Design, dated August 10, 2010. The project shall be completed and operated substantially as indicated in the plans prepared 4. All equipment (either roof or gro d-mo ted) shall be screened from view through the use ofintegral architectural el ents, such as enclosures or roof screens, and landscape screening. Equipment enclosures and/or roof screens shall be painted to match the building. 5. Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall pay any applicable childcare fees in accordance with South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 20.115. This fee is subject to . ual adjustment, and presently is assessed at $1,851.00 per residential it and $0.68 per gsf for Go ercial/retail. 6. The Final Map shall be substantially consistent with the Tentative Map entitled, "Vesting Tentative Map, 1 Lot Subdivision for Condomini Purposes", dated August 17, 2010, prepared by Guiliani & Kull, Inc. 7. The Final Map shall comply with all applicable requir Ordinance). ents of SSFMC Title 20 (Zoning 8. Prior to the approval of the Final Map or Building P- it, the property owner shall meet with the City's Park and Recreation Director and develop a Parks and Recreation Fee Plan in-lieu of parkland dedication in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 19.24. Prior to the Final Inspection the owner shall pay the Parks and Recreation Fees in-lieu of park land dedication. The plan shall be subject to the review and approval of the City's Parks and Recreation Director. 9. All roof planters with trees shall have minimum dimensions of 8 ft x 8 ft x 3 ft depth. Trees within roof planters shall be a minimum of6 ft tall to be in scale with the building. 10. Any exterior design modifications, including any and all utilities, shall require Chief P1 review and approval prior to installation. er 213 Conditions of Approval Page 2 of 9 1 1. The project sponsor shall obtain all necessary encroachment p its from the To of Colma for the work within the portion of Mission Road that ties within the Town ofColma's jurisdiction. 12. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any portion ofthe project, the project sponsor shall have entered into a Maintenance Agre ent with the Town of Colma, acceptable to the Colma City Attorney and Public Works Director, for all project-related provements in the portion of Mission Road that lies within the Town of Cohna's jurisdiction, including but not limited to the sidewalk, landscaping and utilities. 13. All utilities along the project street frontage shall be undergro ded. 14. Prior to issuance of a grading pe it the project developer shall prepare . d submit a Construction Noise Manag- ent Plan for review and approval by South San Francisco and the To of Colma. At a minim , the Plan shall address the hours of construction operation to be consistent with the City of South San Francisco's and the Town of Colma's allowed hours of construction, a requir ent for providing mufflers on all gasoline or diesel- powered equipment, use of electrically powered tools and a t- porary electrical power instead of generators whenever possible, and similar requirements. The Plan shall require the designation of a noise coordinator with a 24-hour contact n ber. The contact of the noise coordinator shall be submitted to the South San Francisco P1. ing Division and the Town of Colma prior to the co encement of construction activity at the site. The Plan shall also include a provision requiring individual 'tten notice to all residents in the adjacent Verano development regarding when construction is likely to co ence, how long it will last, the allowed hours of construction, and the n. e and contact info ation for the noise coordinator. 15. Prior to the issuance of grading pe 'ts, a haul route for trucks accessing the site during construction shall be submitted to the South San Francisco Engineering Division and the To of Colma Public Works/Engine sng Dep ent for review and approval. The route shall provide the most direct route from the regional highway system to the project site and avoid, to the extent possible, streets with residential uses along th 16. Prior to issuance of a building pe it, the project developer shall submit a report from an acoustical engineer to verify that the noise from operation of all proposed air conditio fans and exhaust will not exceed 60 dBa at the bound. 'es ofthe ptoject site. 17. At least sixty (60) percent ofthe co ercial sq e footage must be occupied by the following land uses: Eating and Drinking Establishments; Food and Beverage Retail Sales; General Retail Sales; and Personal Services. 18. Prior to final inspection, the applicant shall provide test color s. pies on the building, based on the "Benja 'n Moore 2128-10 Black Beauty" color scheme, for review and approval by the Chief Pl. er prior to completing final exterior painting. 214 Conditions of Approval Page 3 of 9 19. Prior to recordation of the Covenants Conditions & Restrictions (CC&Rs) with the San Mateo County Recorder, the applicant shall revise the CC&Rs to include the required provisions described in SSFMC § 19.36.040, as well as a provision giving the Homeo ers Association, or architectural review co ittee appointed by the Association, control of aesthetic aspects of the building such as the treatment of windows and balconies. The final CC&Rs shall be subject to review by the Chief Pia er. Pl. ng Division contact: Billy Gross, Associate Pl. er 650-877-8535) B) Engine- eng Division requirements shall be as follows: 1. The Applicant/Project Sponsor shall comply with the Engineering Division's "Standard Subdivision and Use P - et Conditions for Townhouse, Condomini and Ap. ent Developments with Private Streets and Utilities", consisting of eight pages. These conditions are contained in the Engine 'ng Division's "Standard Conditions for Subdivisions and Private Developments" booklet, dated January 2009. (Copies of this booklet are available at no cost from the Pl. ing and Engine eng Divisions). 2. The preliminary Site Plan (which is detailed on the Preliminary Grading Plan, Sheet C-2) shows that the applicant proposes to extend the existing curb at the westerly corner of the intersection ofMission Road and McLellan Drive into what is now the Mission Road southbound right- lane on to westbound McLellan Drive. The existing northbound left- turn from Mission Road into westbound McLellan Drive is a double left- and this bulb- out will restrict the this ing mov ent for trucks and may force th to drive over the curb to complete the The proposed four angle parking spaces are problematic, as vehicles backing out of these spaces will not be able to see vehicles making a left from Mission Road and long vehicles, such as delivery trucks, will extend into the McLellan travel lane, blocking through traffic. Ifparking is desired at this location, the developer and his/her engineer could propose two angled parking closer to the project driveway. This would provide some queuing length to westbo d traffic from Mission Road from any vehicle reversing from the said parking spaces. It would be acceptable for this corner bulb-out to extend 8 feet from the curb on McLellan Drive to provide a landscape area and to protect cars parked parallel along the street, but the proposed 15 feet n. owing ofthe roadway may be excessive. The Developer's civil engineer should design the parking according to Section 20.74.110 (a) of the SSF Municipal Code. It is a reco endation to keep at least 40 feet of McClellan Drive from the end of the b re at the Mission Road intersection towards El C. ino Real to be free ofparking. 3. The applicant's plans need to indicate where the project's s etary sewer lateral will co ect to the public main. If it is proposed to co ect to the To of Colma's 18" sewer main adjacent to the site within Mission Road, they will need to obtain Colma's pe ission to co ect to this main and also an encroachment pe it to trench into the street and co ect the development's sewer lateral. 215 Conditions ofApproval Page 4 of 9 4. In co ection with the grading, development, building construction and occupancy of the subject residential apa ents, the developer shall prepare and submit for City approval, three copies of a Sto Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for both construction and post- construction activities, that will result in the filtering of sto water off from the site, so as to prevent silt, debris and toxic materials from being discharged, transported or blown from the site and entering adjacent public or private property, Mission Road, McClellan Drive or the public sto drain system. 5. The applicant shall coordinate with the Technical Services Supervisor, Cassie Pruhdel, for all sto water issues. Plans and specifications for the sto water facilities shall be prepared by the applicant's civil engineering consultant and submitted to the Engineering and Water Quality Control Divisions for review and approval. 6. The Developer shall sub 't utility reports and traffic studies for review and approval. The Developer shall pay all fees to peer review all reports and studies. The developer shall be fully responsible for the design, construction and irnpl- entation of all approved traffic and soils engineering mitigation requirements. All work shall be perfo ed at no cost to the City of South San Francisco. The Developer shall address all comments listed in a Geotechnical Peer Review letter prepared by Cotton, Shires and Associates dated May 13, 2010 prior to the final draft of the enviro ental doc ent. A copy has been attached to these conditions of approval. 7. The Developer shall reimburse the City for all costs to plan check and inspect the subject development in accordance with the City's Master Fee Schedule. 8. Prior to completing the last phase ofthe development, the developer shall repair, reconstruct or replace any broken or damaged sidewalks, curbs, gutters, driveway approaches and pay- ents, along the entire McLellan Drive and Mission Road frontages ofthe project, to confo to c ent City standards. This work shall be perfo ed 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. 9 In accordance with the Municipal Code, the exit driveway on to McLellan Drive from the ap ent project's internal parking lot shall be posted with an R1 "Stop" sign. 10. The applicant is advised that any work to be perfo ed within Mission Road may require the approval of the design and an encroachment p it from the To of Colma, ifthe work to be perfo ed will be accomplished within the Town 1 1 . Grading, Hauling and Encroachment Pe its will be required for this project. The Developer shall pay all p it and inspection fees, as well as any deposits and/or bond required to obtain said p - its. Engineering Division contact: S. Bautista — 650-829-6652) 216 Conditions ofApproval Page 5 of 9 C) Fire Dep. ent requirements shall be as follows: 2. Fire sp ler syst 1003.3. 3. Install a standpipe syst and pe it. 1. Install fire sp ler system per NFPA 13/SSFFD requirements under separate fire plan check and pe 't for overhead and underground. 16. Provide fire extinguish shall be central station monitored per California Fire Code section 4. Install exterior listed hom/strobe al per NFPA 14/SSFFD requirements under separate fire plan check device, not a bell. 5. Elevator ifprovided shall not contain shunt-trips. 6. Fire ala plans shall be provided per NFPA 72 and the City of South San Francisco M icipal Code. 7. Buildings 4 stories or more will require a modified smoke control syst is required before building plans are approved. 8. The minimum height clearance for the entrance to the project for 6" per the California Fire Code. 11. Access road shall have all weather driving capabilities and support the imposed load of 75,000 Po ds. 9. Plans are to confo to Building codes and the City of South San Francisco M cipal Code. Section 15.24.130. 10. All Non parking space curbs to be painted red to local Fire Code Specifications 12. Road gradient and vehicle t widths shall not exceed maxim allowed by engineering depa m ent. 13. Provide fire flow in accordance with Califo 'a Fire Code Appendix 14. Provide fire hydrants; location and number to be det throughout the building. ined. A rational analysis ergency vehicles is 13'- 15. All buildings shall provide pr ise identification in accordance with SSF municipal code section 15.24.100. 217 Conditions of Approval Page 6 of 9 17. Provide Knox key box for each building with access keys to entry doors, electrical/mechanical rooms, elevators, gates and others to be determined. 18. The access at the east side ofthe property does not have the code required access. 19. The minim road width is 20 feet per the California Fire Code. 20. Project must meet all applicable Local (SSF M scipal Code, Chapter 15.24 Fire Code), State and Federal Codes 21. Local Fire Code and vehicle specifications and templates available at http:ll .ssfnet/depts/fire/prevention/fire_p- its.asp Fire Dep I ent contact: Luis DaSilva, Fire Marshal — 650-829-6645) D) Water Quality Control Plan requir 1, A plan showing the location of all sto drains and sanitary sewers must be submitted. 2. Encourage the use ofp - ious pavement where possible. 3. The onsite catch basins are to be stenciled with the approved San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Logo (No D ping! Flows to Bay). 4. Sto water from the entire project must be included in the treatment system design. Sto water treatment systems must be designed to treat sto water off from the entire project.) 5 Sto water pollution preventions devices are to be installed. Prefer clust - g of structures and pav- ent; directing roof off to vegetated areas; use of micro-detention, including distributed landscape-based detention; and preservation of open space. ents shall be as follows: A combination of landscape based controls (e.g., vegetated swales, bioretention areas, planter/tree boxes, and ponds) and manufactured controls (vault based separators, vault based media filters, and other removal devices) are required ifthe options listed above are not feasible. These devices must be sho on the plans prior to the issuance ofa pe it. Ifpossible, incorporate the following: vegetated/grass swale along perimeter catch basin offdirected to infiltration area notched curb to direct off from parking area into landscape roof drainage directed to landscape use ofplanter boxes instead of tree grates for sto water treatment Manufactured drain inserts alone are not acceptable they must be part ofa treatment train. One of the following must be used in series with each manufa ed 't: detention basins, bioretention areas, vegetated buffer strips, or swales. 218 Conditions ofApproval Page 7 of 9 Treatment devices must be sized according to the WEF Method or the Start at the Source Design. Please state what method is used to calculate sizing. 6. The applicant must submit a signed Operation and Maintenance Info ation for Sto water Treatment Measures fo for the sto water pollution prevention devices installed. 7. The applicant must sub st a signed maintenance agreement for the sto water pollution prevention devices installed. Each maintenance agreement will require the inclusion of the following exhibits: a. A letter-sized reduced-scale site plan that shows the locations of the treatment measures that will be subject to the agre- ent. b. c. A legal description ofthe property. A maintenance plan, including specific long-te maintenance tasks and a schedule. It is reco ended that each property owner be required to develop its o maintenance plan, subject to the municipality's approval. Resources that may assist property owners in developing their maintenance plans include: i. The operation manual for any proprietary syst purchased by the property owner. 8. Applicant must complete the Project Applicant Checklist for NPDES Pe it Requir- ents prior to issuance of a pe it and re to the Technical 5 - ices Supe . sor at the WQCP. d. Proper maintenance of landscaping, with min al pesticide use, shall be the responsibility of the property o er. 9. Landscaping shall meet the following conditions related to reduction ofpesticide use on the project site: a. ere feasible, landscaping shall be designed and operated to treat sto water off by incorporating el- ents that collect, detain, and infiltrate off. In areas that provide detention ofwater, plants that are tolerant of saturated soil conditions and prolonged exposure to water shall be specified. b. Plant mat *als selected shall be appropriate to site specific charact sties such as soil type, topography, climate, amo t and timing of sunlight, prevailing winds, rainfall, air mov ent, patt s of land use, ecological consistency and plant interactions to ensure successful establishment. c. Existing native trees, shrubs, and gro d cover shall be retained and incorporated into the landscape plan to the maxim extent practicable. e. Integrated pest manag- ent (IPM) principles and techniques shall be encouraged as part of the landscaping design to the maxim extent practicable. Examples ofIPM principles and techniques include: 219 Conditions ofApproval Page 8 of 9 10. Source control measures must include: Landscaping that 'nimizes irrigation and off, promotes surface infiltration where possible, minimizes the use of pesticides and fertilizers, and incorporates appropriate sustainable landscaping practices and programs such as Bay-Friendly Landscaping. Appropriate covers, drains, and storage precautions for outdoor material storage areas, loading docks, repair/maintenance bays, and fueling areas. Covered trash, food waste, and compactor enclosures. P1 bing of the following discharges to the sanitary sewer, subject to the local sanitary sewer agency's authority and standards: Discharges from indoor floor mat/equipment/hood filter wash racks or covered outdoor wash racks for restaurants. Dumpster drips from covered trash and food compactor enclosures. Discharges from outdoor covered wash areas for vehicles, equipment, and accessories. i. Select plants that are well adapted to soil conditions at the site. Select plants that are well adapted to sun and shade conditions at the site. In making these selections, consider future conditions when plants reach maturity, as well as seasonal changes. iii. Provide irrigation appropriate to the water requirements of the selected plants. iv. Select pest-resistant and disease-resistant plants. v. Plant a diversity of species to prevent a potential pest infestation from affecting the entire landscaping plan. vi. Use "insectary" plants in the landscaping to attract and keep beneficial insects. Swi ing pool water, if discharge to onsite vegetated areas is not a feasible option. Fire sprinkler test water, if discharge to onsite vegetated areas is not a feasible option. Roof condensate must be routed to s. 'tary sewer. This must be shown on plans prior to issuance of a pe it. 11. Install a separate water meter for each co ercial unit. 12. Install a separate water meter for landscaping. 13. A construction Sto Water Pollution Prevention Plan must be submitted and approved prior to the iss ce ofa p it. 14. Plans must include location of concrete wash out area and location of entrance/outlet oftire wash. 15. A grading and drainage plan must be submitted. 16. An erosion and sediment control plan must be submitted. 220 Conditions of Approval Page 9 of 9 17. Applicant must pay sewer co ection fee at a later time based on . ticipated flow, BOD and TSS calculations. 18. Must file a Notice of T 19. Please have applicant contact Cassie Prudhel at Water Quality Control with any questions. 650) 829-3840. Water Quality Control contact: Cassie Prudhel — 650-829-3840) E) Police Dep i ent requirements shall be as follows: Police Dep ination with the WQCP when the project is completed. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 15.48 of the Municipal Code, Minimum Building Sec ety Standards" Ordinance revised May 1995. The Police Dep ent reserves the right to make additional security and safety conditions, ifnecessary, upon receipt of detailed 1 revised building plans. ent contact: Scott C. pbell — 650-877-8900) 221 Exhibit B Affordable Housing Agreement P153 222 s CO G UESTE BY: F C CITY SO s d. s Aff rlable r r usin A ee .e r Belowr ;f .1 l e le « e (" Agreernent " ) e t red l o as o °:J1 is ' ,y 2010, by betweebetween l 11e Ci 11 r l sc l ("City" tiy evel ). City an vel 11 er are h reill after cell ctl ly referre r. to as he "P ties." I AS, Cha ell2 .125 f ergs for locit sion ary Ho sing locat d 1. y describe 109 i,, N 11 °I. CO ECON tIiC C C TY C1` U G111 1 JJ J AV E E:l %Ir AS Developer is a fee simple owner f °;laat ce rfc : rf perty City of Sou °,1 S Fr ,lll cisc State f C .l.l o 1 i , t lr more A a eret icp TY iL S r AVE F CSC i CA 94 Afford ent AIL TO: iJar, /I'1I III 111 Ex AFF X11 USA'° JG A F LOW MA s, 'r;11 a Y evel r r intend t construct twe l.ty (2 feet and has lib ittet . sit evel •pll e1 p1 NT AR' ll I r ,NT CIS RECITALS P154 E Sou .11 .11 Fr nci co clus r 1 r si s leifal(Io eses ce")s ,11. d rW -sale housing s oject; 223 Re ere e AS, as City f So1 ;; . F a R velr p ity Cou ;l ;cif on It ece estrf lye •r :l` ; ;; ;rove AS, ;; e Pr per y 1; within 'r,l c El C ject Area ") i the Cityt and is subject to rovisio vei.r p ; ;1 ;.eat i „; ("P(edeve1o.xnent l ; the City J f Sout San Fr l cisco ; July 14, 1993. s it ;1; ;fey be s ; ;bsejuently ; e as thou lly set forth ; e; 2. 3. w ber 1. As co Developerr all ava;lai le ; ; ; ;1r sal sell ole(1)two-he does n t exce d six ousehr id") f lr a S Statistical Area pubs djuste ual gr ss o t * -bedr ercent (1 whose u 1 el i1 c, e oa . r lusi moot e for Lo 1 ;, ; ;; 3 ,J'e ;. , a ; ;a wc. ;r ; ;0 ;1.t , rxisis has cce ;s tJ e; ;; i b1e H usir ; , , e 13 9 Mission Rr . EREAS, ;1wfe eveloper p J, roses elow Mke Rate f knits (efiie 1 0 III of s The t s e nd it Neel ex g tly l fl c she e e at fo e 00 pence e e 10 1 C0fl r tjo; r ; eve cisc R devel p eat d the Ci her 12, 2101, as it ap r ol; the Pr pet if e e City tirf, ;; ;; off evelo 4) units ket Rat ousing u t ( te u,iiy edi excee o seh djusted e oes o erate- yme o ; ;1''; o y f Corrid 'r III' ;. s of the El meet Area ad e Re J evel ;; l e ed, is ; cerporated herein by refer e c ru whos ;11 1a1 edit ,;; .c l «..l.e. exceed h me H.usehol per s1l11.11se lo e se f a fo ..s le ce at d r Berate- 1;lc se Market R e U:l,its sh ercial r;; 1 po c lies CC 2 t 1 e ;; ;tot1 e ent A elcy's h clusi n p e AGa,m,1 ; ; ; ;f ; °rl ts (the el Project to e 1;l.adjuste of e S p os 0- t ( gross d ne 5 eting these rewire e1 is by sel 1 'l g e eq ire elow); evelper a as rr llo s: de is c1; e ket Rate U et or,sehld A) Pr° ;c.isco Pri ;; ;ary Metre; slit I us l ; Uri evelop e :; 1f, : , ;; ' 1t ; ` a ,l r ;1 s ; ;; old wh of t e ; ;11; j ;;stJ ;; ; ;edi c ; ; ;;;e does not excee e fo mutt e t (11 O %) cif 'lip a ; j;„ t ject, a - o %evel per «..' ;gust co y with usin p licies ; . J1ro a l,s as set using Or ce :d e by .e 10 ;1o dable ; ousi 0 eve *pigl e ]Pr iject Area Corr r e by the City C ; cil t p1y ;... s it , r, + ;W exists ucf me a reject on the lts a s to U ose e ( "Lo e U: ;; itts at a p ;l +ca ` ;; ,;.st will . re ;u1t i as ; J` pled Section 21.125. 21 of the t excee thir pet ;ce ;; ofthe l r s t; ly djuste r ; o, ; s ;; ld size. 11 be' e e ; . cl seJro i ati 1t c rri .or. The 1 ;, ev ;1op er r o Market Rate U1 its s it is el es, urb ;; sr, . r`ices d .l sl o ti SI Co c t ese eveloper Tess inc e:n 11..s se ne ed a ;;; ousehol rf the El City se pr xi citifies. 1 224 s. c 4. ccr,Jp ncy r l below occr1 r? , f cy of 11 t ; 1:1 ":far et x,,, ,te twits 1 cate as of J, e ate t e first unit is ccupied n J. tr ll l .its shall remain in ffect ve occupief. 5. evel es a Restri Exhibit ll `:l esale rec e. ag ,i. is th?;; p for , cich e10 c a res s`f c s b1e_ e e :i 11 el 6. evelr per shall sell rite- ° comeI J °use; old p e City's First Time l' f oll1 ebu;1 A unit. At tii e time rigf s le, ev l Isl ive 1'llr cessing c nit, fr :li.+:.1 rray include F s ocl ssing fees for First Ti e IJf e Develo er s all in less the Cif ,ll its officials, y all lasses, liil , clais legedly ofls1 if ut of r re cc it 1 f npellFfr dfy 11 , rl ce ass eglige.ce or will 1 isc e exj ti r tell f,.l ,,.11 a m the burl ens of r:l s A'i'r acs e Inc 1s 7. 'T . B 1ow Market 1 ctir:l,: set fort cve a :lets, c pass to %:1 be ut re 1 to tec A e Housing Agr 1 °sip n R ket / , a s.l1l ,ll req ht ofFirs estric 1. cal c e I g e sh e h Ifes1 Reslllc arket Rate ket Rate J its s 1 or ells fifty-five (55) ye is srid. The l estrictiols sh J1 a ee the M t to Sect i istator Y 10 th 11 eveloper hereby subjects i l; is Afire 11 l l t. T diti . l° s and res 1 clfssiffl ,;tio sur: 11 cover ants shall f cnt hereafter exec l ' applica cell clusively be 1lllel ll to ave b ve fll1 s c iti ns es ctins, reg s ellIt e elow P es iJ1cu e I....J o uyer 1 e It is s:llall re ain eveloper shall p iativeprocess ' ,.g cgists .Il 11ees y include resrnable atto ey's fee si *n :f II us Or :hi ce. ify, , .., en. vii ,I: counsel s lec cers, ei 111ll., loyees, a e:ll .ts, v ctio s, ,.la ca r r the Proj ct, e 1 is Agree ent, except t ct elf th l.ty. l.`:I a :rovisi s D. i Agrr+,e ent ,1any releas ket ] ate U1its 01 ll r11 o e Prole event al ye 1A a t 5 ;1J i s 1 3 t 1 an el' 1 alify altliis ve fee to ed 1r1 prcessi g e sal yr r A minis at r fees s by thrr City °1 11 eli ket RJte n 2. Develope nti d cuss e e1 istrative fee ,t rrt ed r c is rket all b r e f te s t the coven es hereby eci 5 S e'ee111`;I.e c!ve er's successors in title to or w `ri..f sh 11 e vor of «.1 °:l.e Ci .1 ach to or coil, vc /'11 he P execu ' elivere 11,ss , whe er -occ re b 11 ;e the City for 1 sil g e,J.l r Viable lfusil .11 imple 1.eiting ' 1: e rf q lire ants 0 ket ding every c e or .11.l.y o acce iced subject to such sl,llch c ven,l»ts, conliti.ns estf blis:1 r col c 1 I e tly wi eat shall be effective ket its o e ,,<< ecome p ts, 1 e be ct, nits to xecute ll :1e fo rt. att the h re A J e shall ' e of c1 of escrow of sale ai.n restrirte ac 11 l f le:ll cin on the ly to ll sull se ue t buyers. e bi!1 e e ofthe :11e d costs e yer. s. c *nditioll:s express n e in rope for x le 1L. w- an rk wi iU e City e buyer f d el All cove efit o s a y`,le City , h.i e s fr mll d against s of act n arisingf r e , or Develf per's t ,1is:llg ll °'J 1.e is sectit:l shall s it , 'ive r a f the Prf.pe 1 at all r r ,» er iereof 1 alts e 225 restric rec r e issIIm 11. c t c Pr ect p s s ticm 081 evel tto e lief t m Ji Idm II II livery 0. 12 . f4rff,.bL erei relem ective this .Are ed. se, s are se e P ce b eh A Trnsfere accepti er shal. eys' fees, i 1M II 14. er iiii,s e e c4urts of C N erri 15. ti II fl voi Pr v u. e y c tio C N e om a prov 1111 16. Agr dement is inv. sh refli iin i.. A. eeleewe.c.t s Aff r able usin A 3 9 Missi If a ce m ic 10 II II II 1 e ent eve! 5 b m .se City for in reviewi ss e t SU e a a c lents t approv tliirig, Lowev yi the 1.c fi ii e Procetn oft e t, the CO er :r ay se MM m VO oree v id o 0 ex 111 the ale eve 0 velo e y evelo have 40 rt info 11e n 11 its f the 1. m e Co act, deed or roc r a Pr 111 e State the a 11 y 11 Cit. c s, inchadi ents costs. is A ee t 11 prey an, e ' fees eA e o th 111 ect. ffect the v ir Ilh. 5 I A ce e t vent tba h.at S C t M m 1411 JO he pr e va F ity of a y 4 t er ins a k.e e sfer is to ses r ssi. ree r assi nee e. :i : .e fJ,t 1.0. f mnis n 77 b visi ve 011 this A er ctio I be y o shall g ve ler pal s c co 8 It MI m 1M m b 11 m e II its to elig,i.bble Low r ny part c 1i9iiity c Thy e Pr ject, (ii) the divers t4 the City Tr crec"), ubst c re er n 0. f the Be o li at y cti. ri 1UCi s A,.... e . '0.e prev Ti. • in, a sep a 11......it a y .. i relief t. f this A le or in a pr visi Ilt m OCU te U cer this A ree s 0e veste iite9. St tes im hm A..,gree t sh 111 e eing roeesse jj re :s ys co eve jffe. ich rele en.tati. by p rove t Rate U y A ith t re inst the th excl isively s t ourm v th, ly s tis Idm it e Ci M a s uovisi eem ent, 5 to s set all b e sh y a e ctio r dee! r a mil be ic y be act' b o r that ed is yet 226 DE II II 1111 A 1:10 7. Any n tiee re e„.. ued, or reliodo ov Dev e : 1e Exhibit B N b vc. inted: Exhibit A Legal Description 1111 Notwit st n ALeeflJe.t Sb ii 1.e iten.rete ci c E C of S n Fr cisco Ci C d Aven.ue S ut S Frn III II g all be n. co Ex to ate s rovisi of this A eer accsraoce with the r visi. C 1 11111111 SIGNATU 5 able }I.usig A eenciit 5 ission d UST By: P158 s es riave exec e II II m CITY: CITY OF 1, II II APPROVED AS TO FO Steven T. Mattas, City Attorney E NOTA r re respectiv his A ZE I I A' 11' ster II 11, II I' e F ail, re set 25 s ofthi 11 II,II NCISCO rn receipt el e Foil of Resale Restriction and Option to Purchase Agreement for Below Market Rate Property 227 ttac E IBIT A Property gal JJr 159 228 Recording requested by and when recorded mail to: City of South San Francisco 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Attention: City Manager EXEMPT FROM RECORDING FEES PER GOVERN NT CODE .6103, 27383 RESALE RESTRICTION AGREE NT AND OPTION TO PIJRC %SE Form of Resale Restriction and Option to Purchase Owner: E IBIT B Name of Development: 1309 Mission Road Property Address: South San Francisco, CA 94 Exhibit B: Fo ofResale Restriction and Option to Purchase Space above this line for Recorder's use. NOTICE: THE ' ARE RESTRICTIONS ON THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY YOU ARE BUYING. EXCEPT FOR A TRANSFER TO CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO FOLLOWING EXERCISE OFITS OPTION TO PURCHASE, T PROPERTY MAY ONLY BE SOLD TO AN ELIGIBLE HOUSEHOLD AT A PRICE NOT TO EXCEED THE ADJUSTED ' ° SALE PRICE WHICH IS CAPPED AT ANAFFORDABLE HOUSING COST. ALL IMPROVEMENTS TO THE PROPERTY AND LO S SECURED BY THE PROPERTY REQUIRE PRIOR TTEN APPROVAL FROM THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO. P160 This Resale Restriction Agreement and Option to Purchase ( "Agreement ") is entered into as of this , 20 (the "Effective Date"), by and between the City of South San Francisco, a m a icipal corporation ( "City ") and an individualla m :led couple] ( "D er"). City and Owner are collectively referred to hereinafter as the "Parties." 229 wner :nt:fs pQ, :II hose t lle City if S : , : :: Pry Cisco d J .co :1fjs a:: ate . :lereil by reference NO Ci: hereun e The Pro e : , , was constru ici Cede (1[nchis e .: ous.lg as .: r usi C. rr u t t1 e A , of e1ow) at a price House: fl: to record D :fie p : ose oaf s A ll.ee/ is inai t . d r, e :1 Pro1 :1eeastt :: r f p" as for able t. Eligible I. o seh lds fo he 10 crest feaii 1 prevent Flit a ; , .b e ti : 1 .. :d se u n urc lasers us g t Pr r u oses l :co atible wit c1usi. n r . ae re . izin te, earns Jrtrn sales s.f t e Pr at , l es 1 lcte races. Defi Section. A itio al c) ty, Ca1il: d b 11evel e de co e talcl .l the City. 4 A p a a ste II 11 to y p eve o:l er is re at will result s Agree e j ianI ste for 1 n operty loca ore t t C 1 aJ:ter 20.125 f 1 :1 Soup :1 S F crsco ce"), wry ic: re tuires eve ers to set a 2 /0 of tole :: -inc a :i: Ise: , the A ro - 1 ncl. <<,, o,_ 1 } olr'15 ffo .ab1 20 by „1 :d bet -reef the City ai E. Tn c sl.: r tl '1: 1 :1 a eco : :: c l ene::its to r result: a. P ol:e :': at a e1ow : :: : :et :°Ice, t: i A + ,: :: t res' a ::p l`s r 1 :e cts c spec f s, : 1 r 11 g r re ui el, eat :. a r rty 1 :,r : s :t eP ,pe ayo seholds. is Aire : ::elt als proves the City an ptio res :', j cted : :1 ce. 1 Resale Restri{ctit n and Option t. P hase 2 0 sell 1: :: l'ro erty t , :: Eligil.le Ilouse1 or t e :l e :1' l g C st or : :e Eligible e Pro erty. c : : :: e" or o:fsell .f : :id size, 1 ) pursual..t t the 'U: ceases to :::ke sue :. detell atio d : sup t reasna :ale me ALS es blis iteJi e 4 e»lne in Secti :1 1. e ea by St tes 11Ho c lase resale e P sferred t; Eli le to p r rc se e .1. pc . at a in nsiderati fthe benell t received by City a; f,ee as 11.,o11lors: s l: e wi t s s 11 :I:: av °JrIJ: s set forthe :1 :%: o, s arc l : ned 1/ J : :: Recit ,,: ,; :1 text o :l l eeme1 t.m , r r bie IC usi fJ Co f " s: w all eve e : e l ,.i: , : se ed to sue s. t Calif° n,a.l.lea :1 : :and5;.11e Co .e ectl : 5f 52.5 r J ucmcessor roisi1:1 and , .. tio. 1, a e re tio: s ro ° : :: fated - s :J : :1eret co. fo.11S ,. ` :ate t of"- ous s Act of 937, as an e sl: :all be 1tc : :edi e c1c ui.a S. D r evelop g y 230 i) "Principal Resis ence" means the place where a person resides on a substantially full-time basis during not less than ten (10) months per year. d) "Base Resale Price" is defined in Section 15. e) "City Opti n" is defined in $ectiori. 8. f) "Eligible Househol means a household whose Gross Income does not exceed g) "Gross Inc e" shall have the meaning ascribed to such te is m Section 6914 o e 25 of the California Code ofRegulations or any successor thereto. h) "Notice of Intent to Transfer" is defined in Section 10. 0) "T. percent 4. Ma@nten ce. k) "Transf as defined in Section 6. of the unadjusted Area Medi a Income. s a period of fifty-five (55) years froti the Effective Date. 2. Princi i al Residence Res ui ement. The Owner covenants and agrees that Owner i) shall occupy the Property as the Owner's Principal Residence throughout the period ofti # e that Owner o i s the Property, d (ii) shall not rent or lease the Property or portion thereof d 'ng the Te i of this Agreement without the prior written consent ofthe City. Any lease or rental in violation of the provisions ofthis A. eement shall be prohibited and void. Upon request of the City made from time to time, Owner shall provide a itten certification to the City, in f'o « provided by the City, that Owner is occupying the Property as Owner's Principal Residence and that 1 er is not renting or leasing the Property to another party, and shall provide such doc ents a d other evidence as City may reasonably request to verify compliance with this Section, 3. Affordabil: Restrictions. Owner, by and for itself and any successors in interest, hereby covenants and agrees that the Property shall be sold only to Eligible Households at a price not to exceed the Adjusted Res e Price (as define in Section 15 .id that d sng the Te of this Agreement all of the requirements a d restrictions of this Agreement shall apply. a. The 0 i er shall maintain the Property, i1uding landscaping, in good repair and in a neat, clean and orderly condition (and, as to landscaping, in a healthy condition) d in accordance with all applicable laws, rules, ordinances, orders and regulations of all federal, state, county, m s icipal, and other governmental agencies and bodies having or claiming sdiction and all their respective dep: lents, bureaus, and officials. Owner shall not com a. t waste or pe it deterioration of the Property, and shall make all repairs and replacements necessary to keep the Property in good condition and repair. Failure by the Owner to maintain the Property shall constitute a default under this Agreement for which the City may exercise the ofResale Restriction and Option to Purchase 231 remedies provided to City hereunder, including without limitation, the City Option to purchase the Property pursuant to Section 8 below. b. In the event that the Owner breaches any of the covenants contained in this Section 4 and such default continues for a period often (10) days : fter itten notice from the City with respect to graffiti, debris waste material, and general mainten. t ce or thirty (30) days after 'tten notice from the City with respect to landscaping and building improvements, then in addition to a y other remedy City may have at law or in equity, City shall have the right to enter the Property and perfo i or cause to be perfo • all such acts and work necessary to cure the default. Pursuant to such right of entry, the City shall be pe • itted (but is not req ed) to enter the Property an perfo • all acts and work necessary to protect, maintain, and preserve the provements and landscaped areas, and to attach a lien on the Property, or to assess the Property, in the-amount of the expenditures arising from such acts and work ofprotection, maintenance, • d preservation by the City and/or costs of such cure, which o st shall be promptly paid by the 0 • er to the City, plus an a• u. a istrative charge equal to fifteen percent 15%) ofthe cost of such work upon demand. 6. Transfer. 5. Insurance. The 0 ler shall • aintain a standard .11 risk property insurance policy equal to the replacement value ofthe Property n ing the City and its elected and appointed officers, officials, employees, representatives and agents as additional insureds. The 0 er shall provide the City with evidence ofrequired insurance coverage upon City's request. a. Restrictions on Transfer, Except as provided in Section 6 . throughout the Te • ofthis Agreement, the Property may only be sold or othe ise conveyed to Eligible Households at a price not to exceed the Adjusted Resale Price def i ed in Section 15 below. There shall be no Transfer of the Property without the City's certification that the transferee is an Eligible Household and that the Property is being transferred at a price not to exceed the Adjusted Res le Price. "Transfer" means any sale, assi • ent or transfer, vol Itary or invol itary, of any interest in the Property, including, but not limited to, a fee simple interest, a joint tenancy interest, a life estate, a leasehold interest, an interest evidences by a land contract by which possession ofthe Property is transferred and Owner reta*m s title, or a deed oftrust. Any Transfer without satisfaction ofthe provisions of this A eement is prohibited and shall constitute a default by Owner for which the City y exercise any of the remedies provided herein, including without limitation, the exercise of the City Option pursuant to Section 8 below. b. Pe itted Transfers. Provided that the transferee assumes, within 30 days following *ften request by the City, all of 0 a er's duties and obligations der this Agreement pursuant to a itten ass ption agreement in a fo a acceptable to City, or at City' election, execution ofan agreement substantially s • ilar to this Agreement, the following transfers ('Permitted Transfers") oftitle to the Property or of any estate or interest therein, shall not be subject to the City's prior approval, shall not trigger the exercise of the City Option, and shall not be considered Option Events: (i) a transfer to an existing spouse or domestic partner; (ii) a transfer by an Owner to a spouse or domestic partner where the spouse or domestic partner becomes the co-o er of the Property. (iii) a court-ordered transfer of title to a o Resale Restriction and Option to Purchase P163 232 tJJ. t li Fo c ea e Ilh tiie c ml e re Sec e y c e estic p s v tr ..er y er i er co ue, t ocem mpy estic m mer" s a mave live together co sible ftu isic iivig expenses t be p rs rts relate ed me state f m II"ay s e ce by II ml m s ii *r.vide iem m m 11 ale 110 II e c exec exe 0 II 11 er c. City with c r c e i o rLa its LI lip hie or her relati er. exce e to Eli es e below. s cr wi II IIeb.. er t r, e an 111 c er tr Ci IJJ mce III 0 c m m II ee c he or sh rice not exce the Ci twelve (12) s .f this such. twelve (12)- this Sec . e y of ..le re cisc if ti. e Ci iction a m II e Cr roce es s m m m ittei pi in as event, the sixty ( ys mre e tiw ts P 0. r m II II rocee issw by ter viv er by Ima f lc the eve t r e m m III 1 II II m s es se is e 1 eritinp S ctio nec n slow iberiti ae P c c e Tr. s es est er's 5 P 4 oses t io m m t excee t e Ci r s a eritiLLg S ner t stitu e a efar it u l in Section 22 th .o rit e c he Ci me iting C m.; r, or ft nci or Eli I IIe uset e or she sh.aJi smtecee d ew c ments inst the Pr p e remiu,ire t4 Transfer e A.ijute Res le Pric y exercise ri e Ci ay ow.cc ht .. en e perm hall. 11S S I II IICC II m s by 0 III II fi i. . v evis II m y e e existin er is e efic enc . or II II S,A.ree cloii r stem chi eri„. Res 1.1e Price tie Ci Ci er. C hdP vi ther a se e oses ye tic m :a cep M 11 e hie he it ce iiu to r er„ ys e ate rovi er and t .e rieriti e ... ire c sh s i,rteres ei be Chi] a ece se e Jj,fJe N m m m ce H 1. m m m wit!' f e City 233 7. Misreires ntation of Fact as a Material Breach. Owner hereby declares and agrees that the fmancial and other info a ation previously provided to the City for the purpose of qualifying to purchase the Property was true and correct at the time it was given and remains true and correct as ofthe date of this Agreement, or, in the alternative, the financial and other info sation has been updated ti be true and correct today. Owner further understands that any material misstatement or misrepresentation shall be deemed to be a material breach ofthis Agreement d shall be grounds for declaring a default, te Hinating the Agreement, or seeking other such relief and remedies as are appropriate under the circ stances. 8. Grant of Ci 0 tion to Purchase Ass* .40 ent of 0 tion. 0 ler hereby gr its to the City an option (City 0 floe) to purchase the Property at the Adjusted Resale Price upon the occ ence of an Option Event (defmea in Section 9) subject to the te s and conditions contained herein. The City may assign the City Option to another gove 0 sent entity, a non- profit affor ble housing provider or an Eligible Household. The City's assi ent of the City Option shall not extend any e limits contained herein with respect to the exercise period of the City Option or the period within which the Property must be purchased following exercise ofthe City Option. In no event shall City become in any way liable to 0 er, nor become obligated in any m i er, by reason of the assi ent of the City Option, nor shall City be in any way obligated or liable to Owner for any failure of City's assignee to cons u ate a purchase ofthe premises or to comply with the te • of any purchase and sale agreement. 9. Events Givint Rise to Ri • ht to Exercise 0 stjon. City shall have the right to exercise the City Option upon the occurrence of any ofthe following events (each, an "Option Event"): 4. Receipt of a Notice of Intent to Transfer (defined in Section 10 below); b. Any acm attempted or pending Transfer of the Property or of any estate or interest therein, except s provided in Section 6 o Resale Restriction and Option to Purchase c. Any actual, attempted or pending encumbr e ofthe Property, including without limitation by way of mortgage or deed oftrust, or by judgment, mechanics, tax or other lien, except as pr vided in Section 19 below; d. Recordation of a notice of default and/or notice ofsale pursuant to California Civil Code section 2924 (or successor provisions) under a y deed oftrust or neon age with a power of sale enc bering the Property. e. Co i encement of a judicial foreclosure proceeding rearding the Property or execution by Owner of y deed in lieu of foreclosure transferring o a ership of the Property; The occurrence of an Event ofDefault as described in Section 2 or 234 g. Any violation by Owner of any provision ofthis Agreement. 10. Notice of Intent to Tr a sfer Exercise of0 atio Form of Resale Restriction and Option to Purchase a. Notice of Intent to Transfer. If Owner desires to Transfer the Property or of any estate or interest therein, 0 er shall notify City in writing to that effect the "Notice of Intent to Transfer"). The Notice of Intent to Transfer shall state the street ad ress of the Pro erty; Owner's frill n i e or n ai es; the address and telephone n ober at which 0 i er shall be contacted ifnot at the Property; id shall be delivered personally or deposited in the United Stats mail, postage prepaid, certified-re a receipt requested, addressed to the City of South San Fr ncisco, 400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 94080, Attn: City Manager. The Notice of Intent to Transfer shall be in substantially the fo iim attached hereto as Exhibit . In the case of a proposed sale ofthe Property to a prospective purchaser, the Owner shall sub a t to the City, together with the Notice ofIntent to Transfer, a copy of the prospective purchaser's income certification, a list of all assets owned by the prospective purchaser, and other financial info aation reasonably requested by City, in a fo i approved by the City, along with the income certification to be provided to any lender making a to i to the prospective purchaser. The City may require the prospective purchaser to provide documentation evidencing and supporting the income and other financial info ation contained in the certifications. 7 b. Notice of Exercise. Upon the occurrence of any Option Event, the City may exercise the City Option by delivering notice ("Notice of Exercise") to Owner of its intent to exercise such City Option sursu it to the te as of this Agreement. The Notice of Exercise may be in the fo attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit C, or in such other fo as the City may from time to time adopt. The Notice of Exercise shall be delivered by deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, first-class, addressed to er at the Property, or at such other address as may a e indicated on the Notice of Intent to Transfer, and delivery shall be emed effective five (5) calendar days following the date of deposit. If the Option Event relates to the potential foreclosure of a mortgage under Sections 9 d or e then the City shall also deliver the Notice of Exercise to the mortgagee or beneficiary a der such mortgage, at such mortgagee's or beneficiary's address of record in the Office ofthe Recorder of San Mateo Co V. c. Notice ofConsent to Transfer. If the City decides not to exercise the City Option, the City may ive its consent to the °cc ence ofthe Option Event ("Consent to Tr nsfer"). Ifthe Option Event involves a proposed sale of the Property to a prospective purchaser, the City's consent shall be conditioned upon (i) the proposed purchaser's qualific tion as an Eligible Household; (ii) the sale of the Property at a price not to exceed the Adjusted Resale Price; (iii) the proposed purchaser's execution of a Disclosure Statement in the fo a a. ched hereto as Exhibit D or such other fo or fo s as a y be promulgated by the City; and (iv) the proposed purchaser's ass ption of 0 i er's duties a d obligations under this Agreement pursuant to a written ass aption agreement in a fo 00 accept ble to City, or execution of an agreement substantiall similar to this A eement, in a fo s acceptable to City, within thirty (30) days after the Consent to Transfer has been delivered to Owner. If the prospective purchaser (0 fails to qualify as an Eligible Household, (ii) fails to execute and 235 deliver the Disclosure Statement to the City, or (iii) fails to execute and deliver to the City assuniption agreement or an agreement substantially si s *kr to this Agreement within such thirty (30) day period, then the Consent to Transfer shall expire and the City may, at its option, either notify 0 er of the disqualification, thereby entitling Owner to locate another purchaser who qualifies as an Eligible Household, or exercise the City Option, as ifno Consent to Transfer had been delivered. d. Tirne Period for Notice. City shall deliver a Consent to Transfer, if applicable, no later than thirty (30) days after the date it receives notification of an Option Event. City shall deliver a Notice of Exercise, if applicable, no later than sixty (60) days after the date that City receives notification of an Sption Event. For purposes of computing commencement ofthe delivery periods, the City shall be deemed to have notification of an Option Event on the date that it actually receives *tten Notice of Intent to Transfer, notice of default, s ons and complaint or other pleading, or other iting specifically stating that an Option Event has occurred. The City shall aave no obligation to deliver Notice ofExercise or Consent to Tr1 i sfer, and the applicable ti e period for exercise of the City Option shall not commence to a less and • til the City has received notification of an Option Event in the manner specified in this subsection. If there is a stay or inj a ction imposed by court order precluding the City from delivering its Consent to Transfer or Notice of Exercise within the appli able time period, then the ru a a bag of such period shall cease until such time as the stay is lifted or the injunction is dissolved and the City has been given itten notice thereof, at which time the period for delivery of a Consent to Tr sfer or Notice of Exercise shall again begin to t e. No Waiver. If the City in its sole discretion dete ines not to exercise the City Option y p ticular instance, or fails to deliver a Notice of Exercise or Consent to Transfer within the time periods set forth in this Section 1.0, such dete ination or failure shall not affect City's right to exercise the City Option upon the occurrence of any future Option Event. 11. Ri ht to Reinstatement. If the Option Event is the recordation of a notice of default, then the City shall be deemed to be Owner's successor in interest under California Civil Code Section 2924c (or successor section) solely for purposes of reinstatement of any mortgage on the Property that has led to the recordation of the notice of default. As 0 a er's deemed successor in interest, the City shall be entitled to pay all amo its of principal, interest, taxes, assessments, homeo uers' association fees, insurance pre ums, adv • ces, costs, attorneys' fees d expenses required to cure the default. If the City exercises the City Option, then any and 11 ounts paid by the City pursuant to this Section shall be treated as Adjustments to the Base Resale Price for the Property, as defined in Section 15, below. 12. Ins ection of Pro e . After recei g a Notice ofIntent to Transfer or delivering a Notice ofExercise, the City shall be entitled to inspect the Property one or more times prior to the close of escrow to dete inc the amount ofany Adjustments (defined below to the Base Resale Price (defined below). Before inspecting the Property, the City shall give er not less than forty-eight (48) hours itten notice of the date, f e and expected duration of the inspection. The inspection shall be conducted between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding court holidays, less the parties mutually of Resale Restriction and Option to Purchase P167 236 0' 13. cue i!s m e 1 ays a cscr w, pr e1tct s III II 11 to the close Seeti. 1 5 belo ce s. e f the er a ee e,... c tide th 0 1 „,II II II II,e escro Irmmmmc c ex 116 ee in writi cti r s ij y osit f escr d enc e Ci tie efe iuiii.g atto re,,4va1 is exce e.11 1 5 e City y ce t Jj11 a er vi eom, h at City rec xten th s 1 II U S 1 114 e er prt s., at ill resu cro . or its of (i.) sixty ective Thle wit clises, ii) . uasimm- Hee „ a ve e der) s In enc nibrances e a e erro ml t lescr w fees m es _Fee 111 y C :r s t priscee er th ajid ys fees tions Pr . m tly e a e oft e Pro e ys affter i N s er me 1, acts eve:r t close o esc ives ci.se 4fesc . 17 escrow t e Ci 1l [11 eb,..cr4v/ fee e p 11 , n IIim II II II Sie e„, n c ate t e t eo II II II greater 11101111 .111 e exc to escr [mr,, biation of.A or the 1 receive ro s II bsecti, 111011 e c 11 11 11el t e Cim inc .ed itle to m Pr I0 specific bel A o e. •wner sh, Noti Ci se of esc, ice f Exercise exec I, II any re s Shaii e m me A e el sin costs t be d pr mIce vide e so e ofescr III able cm ay exec :4e all e Pro in m m 14. Proceeds of Escrow; Removal of Exceptions to all c e th recJ.val o J1 exceptions t title t 1 II II e taxes f er an blie street iniims i) n xcs shall 17) r ti. as Mc utility,c ii) s:ci 4t,her lens, etc idby e City (c4llectively, c, It y the at st the costs. Any ve e ts de4sitei iit. escrow r e st the Prsip to reJJi4ve s II 11 mi ri,or t Exce m.mo y y ei ible e ".A eve. us P16 m m lake t e F ity's re uc II 11 tb City. II II 5 e reniv sel 1110 1111 m CCU f Ex rcis e II e iare c c e City s take ce on tm mc d te s e elivere jr (i) te e s re4:uire fsr cl sc 4ays a e ics ee c eri4JS merci e t lied. s le Price as defi e in y City. Closing c sts a C ty t o alt y mutual e e a ly Iecessduy 4 effec 116 itle c.1 1111 1 11III e close b ... at were rec r fisc 1 Ty., City s . s of ;Le e s, si e L mn res nik Ali m osts ex ces resery Exc pplied t in r f lie He g shall be p Resie . rice! the City or its e maxi h 111 be p ie e Cost f r the Dig 11 1mi ri 1/ er up 1. e dent to satisfy all osit nts escr w such In the eve th t use4ii all shall ses r Ha ies uch xceptim t V ay en a m m a 11 I By ate esc h . c c se rig s as moi ther 8 y e x rcises ce th t e !") ase Notwithstan Re 1, r mce be a seh. ic m II III e m m 5 237 a. Base Resale Price. Prior to adjustment pursuant to subsection (b) below the base resale price Base Resale Price") of the Property shall be the lesser of: i. Indexed Value. The Indexed Value of the Property means the original price paid by the 0 er for acquisition of the Property which the Parties agree is the s i. of Dollars ($ the "Base Price"), increased (but not decreased) by an amount, if iy, equal to the Base Price multiplied by the percentage increase in the I between the Effective Date and the date that the City receives notification of an Option Event. ii. Fair Market Value. The Fair Market Value of the Property means the value of the Property as dete as 'lied by a qualified appraiser, certified by the State of California, selected and paid for by the Owner and approved by the City in writing. No a g in this Section shall preclude the 0 er and the City from establishing the Fair Market Value by mutual agreement instead of by appraisal. b. Aciustments to Base Resale Price. Subject to the Affordable Housing Cost restriction, the Base Resale Price shall be increased or decreased, as applicable, by the following adjustment factors ("Adjustment"): i. Capital Im srovements. An increase for capital improvements made to the Property by Owner, but only if the purpose and amount of said improvements have been previously approved by the City in iting and evidence of the cost is provided to the City for verification ("Eligible Capital Improvements"). The amount of the Adjustment shall equal the original cost of any Eligible Capital Improvements depreciated on a straight-line basis based upon the estimated useful life of the provement stated in the City's prior tten acceptance of said improvement. Damam. A decrease by the amount necessary to repair d ages to the Property, if any, and to place the Property into saleable condition as reasonably dete ua ined by the City, including, without li s tation, amo Its attributed to cleaning; painting; replacing worn carpeting - d draperies; making necessary structural, mechanical, electrical and p1 abing repairs; and repairing or replacing built-in appliances and fixtures. iii. Advances b the Ci . A decrease in an amount equal to the s si of all costs advanced by the City for the payment of mortgages, taxes, assessments, insurance pr ti s, homeowner's association fees and/or associated late fees, costs, penalties, interest, attorneys' fees, pest inspections, resale inspections, fixing violations of applicable building, plumbing, electric, fire, or other codes, and other expenses related to the Property, which 0 has failed to pay or has pe s itted to become delinquent. 16. Priori and Effectiveness of the 0.tio a. Recordation. This Agreement shall be recorded in the Official Records on or as soon as practicable after the Effective Date. The City Option shall have priority over Form ofResale Restriction and Option to Purchase 10 P169 er 238 y subse! vent T 1a sfer O1 enc e e'v'e exercise of the r1 1 e: itte Exceptions. Exce t ption by t1 e Cil'r at rr ty ti: f ,e ease a t merger of the Ci ;gipJrF on sit all co ti ue t t subsea Juet owl° ers in cc r to sec 'lfll p c se rn n y sulr atiol aree a suc:J efs,s the City d reasonable otice c b. •f guest tice f De:llault. T e City skIfl : t:l.e a Request for Notice e a,l t or recor ration cial 1%ecorfs llrmptly u on exec tio of this Agreement. I 1C' fly, t to exercise e City 0 tiol: may by (i) an• Eliib dryr 'stator of aJ1 l li p sf , ,t to1itle 11 f occ 1, ,fyin the 'r to n e:JJ °ll:ll.e! he e »r r . forerlos eed ate notice o exercise t Prfwpe Sur iva e C ot1eCi sff ttr e,J.ent. 1 t ,1 senior l..e e or a ee -in -lieu st rec er ales or rior the date ti fly n Event d on, or (ii r its as su seh e 1 cc ti.o e er recto sA c. C 11 /'Jibe sec r e [ y rtg t %e C A "), then tl a restrictio s c Jnta if r- 1, to the :property is transferred by e lie l off such f reclos e, I' at 'Jle City 11 CJs receive ti, rely n rce of s no l cr , f e trio t roc rr e us 1: 1,t to C 1i rl tsion). n l jt, .y estate r er in..erest be effective with respect to te e with he te111,s 1 ,d c«.1 itil s e cquisition f the .lr+e e City will e:l,tef° into urchase ll ney lender to su o fFate this Areelt went der e 1fl. ol,ey left er s:llall lief e r vl er 1 that City is _. er °r11 a first 1ortga e. Ge eral..l xc t as provide i,ff Jj , < a f a s (b) end Vic) bel w, the e City 0 ' , s1 all survive - fi ll y Tr r s a of ;lie ell by Owner. e exercised against l Pr pe.lf'J r w ether t r » i f ssessed or occ lied y s ccess *r, (ins eree, J si ee, hei :, execut r, or ible 11 1 e:111 1 lllclu a re r-1 - poffsessi n, debt or ' °1 Estee niter States Vie, or (iii) ll y person o in ossessin J or s nr t ualiff %,>> as ,,,, Eli le -To s l h in a ficf:, elfthe R ent, provided t1 li at has :l ai e er s e sai e recf r 111 o ins Il lr el t ee, rovided the cfnvr °7 f ,, cc is e r% :ll e 4]f ';ill °le Prr perty, or p by City, r:lle City sl a s other is rovieJ' i1 Sectio ri g fr 5 1 e er ofRasa 1e Restriction and Opti n t 1,t h se 1 . o time shall not ex P170 ill 'a Civ11 Cod Sec y l;s ate wr interest t Jrein, d e Pr per , r subject nly 17 , ' e exercise f the City guish e Prope 1,e11 ° °1 ag s a y Ci a ees at i e 111JJ,/r d in or er to assist :11.esl 5 g vef CC lectively all referred 01liJtion shall Il . t s 1 r %ive (l be s le and tr pure :l ase f o, Watt 1 %icial or no6. power sale contained ll a :J: rt a 2924 or success O•rdo or Ci 1 es. if S ner has ae r l ; 1 using fin1 11 ci1 el Y ':11e Califs :l° ,1 1, .l : :f: . `i nce A e cy ed hel e n an ° 1 the III i a I aut ma `rically termi . foreclosure conducte 1 ll ehalf f Call lFA or by a e i :l s ll ed f :l o a e is ass to Cal ll_l`FA, provi > e1 eh 1 roeEve w ic n tice :w ray Irlc r1rJe acr 11 slier udicial e or e ec ivef :1 °1ely eed of , rf st r er's 111 terest ill t1 e cc ith „IJ e terms 239 18. Voidable Transfers. Any actual or attempted Tr i sfer of the Property or of any estate or interest therein, in violation ofthe te s and conditions of this Agreement, shall be voidable at the election of the City. 19. Refinane • Junior Loans. The City Option shall not become exercisable as the result of 0 a er's enc b ring the Property for the purpose of securing financing to purchase the Property, or to refinance existing indebtedness inc ed to purchase the Property provided such refinance does not result in Owner receiving any cash from the refinance other thin for Eligible Capital Improvements (as denied in Section 15 i ). The maximum amo at (the ermitted Encumbr, nce Amount") of any refinancing pe i itted by this section shall not exceed an amount equal to ninety percent (90%) ofthe Adjusted Resale Price calculated as provided in Section 15. The Pe 'tied Encumbrance Aia o t shall be calculated as if the City has received notification of an Option Event on the earlier of (a) the date on which the deed of trust or mortgage securing the refinancing_indebte ess is filed for record in the Official Records, or (b) the date the City receives Notice of Intent to Transfer pursuant to Section 10 a above. Mortgage loans or equity lines of credit junior in lien priority to this Agreement are not pe i itted, except as when expressly approved by the City in iting. vo 20. Insurance Proceeds and Conde i s ation Award. In the event the Property is destroyed and insurance proceeds are distributed to 0 er instead ofbeing used to rebuild the Property, or, in the event of conde a lation, if the proceeds thereof are distributed to 0 • er, any surplus of proceeds re isaining after payment of the senior liens and enc i brances on the Property shall be distributed as follows: that portion of the surplus up to, but not to exceed, the net 0 s t Owner would have received pursuant to Section 14 had the City exercised the City Option on the date of the destruction of conde a ation valuation date shall be distributed to 0 per, and the balance of such sufplus, if any, shall be distributed to the City. d. Proper ,ty. ership 111 c. 11 21. Events ofDefault. The following shall constitute the occurrence of an event of default ("Event ofDef nit") here I der, and shall entitle the City to exercise the City Option or to pursue any other remedy provided herein or at law or in equity: a. Owner fails to use the Property as Owner's Principal Residence. b. wner Transfers the Property in violation of this Agreement. er refmances the Property in violation ofthis Agreement; cenient of a judicial foreclosure proceeding regarding the e. Execution by 0 er ofany deed in lieu of foreclosure trans e Property. f. Co encement of a proceeding or action in ba»s s ptcy, whether ary or invol tary, pursuant to Title 11 of the United States Co .e or other b. i iptcy o Resale Restriction and Option to Purchase 12 P171 240 1111 w. re„, s c e le ch, vio date f wri mh.e „ the tic m C4V11fltS, c eir x ressl c.veiits title to t sh11 e e e Airee 0 A. II F f" e„. rny receive m oti,ce y 22„, Remedies. rr II a. ce of itE es f br t o e it success i1: II HI II t :ber shall coirciusiveiy c. ve.n s, c iti re,„ ctions are set A e Ci e 110, 11 II a the All c e be. e e e a 0 II11 ' 1 ' 24. •Ack le Abse ent a off owle er here"by su' y seli t .e P t tion, ertv oiveiLJJcy,re r Iste s wrier co c ve ce. is ee le t ve e ex Ctj4fli,S re ch c act, e rvisio, P o a iCt.fl an Zt14fl conce th.,e 'se is ti co, t ts wit e II 11 II iJ Hi II 1m e e „.. a Viso se ance. er his Aree1jc1e1t shall cans eL e n City's er,xe cise e t. c sn.„„pe s te Je City for Iwners fail e les„„ Ci whiz s g 1t1 t e set f rth ve a ts ass t II or c e ess d erso co, e y iie s e y iftis ee. 13 ctio all be e be cut E c m 114 a 10. rees at: C e Owner; ons be tee c cov Is A veyi eliver fwh er in 172 y wit, e Ci v* ti C W t A e me 11 m m c sic) a e av1iatie t e rr s El Rah.. ic Best,1cho1g. ny breach riie h, ec tic y s e II II m c assific ccepte C V ar4 uia e to pc cts the es Ube e er's s r vo, Vifl 0 ce fo airt reskL lIlI ay se 1„ is ,A. e t res e ecolnm.nlc 4 01.1.1.er be e11t i 44t CXIS& ee any p sd.jec 5, c s e r11ce f r e r ct the Sd1 enefits efits fr4r. • 111.1 II e b is Agree days liter t s CC perry t the by eclare ie ccess s n le Ci er t ns ar e I4ViS14flS inc1lJiing the c Ci arllce, ref 241 C. Owner has read and derstands all of the provisions of this Agreement. Owner accepts and agrees to the provisions of this Agreement and ,.derstands that this Agreement including without limitation the effectiveness ofthe resale restrictions and the City • ption) will remain in full force and effect throughout the Te of this Agreement despite any Transfer of the Property. D. O ER. DERST,,'S THAT THE DETE ATION OF THE ADJUSTEDed RESALE PRICE OF THE PROPERTY TO AN ELIGIBLE HOUSEHOLD CAN BE DE ONLY AT THE TIME OF THE PROPOSED TRANSFER, TA ; :f G INTO CONSIDE TION INC II , EREST RATES PROPERTY TAXES .;, ' D OTHER. FACTORS THAT CA OT BE ACC TELY PREDICTED A THAT THE SALES PRICE PE ITTED HE ER "' Y NOT INCREASE OR DECREASE IN THE S ; / E MAID R AS OTHER SIMI AR REAL PROPERTY 11 ICH IS NOT ENC BERED Y THIS AGREE %1 ,NT. 0 R FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGES T AT AT ALL TIMES IN SETTING THE SAL S PRICE OF THE PROPERTY THE P tARY BJECT OF THE CITY THIS AGREEMENT IS TO PROVIDE HOUSING TO ELIGIBLE HOUSEHOLDS AT AFFORDALE HOUSING COST. THE AEI DUSTED RESALE PRICE WILL ALMOST CERTAINLY BE LESS THAN OTHER SIMILAR PROPERTIES THAT HAVE NO RESTRICTIONS. initialed by O ] City: Owner: o Resale Restriction and Option to Purchase 14 P173 City of South San Francisco 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, Califo fa 94080 Attn: City Manager South San. Francisco, California 94080 25. Notices. Except as other se specified in this Agreement, all notices required to be sent pursuant to this Agreement shall be made by personal delivery or by deposit in the United States mail, first-class, postage prepaid, and shall be teeme to hive been delivered and received on the date of personal delivery or five (5) days after deposit in the mail, if sent to the following address: Attarn ' Fees. If either party initiates legal proceedings to interpret or enforce its ghts der this Agreement, the prevailing party in such action shall be entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in additions to 11 y other recovery to which it is entitled under this A Bement. 27. Waivers. Modification. No waiver of any breach of any covenant or provision of this Agreement shall be deemed a waiver of any other covenant or provision hereof, and no 242 waiver shall be valid unless in iting and executed by the waiving party. An extension of time for perfo ance of any obligation or act shall not be deemed an extension of the time for perfo ance of any other obligation or act, and no extension shall be valid unless in writin and executed by the waiving p ty. This Agreement may be tended or modified only by a wrir en instrument executed by the Parties and duly recorded in the Official Records of San Mateo County. 28. Severabili . If any provision of this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement shall continue in 11 force an effect. 29. I te •tation of At eement. This Agreement shall be interpreted so as to avor speculation on the Property and to ensure to the extent possible that its sales price and mortgage payments remain ffor able to Eligible Households. 30. Action or A oval. Whenever action and/or ap JE by City is required under this Agreement, the City anager or his or her designee may act on and/or approve such matter unless specifically provided otherwise, or unless the City M ager determines in his or her discretion that such action or approval requires referral to the City Council for consideration. F Resale 31. Entire A e ment. This Agreement, including Exhibits A throu h D attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, contains the entire agreement ofthe Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior written or oral agreements, understandings, representations or statements with respect to the subject matter hereof 32. Governin Law . Venue. This Agreement shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California without regard to principles of conflict of laws. Any action to enforce or inte ret this Agreement sh 11 be filed in the Superior Court of San Mateo County, California or in the Federal District Court m or the Northern District of California. SIGNATU r ST ONFOLLl WINGPAGE , 5 P174 243 ININ WITNESS n above. Ciy C APPROVED AS TO FO By: City Attorney OF, the P s have executed this Agreement as of the date first B : 1 By: P II II I o Resale Restriction and Option to Purchase 16 R(S), [an individualla 4nied couple]: m Im c a cipal c P175 m 11 OF S SLJJH orausn Its: City Manager SIGNATURESMUST BE NOTARIZED. F C SC 244 This is t cert A eel.e.t d Optic Da ratio to authll co co sellts t rec CER that 1:; i to est in r chi,, le dated r: the City e C here fe1. f.e rdatio y accepte e er y s by u y" Its For Isal tr ic o p toD CATE OF ACCEPT / 1'° 1CE su °:l.t Gov J/, :1 :11 °1 :: e1 Code; 272 1 el r ccvee r the sale lv 0 South San Fr cisce ("City"), a >:f,t l .icip 1 ersi J.l .ed ell ce or a ,e t r be l" he pf :l.rsu to ; 1 d e tee cer. 11111x: ST: City Clerk P176 By: 245 ofP esale Resdcti ptio u chase A- 1 EXHIBIT A PROPERTY attach legal des "ption) P177 246 To: City The J rers is eri e,ir.r intent to Fr ,' cisco, California folio in1' address: t Address: 9 1 11 r 111 E.11..:11 % .1::. UESIP" it c Co Frairise l , CA CiP Notice of Intent to Transfer telel ]hone b is er(s) e ,pro + erty locate Pr .pert ") w Owner Telephone: ( ) The proposed transfer is (check one): Sale Other EXHIBIT B 1 e eby gives' ' otice of at , South San ay be eontae ell at 'l e Property or at ' e The proposed ,f' s,fe o, 'l Prope the f [r , i g person(s): P178 ne 247 Date: To: (0 er or Transferree Address) Re: Notice ofExercise The City of South San Francisco ("City") hereby gives notice that it is exercising its option to purchase the real property located at South San Francisco, California. The option has been granted to the City pursuant to the Resale Restriction Agreement and Option to Purchase between 0 • er and the City dated and recorded on as Ins ent No. (The City has assigned its option to purchase the real property to .) An escrow for the purchase will be opened with the Title Company. EXHIBIT C ofResale Restriction and Option to Purchase C-1 CITY OF SOUTH S F NCISCO, a m corporation P179 By cipal 248 1111 A II, 11IIIII m II ik 1111 111 MIM 1111 1111 R SA HF 111 III I II AV R 1111 E P E CITY 1 II' 11 1335556.2 T1 1 Tiel,117 Re EEX T • AN "FUG 1111 ""' SALE E N Y A III!' III s RIC II I a eR s R II 11 ALS ENT REC mCITY S TILE FO NS PE S 12, F T IFY THIS Ilj II II IIIII II 1111 E ffiffiffi ffi1,111 1111 1 1111 AFF SAN F iNG A NC SC Disel. e State e 11 1 II m chase EXHIBIT D ALE TH CITY CI IA 0 10 TAP A AN " 11 Ai IS CAP} 1111 1111 mm 1 1111 EFFECT Ari 111 ELI MILE E II 1 11 ALE RE 11 UN AY S OPERITY F CIS C C P180 R ik 1111 III D ST A ffi 1111 1111 1 1" S T iiiN JJJJ 1111 1J er Pri t N fit T. II 11 SAN ERTY ABLE H ST SE IP" VIE 111 VAL AD ULD C A CISC AY 01 Y US 1111 III III ry I M 1111 I' 1 ffi II STE NTACT 249 Exhibit C Project Plans P183 250 Exhibit D Tentative Subdivision Map P182 251 13A1111. 1„, IIIINI3„ ifilL EMU 3A 111„:1 1 J id 11111111111111 1IL 44.11f m. 1111111111111111 11111111110 11,11111 a 1, „ 111111 1u„ lEffit 11# 1,! 111111111, 1111111Y1111 111 111111111 II,1111.,. 10 . 11 1-.,-, 1"- 1114 111 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 „„ m mu. ......., 7 ISES. 111111111 k 11 252 1111111111111111PSWIll I 111111, 111111111111ififfill11110111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1111111111111111111111111111111 111111111 IR raf: c.c. 2:1 dn N Z IIINEK11931: 1 ON1193A or. • 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111011111111111111IWO op tilos o es) LOI1S— S wimpy If . 111.5 " 11 1 164611111111111111111=111111111111111111111111111111111111 253 RESOLUTION NO. 43 -2011 CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS AND ADOPTING THE ADDENDUM TO THE 2000 SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE 2000 EL CAMINO CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT WHEREAS, Metron, PTP (Owner) and Stuart Welte, AI.A (Applicant) have proposed construction of a four -story mixed -use residential and commercial development, consisting of 20 residential condominiums above approximately 5,200 square feet of ground -floor commercial space and 35 on -site and six on- street parking spaces ( "Project ") on an approximately 17,582 square foot (0.41 acre) site, which is currently vacant, located at the northwest corner of McLellan Drive and Mission Road ( "Project Site ") in the City of South San Francisco ( "City"); and, WHEREAS, Applicant seeks approval of Zoning Amendments, Use Permit, Design Review, Tentative Subdivision Map, and Affordable Housing Agreement for the Project; and, WHEREAS, approval of the Applicant's proposal is considered a "project" for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act, Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21000, et seq. (CEQA); and, WHEREAS, the Project Site is located within the City's El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Area; and, WHEREAS, in 1993 the City Council certified an Environmental Impact Report for the El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan (1993 EIR) and in 2000, the City Council certified a Supplemental Environment Impact Report for the 2000 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment (2000 SEIR), which analyzed the environmental impacts of developing the Project Site with a mix of residential, retail, and office uses; and, WHEREAS, in certifying the 2000 SEIR, the City Council adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), imposing mitigation measures designed to minimize impacts of the Redevelopment Plan Amendment to levels of less- than - significance, and adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for those impacts that would remain significant and unavoidable; and, WHEREAS, for the reasons stated in this Resolution, the proposed Project, while slightly different than the development analyzed in the 2000 SEIR, would not result in any of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, requiring preparation of a subsequent EIR, and therefore, in accordance with CEQA, the City prepared an Addendum to the 2000 SEIR to address the changes and explain why a subsequent EIR is not required; and, 254 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on December 2, 2010, to consider the Addendum to the 2000 SEIR, the proposed Zoning Amendments, Use Permit, Design Review, Tentative Subdivision Map, and Affordable Housing Agreement for the Project and take public testimony, at the conclusion of which, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council certify the EIR and approve the Project; and, WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on March 9, 2011, to consider the Addendum to the 2000 SEIR, the proposed Zoning Amendments, Use Permit, Design Review, Tentative Subdivision Map, and Affordable Housing Agreement and take public testimony; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and carefully considered the information in the Addendum and the Final 2000 SEIR, and makes the findings contained in this Resolution, and adopts the Addendum, as an objective and accurate document that reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City in the discussion of the Project's environmental impacts. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the record before it, which includes without limitation, the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq. ( "CEQA ") and the CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of Regulations § 15000, et seq.; the South San Francisco 1999 General Plan and General Plan Environmental Impact Report, including the 2001 updates to the General Plan and 2001 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report; the El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan, and the 1993 Environmental Impact Report, including all attachrnents and technical reports thereto; the 2000 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment, and the 2000 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, including all attachments and technical reports thereto; the Addendum to the 2000 SEIR prepared for the Project; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Design Review Board meetings held on July 21, 2009 and May 18, 2010; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission's meeting held on December 2, 2010; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the City Council's duly noticed public hearing on March 9, 2011; and any other evidence within the meaning of Public Resources Code § 21080(e) and § 21082.2), the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby finds as follows: 1.The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution. 2.The Addendum for the Project, attached as Exhibit A to this Resolution, the MMRP, attached as Exhibit B, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations, attached as Exhibit C, are each incorporated by reference as part of this Resolution, as if each were set forth fully herein. 3.The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco, 315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 94080, and in the custody of Chief Planner, Susy Kalkin. 4.The proposed Project is consistent with the City of South San Francisco General Plan because the land uses, development standards, densities and intensities, buildings and structures proposed are compatible with the goals, policies, and land use designations established in the General Plan (see Gov't Code, § 65860), and none of the land uses, development 255 standards, densities and intensities, buildings and structures will operate to conflict with or impede achievement of the any of the goals, policies, or land use designations established in the General Plan. 5.In accordance with CEQA, the City Council has considered the Addendum to the 2000 SEIR for the Project, as well as the Final 2000 SEIR, and based on the entirety of the record, as described above, the City Council, exercising its independent judgment and analysis, makes the following findings regarding the environmental analysis ofthe Project: a.Development of the Project Site with a mix of residential, retail, and office uses was analyzed in the 2000 SEIR; and the proposed Project would be developed with a mix of residential and retail uses that would not exceed the development density or intensity analyzed in the 2000 SEIR. b.Changes to the Project since certification of the 2000 SEIR are not substantial changes that require major revisions to the 2000 SEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects because though the Project Site has been downsized, the Project would not exceed the development density or intensity assumptions of the 2000 SEIR. c.Changes to the circumstances under which the Project will be undertaken, since certification of the 2000 SEIR, are not substantial changes that require major revisions to the 2000 SEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects because though the Project Site has been downsized, the Project would not exceed the development density or intensity assumptions of the 2000 SEIR. d.There is no new information of substantial importance that demonstrates the Project will have any significant effects not discussed in the 2000 SEIR, that significant effects discussed in the 2000 SEIR will be substantially more severe than shown in the 2000 SEIR, that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce any significant effects of the project, or that mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the 2000 SEIR would substantially reduce any significant effects of the Project. e.Mitigation measures adopted as part of the MMRP for the 2000 SEIR would also operate to avoid or minimize impacts of the proposed Project to levels of less -than- significance; accordingly, the MMRP, attached as Exhibit. B, should be re- adopted for the proposed Project. f.The 2000 SEIR identified certain significant and unavoidable impacts of the Redevelopment Plan Amendment, for which the City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations in accordance with CEQA. To the extent any of those significant and unavoidable impacts would apply to the proposed Project, the City Council makes the findings described in Exhibit C and adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations attached as Exhibit C. 256 g.For the reasons stated in this Resolution, and in accordance with CEQA, the Addendum is sufficient to approve the Project, and a subsequent EIR is not required. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby makes the findings contained in this Resolution, and hereby: (i) adopts the Addendum attached as Exhibit A; (ii) adopts the MMRP attached as Exhibit B; and (iii) adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations attached as Exhibit C. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption. I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting held on the 9 day of March, 2011 by the following vote: AYES:Councilmembers Mark Addiego, Pedro Gonzalez, and Karyl Matsumoto, Vice Mayor Richard A. Garbarino and Mayor Kevin Mullin NOES:None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None ATTEST: All V City Cl a 257 Exhibit A Addendum to 2000 SEIR 258 ADDENDUM TO THE 2000 EL CAMINO REAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIROMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SC14 #1999 - 032051 for 1309 MISSION ROAD SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA November 2, 2010 Allison Knapp Wollam Planning and Environmental Consulting 259 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE CHAPTER 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 -24 Project Description 1 Land Use, Planning and Zoning 2 Development Changes in the Project Area 13 Legislative Changes Addressing Environmental Issues 16 City of South san Francisco Project Review Process 16 Following Chapters 24 CHAPTER 2 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2 -1 -71 Aesthetics 2-2 Agricultural Resources 2 -5 Air Quality 2 -6 Biological Resources 2 -29 Cultural Resources 2 -32 Geology and Soils 2 -34 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 2 -39 Hydrology and Water Quality 2 -43 Land Use and Planning 2 -48 Mineral Resources 2 -52 Noise 2-53 Public Services 2-60 Recreation 2 -61 Transportation and Traffic 2 -63 Utilities and Service Systems 2 -66 Mandatory Findings of Significance 2 -70 CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 3 -1 -4 Findings 3 -1 Environmental Determination 3-4 i 260 CHAPTER 1 ti PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant, Clarurn Homes in concert with Environmental Innovations in Design, Architects and Giuliani & Kull, Inc. Civil Engineering propose a mixed -use residential and commercial building at 1309 Mission Road in South San Francisco, CA (Project site). The 17,582 square foot (0.41 acre) site is located at the northwest corner of McLellan Drive and Mission Road directly across from the South San Francisco BART station. The El Camino High School is southeast of the site, the Town of Coltna and cemeteries are north and northeast of the site. A vacant parcel owned by SamTrans is adjacent to the west property line of the site. The Coma Creek flood channel separates the site from a development that consists of ground floor retail and upper floor residences fronting both on El Camino Real and Mcl.,ellan . Drive. The Applicant proposes two stories of 20 residential condominium units above approximately 5,200 square feet of ground floor retail and potentially office use.' Twenty percent of the residential units would be provided to and quailify as inclusionary housing, per state redevelopment law and the South San Francisco Municipal Code (Chapter 20). The Project includes 35 onsite parking spaces, both surface and underground, six parking spaces along the McLellan Drive frontage per Section 20.250.004(n)(2) of the South San Francisco Municipal Code) for a total of 41 parking spaces. The application includes a request for a Zoning District Map amendment from Transit Village Medium Density Residential to Transit Village High Density Residential, which is discussed further under 'Transit Village Plan'. (TVP). The amendment is necessary to bring the zoning designation into conformance with the City's General Plan. A south -east corner design. element, at the Mission Road and McLellan Drive intersection, would add a third - story- residential loft and at this one area the height would be 50 feet above grade. The height of the remaining portions of the building would be 35 feet. Residential units would include a mix of one -story one- to three- bedroom units and two two -story four- bedroom units comprising the south -east corner unit, referenced above as a design element. The bedroom rnix would include two one - bedroom units; 14 two- bedroom units; two three- bedroom units; and two four- bedroom units. 1 The Initial Study includes office use as part of the Project in the evert that in the future the applicant or successor apply for a conditional use permit to include office use on the ground floor. 261 The Project proposes pedestrian pathways on the site and perimeter and podium landscaping as well as landscaping a vacant adjacent lot owned by SamTrans. The application materials indicate a variety of Green elements to be incorporated into the Project design. These elements include solar electric power, on- demand water heating, structured plumbing with re- circulating pumps, a thermally wrapped building envelope, energy star appliances, low e- windows, water saving fixtures, additional building insulation and low or no VOC paints and adhesives. Other sustainable elements include radiant roof barriers, solar window shading and optional cork and bamboo flooring, whole house vacuums, indoor air exchange and wheatboard frame cabinetry in the units that are offered for purchase. Requested Entitlements The Project sponsor is requesting the following entitlements: Amendment to the South San Francisco Zoning District Map to (1) correctly reflect Transit Village Commercial (TV -C) on a portion of the subject parcel, as designated in the 2001 South San Francisco BART Transit Village Plan, and (2) reclassify the remainder of the subject parcel from Transit Village Medium Density Residential 1V -RM) to Transit Village High Density Residential (TV RH); amendment to Figure 20.250.004(D) "Maximum Building Height" to reclassify the subject parcel's maximum allowable building height from 35 feet to 55 feet; and amendment to Figure 20.250.004 (E) "Setback Requirements" to reclassify the Mission Road frontage requirement from G1 -60 to C-1 -80, in accordance with South San Francisco Municipal Code ( SSFMC) 20.550. Use Permit, Design Review, Tentative Subdivision Map and Affordable Housing Agreement to construct a new Mixed Use Development consisting of 20 condominium units, approximately 5,200 square feet of commercial space, and authorize a 25 percent reduction in the number of required commercial parking spaces at 1309 Mission Road in the Transit Village (Medium Density Residential proposed to be High Density Residential) Zoning District in accordance with SSFMC Title 19, and Chapters 20.250, 20.480 & 20.490. LAND USE, PLANNING AND ZONING South San Francisco General Plan and Zoning Ordinance -1999 The South San Francisco General Plan (1999) identifies the site as Community Commercial with a High Density Residential overlay. The Zoning Map identifies the site as Transit VillageMedium Density Residential (TVRM). The Project site is within the South San Fravxisco BART Transit Vilkzge Plan (TVP) and the El Camino C ridor Re lewlapnvnt Plan (ECRRP) areas. The TVP was adopted in August, 2001 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Page 2 of24 262 and land use impacts were adequately addressed through an adopted initial study and mitigated negative declaration of environmental significance. The amendment to the ECRRP was adopted in April, 2000 and land use impacts were adequately addressed through a certified supplemental environmental impact report (2000 ECREIR) tiering off the 1993 EIR for the original Plan Area adoption. The South San Francisco General Plan was adopted in February, 1999 and land use impacts were adequately analyzed in a certified environmental impact report. Transit Village Plan and Zoning -2001 Existing Designations The existing land use and zoning designation is Transit Village Medium Density Residential (TV-R.1\1). Maximum residential development density is 30 dwelling units per acre, notwithstanding a 25% density bonus for inclusionary housing meeting state requirements. Short building setbacks are required; an active streetscape is required. The maximum permitted building height is 35 feet. Residential land use above podium parking is permitted for sites designed with rear access and tuck under and surface parking configurations (VP, Prototypes Ivey Map, PT3 and 4, page 63). The Project proposes surface and below -grade parking, bicycle parking and storage areas. Proposed Designation. The requested 'IV -RH amendment permits 50 dwelling units per acre. The designation requires residential uses above podium parking and street front retail along McLellan Drive. The Project proposes 49 dwelling units per acre, podium parking Ixith residential above and retail commercial on the ground floor along the McLellan Street frontage. The proposed Zoning District Map amendment to Transit Village High Density Residential would result in the same zoning designation as the General Plan because the RH land use corresponds directly to high density residential development zoning standards. The RH designation would also bring the land use designation into conformance with the General Plan high density residential land use designation. El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan 1993 and 2000 Amendment In 2000 the City amended the El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan that was adopted July 14, 1993. The ECRRP's purpose is stated to eliminate blight, retain business, promote commercial rehabilitation, construct public infrastructure improvements and make improvements to various housing developments in the Plan 'area. The ECRRP amendment (2000 Amendment) added approximately 80 acres of property to the planning area (Plan Area) boundaries and modified development assumptions on 23 sites within the Plan Area. The 2000 ..3.mendrnent increased commercial development in the Plan Area from 88,000 to 443,800 square feet, office development from 13,000 to 189,900 square feet and reduced the potential for housing development from 1,240 to 757 units. The 2000 ECREIR analyzed the development changes on each of the 23 sites. The Project site is PROJECT DESCRIPTION Page 3 of24 263 identified as Site 3, or the Cuneo Property in the 2000 ECREIR on Table 3.0 -1 (page 3.0 -7) and Figure 3.0 -2 (unnumbered page 3.0 -12). Figure 1.1 El Camino Redevelopment Project Area on pages six and seven illustrates the Redevelopment Plan Area and the sites analyzed for development. The ECREIR analyzed the Project site development intensity at 21 multi - family residential units (37.5 dwelling units per acre), 18,400 square feet of retail commercial (a 1.5 FAR) and 18,400 square feet of office (2000 ECREIR, Table 3.0 -1, page 3.0 -7). The development table from the 2000 ECREIR, Table 1.1 Development Assumptions in the ECRRP, is reproduced on pages eight through 11 in this chapter. Development Assumptions on the Project Site As noted above, development intensity on the Project site has been envisioned and analyzed through various environmental documents associated with the General Plan, ECRRP and TVP. These three plans envisioned a maximum development of 37.5 dwelling units per acre page 32, Table 2.2 -1 General Plan, Page 3.0 -7 ECREIR, page 105 TVP). The density corresponds to 30 dwelling units per acre plus a 25°, o density bonus for inclusionary housing, on a site larger than it exists today. The development assumptions for the Project site have remained constant over the past 12 years while the area of the site has changed. The acreage of the Project site changed as a result of the extension of BART to South San Francisco. In 1999 and 2000 both the General Plan and Redevelopment Plan amendments noted the site at 0.75 acre. The 2001 TVP identifies the Project site as 0.67 acres in anticipation of land area changes due to BART construction. Subsequently the Project site was reduced to 0.41 acres as a result of SamTrans' purchase of 0.34 acres which was used as staging and storage during BART construction. In summary, the maximum residential development intensity envisioned in the three plans for the Project site has remained constant for the past 12 years notwithstanding the changes in site area. The discrepancies between high and medium density development densities contained in the three plans are a reflection of the changes in site area and not planned development intensity. The maximum residential development permitted for the site, in absence of a density bonus, is 21 units. Therefore, the Project proposes a TVP Land Use and Zoning Map (Map TV -01) amendment to High Density Residential with the Commercial overlay to construct 20 units of housing and 5,200 square feet of retail commercial on the 0.41 acre site, which would not exceed the density assumptions analyzed and planned over the past 12 years. Other Plan Considerations Common With and Outside the Project Area -South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment -2010 Although the South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment (S/ECRGPA) area is predominately outside the El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Area, a discussion of PROJECT DESCRIPTION Page 4 of24 264 this planning area is included in this document for two reasons. First, two sites within the El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Area are common with the S /ECRGPA. Secondly, a discussion of the S /ECRGPA along with the TVP and ECRRP provides the context of planning documents that affect the entire El Camino Real Corridor. The City, on March 24, 2010, adopted S /ECRGPA. The S /ECRGPA is south of the ECRRP and TNT areas and is located along the southern portion of El Camino Real, between Chestnut and Noor Avenues. The ECRRP and the S /ECRGPA overlap on two sites, those being approximately 89,000 square feet of retail frontage along the El Camino Corridor extending from Westborough Avenue to South San Francisco High School identified as Site 21 on Figure 3.0 -3 on Figure 14 and South San Francisco High School identified as Site 22, op. cit.). The ECRRP area consists largely of the northern and middle portions of El Camino Real while the S /ECRGPA consists of the central and southern portions of the El Camino Corridor. The City certified the S /ECRGPA environmental impact report (SCH #2009062070) on March 24, 2010. The S /ECRGPA targets higher intensities and mixed -use development in the southern portion of the El Camino Real corridor. The City's vision is to foster the El Camino Real as an urban, pedestrian - friendly, transit- oriented corridor for residents to live, work and play. The vision reflects the City's support of the Grand Boulevard Initiative for the El Camino Real and proactively encourages compact mixed -use and high - quality development. The S /ECRGPA proactively addresses issues identified in. the State of California 2006 Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32) and the State's greenhouse gas emission law (SB375) by actively promoting higher density transit oriented mixed use development. See Figure 1.2 Plan Areas for an identification of the three planning areas along the El Camino Corridor. The S /ECRGPA creates a land use designation, El Camino Real Mixed Use, intended to accommodate high- intensity active uses and mixed -use development in the South El Camino Real area. Development intensity increases in this area to a minimum of a 0.6 FAR with half or 0.3 being active uses. On sites greater than three acres, the minimum FAR increases to 2.5 and in some instances to a total of 3.5. Residential densities range from 60 to 80 units per acre. 2020 buildout is anticipated to increase the population by 2,410; housing units by 840; commercial by 0.3 million square feet; and create approximately 700 new jobs. The S /ECRGPA EIR analyzed the increase in development intensity throughout the plan area but not on a site specific basis as did the 2000 ECREIR. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Page 5 of24 265 4 4 .i. j . , t„,o vo ,,,•• .4 „ x,\,,,„ ,,--, 40 • 0 o 4 -/ v. 4 A.N1e100 ie 0 e I 4 s 411bALTALOMASCHOOLS X fiti)S #4% #. 114: vis .• , 4. \ ,„,i• To z.70 4 44 #6..... 1411 , 1t - ,. - :,'_, KiusER Nr.lifilirt: ' -404 0 PER"imearrtEricr 441/4..'' "%it 4:fel ,,re*i46 PotorrY s• 104,,V --- 4#Di? 40b.de 4 4#4% 4 44,20 CENTE 1417 I' a* AiOP * 0 4 • 111P% 11 46 7 k0 4. SY NOT IN PROJECTAREA I\ FIGURE 1.1 EL CAMINO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA 1 of 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Page 6 of 24 266 IS 4 " 4 a dim iwier Abisip 0.-.. WILLOW GARDENS ,, : lb 44 Q4: - j7 Awsi f •,, ,NEIGH ;. top, ilkips r + ter a,..e SW t •` I ' ' a _' : a rt IS k4144, ttirs O I s r • 4,1. pi Iii #x r tIi.t: 4 . roes, r,, r rrli rii WeirUi '' otfoirat q% •rir rri rirv. • 40.4 ,,;;;;:ii4 lilipt .- 44. ii 11 l II ice In / l///1 I///// U / // / /ij1 /lllll/!/Iliiri ll//I/I/Il ' I///l: ,i 0 1 11 .tulirr j 11/// 'w 7: 41 :47 :11'1411--11E ;rnsr I I VA i, )4°iliffir Afik EL CAMINO REAL Ito ,w COMMERCIAL FRONTAGE IP I c' i g-,,,, I 01! 0 444 4i LiC,r, 010400 Mil ."2 1* • \A 1.6 .41., 4 4I ii w 4+ tlj b 0 1.T I bl1omG0 I.fuseSOJTH i " PO ,V SAMFwwCISCO Ti „ Q HIGH SCHOOL FIGURE 1.1 EL CAMINO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA 2 of 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Page 7 of 24 267 K 0 0 4 fl f 1e0dO0, b a v g' O U of C 1.!„Aii',:,, .;,""- 9 m t ali 5. 1 0i 1A1,;R E0 flN1 . 1 1.- , 0 0 z 41-Z 2 i r 1 1 r C4 CJ U a. cz p i e m w W i a 1 Ms . R`as 4 s' aIXIX fir -: - fir i r: u ;1 b0 N EU C I-I i w R e c R >is b 4 W o a M O in i N h N NIQCvs C0 O 52 r + N › , u c"7 41 W et, F-+ . 1 to V iA V 7, Z Ln ae 14 TABLE 1.1 DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS IN THE ECRRP 1 of 4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Page 8 of 24 268 E 8 is 4 r E 6. 2 2 23 ' a a v Q I E p® C ro w agi Re . 4 I ® GG m o ° o u eo E b 8 a o4 Z 24 0t. g "o 0 0 o o a a o o °° oaa ,o o G o S2 Z 2 2 cn V x4`of a F+ LLB 4k 0 @ '°a C no u C+ d * "a . "'C STS 1 a d y a tun • •a d a`a @ TS N n 94 a 0 o 4)+P4 P4 Oq 1 ta v '`i I 2 o Z Z o a Z 2 2 gF z 853 3 H o O O co m u7 M N N N M M Q ,in N1t6 N C0 fo,., >..,f 2 'i E ft.g.t) it t, g .,..,.5 is In ua O in = Z .a iii n a4 vi Jr) :3 tv n A in in U U Er) U U in O TABLE 1.1 DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS IN THE ECRRP 2 of 4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Page 9 of 24 269 RI y h S1 C3 O p z IS, 1 y O4 p 1 X.I C g M ai § jug xg u' 7i vi4r61Cl0C.' & z a a d c iTu 0 0 o h o 0 0 L'' N z Z Z z z 1 - + A P ta g •... ;'C 33vt'a00 C Q 00R0000 ° 00 aon 0 y .4 'N .4 2x Z Z Z:a Z Z rY3 a d g Z z Z zioli 0 aCCro r,. O u Z :E Z 5 3 ilbdo a a 4 a e4 lb,. Z Z Z Z Z A 0r + id + 0 0 m L" E Z Z g'a 4 0 g4 i5 0 1 il aeobano z z z z Q a r. } + ui` d dw 4 v' cE.,0,0. 1 r w e4 m do 04i t O M OD 0 ON N MI M r~ O N EC).C+'I C N yg 'M+ s4 1.a itZA-- r uy w h LL '''00 q w 4 R •a O O r . G N co i ,...,4y4 , ri 4 rr L 4J 1 w w N Q cJ eu N N O 4 a n: ,C i . i: p iti . U c M cn emu G i' U Q R G1OinUcndciiiainUncnFnin (9 a ui w U w cn C Luc') TABLE 1.1 DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS IN THE ECRRP 3 of 4 Page 10 of24PROJECTDESCRIPTION 270 l1b1 ti a , i1 E. 7 +OOH! M i ftfl au Q at y a 1Ck O ,a mss r 0 4 .ir P,y O o " 2'M G y a' a N S 1 qw a c o0 w S. a ~ u i t. h Uopi' ttli r`,.,p z1 00 z. tt . ', g, a +a 0;e q w V w .. y O 2. 1 •. • y.i .. i„ • qe . =vim —actsyoR,, g fi to '4 r : a; ' a a o,,Y a1 • lw.k'ti y ' 4 0.q SV7 '.y A` O3iH1 w 7. 00 w a '` sd f " $ t, a +. i vo a w itit,J •.. w C H.... GJ bo y a x, c z N 0 v C3 . 0 4 vwiO w Gi V 0 V 'T. .i..1-:.c) ' ,A CJ U 0 z,..N M W 16.Gf\°O D7 TABLE 1.1 DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS IN THE ECRRP 4 of 4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Page 11 of24 271 272 DEVELOPMENT CHANGES IN THE PROJECT AREA Implementation of the City's General Plan, TNT and ECRRP has resulted in transportation improvements and land use development in the Project area. Transportation and circulation improvements identified in the Plans that have been completed since 2000 are the: Water Quality Control Plant upgrade; Colma Creek Flood .Improvement Channelization; Hickey Boulevard extension; Restriping of Hickey Boulevard at junipero Serra approach for an exclusive left turn lane, exclusive through lane, and a shared through /right turn lane; modification of east /west signal for an exclusive left turn lane; Widening the southbound El Camino Real approach for an exclusive right turn lane at the El Camino Real /Westborough Boulevard/ Chestnut Avenue intersection; Fair share fee collection during entitlement review and approval (levied as a condition of approval) for the future signali7ation :Mission Road /Evergreen /Bart Access Road; BART Road construction; and McClellan Drive construction; South San Francisco BART station construction; and Centennial Way Trail (2.85 miles) from San Bruno BART Station to South San Francisco BART Station. Five key sites planned for redevelopment within ECCRP area have been developed and two are pending entitlement review. The sites as they were identified in the 2000 ECREIR have changed and merged as a result of the BART station and Centennial Way (linear park) construction. The sites that have been developed and the two pending sites are summarized below. The summary includes the development assumptions contained in the 2000 ECREIR and as -built conditions. The site numbers refer to their location in the 2000 ECREIR and as shown on Figure 1.1 Developed Sites Sites 2 and 5: This combined site is developed with. the BART station and parking and a 147,000 square foot Costco with a 16 -pump gas station. The site also contains a mixed use 355 unit multi- family housing development with approximately 24,000 square feet of ground floor retail and office commercial. Approximately half or 12,000 square feet of commercial square footage is Trader Joes and the remaining 12,000 square feet is miscellaneous commercial consisting of Starbucks, Chase Bank, a dental office and some vacancies. The Centennial Way Trail (linear park) begins here and extends south to the San Bruno BART Station. The 2000 ECCEIR analyzed a 147,000 square foot Costco with a 16 -pump gas station, 300 multi - family PROJECT DESCRIPTION Page 13 of24 273 housing units, 294,000 sgnnre feet of community commercial and 171,500 square feet of office for this combined site. Site 4: This site is developed with 179 single - family units, 34 townhomes and open space. The 2000 ECREIR analyzed the same development assumptions that are built. Site 7: This site consists of Broadmoor Lumber and a cluster of 132 multi- family residential buildings built in the 1980's. Park Station Lofts (Summerfield Homes) was completed in 2009 and consists of 99 multi - family loft -style housing units. The 2000 ECREIR analyzed 70 units of additional multi- family housing units and 122,500 square feet of community commercial land use on this site. The development potential assumed the eventual redevelopment of the lumber yard with residential units and retention of the existing 132 residential units built in the 1980's. The development table contained in the 2000 ECREIR (see Table 1.1) erroneously identified the existing residential development as 96 units. Notwithstanding this error, traffic counts taken in 1999/2000 accurately reflect traffic conditions associated with the 132 units. Therefore, the retail commercial development potential of the site remains outstanding and identified as potential development. Site 14: This site, known as Oak Farms, was redeveloped with 32 single - family residential units. The 2000 ECREIR analyzed 72 multi - family residential units. Subsequently an application was entitled to permit 32 single-family units. Site 15: This site known as Chestnut Creek was developed with 40 units of senior housing subsequent to the 2000 ECREIR analysis of 28 multi- family units. Sites Pending Development Entitlements Site 3 The Project site. The site is currently vacant. The Project proposes 5,200 square feet of retail commercial and 20 condominium units. The 2000 ECREIR analyzed 21 units of multi - family housing, 18,400 square feet of retail commercial and 18,400 square feet of office. As noted above, the size of the site in the 2000 ECREIR was 0.75 acres. The size of the site now is 0.41 acres due to parcel reconfiguration as a result of the BART station development. Site 21: Site 21 consists of a cluster of parcels fronting El Camino Real from Westborough Avenue to the South San Francisco High School. Mid- Peninsula Housing Coalition (Mid -Pen) owns the parcel sharing the high school's property line to the north. Mid -Pen was granted entitlements by the City to construct 109 multi- family units of affordable housing and 5,000 square feet of retail commercial on the site. The 2000 ECREIR analyzed an additional 8,900 square feet of commercial along the entirety of Site 21. The Mid -Pen portion of this site will develop 109 multi - PROJECT DESCRIPTION Page 14 of24 274 family housing units that were not envisioned in the 2000 ECREIR and 5,000 square feet of the 8,900 square feet of commercial land use that was envisioned in 2000 ECREIR. The S /ECRGPA includes this site in the planned intensification of commercial and residential land use and permits a commercial 1.5 FAR and up to 80 dwelling units per acre. A negative declaration tiering from the S /ECRGPA RIR was approved for the Nlid -Pen project. The following Table 1.2 summarizes the changes in development assumptions subsequent to the 2000 ECRRP amendment as well as the two that are currendy under review. The sites identified are those where development differs from that a:nalyzed in the 2000 ECREIR. Including the Mid -Pen and Project site, 165 additional residential units have been or are anticipated to be constructed, 305,000 square feet less commercial and 189,400 square feet less office has been developed. TABLE 1.2 SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT ON SITES REDEVELOPED SUBSEQUENT TO THE 2000 ECREIR DEVELOPED SITES SITE RESIDENTIAL RETAIL OFFICE 2 and 5 55 293,000 171,500 7 29 14 40 15 12 PENDING ENTITi.EMENT REVIEW 3 PROJECT 1 12,300 18,400 21 109 1/ CHANGE 165 305,200 189,400 1/ The Mid -Pen Project would include 5,000 of the 8,900 square feet of commercial intensification on the collective parcels known as Site 21. Build -out of the Mid -Pen parcel does not obviate, but actually enhances, the opportunit to realize the ECRRP amendment development scenario on the remaining parcels. The development opportunity remains outstanding and as such the retail /office component is not counted as a loss or gain. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Page 15 of 24 275 1.2 LEGISLATIVE CHANGES ADDRESSING ]ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Several environmental regulations have been adopted and signed into law subsequent to the 2000 ECREIR. The laws address Global Climate Change in various forms, most notably Green House Gas (GHG) emissions. Assembly Bill. 32 (AB 32) and Senate Bill 97 (SB 97) are two pieces of legislation requiring the analysis of greenhouse gas emissions for environmental consideration. Chapter 2, Section 2, Air Quality contains a discussion of recent legislation and a GHG study. South San Francisco updated their development review procedure January 2010 to implement the new regional requirements mandated by the Regional Quality Control Board that will affect private development projects beginning December 1, 2011. See Chapter 1 Section 1.3.4 below. Senate Bill 610 (SB 610) was adopted in 2001 and became effective January 1, 2002. SB 610 requires cities to consider water supply assessments to determine whether projected water supplies can meet a project's water demand. SB 610 and the CEQA Guidelines (Section 15083.5) identify residential projects generally exceeding 500 units and commercial or industrial projects employing more than 1,000 persons as potential impact thresholds. The California Water Service Company (CWSC) drafted and adopted an Urban Water management Plan (UWMP) in 2006. The UWIIP was established in accordance with the California Urban Water management Planning Act, (Division 6 Part 2.6 of the Water Code, Section 10610 - 10656). Water Code Section 10910 subd. (c)(2), Government Code, Section 66473.7, subd. (c)(1) notes that it is acceptable to use the most recently adopted UWMP to assess water supply in accordance with the California Urban Water Management Planning Act and SB 610. See Chapter Section 16.d for a more detailed discussion. 1.3 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PROJECT REVIEW PROCESS As a matter of law, the Project is required to comply with federal, state and local laws and regulations. These regulations are verified as satisfied and incorporated into the Project as a matter of building permit issuance or a building or grading permit will not be issued by the City of South San Francisco. As such, these requirements are considered a part of the Project, not a separate and distinct requirement. City of South San Francisco project processing requires that applications for projects are first reviewed by the City's Technical Advisory- Group (TAG). TAG is comprised of representatives from planning, building, police, fire, engineering, parks and recreation, and water quality control. TAG review identifies changes and additions that are required in a project to comply with local, state and federal laws that are implemented through the City's Municipal Code. The Planning Division, subsequent to TAG review, issues a letter to the PROJECT DESCRIPTION Page 16 of 24 276 applicant identifying the changes required in project plans and supporting materials necessary to comply with prevailing laws pursuant to site development, construction and land use. The applicant is required to revise the plans and supporting documentation or the application is not certified as complete and not processed. Revised plans and documentation are submitted to the Planning Division to be routed again to all affected City departments and divisions; again to evaluate the application in light of their earlier comments and requirements. The process results in an application that can be certified `complete' as well as identifying the Conditions of Approval ( COA's) that are required should the Project be approved. Many of these COA's implement environmental mitigations that were historically identified through the environmental review process (California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA) and now have become a part of the City's legislative requirements, through its general plan, special, area, or redevelopment plans, municipal code, special districts, or memoranda of understanding (i.e., its police power). After a project application is complete it is subject to environmental, public and discretionary review through and by the Planning Commission, Redevelopment Agency and /or City Council, depending upon the type of project, as defined by the Municipal Code of South San Francisco and state law. The COA's identified through staff review of the project, and any additional ones identified through the public review process becomerequiredoftheprojectasamatteroflaw. Prior to the City issuing a building, grading and /or demolition permit all City departments and divisions (identified above) review the project plans for compliance with their identified COA's and any ones added through the public review process. Permits are not issued by the Building Division in absence of authorization from City staff or in absence of the requirements being incorporated into the Project plans. 1. Aesthetics Aesthetics Light and Glare: Signage is required to be reviewed by staff, the Design Review Board, and in some instances the Planning Commission. Lighting, size, color, placement, design and compatibility with surrounding land uses is addressed and assured through this process. Potential environmental impacts and the need or lack thereof for environmental clearance is also addressed and undertaken as a part of the Type A, B or C Sign Permit procedure (Chapter 20.360 South San Francisco Municipal Code - Zoning). The Planning Division implements and monitors this requirement. Entitlement projects are vetted through the City's Design Review process. Projects are reviewed by the City's Design Review Board consisting of professional architects and landscape architects. The Planning Commission and in some cases the City Council adds design elements to projects. Projects that are within a state or local scenic corridor are further addressed through the CEQA process. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Page 17 of 24 277 2. Air Quality Air Quality Dust Control: All construction projects are required to comply with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's (BAAQMD) dust control measures. These measures are levied by the Engineering Division as a condition of building permit issuance and are monitored for compliance by staff and /or special Gil.) engineering and /or planning inspectors. The measures include: a. Water all active construction sites at least twice daily. b. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. c. Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non- toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites. d. Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. e. Sweep streets dab, (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. f. Hydroseed or apply (non - toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more). g. Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply non -toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiled materials. h. Install sandbags or other erosion - control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. i. Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. j. Watering should be used to control dust generation during the break -up of pavement. k. Cover all trucks hauling demolition debris from the site. 1. Use dust -proof chutes to load debris into trucks whenever feasible. m. Water or cover stockpiles of debris, soil, sand or other materials that can be blown by the wind. n. Diesel powered equipment shall be maintained in good working condition, with manufacturer - recommended mufflers, filters, and other equipment. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Page 18 of24 278 o. Diesel powered equipment shall not be left inactive and idling for more than ten minutes, and shall comply with applicable BAAQMD rules. p. Use alternative fueled construction equipment, if possible. Air Quality Toxic Air Contaminants: The potential for toxic air contaminants (asbestos and lead based paint) to be released into the environment is regulated and monitored through the Building Division. Any applicant requesting a building or demolition permit involving a structure suspected of containing asbestos (defined as a building constructed prior to 19 8) and /or lead based paint (defined as a building constructed prior to 1960) is required to obtain a J- Permit from the BAAQMD. The J Permit is required to be posted on the job site and if it is not there the job will be fined by the BAAQMD and may be shut down by the City's Building Division. Through this process, the BAAQMD and the City Building Division ensure that asbestos and lead based paints are handled, removed, encapsulated and disposed of in accordance with prevailing law requisite to protect the environment, the people conducting the work and nearby sensitive receptors. The process typically requires surveys and removal of lead based paints and asbestos by licensed contractors certified in the handling methods requisite to protect the environment and public health and safety. The process also provides for BAAQMD and City supervision to insure compliance. Air Quality Vehicle Emissions: The potential for air quality degradation from vehicle emissions is regulated to some extent by Section 20.400.003 of the South San Francisco Code. Table 20.400.003 in the Zoning Ordinance establishes specific program requirements for a project generating one hundred or more vehicle trips per day or a project seeking a floor area ratio (FAR) bonus. The required alternative mode use for all projects is twenty - eight percent and applicants who propose projects with increased FAR are required to increase their alternative mode use accordingly. The Planning Division implements and monitors this requirement. 3. Geology and Soils Geology and Soils Table 18 -1 -B Uniform Building Code: All construction projects are required to comply with the Uniform Building Code. Projects located on soils identified in Volume 2 Table 18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Code are required to comply with the construction specifications to mitigate potential impacts due to liquefaction. This requirement is enforced and monitored by the Engineering Division. Compliance with the Uniform Building Code is also implemented and monitored by the Building Division. Geology and Soils Geotechnical Reports: The City Engineering Division also requires geotechnical reports as a part of the permit package for projects to be constructed on vacant land, demolition and rebuilding and additions to buildings that require grading and additional loading. The geotechnical reports are required to be prepared by a licensed geologist, geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist. The reports address design and construction specifications for the Project including grading, site drainage, utility and infrastructure design specifications and placement and building design. The reports are peer reviewed by the City's geotechnical consultant and are modified as recommended by the City's consultant. Geotechnical approval is required prior to issuance of a building permit. The geotechnical PROJECT DESCRIPTION Page 19 of 24 279 professional of record is required to sign all project drawings and the City's geotechnical consultant provides construction inspections, oversight and monitoring for the City. The Engineering Division implements and monitors this requirement. 4. Hydrology and Water Quality Hydrology and Water Quality: South San Francisco updated their development review procedure January, 2010 to implement the new, regional requirements mandated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board that will affect private development projects beginning December 1, 2011. The following is a summary of applicable new requirements in Provisions C.3.b.ii and C.3.c.i.2 of the San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit ( "Municipal Regional Permit" or MRP ").The full text may be downloaded at www.flowstobay.org /ms mnnicipalities.php. New restrictions on methods of stormwater treatment require that beginning December 1, 2011, all projects that are required to treat stormwater will need to treat the permit - specified amount of stormwater runoff with low impact development methods. These methods include rainwater harvesting and reuse, infiltration, evapotranspiration, or biotreatment. However, biotreatment (filtering stormwater through vegetation and soils before discharging to the storm drain system) will be allowed only where harvesting and reuse, infiltration and evapotranspiration are infeasible at the Project site. Criteria for determining infeasibility are scheduled to be developed by May 1, 2011. Vault -based treatment will not be allowed as a stand -alone treatment measure. Where stormwater harvesting and reuse, infiltration, or evapotranspiration are infeasible, vault -based treatment measures may be used in series with biotreatrnent, for example, to remove trash or other large solids. (See Provision C.3.c.i.2 of the MRP.) New rules for auto service facilities, retail gasoline outlets, restaurants, and uncovered parking begin on December 1, 2011. At that time, projects that create and /or replace 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface related to auto service facilities', retail gasoline Z Auto service facilities, described by the following Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes: 5013: Establishments primarily engaged in wholesale distribution of motor vehicle supplies, accessories, tools, equipment, and parts. 5014: Establishments primarily engaged in wholesale distribution oftires and tubes for passenger and commercial vehicles. 5541: Gasoline service stations primarily engaged in selling gasoline and lubricating oils. 7532: Establishments primarily engaged in the repair ofautomotive tops, bodies, and interiors, or automotive painting and refinishing. 7533: Establishments primarily engaged in the installation, repair, or sale and installation of automotive exhaust systems. 7534: Establishments primarily engaged in repairing and retreading automotive tires. 7536: Establishments primarily engaged in the installation, repair, or sales and installation ofautomotive glass 7537: Establishments primarily engaged in the installation, repair, or sales and installation ofautomotive transmissions. 7538: Establishments primarily engaged in general automotive repair. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Page 20 of24 280 outlets, restaurants', and /or surface parking will be required to provide low impact development treatment of stormwater runoff. This requirement will apply to uncovered parking that is stand - alone, or included as part of any other development project, and it applies to the top uncovered portion of a parking structure, unless drainage from the uncovered portion is connected to the sanitary sewer (see Provision C.3.b.ii.1 of the MRP). For all other land use categories, 10,000 square feet will remain the regional threshold for requiring low impact development, source control, site design, and stormwater treatment, although municipalities may have the authority to require treatment to the maximum extent practicable for smaller projects. These new requirements are built into the following standard requirements. Hydrology and Water Quality Stormwater Runoff Prevention (Operational): All Projects are required to comply with the San Mateo Countywide Stout' Water Pollution Prevention Program (STOPPP), an organization of the City/County Association of Governments (C /CAG) of San Mateo County holding a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Storm Water Discharge permit. The City requires the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMP's) for new development and construction as part of its storm water management program, as levied through standard City COD's. The requirements are implemented and monitored by the Engineering and Water Quality Control Divisions. The measures address pollution control and management mechanisms for contractor activities, e.g. structure construction, material delivery and storage, solid waste management, employee and subcontractor training. Stormwater pollution prevention measures also affect site development and operations in order to prevent pollution due to Project occupancy. Typical storm water quality protection measures include: a. Walking and light traffic areas shall use permeable pavements where feasible. Typical pervious pavements include pervious concrete, porous asphalt, turf block, brick pavers, natural stone pavers, concrete unit pavers, crushed aggregate (gravel), cobbles and wood mulch. b. Parking lots shall include hybrid surfaces (pervious material for stalls only), concave medians with biofilters (grassy swales), and landscaped infiltration /detention basins as feasible. c. Landscape design shall incorporate biofilters, infiltration and retention /detention basins into the site plan as feasible. d. Outdoor work areas including garbage, recycling, maintenance, storage, and loading, applicable stout' water controls include siting or set back from drainage paths and water ways, provision of roofing and curbs or berms to prevent run on and run off. If the area has the potential to generate contaminated run off, structural treatment controls for contaminant removal (such as debris screens or filters) shall be incorporated into the design. 7539: Specialized automotive repair such as fuel ser4-ice (carburetor repair), brake relining, front -end and wheel alignment, and radiator repair. 3 Restaurants described by SIC code 5812: Retail sale ofprepared food and drinks for on- premise or immediate consumption. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Page 21 of24 281 e, Roof leaders and site drainage shall be filtered and directed to the City storm drain system. f. Drainage from paved surfaces shall be filtered through vegetated swales, buffer or sand strips before discharge to the City's storm drain system. Hydrology and Water Quality Stormwater Runoff Prevention (Construction): The City of South San Francisco requires through COA's, Project compliance with the State Water Quality Control Board's general permitting requirements which requires the applicant to secure a Construction Activities Storm Water General Permit, complete a Notice of Intent NOI) and prepare and obtain approval of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan SWPPP). The state issues a Waste Discharge Identification number within 10 days of receipt of a complete NOI and SWPPP. The applicant is then required to submit copies of the NOI and SWPPP to the City of South San Francisco's Technical Services Supervisor within the Water Quality Control Plant of the Public Works Department prior to issuance of building and /or grading permits. The requirements are implemented and monitored by Water Quality Control personnel. Typical construction stormwater protection measures include: a. Identify all storm drains, drainage swales and creeks located near construction sites and prevent pollutants from entering them by the use of filter fabric cloth, rock bags, straw wattles, slope hydroseeding, cleaning up leaks, drips or spills immediately, use dry cleanup methods to clean up spills, use of berms, temporary ditches and check dams to reduce the velocity of surface flow. b. Place rock bags at all drain inlets to filter silt and along curb and gutter to filter water before the drain inlets. c. Place straw wattles and hydroseed the sloped areas. d. Place straw matting at the temporary sloped areas for erosion control. e. Place drain systems to filter and then drain into drain inlets. f. Use silt fencing with straw mats and hand broadcast seed for erosion control. g. Construct temporary drainage systems to filter and divert water accordingly. h. Construct temporary rock and asphalt driveways and wheel washers to buffer public streets from dirt and mud. i. Use part and full time street sweepers that operate along public streets and roads. j. Cover all stockpiled soils to protect from erosion. Use berms around stockpiled soils. k. Cover and protect from erosion plaster, concrete and other powders which create large amounts of suspended solids. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Page 22 of24 282 1. Store all hazardous materials (paints, solvents, chemicals) in accordance with secondary containment regulations and cover during wet weather. m. Use terracing to prevent erosion. n. Through grading plan review and approval, phase grading operations to reduce disturbed areas during wet weather, limit vegetation removal, delineate clearing limits, setbacks, easements, sensitive or critical areas, trees, drainage courses and buffer zones to prevent unnecessary disturbance and exposure. Limit or prohibit grading during the wet weather season, October 15 to April 15` o. Prevent spills and leaks by maintaining equipment, designating specific areas of a site for such activities that are controlled and away from water courses and perform major maintenance off -site or in designated areas only. p. Cover and maintain all dumpsters, collect and properly dispose of all paint removal wastes, clean up paints, solvents, adhesives and all cleaning solvents properly. Recycle and salvage appropriate wastes and maintain an adequate debris disposal schedule. q. Avoid roadwork and pavement stormwater pollution by following manufacturers' instructions. 5. Noise Noise Interior Ambient Noise: The City of South San Francisco regulates noise exposure through state law and their General Plan and East of 101 Area Plan. The California Building Code (CBC) Title 24, Part 2, Chapter 2.35 of the California Code of Regulation, collectively know n as Title 24, contains acoustical requirements for interior sound levels in habitable rooms for multi - family residential land uses. Title 24 contains requirements for construction of new hotels, motels, apartment houses, and dwellings other than detached single - family dwellings intended to limit the extent of noise transmitted into habitable spaces. The standard specifies the extent to which walls, doors, and floor - ceiling assemblies must block or absorb sound in between units and the amount of attenuation needed to limit noise from exterior sources. The standard sets forth an interior noise level of 45 dBA CNEL or Ld„) in any habitable room with all doors and windows closed and requires anacousticalanalysisdemonstratinghowdwellingunitshavebeendesignedtomeetthis interior standard where such units are proposed in areas subject to noise levels greater than 60 dBA (CNEL or L Title 24 requirements are enforced as a condition of building permit issuance bv the Building Division. The City, through its General Plan, adopted the Noise Guidelines of the State Department of Health Services in their Noise Element (1999). Table 9.2 -1, Land Use Criteria for Noise Impacted Areas, contained in the Noise Element of the General Plan (page 280) guides land use decisions based upon noise thresholds and acoustical analysis and mitigation. Additionally, the General Plan (page 279) also guides and mitigates development in light of aircraft noise. The City implements the Federal Aviation Administration adopted noise contours and participates in an aircraft noise insulation program. Figure 9 -1 of the General PROJECT DESCRIPTION Page 23 of 24 283 Plan Aircraft Noise and Nois' Insulation Program (page 279) identifies the noise contours and program area. The East of 101 Area Plan requirement for interior ambient noise for commercial, office and retail is 45 dBA, L echoing state law. Residential land uses are prohibited. The Noise Guidelines are implemented by the Planning Division through new project review. Noise Exterior Ambient Noise: The City of South San Francisco regulates exterior noise through the South San Francisco Municipal Code (Section 8.32.030). The Municipal Code regulates noise pursuant to land use and time of day. Lower density residential maximum noise exposure (excluding vehicle horns and emergency vehicles) is restricted to 50 dB 10 P.M. to 7 A.M. and 60 db from 7 A.M. and 10 P.M. Higher density residential and commercial is restricted to 55 dB from 10 P.M. to 7 A.M. and 65 db from 7 A.M. and 10 P.M. Industrial land uses are restricted to 70 dB anytime of the day. These noise standards are implemented largely through enforcement actions i.e., citizen complaint and governmental response). The Fire Department through its Code Enforcement Officer implements these regulations. Construction noise is also regulated through the Municipal Code (8.32.050(d)). Hours of construction are exempt from the standards identified in the preceding paragraph and are limited to 8 A.M. to 8 P.M. Monday through Friday, 9 A.M. to 8 P.M. on Saturdays and 10 to 6 P.M. on Sundays and holidays. The Building Division enforces and monitors these regulations. Exceptions to the hours of construction may be granted by the Chief Building Official. 1.4 FOLLOWING CHAPTERS Chapter 2 of this document contains the environmental checklist. The checklist compares the Project to the development assumptions contained in the 2000 ECREIR, initial stud; and 1993 EIR for the El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan and Amendment. Chapter 3 summarizes the findings contained in Chapter 2 and contains the environmental determination that an addendum to the 2000 ECREIR is the appropriate documentation for the Project. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Page 24 of24 284 CHAPTER 2 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST This Environmental Checklist provides the technical analysis and discussion of environmental impacts and mitigation measures associated with the proposed 1309 Mission Road Project. The Project site and development assumptions were analyzed in the 2000 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment Environmental Impact Report (2000 ECREIR). The following analysis tiers from the 2000 ECREIR, and as a result of the findings contained herein, the City is prepared to issue an addendum to the 2000 ECREIR as the appropriate environmental documentation for the Project. The measures identified in the 2000 ECREIR would be included in the Project as a matter of law and would be implemented by being included as a part of Project design, construction and Project operations as well as City monitoring and permit issuance. The monitoring of the 2000 ECREIR mitigation measures would be assured through the monitoring and reporting requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in tandem with the terms of the City's Land Use permit through the building and grading permit processes, City inspections and as a prerequisite to a certificate of occupancy being issued for the Project. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST The following checklist is consistent with CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G. A "no impact' response indicates that the Project would not result in an environmental impact in a particular area of interest, either because the resource is not present, or the Project does not have the potential to cause an effect on the resource. A "less than significant' response indicates that, while there mat be potential for an environmental impact, the significance of the impact would not exceed established thresholds and /or that there are standard procedures or regulations in that would apply to the Project and hence no mitigation is required, or that, although there is the potential for a significant impact, feasible mitigation measures are available and have been agreed to by the Project Applicant to reduce the impact to a level of "less than significant" No "potentially significant impact' responses are identified, indicating that the Project would not exceed established thresholds and that therefore no impact that could not be avoided by utilizing standard operating procedures and regulations, program requirements, or design features as identified in this checklist as being incorporated into the Project. Citations for this chapter are contained within the relevant discussion. 1309 MISISON ROAD— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2 -1 285 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2.1 AESTHETICS Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant Significant No Impact with Impact Impact Mitigation I. AESTHETICS — Would the Project: a) Hare a substantial adverse effect on a scenic X vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources,X including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual X character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or X nighttime rieu•s in the area? SETTING Project Site The Project site is located on the corner of Mission Road and McLellan Drive directly across from the South San Francisco BART Station. Adjacent to the site on the west is a vacant parcel owned by the San Mateo Department of Transportation ( SamTrans) and was utilized during the BART extension to South San Francisco. The Colma Creek channel, also to the west, separates the SamTrans parcel from the mixed use high density residential commercial development that fronts both El Camino Real and McLellan Drive. The Town of Colrna and cemeteries are northeast and southeast is the El Camino High School. North and adjacent to the site is a multifamily residential development in the Town of Colma. The South San Francisco BART station is south of the site. The Project site, as noted, is relatively flat, is vacant and was previously graded as a part of BART construction and staging. South San Francisco South San Francisco's urban character is one of contrasts within a visually well defined setting. San Bruno Mountain to the north, the ridge along Skyline Boulevard to the west, and the San Francisco Bay to the east provide the City with distinctive edges. The City is contained in almost a bowl like fashion by hills on three sides. The City's terrain ranges from the flatlands along the water to hills east and north. Hills are visible from all parts of the City, and Sign Hill and San Bruno Mountain in PAGE 2 -2 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY 286 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION the distance are visual landmarks. Much of the City's topography is rolling, resulting in distant views from many neighborhoods. Geographically, the City is relatively small, extending approximately two miles in a north -south direction and about five miles from east to west. South San Francisco's industrial roots are reflected in its urban character, especially in its eastern parts. The Project would be located in an area of the City that has undergone a dramatic redevelopment surge as a result of the City's proactive Transit Village and El Camino Redevelopment Plan activities. The area contains pedestrian and transit friendly high density residential and commercial land uses with articulating facades, open space areas and seating areas. Project The Project would construct a mixed use commercial and residential project in an area developed with and planned for such use. The proposed maximum height is 50 feet with the majority of the building at or below 35 feet. Regulatory Framework As identified in Chapter 13.1, the Project is required by law to undergo review by the City's Design Review Board and incorporate changes by this Board and the Planning Commission as deemed necessary. This review regulates signage, design and light and glare. Moreover the TVP prescribes design review for projects within the plan area (SSFMC 20.250.005) and stipulates capitulation of the TVP guidelines to the Design Review Board. The maximum permitted height in the Project area is 80 feet (Special Area height Limitations, Figure 2 -3, 1999 General Plan, page 35). The height limitation is related to the airport height limitations pursuant to the Airport Land Use Commission oversight. The ALUC height limitation is based upon safety factors, whereas the TVP height limit of 35 feet (Maximum Building Heights, Figure 20.250.004(D)) is based upon design and community value considerations. The remaining portions of the building at approximately 40 feet. The Project site is not located within or nearby a scenic vista or scenic corridor (2000 ECREIR, 1999 General Plan, and General Plan Background Report). IMPACTS a) Scenic Vistas Significance Criyeria: For the purpose of assessing impacts of a Project on scenic vistas, the threshold of significance is exceeded when a Project would result in the obstruction of a designated public vista, or in the placement of an arguably offensive or negative - appearing project within such a vista. Any dear conflict with a General Plan policy or other adopted planning policy regarding scenic vistas would also be considered a potentially significant adverse environmental impact 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2 -3 287 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST The Project is not located within a formally designated public vista, nor would it result in the obstruction of a formally designated public vista (General Plan, Figure 2 -4 Vieu shed page 36). Additionally, the Project would not clearly conflict with an adopted planning policy regarding scenic vistas. Therefore, the proposed Project would have no impact. b) Scenic Resources and Scenic Routes Significance Criteria: For the purposes of assessing impacts of the Project on scenic resources, the threshold of significance is exceeded by any Project- related action that would substantially damage scenic resources (i.e., trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state [or local] scenic highway). The Project would not be visible from a state scenic highway. The Project site does not contain historic buildings or trees or significant rock outcroppings. Therefore the Project would have no impact on scenic resources. c) Visual Character Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. The Project proposes landscaping, fac treatment, heights and parking that keeps with the vernacular of the neighborhood. The Project as a matter of law will be required to incorporate the considerations of the Design Review Board into the final design. Therefore the Project would have no impact on visual character. d) Light or Glare Significance Criteria: Project related creation of any new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area would be regarded as a significant environmental impact. Project implementation would involve installation of new light standards at various locations at the Project site. Lighting designs would employ fixtures that would cast light in a downward direction, and building materials would not be sources of glare given the palette, materials, e- value, sunscreens and minimal use of reflective materials. No substantial increase of light and glare emanating from the Project site is anticipated, therefore the impact would be considered less than significant. Finding: The Project would not have an impact on the aesthetics or scenic quality on the Project site or in the Project area. There would be no individual or cumulative impacts with respect to aesthetic or visual quality associated with the project. The Project would not exceed the height limits posed for safety concerns by the ALUC and at 35 to 50 feet would be comparable to adjacent development which reaches 55 feet in height. The Project would not result in impacts beyond those identified in the 2000 ECREIR and no new mitigation is required. PAGE 2 -4 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY 288 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 2.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact fl. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the Project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or x Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,X or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing X environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non - agricultural use? SETTING The Project site was graded as part of the BART expansion to South San Francisco. The 2000 ECREIR identified agricultural uses only within the area of Grand and Chestnut Avenues and certain greenhouses along El. Camino Real south of the Project sate; not the Project site. IMPACTS a — c) Farmland Impacts Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it would result in the conversion of farmland to non - agricultural use, conflict with current zoning for agricultural use or the provisions of a current Williamson Act contract, or involve any environmental changes that could result in the conversion of farmland currently in agricultural uses to non - agricultural uses. No Prime Farmlands, Unique Farmlands or Farmlands of Statewide Importance have been identified at, or around, the Project site. No part of the Project site is under a Williamson Act contract and no part of the Project site or surrounding area is zoned for agricultural uses (South San Francisco General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, TVP and ECRRP). Therefore, the Project would have no impact on agricultural resources. 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2 -5 289 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Finding: The Project would not adversely affect any existing agricultural operations. The Project site is not planned or zoned for agricultural use and is not in agricultural use. The 2000 ECREIR did not identify any agricultural uses or impacts associated with development on the Project site. The Project would not impact agricultural resources individually or cumulatively. 2.3 AIR QUALITY Environmental Factors and Focused Question for Potentially Less Than Less Than DeterminationofEnvironmentallmpact Significant Significant with Significant Na Impact Mitigation Impact Impact III, AIR QUALITY — Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the x applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute X substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net X increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial x pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a X substantial number of people? This air quality analysis was performed using methodologies and assumptions recommended within the existing and proposed air quality impact assessment guidelines of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). This section describes existing air quality, criteria pollutant construction and operations impacts, impacts associated with generation of greenhouse gas emissions, and air quality Conditions of Approval (see Chapter 1, Section 1.3.2) that are required to be implemented as part of the project pursuant to the City of South San Francisco's project review process. 1 The Air Quality and Noise Sections and traffic generation analyzed the impacts of a 6,200 square foot retail component. The Project retail component was reduced in size 2 The BAAQMD Board approved and adopted new revised CEQAAirQuak,y Guidelines on June 2, 2010. PAGE 2 -6 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY 290 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION SETTING Climate The peninsula region of the Bay Area Air Basin (Bay Area) extends from the area northwest of San Jose to the Golden Gate. The Santa Cruz Mountains extend up the center of the peninsula, withelevationsexceeding2,00 {) feet at the south end, and gradually decreasing to an elevation of 500 feetinSouthSanFrancisco, where it terminates. San Francisco is at the north end of the peninsula and because most of the topography of San Francisco is below 200 feet, the marine layer is able to flow across most of the city, making its climate relatively cool and windy (Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Bay Area Climatology http : / /www.baagmd.gov /Divisions /Communicationsand- OutreachlAir- Quality -in- the - Bay - .Brea /Bay - Area- Climatolol;;.asp, accessed April 19, 2010 BAAQID, 2010). Meteorological data collected at the San Francisco International Airport (SFO), which is approximately four miles southeast of the project site, are representative of general conditions inSouthSanFrancisco. Average maximum and minimum winter (i.e., January) temperatures at SFO are 56 and 42 °F, respectively, while average summer (i.e., July) maximum and minimum temperatures are 72 and 54 °F, respectively. Precipitation at SFO averages approximately 20 inchesperyear (Western Regional Climate Center, 2010. Local Climate Data Summaries for San FranciscoInternationalAirport, California. Obtained online (http. / /www.wrcc.dri.edu /cgi- bin /clilcd.pl?ca on April 19, 2010). nnual average wind speeds range from five to 10 miles per hour (mph) throughout the peninsula.The east side of the mountains has a westerly wind pattern, however, it is influenced by local topographic features. That is, a few hundred feet rise in elevation will induce flow around thatfeatureinsteadofoveritduringstableatmosphericconditions. This can change the wind pattern by as much as 90 degrees over short distances. On mornings without a strong pressure gradient, areasontheeastsideofthepeninsulaoftenexperienceeasternflowinthesurfacelayer, induced by upslope flow on the east - facing slopes and by the bay breeze. The bay breeze is rarely seen in theafternoonbecausethestrongerseabreezedominatestheflowpattern (BAAQMD, 2010). Greenhouse Gases Introduction Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are referred to as greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions because they capture heat radiated from the sun as it is reflected back into the atmosphere, similar to agreenhouse. The accumulation of GHG emissions has been implicated as a driving force for Global Climate Change (GCC). Definitions of climate change vary between and across regulatory authorities and the scientific community, but in general can be described as the changing of the Earth's climate caused by natural fluctuations and the impact of human activities that alter the composition of the global atmosphere. Both natural processes and human activities emit GHG emissions. 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2 -7 291 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST The major concern is that increases in GHG emissions are causing GCC. GCC is a change in the average weather on earth that can be measured by wind patterns, storms, precipitation, and temperature. Although there is disagreement as to the speed of global warming and the extent of the impacts attributable to human activities, the vast majority of the scientific community now agrees that there is a direct link between increased GHG emissions and long term global temperature increases. Potential global warming impacts in California may include, but are not limited to, loss in snow pack, sea level rise, more extreme heat days per year, more high ozone days, more large forest fires, and more drought years. Secondary effects are likely to include a global rise in sea level, impacts to agriculture, changes in disease vectors, and changes in habitat and biodiversity. The accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere regulates the Earth's temperature and emissions from human activities, such as electricity production and motor vehicles, have elevated the concentration of GHG emissions in the atmosphere. This accumulation of GHG emissions has contributed to GCC as an increase in the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere. GHGs include all of the following gases; carbon dioxide CO methane CH nitrous oxide N hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons , nitrogen trifluroide NF3), and sulfur hexafluoride California lIealth and Safety Code section 38505(g)). CO is the reference gas for climate change because it gets the most attention and is considered the most important GHG. To account for the warming potential of GHGs, GHG emissions are often quantified and reported as CO equivalents CO The effects of GHG emission sources (i.e., individual projects) are reported in metric tons per year of CO California and Bay Area GI-IG Emissions GHG emissions contributing to GCC are attributable in large part to human activities associated with the industrial /manufacturing, utility, transportation, residential, and agricultural sectors.' The State of California alone produces about 2% of the entire world's GHG emissions, with major emitting sources here including fossil fuel consumption from transportation (41 %), industry (23 %), electricity production (20 %), and agricultural and forestry (8 %). The State of California is looking at options and opportunities for drastically reducing GHG emissions with the hope of thereby delaying, mitigating, or preventing at least some of the anticipated impacts of GCC on California communities. in 2008, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) completed a baseline inventory of GHG emissions for the year 2007. According to that inventory, 102 million metric tons of CO were emitted in the Bay Area that year.' Air Quality Table 1 shows the emissions breakdown by pollutant. 3 California Energy Commission (CEC). California's Major Sources of Energy. http: / /energyalmanac.ca.gov' overview 'energ;_sources.html, 2008.4 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). Source Inventory ofB. y Area Greenhouse Gas Emissions, December 2008. PAGE 2 -8 1309 MISSION ROAD- INITIAL STUDY 292 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION AIR QUALITY TABLE 1 2007 BAY AREA CO EMISSIONS BY POLLUTANT CO (_Million Metric Pollutant Percentage Tons /Year) Carbon Dioxide 91.4 93." Methane 2.4 2.5 Nitrous Oxide 2.2 2.3 13FC, PFC, SF6 3.9 4.0 Total 100 102.6 Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2008. The Bay Area's transportation sector contributes 40% of the CO GHG emissions, followed by industrial and commercial sources (34 %), electricity and co- generation (15 %), residential fuel usage 7 %), off -road equipment (3 %), and agriculture and farming (1 %). Bay Area emissions by sector are illustrated in Air Quality Chart .1 Absent policy changes, Bay Area GHG emissions are expected to grow at a rate of 1.4% a year due to population growth and economic expansion.' Economic activity variations and the fraction of electric power generation in the region will cause year -to -year fluctuations in the emissions trends. Air Quality Chart shows the emission trends by major sources for the period of 1990 to 2029. 5 Ibid. 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2 -9 293 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AIR QUALITY CHART 1 BAY AREA GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS BY SECTOR, AS A PERCENT OF TOTAL EMISSIONS Agriculture Farmtng 1% iff4,4g4 11 1211.111 # 31 ; P:4 *Nt-f,w31°11e*:4! N, .A441940 11":41,hil Resi den uai Fuel Usae Off-Road 7 Equipment 3% Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management Dittict, 2()08. AIR QUALITY CHART 2 BAY AREA GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS TRENDS BY SECTOR i60 o 140 E 20 g 100 A,gricurturc 0 ustIF26 40 20 0 1990 1993 19% 1999 20-02 2005 2008 2011 2014 2017' 2020 .2023 2026 2029 Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2008. PAGE 2-10 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY 294 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Greenhouse Gas Emissions in South San Francisco In 2005, the City of South San Francisco emitted approximately 526,766 metric tons of CO As shown in Air Quality Table 2, the transportation sector is the largest contributor to GHG emissions, responsible for 46% of all emissions, with emissions from cars traveling on State highways within the city almost twice as much as emissions from cars traveling on city roads. This reflects the regional nature of trip making in South San Frarifisco and through - traffic through the city. The commercial /industrial sector accounts for approximately 35°, o of emissions, while the residential sector accounts for 13% of total emissions. Emissions from natural gas usage are higher than emissions from electricity usage for both the residential and commercial sectors. The waste sector accounts for 6% of total emissions. AIR QUALITY TABLE 2 2005 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO COMMUNITY EMISSIONS 2005 GHG Emissions GIIG Emissions Sector'CO2e)CO2e) Residential 70,059 13% Electricity 22,258 4% NaturalGas 47,801 9% Commercial /Industrial 185,240 35% Electricity 80,723 15% NaturalGas 104,517 20% Transportation 240,257 46% Ci Roads (Non - Highway)87,406 17% State Highways 152,851 29% Waste 31,210 6 % Solid Waste 31,210 6% Total 526,766 100% GHG Emissions Per Capita 8.5 1 ' Emission Factors and Calculation Methods: ICI.F,i, Community Greenhouse Gas Inventory Methodology for Bay Area Governments, prepared as part of the BAAQMD- ICLEI'X orkshop, December 6, 2007. 2. EPA WARM Model was used. Model accessed: http:// www .epa.gov /ciimatechange'wyYdiN' ast- /calculators, \X awn Forrn.html, May 2009. Source: Dyett & Bhatia, 2009; ABAG Projections 2007; City of South San Francisco/ ICLEI, 2009. 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2 -11 295 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Sensitive Receptors People that are more susceptible to the effects of air pollution within the general population include children, elderly, and those that suffer from certain illnesses or disabilities. Therefore, schools, convalescent homes, and hospitals are considered to be sensitive receptors to air pollution. Residential areas are also considered sensitive to poor air quality because people usually stay home for extended periods of time, which results in greater exposure to localized air pollutants. Sensitivereceptorsinthevicinityoftheprojectsiteincludemulti - family residences immediately adjacent tothenorthandwestboundaryoftheProjectsiteandElCaminoHighSchool, approximately 200 feet east of the north end of the Project site. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK Criteria Pollutants The B_' .AQMD monitors and regulates air quality pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act, asamended, and the 1988 California Clean Air Act. The BAAQMD adopts and enforces controls on stationary sources of air pollutants through its permit and inspection programs. Other BAAQMDresponsibilitiesincludemonitoringairquality, preparation of clean air plans, and responding tocitizenairqualitycomplaints. The B.AAQMD has also published CEQA AirQualip' Guidelines, June2010, to assist lead agencies in evaluating air quality impacts of projects and plans proposed in the Bay Area. Greenhouse Gases Federal Regulations Global Change Research Act (1990) (15 United States Code Sections 2921 et seq.) In 1990, Congress passed and the President signed Public Law 101 -606, the Global Change Research Act. The purpose of the legislation was: "...to require the establishment of a United States Global Change Research Program aimed at understanding and responding to global change, including the cumulative effects of human activities and natural processes on the environment, topromotediscussionstowardsinternationalprotocolsinglobalchangeresearch, and for otherpurposes." To that end, the Global Change Research Information Office ( GCRIO) was establishedin1991 (it began formal operation in 1993) to serve as a clearinghouse of information. The ActrequiresareporttoCongresseveryfouryearsontheenvironmental, economic, health and safetyconsequencesofclimatechange; however, the first and only one of these reports to -date, the National Assessment on Climate Change, was not published until 2000. In February 2004, operational responsibility for GCRIO shifted to the U.S. Climate Change Science Program. PAGE 2 -12 1309 MISSION ROAD-- INITIAL STUDY 296 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Energy Policy Act of 2005 The Energy Policy Act of 2005 seeks to reduce reliance on non - renewable energy resources and provide incentives to reduce current demand on these resources. For example, under the Act, consumers and businesses can attain federal tax credits for purchasing fuel- efficient appliances and products. Driving fuel- efficient vehicles and installing energy-efficient appliances can provide many benefits, such as lower energy bills, increased indoor comfort, and reduced air pollution, therefore businesses are eligible for tax credits for buying hybrid vehicles, building energy efficient buildings, and improving the energy efficiency of commercial buildings. Additionally, tax credits are given for the installation of qualified fuel cells, stationary microtutbine power plants, and solar power equipment. Massachusetts v. EPA (2007) (549 U.S. 497) In this U.S. Supreme Court case, 12 states, three cities, and 13 environmental groups filed suit that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should be required to regulate CO and other GHGs as pollutants under the federal Clean Air Act. In April 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court found that the EPA has a statutory authority to formulate standards and regulations to address GHG emissions, which it historically has not done. In April 2009, EPA released an Endangerment Finding that GHGs significantly contribute to air pollution, triggering the process under the Clean Air Act for potentially developing National Ambient Air Quality Standards for GHGs and establishing emissions standards for stationary and mobile sources. Federal Fuel Efficiency Standards In December 2007, President Bush signed the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 Public Law 110 -140, at 42 USC Section 7545(o) (2)). This energy bill increased the supply of alternative fuel sources by setting a mandatory Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), requiring fuel producers to use at least 36 billion gallons of biofuel in 2022. It also tightened the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards that regulate the average fuel economy in the vehicles produced by each major automaker, requiring that these standards be increased such that, by 2020, the new cars and light trucks sold each year deliver a combined fleet average of 35 miles per gallon. In mid -May 2009, President Barack Obama ordered vehicle makers to increase mileage standards to 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016, four years earlier than required by law. The nationwide fuel- economy standards would be phased in beginning in 2012. Rules are to be finalized by the end of March 2010. Carmakers had wanted a national standard, saying that meeting a quilt of state standards would be too difficult. The EPA in June 2009 approved California's rules to regulate GHG emissions from cars and light trucks, putting the standards into effect immediately for much of the nation and reversing a Bush administration policy. California had urged the EPA to allow the state's rules to go into effect immediately, arguing that the lengthy federal rulemaking process would delay action that could begin 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2 -13 297 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST immediately. California's rules apply beginning with the sale of 2009 model year cars, and extend to much of the nation, since 13 other states and the District of Columbia have adopted the California standard. In 2012, companies may comply with the national standard in place of the state standard. State Regulations California Public Utilities Commission r1_ a public utility that provides electricity and natural gas to the City, PG &E is under the jurisdiction of the CPUC. PG &E provides service in accordance within the policies and extensions rules on file with the CPUC. Senate Bill 1771 Sher (Chapter. 1018, Statutes of 2000) SB 1771 requires the California Energy Commission (CEC) to prepare an inventory of the state's GHG emissions, to study data on GHG, and to provide government agencies and businesses with information on the costs and methods for reducing GHG emissions. It also established the California Climate Action Registry to serve as a certifying agency for companies and local governments to quantify and register their GHG emissions for possible future trading systems. State of California Integrated Energy Policy (2002) The CEC adopts and transmits to the Governor and Legislature a report of findings biannually. The Legislature passed Senate Bill 1389 in 2002. The legislation reconstituted the state's responsibility todevelopanintegratedenergyplanforelectricity, natural gas, and transportation fuels, known as the Energy Report. The CEC adopted the 2003 Integrated Energy Policy during a Special Business Meeting on November 12, 2003. The 2004 Update to the Integrated Energy Policy was adopted by the Energy Commission on November 3, 2004. The 2005 Integrated Energy Policy was adopted by the Energy Commission on November 21, 2005. The plan calls for the state to assist in the transformation of the transportation system to improveairquality, reduce congestion, and increase the efficient use of fuel supplies with the leastenvironmentalandenergycosts. To further this policy, the plan identifies a number of strategies, including assistance to public agencies and fleet operators in implementing incentive programs forZeroEmissionVehicleandaddressingtheirinfrastructureneeds, and encouragement of urban design that reduces vehicle miles traveled (VI\IT) and accommodates pedestrian and bicycle access. Assembly Bill. 1493 (Chapter 200. Statutes of 2002) (Calif. Health & Safety Code Sections 42823 and 43018.5) Assembly Bill (AB) 1493 (Pavley) amended California Health & Safety Code sections 42823 and 43018.5 requiring the California Air Resources Board (ARB) to develop and adopt, by Jannar• 1, 2005, regulations that achieve maximum feasible reduction of GHGs emitted by passenger vehicles, PAGE 2 -14 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY 298 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION light -duty trucks, and other vehicles used for noncommercial personal transportation in California. The regulations apply to motor vehicles manufactured in 2009 or later model year. Pursuant to AB 1493, the ARB approved regulations to reduce GHG emissions from new motor vehicles in September 2004. Under the regulation, one manufacturer fleet average emission standard is established for passenger cars and the lightest trucks, and a separate manufacturer fleet average emission standard is established for heavier trucks. The regulation took effect on January 1, 2006 and set near -term emission standards, phased in from 2009 through 2012, and mid -term emission standards, phased in from 2013 through 2016 (referred to as the Pavley Phase 1 rules). The ARB intends to extend the existing requirements to obtain further reductions in the 2017 to 2020 timeframe (referred to as Pavley Phase 2 rules). The ARB has included both Pavley 1 and 2 rules in its Climate Change Scoping Plan (December 2008), pursuant to the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32), which outlines the State's strategy to achieve 2020 GHG emission reductions. After initially refusing to grant a waiver, on June 30, 2009 the EPA granted a waiver that allows California to implement these standards. The ARB calculates that in calendar year 2016, the Pavley Phase 1 rules will reduce California's GHG emissions by 16.4 million metric tons of CO and by 2020, Pavley Phase 2 will reduce emissions by 31.7 million metric tons of CO Further, the AB 1493 new vehicle requirements will cumulatively produce 45°, o more GHG reductions by 2020 compared to the federal CAFE standard in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (above). Without Parley rules, both state and regional CO emissions will increase steadily between now and 2035 as V1AIT increases with population growth; with Pavley rules, CO emissions are projected to decrease between now and 2035. This decrease in regional 2035 CO emissions compared to current levels is in large part a result of technological changes expected to reduce CO emissions per VMT. The regulations will reduce climate change emissions from the light duty passenger vehicle fleet by 12.6% statewide and 22.9% in the Bay Area in the 2035 calendar year compared to 2006. Senate Bill 1078 Sher (Chapter 516, Statutes of 2002) The Sher bill established a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) requiring electricity providers to increase purchases of renewable energy resources by 10/ per year until they have attained a portfolio of 20% renewable resources by 2010. Executive Order S -20 -04 (Gov. Schwarzenegger, July 2004) Executive Order S- 20 -04, signed on July 27, 2004, requites that the State commit to aggressive action to reduce state building electricity use, and more specifically, that State agencies, depailiuents, and other entities take measures to reduce energy use by 20% by 2015. In addition, the Order requires that the CEC increase energy efficiency standards by 20% by 2015, compared to the 2003 Titles 20 and 24 standards. 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2 -15 299 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Executive Order S -3 -05 (Gov. Schwarzenegger, June 2005) Executive Order S -3 -05, signed on June 1, 2005, recognizes California's vulnerability to climate change, noting that increasing temperatures could potentially reduce snow pack in the Sierra Nevada, which is a primary source of the State's water supply. Additionally, according to this Order, climate change could influence human health, coastal habitats, m:icroclimates, and agricultural yield. The Order set the GHG reduction targets for California: by 2010, reduce GI-IG emissions to 2000 levels; by 2020 reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; by 2050 reduce GHG emissions to 80% below 1990 levels. Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (2005) Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations is the California Building Code, governing all aspects of building construction. Included in Part 6 of the Code are standards mandating energy efficiency measures in new construction, Since its establishment in 1977, the building efficiency standards along with standards for energy efficiency in appliances) have contributed to a reduction in electricity and natural gas costs in California. The standards are updated every three years to allow new energy efficiency technologies to be considered. The latest update to Title 24 standards became effective on October 1, 2005. The standards regulate energy consumed in buildings for heating, cooling, ventilation, water heating, and lighting. Title 24 is implemented through the local plan check and permit process. California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) (Calif. Health & Safety Code Sections 38500 et seq.) In September 2006, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act (Health and Safety Code Section 38500 et. seq.). The Act requires the reduction of statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. This change, which is estimated to be a 30% reduction from business as usual emission levels projected for 2020, will be accomplished through an enforceable statewide cap on GHG emissions that will be phased in starting in 2012. The Act also directs the ARB to develop and implement regulations to reduce statewide GHG emissions from stationary sources and address GHG emissions from vehicles. The ARB has stated that the regulatory requirements for stationary sources will be first applied to electricity power generation and utilities, petrochemical refining, cement manufacturing, and industrial /commercial combustion. The second group of target industries will include oil and gas production /distribution, transportation, landfills, and other GHG - intensive industrial processes. The ARB developed a Climate Change Scoping Plan, finalized in December 2008, outlining the State's strategy to achieve 2020 GHG emission limits (CARB, 2008). The Plan proposes a comprehensive set of measures designed to reduce overall GHG emissions. These measures, shown below in Alt Quality Table 3 by sector, also put the State on a path to meet the long -term 2050 goal of reducing California's GI -IG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. The measures will be developed over the next two years and be in place by 2012. PAGE 2 -16 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY 300 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION AIR QUALITY TABLE 3 LIST OF RECOMMENDED MEASURES BY SECTOR GHG Reductions Annual Measure Million Metric No.Measure Description Tons CO Transportation T -1 Pavley I and II — Light Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas 31.7 Standards T -2 Low Carbon Fuel Standard (Discrete Early Action)15 T -3 Regional Transportation- Related Greenhouse Gas Targets 5 T -4 Tehicle Efficiency Measures 4.5 T -5 Ship Electrification at Ports (Discrete Early Action)0.2 T -6 Goods Movement Efficiency Measures.3.5 Ship Electrification at Ports System -Wide Efficiency Improvements T -7 Heavy -Duty \Tehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction 0.93 Measure — Aerodynamic Efficiency (Discrete Early Action) T -8 Medium - and Heavy -Duty \Tehicle Hybridization 0.5 T -9 High Speed Rail 1 Electricity and Natural Gas E -1 Energy Efficiency (32,000 GWh of Reduced Demand)15.2 Increased Utility Energy Efficiency Programs More Stringent Building & Appliance Standards Additional Efficiency and Conservation Progranris E -2 Increase Combined Heat and Power Use by 30,000 GWh 6.7 Net reductions include avoided transmission line loss) E -3 Renewables Portfolio Standard (33% by 2020)21.3 E -4 Million Solar Roofs (including California Solar Initiative,2.1 New Solar Homes Partnership and solar programs of publicly owned utilities) Target of 3000 MW Total Installation by 2020 CR -1 Energy Efficiency (800 Million Therms Reduced 4.3 Consumptions) Utility Energy Efficiency Programs Building and Appliance Standards Additional Efficiency and Conservation Programs CR -2 Solar Water Heating (AB 1470 goal)0.1 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2 -17 301 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST GHG Reductions Annual Measure Million Metric Na.Measure Description Tons CO 1 Green Buildings GB - 1 Green Buildings 26 Water 1 Water Use Efficiency 1.4t W -2 Water Recycling 0.3t W -3 Water System Energy Efficiency 2.0j W -4 Reuse Urban Runoff 0.2t W -5 Increase Renewable Energy Production 0.9t W -6 Public Goods Charge (Water)TBDf Industry I -Energy Efficiency and Co- Benefits Audits for Large TBD Industrial Sources I -2 Oil and Gas Extraction GHG Emission Reduction 0.2 I -GHG Leak Reduction from Oil and Gas Transmission 0.9 I -4 Refinery Flare Recovery Process Improvements 0.3 1-5 Removal of Methane Exemption from Existing Refinery 0.01 Regulations Recycling: and Water Management RW 1 Landfill Methane Control (Discrete Early Action)1 RW -2 Additional Reductions in Landfill Methane TBDt Increase the Efficiency of Landfill Methane Capture RW -3 High Recycling /Zero Water 9t Commercial Recycling Increase Production and Markets for Compost: Anaerobic Digestion Extended Producer Responsibility Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Forests F -Sustainable Forest Target 5 High Global Warning Potential (G1 % "P) Gases H -Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning Systems: Reduction o 0.26 Refrigerant Emissions from Non - Professional Services Discrete Early Action) PAGE 2 -18 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY 302 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST GHG Reductions Annual Measure Million Metric No.Measure Description Tons CO Greed Buildings GB - 1 Green Buildings 26 Water W -1 Water Use Efficiency 1.4t W -2 Water Recycling 0.3.1- W- 3 Water System Energy Efficiency 2.0j- W -4 Reuse Urban Runoff 0.2 W -5 Increase Renewable Energy Production 0.9f W-6 Public Goods Charge (Water)TBDt Industry I -Energy Efficiency and Co- Benefits Audits for Large 1BD Industrial Sources I -Oil and Gas Extraction GHG Emission Reduction 0.2 I -3 GHG Leak Reduction from Oil and Gas Transmission 0.9 I -4 Refiner3 Flare Recovery Process Improvements 0.3 I -Removal of Methane Exemption from Existing Refinery 0.01 Regulations Recycling and Water Management RW -1 Landfill Methane Control (Discrete Early Action)1 RW -Additional Reductions in Landfill Methane 1'BDf Increase the Efficiency of Landfill Methane Ca RW -3 High Recycling /Zero Water 9 Commercial Recycling Increase Production and Markets for Compost Anaerobic Digestion Extended Producer Responsibility Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Forests F - 1 Sustainable Forest Target 5 High Global Warming Potential ((1WP.) Gases H -1 Motor Vehicle Air Cond Systems: Reduction o 0.26 Refrigerant Emissions from Non - Professional Services Discrete Early Action) PAGE 2 -18 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY 303 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION MIN111111=011111111! GHG na Measure Million Metricstri No.Measure Description Tons CO e) H-2 SF Limits in Non-Utility and Non-Semiconductor 0.3 Applications (Discrete Early Action) H-3 Reduction of Perfluorocarbons in Semiconductor 0.15 Manufacturing (Discrete Early Action) H-4 Limit High GWP Use in Consumer Products Discrete Early 0.25 Action (Adopted June 2008) H-5 High GNXT Reductions from Mobile Motor AirJr 3.3 Low G\XT Refrigerants for New 1\ otor N Conditioning Systems Air Conditioner Refrigerant Leak Test During Vehicle Smog Check Refrigerant Recovery from Decommissioned Refrigerated Shipping Containers Enforcement of Federal Ban on Refrigerant Release during Servicing or Dismantling of Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning Systems H-6 High GWP Reductions from Stationary Sources 10.9 High GWP Stationary Equipment Refrigerant Management Program: o Refrigerant Tracking/Reporting/Repair Deposit Program o Specifications for Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration Systems Foam Recovery and Destruction Progr SF Leak Reduction and Recycling in Electrical Applications Alternative Suppressants in Fire Protection Systems Residential Refrigeration Early Retirement Program H-7 Mitigation Fee on High GWP Gases 5 Agriculture A-1 Methane Capture at Large Dairies 1.0t 1 This is not the SB 375 regional target. GARB wili establish regional targets for each of California's 18 followingMetropolitanPlanningOrganizations (MPO's) regions o g the input of the regional targets advisory committee and a consultation process with MPO's and other stakeholders per SI3 375 GHG emission reduction estimates are not included in calculatingting the total reductions needed to meet the 2020 target 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITtAl. STUDY PAGE 2-19 304 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Senate Bill 1368 (Chapter 598, Statutes of 2006) (Calif. Public Utilities Code Sections 8340 et seq.) Senate Bill (SB) 1368 required the CPUC to establish a GHG emissions performance standard for baseload" generation from investor -owned utilities by February 1, 2007. The CEC was required to establish a similar standard for local publicly -owned utilities by June 30, 2007, The legislation further required that all electricity prodded to California, including imported electricity, must be generated from plants that meet or exceed the standards set by the CPUC and the CEC. In January 2007, the CPUC adopted an interim performance standard for new long -term commitments (1,100 pounds of CO per megawatt - hour), and in May 2007, the CEC approved regulations that match the CPUC standard, Executive Order S -01 -07 (Gov. Schwarzenegger, January 2007) A Low - Carbon Fuel Standard was established by Executive Order S -01 -07 in January 2007. The Order calls for a statewide goal to be established to reduce the carbon intensity of California's transportation fuels by at least 10% by 2020 ( "2020 Target "), and that a Low Carbon Fuel Standard LCFS) for transportation fuels be established for California. Further, it directed the ARB to determine if an LCFS could be adopted as a discrete early action measure pursuant to AB 32, and if so, ARB was required to consider the adoption of a LCFS on the list of early action measures required to be identified by June 30, 2007, pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 38560.5 (see Table AQ -3; Measure T -2). The LCFS applies to all refiners, blenders, producers or importers Providers ") of transportation fuels in California, and will be measured on a full fuels cycle basis, and may be met through market -based methods by which Providers exceeding the performance required by a LCFS shall receive credits that may be applied to future obligations if traded to Providers not meeting the LCFS. Senate Bill 97 (Chapter 185, Statutes of 2007) (Calif Public Resources Code Sections 21083.5 and 21097) Senate Bill (SB) 97 directed the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to prepare, develop, and transmit to the California Resources Agency guidelines for feasible mitigation of GHG emissions or the effects of GHG emissions, by July 1, 2009. The Resources Agency was required to certify and adopt amendments to the Guidelines implementing the CEQA Guidelines on or before January 1, 2010. OPR submitted recommended Amendments to the CEQA Guidelines for GHG emissions to the Natural Resources Agency on April 13, 2009 (OPR, 2010). On July 3, 2009, the Natural Resources Agency commenced the Administrative Procedure Act rulernaking process for certifying and adopting these amendments pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.05. The Natural Resources Agency transmitted the adopted Amendments and the entire rulemaking file to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) on December 31, 2009. The Office of Administrative Law approved the Amendments, and filed them with the Secretary of State for inclusion in the California Code of Regulations on February 16, 2010. The Amendments became effective on March 18, 2010 (OPR, 2010). PAGE 2 -20 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY 305 CHAPTER 2' ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Senate Bill 375 (Chapter 728, Statutes of 2008) September 30, 2008, Governor Schwarzenegger signed Senate Bill (SB) 375 into law. SB375 links transportation and land use planning with the CEQA process to help achieve the GHG emission reduction targets set by AB 32. Regional transportation planning agencies are required to include a sustainable community strategy (SCS) in regional transportation plans. The SCS must contain a planned growth scenario that is integrated with the transportation network and policies in such a way that it is feasible to achieve AB 32 goals on a regional level. SB 375 also identifies new CEQA exemptions and streamlining for projects that are consistent with the SCS and qualify as Transportation Priority Projects (1PP). TPPs must meet three requirements: 1) contain at least 50% residential use; commercial use must have floor area ratio (FAR) of not less than 0.75; 2) have a minimum net density of 20 units per acre; and 3) be located within one -half mile of a major transit stop or high quality transit corridor included in the regional transportation plan. Executive Order S -14 -08 (Gov. Schwarzenegger, November 2008) Executive Order S- 14-04, signed on November 17, 2008, mandates a RPS of 33% by 2020. Regional Coordination In the Bay Area, the Joint Policy Committee QPC) coordinates the regional planning efforts of the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), the BAAQMD, the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). The JPC commenced a six -month program to study the issue of climate change and to recommend an initial set of actions to be pursued jointly by the four regional agencies in the fall of 2006. The study recommends that the regional agencies build their Joint Climate Protection Strategy in service of this key goal: To be a model for California, the nation, and the world. The JPC then organizes initial actions by the following six strategy elements: establish priorities; increase public awareness and motivate action; provide assistance; reduce unnecessary driving; prepare to adapt; and break old habits. The region plans to invest $400 million towards a five -year Transportation Climate Action Campaign aimed at smart traveling and smart driving. The investment is an effort to reduce GHG emissions from the transportation sector as part of the proposed investments in the Transportation 2035 Plan. The action campaign, to be implemented by the four regional agencies, focuses on outreach /education, Safe Routes to Schools, Safe Routes to Transit, transit priority measures IPMs) for local bus transit, and grants /incentive programs. City ofSouth San Francisco Regulations The City ofSouth San Francisco does not currently have any adopted policies or plans regarding the reduction of GHG emissions. The City participated in a training workshop held by BAAQMD and ICLEI on community GHG emission inventories in December 2007 to begin the process of 1309 MISSION ROAD — INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2 -21 306 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST conducting a government and community= -wide GHG emissions baseline inventory. South San Francisco is currently in the process of completing the baseline inventory. Transportation Demand Management Ordinance (Chapter 20.40() of the Municipal Code) South San Francisco's current Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Ordinance states that for non - residential sites generating more than 100 daily trips, a minimum of 28% of all trips must be made through alternative mode use. For projects that seek a floor area ratio (FAR) bonus in accordance with the General Plan, 30% to 40% of all trips must be made through alternative mode use, depending on the type of development and requested FAR. CURRENT AIR QUALITY The BAAQMD operates a regional monitoring network for ambient concentrations of six criteria pollutants. Currently, the criteria pollutants of most concern in the Bay Area are ozone and particulate matter. The monitoring station closest to the project site is in San Francisco on Atkansas Street. This air quality monitoring station monitors levels of ozone, particulate matter in the form of PM10 and PM2.5, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide). Air Quality Table 4 summarizes the most recent three years of data published by CARB for the San Francisco, Arkansas Street air monitoring station, which is approximately seven miles to the north - northeast of the Project site. The State 24 -hour PM10 standard was exceeded three times in 2006 and two times in 2007. The federal 24 -hour PM2.5 standard was exceeded three tunes in 2006 and five times in 2007. No other State or federal air quality standards were exceeded during the three year period. PAGE 2 -22 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY 307 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION AIR QUALITY TABLE 4 AIR QUALITY DATA SUMMARY SAN FRANCISCO, ARKANSAS STREET, CA, 2006 - 2008 Pollutant Standard 1 Days Standard Exceeded • 2006 T 2007 2008 Ozone State 1 —Hour 0 0 0 Ozone Federal 8 —Hour 0 0 0 Ozone State 8 —Hour 0 0 0 PM10 Federal 24 —Hour 0 0 0 PM10 State 24 —Hour 3 2 0 PM2.5 Federal 24 —Hour 3 5 0 Carbon Monoxide State /Federal 0 0 0 8 —Hour Nitrogen Dioxide State 1 —Hour 0 0 0 Sulfur Dioxide State 24 Hour I 0 0 0 Source: California Air Resources Board, Aerometric Data Analysis and Management (ADAM), 2010. The Bay Area is currently designated "nonattainment" for State and national (1 -hour and 8 -hour) ozone standards and for the State PM10 and PM2.5 standards. The Bay Area is expected to soon be officially designated nonattainment with respect to the national Ph12.5 24 -hour standard. The Bay Area is designated "attainment" or "unclassified" with respect to the other ambient air quality standards. IMPACTS a) Conflicts with the Current Air Quality Plan Significance Criteria A project would be judged to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the regional air quality plan if it would be inconsistent with the growth assumptions, in terms of population, employment, or regional growth in vehicle miles traveled (GMT). The Bay Area is currently designated as a nonattainment area for State and national ozone standards and as a nonattainment area for the State particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) standards. The 2001 Bay Area Ozone Attainment Plan and the 2000 Bay Area Clean Air Plan have been prepared to address ozone nonattainment issues as required by federal and State air quality laws. Additionally, the B.AAQMD, in cooperation with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), prepared the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy. The 1309 MISSION ROAD- INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2 -23 308 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST plan describes the Bay Area's strategy for compliance with State one -hour ozone standard planning requirements and to improve air quality in the region and reduce transport to neighboring air. basins. The strategy includes stationary source control measures to be implemented through BAAQMD regulations; mobile source control measures to be implemented through incentive programs and other activities; and transportation control measures to be implemented through transportation programs in cooperation with h1TC, local governments, transit agencies, and others. No PMI0 plan has been prepared nor is one currently required under State air quality planning law. The growth assumptions used for regional air quality plans are based upon the growth assumptions provided in local general plans. The Project is consistent with, but less intense than, the El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment (ECRRP Amendment) and the associated 2000 ECREIR envisioned. Said documents envisioned approximately 12,000 square feet more commercial and 18,000 square feet more office development on the site. As mentioned above, the growth assumptions used for the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy are based upon the growth assumptions provided in local general and development plans, such as the ECRRP Amendment. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with the assumptions used to development the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy and there would be no impactregarding consistency with the applicable air quality plan. b and c) Violation of Standards and a Cumulatively Considerable Net Increase Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it would exceed BAAQMD's operational mass emission rate thresholds or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard ('including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for criteria pollutants). The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines state that for any project that does not individually have significant air quality impacts, the determination of a significant cumulative impact can be based on consistency of the project with the local general plan and the regional air quality plan. The Project, as demonstrated above under a, would result in no impacts associated with consistency with the adopted clean air plan and the Project would not conflict with the ECRRP Amendment. Therefore, the Project would not be cumulatively considerable. Air quality impacts are associated with both construction and operation of a project. BA.AQl\ID rules and regulations govern certain aspects of the construction phase of projects. BAAQMD regulations applicable to the construction of the project relate to portable equipment (e.g., gasoline - or diesel- powered engines used for power generation, pumps, compressors, and cranes), architectural coatings, fugitive dust, and paving materials. Project construction and operation impacts are discussed below. PAGE 2 -24 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY 309 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Construction Related Impacts Project- related construction activities would include site preparation, earthrnoving, and general construction. Site preparation includes activities such as general land clearing and grubbing. Earthmoving activities include cut and fill operations, trenching, soil compaction, and grading. General construction includes activities associated with construction of buildings and other facilities such as parking lots, placement of utilities, etc. The emissions generated from these construction activities include dust (including PM10 and PM2.5) primarily from "fugitive" sources. Fugitive dust could cause or contribute to exceedances of the State PM10 standard during project construction. Project construction is anticipated to span approximately ten months and would generate short -term emissions of criteria pollutants, including particulate matter and equipment exhaust emissions. The newly adopted BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines recommend quantification of construction- related exhaust emissions and comparison of those emissions to new significance thresholds. Quantification of exhaust emissions and comparison of the exhaust emissions to the new thresholds to determine the significance of exhaust emissions is recommended in addition to the identification of the BAAQMD dust control measures to ensure less than significant impacts for fugitive dust. Therefore, this analysis includes quantification of construction emissions and comparison of the emissions to the BAAQMD's new construction significance thresholds. The URBEMIS 2007 Version 9.2.4 model was used to quantify project construction emissions of criteria pollutants (see Appendix A for emissions estimate assumptions). Air Quality Table 5 provides the estimated short -term operational emissions that would be associated with the Project and compares those emissions to the BAAQMD's new thresholds for construction exhaust emissions. Total construction emissions would be well below the BAAQMI)'s new significance thresholds. Therefore, Project impacts that would be associated with construction related exhaust emissions would be less than significant AIR QUALITY TABLE 5 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION CRITERIA POLUTANT EMISSIONS pounds per day) Emission Sources ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5 CO Total Construction Emissions 32.44 26.88 1.55 1.42 15.76 Significance Thresholds*54 54 82 54 Significant Impact?No No No No No Notes: Refer to appendix A for all assumptions used as input to the URBEMIS200" model. BAAQMD revised significance thresholds adopted by the BAAQMD Board on June 2, 2010. 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2 -25 310 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines recommend that a project's construction- related fugitive dust impacts be identified as less than significant when BAAQMD recommended dust control measures would be implemented. The City of South San Francisco has required BAAQMD measures to be implemented into Project construction as a matter of law (see Introduction, Chapter 1, Section 1.3.21 Therefore, construction impacts related to fugitive dust would be less than signi &cant. Long -Tenn Operational Impacts Long -term emissions would be associated with vehicle use and area sources, such as natural gas usage for space and water heating, landscape maintenance, etc. The Project is estimated to generate approximately 181 average daily trips based upon condorninium /townhouse and office park uses. The URBEMIS 2007 Version 9.2.4 model was used to quantify Project emissions of criteria pollutants (see AppendixA for emissions estimate assumptions). Air Quality Table 6provides the estimated long -term operational emissions that would be associated with the Project. AIR QUALITY TABLE 6 PROJECT OPERATIONAL CRITERIA POLUTANT EMISSIONS pounds per day) Emission ROG NOx PM1O! I PM2.5 CO Sources Area Sources'3.99 0.43 1.64 1.58 10.48 Mobile Sources 1.44 2.33 2.64 0.5 17.21 Total 5.43 2.76 4.28 2.08 27.69 Significance 54 54 82 54 Thresholds Significant No Impact?I No No No No Area sources include natural gas combustion, landscaping, and architectural coating applications. Notes: Refer to Appendix AQ for all assumptions used as input to the URBEMIS2007 model. bBAAQMO revised significance thresholds adopted by the BAAQMD Board onJune 2, 2010. Total operational emissions would be well below the BAAQMD's new significance thresholds. The BAAQMD has also determined that if project traffic would increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and /or horizontal mixing is substantially limited, local carbon monoxide concentrations should be analyzed to determine whether project emissions would result in violation of the 1 -hour or 8 -hour standards for carbon monoxide. The Project would result in an increase of up to 181 trips per day, which would result in PAGE 2 -26 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY 311 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION a negligible increase to Project - related vehicles per hour (i.e., 18 trips per hour at most as compared to the BAAQMD threshold of 24,000). Therefore, impacts that would be associated with long -term operational exhaust emissions would be less than significant. d) Impacts to Sensitive Receptors Significance Criteria: The Project would result in a significant impact if it were to expose people in the area to concentrations of toxic air contaminants or criteria air pollutants for an extended duration i.e., 24 hour exposure) and for an extend time (i.e., less than 10 years). The proposed use of the site, 20 residential dwellings, and 5,200 square feet of retail and potentially office uses would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of pollutants. As discussed in Hazards Section 27, use of toxic materials on the site in excess of gasoline and., diesel for vehicles and landscaping equipment would not expose people to hazardous concentrations of pollutants. Moreover, the as shown in the above discussions, criteria pollutants associated with construction and operation of the Project would be below BAAQMD thresholds. Construction emissions would generate minor amounts of toxic air contaminants (TACs) by the use of diesel fueled construction equipment. Diesel emissions can be carcinogenic over long exposure durations (i.e., typical time periods analyzed include 10, 30 and 70 year exposures). However, nearby receptors would be exposed to construction emissions for a short period of approximately 10 months and limited to daytime construction hours (i.e., not a 24 -hour exposure). Therefore, impacts to sensitive receptors would be Less than significant. e) Odor Impacts Significance Criteria: The BAAQMD defines public exposure to offensive odors as a potentially significant impact based upon specific types of facilities, such as wastewater treatment plants, landfills, refineries, etc. During construction, various diesel- powered vehicles and equipment in use on the site would create odors. These odors would be temporary and intermittent and not likely to be noticeable beyond the Project boundaries. The operation of residential, retail, and office uses would not be anticipated to result in offensive odor emissions, which are typically associated with industrial land uses. The impact of the Project with regard to odors would be less than significant f and g) Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts Significance Criteria: The Legislature directed the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop CEQA Guidelines pertaining to GHG emissions by July 1, 2009, and to adopt the guidelines by January 1, 2010. OPR submitted recommended Amendments to the CEQA Guidelines for GHG emissions to the Natural Resources Agency on April 13, 2009 (OPR, 2010). On July 3, 2009, the Natural Resources Agency commenced the Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking process for certifying and adopting these amendments pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.05. The Natural Resources Agency transmitted the adopted Amendments and the entire rulemaking file to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) on December 31, 2009. The Office of Administrative Law approved the Amendments on February 16, 2010, and filed them with the Secretary of State for inclusion in the California Code of Regulations. The Amendments became effective on March 18, 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2 -27 312 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2010 (OPR, 2010). Therefore, checklist items f), and g) of this Initial Study, are OPR's new guidelines for analysis of GHG emissions in CEQA documents. The BAAQMD has adopted revised BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines that identify quantitative thresholds for GHG. The recommended significance threshold is 1,100 metric tons of CO per year for projects other than stationary sources, such as the Project. This analysis includes quantification of Project related GHG emissions and comparison of the emissions to the BAAQMD's proposed significance threshold. The Project would also be considered to have a significant impact if it would be in conflict with AB 32 State goals for reducing GHG emissions. The assumption is that AB 32 will be successful in reducing GHG emissions and reducing the cumulative GHG emissions statewide by 2020. The State has taken these measures, because no project individually could have a major impact (either positively or negatively) on the global concentration of GHG. Therefore, the Project has been reviewed to determine if it would conflict with the goals of AB 32. Four types of analyses are used to determining whether the project could conflict with the State goals for reducing GHG emissions. The analyses are as follows: A. Any potential conflicts with the CARB's thirty -nine (39) recommended actions (see Air Quality Table .3). B. The amount of annual operational emissions generated by the Project. The Project's GHG emissions are compared to the BAAQMD's new operational significance threshold of 1,100 metric tons per year (mt /y). Projects with total emissions below 1,100 rrit /y would be assumed not conflict with State's ability to reach AB 32 overall goals. The Project's emissions are also compared to the estimated GHG reduction state goal of 174 million metric tons per year of CO emissions by 2020. C. The basic energy efficiency parameters of a project to determine whether its design is inherently energy efficient. D. Any potential conflicts with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHG. Impact Analysis The Project is located in the City of South San Francisco, California. The Project site is 0.41 acre and is currently undev eloped. The Applicant has proposed to develop the property with 20 residential dwellings and 5,200 square feet of retail and office uses. Individual and relatively small projects, i.e., projects that are not cement plants, oil refineries, electric generating facilities /providers, co- generation facilities, or hydrogen plants), are not typically associated with impacts on GCC (Association of Environmental Professionals, 2007, Alternative Approaches to Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Global Climate Change in CEQA Documents). The specific emissions from the Project would not be expected to individually have an impact on GCC. Furthermore, GHG impacts are considered to be exclusively cumulative impacts; there are no non - cumulative GHG emission impacts from a climate change perspective (California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, 2008. CEQA and Climate Change: Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act). PAGE 2 -28 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY 313 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Item A: the Project does not pose any apparent conflict with the CARB recommended actions (see Air Quality Table 3). Item B: Project operations would generate approximately 344 metnc tons per year of CO (including emissions from vehicle trips, space heating, and indirect emissions from the use of electricity). Project short -term construction GHG emissions occurring over a ten - month period would be approximately 130 metric tons of CO Project operational emissions would be less than one -third of the BAAQMD new significance threshold, which is 1,100 metric tons per year of CO Compared to the overall State reduction goal of approximately 174 million metric tons per year of CO the maximum GHG emissions for the Project, 344 metric tons per year of CO or 0.0002 percent of the State goal, are quite small and would not conflict with the State's ability to meet the AB 32 goals. Item C: The Project would be relatively energy efficient because it would include solar electric power, on- demand water heating, structured plumbing with re- circulating pumps, a thermally wrapped building envelope, energy star appliances, low e- windows, water saving fixtures, and additional building insulation. Other sustainable elements of the Project design would include radiant roof barriers, solar window shading and optional cork and bamboo flooring, whole house vacuums, indoor air exchange, and wheatboard frame cabinetry. Also, one characteristic of mixed uses, such as the Project, is that they can reduce trip lengths for residents, patrons and workers that would otherwise have to travel further to meet their needs. Thus, in some cases the new uses would certainly reduce trip lengths and GHG emissions associated with longer trips. Additionally, the location of the Project has the potential to minimize GHG emissions related to transportation due to its proximity to the South San Francisco BART Station, directly across the street. Project residents would have a convenient BART commute that could transport them to jobs throughout the Bay Area. In summary, the Project can accurately be described as inherently energy efficient. Itcm D: The City of South San Francisco currently does not have any adopted policy or plan regarding the reduction of GHG emissions. The City is currently in the process of establishing a baseline government and community -wide inventory of GHG emissions. The Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHG. The review of Items A, B, C, and D indicates that the Project would not conflict with the State goals in AB 32 or any applicable plans, and therefore, this impact would be less than significant Finding: The Project would not result in a significant impact to air quality including greenhouse gasses and would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria non - attainment pollutants (ozone precursors and PM -10). The City's building permit procedure captures the BAAQMD permitting regulations, as well as dust control measures. No mitigation measures, above those required by the City as a matter of law, are identified in this Initial Study. The project would not result in an impact or contribute to a cumulative impact to air quality with respect to GGE and GCC. 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2 -29 314 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination ofEnvironmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES — Would the Project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly x or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any x riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally x protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 ofthe Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any x native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances x protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted x Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? SETTING The Project would be located on a flat infill site surrounded by high density mixed use residential, commercial, cemetery, school and transportation land uses. The site was previously graded, contains no wetlands or vegetation save for one shrub bush and weeds (site visit, General Plan Background Report). The 2000 ECREIR did not identify any biological issues in the redevelopment plan area. PAGE 2 -30 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY 315 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Regulatory Framework South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 13.30.020 Protected Tree Ordinance South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 13.30.020 defines a "Protected Tree" as one with a circumference of 48" or more measures 54" above natural grade; a tree or stand of trees designated by the Director of Parks and Recreation as one of uniqueness, itnportance to the public due to its location or unusual appearance, historical significance or other factor; or a stand of trees that the Director of Parks and Recreation has determined each tree is dependant on the others for survival. California Department of Fish and Game Nesting birds are protected by the California Department of Fish and Game Code Section 3503, which reads, "It is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation made pursuant thereto." Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA: 16 U.S.C., Section 703 -71) There are over 900 species of birds protected by the MBTA. The MBTA prohibits killing, possessing, or trading in migratory birds, except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. This Act encompasses whole birds, parts of birds, and bird nests and eggs. Construction activities during the breeding season could result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings or nest abandonment. The MBTA is typically enforced by the California Department Fish and Game. A standard requirement is to either conduct tree and building removal during the non - nesting season which in San Mateo County is September 1- January 31 or conduct a nesting survey within five days prior to tree removal and should nests be found they are required to be protected in place until the birds ha`, e fledged. Protection of the nests would require leaving the tree in place and based upon the type of bird species identified by the biological study, various setbacks during project construction (including grading and tree removal) would be required until the birds have fledged. IMPACTS a -d) Habitat Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant impact: if it were to substantially impact habitat, wetlands, migratory corridors and Waters of the United States as identified in 3.4 a -d, above. Suitable habitat requires the presence of vegetation for cover and food and a source of water. Suitable wildlife habitat is located approximately 0.75 miles north and northeast of the Project site in San Bruno Mountain County and State Park. The Project site itself is void of vegetation and water suitable for wildlife habitat. The Cohna Creek channel is located approximately 40 feet west of the Project site with the parcel owned by SamTrans providing the 40 feet of separation. The top of the concrete channel is approximately four feet below finish grade of the Project site. The Project proposes passive outdoor uses, such as landscaping and open space on the SamTrans parcel which would not impact the channel or its potential for migratory habitat. Both the Project site and the Intervening parcel were previously graded and the Project site itself contains no wetlands or vegetation except one shrub bush and 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2 -31 316 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST some weeds. The proximity of suitable habitat (San Bruno Mountain) within 0.75 miles of the site further renders the habitat value of the Project site as insignificant. The Project would have no impact on any endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats, or to any federally protected wetlands or wildlife corridors. e) and f) Local Policies and Ordinances and Habitat Conservation Plans Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance, Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Comrumunit • Consers ation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. There are no Protected Trees on the site. There is no Habitat or Conservation Plan that governs the site, as the site does not contain habitat. The Project is not located on ecologically sensitive lands and would have no impact on General Plan policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Finding: The Project would not result in a significant impact or significant unavoidable impact to biological resources individually or cumulatively. The Project is not located on ecologically sensitive lands, does not contain habitat and -would have no impact on General Plan policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. 2.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES — Would the Project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the x significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the X significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique x paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those x interred outside of formal cemeteries? SETTING The 2000 ECREIR conducted a cultural resources review. The Project site was not found to have the potential for archaeological or cultural resources to be present. PAGE 2 -32 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY 317 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Historical and cultural resources were noted in the ECRRP area south of the Project site. Historical resources were noted on the McLellan nursery site and were mitigated as part of the Promenade and Greenridge project, which is not a part of this Project. An archaeological site (CA -SMA -299) was noted on BART properties south of the Project site. C.A. -SMA -299 was discussed in the EIR /EIS for the BART -San Francisco Airport Extension (1999), for the adoption of the El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan (1993) and for the 2000 Plan Amendment. CA-SMA-299 was noted to be completely destroyed ". During the 2000 Plan Amendment further evidence indicated that a portion of CA -SMA -299 could be located on the California dater Site (now known as Chestnut Creek Housing). Additional review in the Chestnut Creek area was conducted prior to construction of housing deli elopment. The Chestnut Creek site is approximately a mile south of the Project site. In summary, no historical and cultural resources have been identified on the Project site. IMPACTS a) Historic Resources Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5. There are no historical resources or structures on the Project site. The Project would have no impact on historic resources. b - d) Archaeological Resources Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in §15064.5, directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or unique geologic feature, or disturb any human remains, including those interred outside formal cemeteries. The site is not known or suspected to contain cultural resources, based upon literature searches, previous EIR's and grading. Moreover, the 34 foot deep borings and soil taken as part of the geotechnical study (Geotechnical Investigation 1/4 Acre Parcel, McLellan Drive and Mission Road, South San Francisco, California. April 6, 2009, Berloger Geotechnical Consultants) did not contain archaeological soils (i.e., shell bits associated with previous habitation associated with Native Americans). Finding: The Project is located on a previously graded parcel and in a developed area. There are no historic, archaeological or paleontological resources or human remains located on the Project site or within 1.0 miles of the Project site based upon existing data including literature searches, soil borings taken to a depth of 34 feet and grading. The Project would have a no impact on cultural resources. 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2 -33 318 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS — Would the Project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as X delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?X iii) Seismic- related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is X unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in X Table 18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Cade 1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting X the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? SETTING Geotechnical investigation was performed as part of the Project application, as required by law Geotechnical Investigation 1/2 acre parcel McClellan Drive and Mission Road South San Francisco, California, Berloger Geotechnical Consultants, April. 6, 2007 and Supplemental Geotechnical Recommendation Proposed Multi -Unit Residential and Retail Building 1309 Mission Road South San Francisco, California, Lai & Associates, August 2, 2010). Peer review was conducted by Cotton Shires Associates, Inc. the City's geotechnical consultants Supplemental Geotechnical Peer Review, Metron Partnership - Proposed Multi -Unit Residential and Retail Structure, 1309 Mission Road, August 18, 2010). PAGE 2 -34 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY 319 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The purpose of the City's geotechnical peer review is to insure that all geotechnical mitigations are included as part of the Project. Therefore, the recommendations of Cotton Shires will become requirements of the Project as well as those identified by the Applicant's consultants as reviewed and approved by Cotton Shires. This Project, should it be approved, will be required to comply with the Consulting and project Geotechnical Consultants recommendations prior to issuance of building or grading permits, just as other projects are so required in the City. The Project site is part of the Coast Range geomorphic province and underlain by the Colma Formation. Two soil borings were conducted (Berloger, 2007) on March 13, 2007 to depths of 34.5 and 20.5 feet below ground surface (bgs). Boring B -1 found approximately 11.5 feet of undocumented fill composed of mostly silty and clayey sand, sandy clay, and clayey sand and sandy clay mixture was found. The upper three feet of the fill is stiff to very stiff and dense while the lower portion of the fill is medium dense to loose. Approximately seven feet medium dense silty sand over about five feet black, medium stiff sandy clay over Colma Formation of light gray to gray brown medium dense to very dense granular soils to approximately 34.5 feet bgs was found under the fill. Boring B -2 found nine feet of undocumented fill with the upper three feet being dense and hard and the remaining six feet being soft and loose. The fill consists primarily of silty sand and sandy clay over clayey sand and sandy clay mixture. The undocumented fill is underlain by four feet of dark- gray, loose silty sand over the Colma Formation of light gray to gray- brown, medium dense to very dense to approximately 20.5 feet bgs. Four additional borings (Lai Associates, 2010) were conducted at the requested of Cotton Shires Shires, 2010). The borings were drilled 20 to 49.5 feet bgs. The findings are similar to those of the Berloger borings. The Colma Formation is found to depths ranging from 13 to 27 feet bgs. Free water was found in one boring at a depth of 17 feet. The risk of liquefaction is considered low. Ground subsidence is considered to be less than 0.1 inch. As a result, the below grade parking slab could be structurally tied to the grade beams and footings. The garage slab would be supported by a minimum of four inches of compacted Class 2 aggregate base over compacted subgrade. Piers would be drilled (not driven) in place or as an alternative the building can be supported on a shallow footing foundation (Lai, 2010). As required by law, the recommendations of the geotechnical reports (Berloger, 2007 and Lai, 2010) shall be part of the Project as reviewed and approved by Cotton Shires (2010). 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2 -35 320 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST IMPACTS Seismic Hazards Seismic hazards are generally classified as two types, primary and secondary. Primary geologic hazards include surface fault rupture. Secondary geologic hazards include ground shaking, liquefaction, dynamic densification and seismically induced ground failure. i) Surface Fault Rupture Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects associated with the surface rupture of a known earthquake fault. The site is not underlain by active earthquake fault. The San Andreas and San Gregorio faults lie approximately two and six miles, respectively, west of the site. The Hayward fault is approximately 17 miles east of the site. The Calavaras fault is approximately 26 miles east of the site. The Monte Vista fault is approximately 19 miles southeast and the Rodgers Creek fault is approximately 30 miles north of the site. There would be a less than significant impact to the Project associated with ground rupture. ii) Strong Seismic Ground Shaking Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects associated with strong seismic ground shaking. Given that there are no active faults within the Project site, damage from a seismic event is most likely to occur from the secondary impact of strong seismic ground shaking originating on a nearby fault. Estimates of actual ground shaking intensity at a particular location are made according to the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale, which accounts for variables such as the size and distance from the earthquake. For the Project site, Mercaili Intensity estimates indicate that earthquake - shaking intensity would vary depending upon where the seismic event originates. For the Maximum Credible Earthquakes (MCE) along the nearby San Andreas and San Gregorio faults (Richter Magnitude 7.9 and 7.2, respectively) the shaking intensities would be IX, violent" and VIII, "very strong ", respectively, at the Project site. Development of the Project would increase the number of structures and people potentially exposed to hazards associated with a major earthquake in the region. The Project and all buildings in the San Francisco Bay Area are built with the knowledge that an earthquake could occur, and are required to meet Uniform Building Code (UBC) standards for seismic safety. Conformance with the 2007 California Building Code would ensure that the impact of seismic ground - shaking is reduced to a level of less than significant. The following design parameter would be used in the structural design of the building: Site latitude 37.66548 degrees; site PAGE 2 -36 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY 321 CHAPTER'. 2: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION longitude - 122.44527 degrees; site class D; mapped spectral acceleration for short periods (S 2.117g; and mapped spectral acceleration for one - second period (S1) 1.169g. iii) Liquefaction Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects associated with seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction. Liquefaction is a secondary seismic hazard involving saturated cohesionless sand and silty sand sediments located close to the ground surface. Liquefaction occurs when the strength of a soil decreases and pore pressure increases as a response to strong seismic shaking and cyclic loading. During the loss of strength, the soil becomes mobile, and can move both horizontally and vertically, if not confined. Soils most susceptible to liquefaction are loose, clean, saturated, uniformly - graded, fine- grained sands. The project site is underlain by Colma Formation and based upon the borings and soil testing the chances of liquefaction are low (Lai, 2010 and Cotton Shires, 2010) Therefore, the Project would have no impact with respect to liquefaction ofsubsurface materials. iv) Landslides Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to expose people or structures to substantial hazards from landslides. A landslide is a mass of rock, soil and debris displaced down slope by sliding, flowing or falling. The Association of Bay Area Governments indicates that the Project Site is "flatland," Association of Bay Area Governments, http: / /gis.abag.ca.gov /website /Landslides /viewer.htm). The Geotechnical Report and site inspections identify the site as relatively flat. There is no threat of landslides on the Project site; therefore the project would have no impact with respect to landslides. b) Erosion or Loss of Topsoil Significance Criteria: The Project would result in a significant environmental impact if it were to result in substantial soil erosion or in the loss of topsoil. In absence of the NPDES C -3 requirements implemented by the City as a condition of building and grading permit issuance the Project would have a potential to increase erosion during construction. This is described in detail in Section 3.8: Hydrology and Water Quality, below. However, the erosion control measures are required as a matter of law and as a result this impact is considered to be less than significant 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2 -37 322 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST c) Geologic Instability Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. Ground subsidence is considered to be less than 0.1 inch (Lai, 2010). Therefore, there would be no impact with respect to a geologic unit becoming unstable as a result of the Project and the Project would not result in the potential for on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. d) Expansive Soils Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if located on expansive soil, creating substantial risks to life or property. The geotechnical reports and peer review (Berloger, Lai and Cotton Shires) did not identify a potential hazard from expansive soils or the presence of expansive soils. The Plasticity Index of site soils suitable for fill is les than 15 (low expansion). Moreover, import soils for fill shall also have a Plasticity Index of 15. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact with respect to expansive soils. e) Capability of Soils to Support Septic Tanks Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it involved construction of septic systems in soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. The Project does not propose to build any new septic tank or alternate waste disposal systems. The Project site will be connected to the City's sanitary sewer system as a requirement of general engineering conditions of approval. Therefore, the Project would have no impact on soils due to septic systems. Finding: The Project site is not underlain by an earthquake fault and as such the potential for ground rupture is very low. Conformance with the 2007 California Building Code would reduce seismic shaking impacts to less than significant. The site soils are not expansive with a Plasticity Index of 15. Site soils are considered low impact with respect liquefaction. Subsidence would be approximately 0.1 inch which is considered low. The Project would not be connected to a septic system and as such would not contribute to ground failure. The site is flat and not subject to landsliding. Based on the analysis, the Project would have a less than significant impact with respect to Geology and Soils. PAGE 2 -38 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY 323 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 2.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant Significant Na Impact with Impact Impact Mitigation VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS — Would the Project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the X environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the X environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous X or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list x of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a Project located within an airport land use X plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area? f) For a Project within the vicinity of a private X airstrip, would the Project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere x with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk X of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? SETTING A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was prepared for the project (Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment 1309 Missi ©n Road, South San Francisco, CA 94080. AEI, May 24, 2010) (Phase I). The Phase I is incorporated herein by reference. The Phase I was conducted pursuant to the guidelines 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2 -39 324 CHAPTER 2; ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST established by the American Society of Testing Materials (ASTM) Designation E 1527 -05, "Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I En irontnental Site Assessment Process" and the Environmental Protection Agency Standards and Practices for All appropriate Inquiries 40CFR, Part 312) . The Phase I notes that the Project site has been undeveloped since 1946 based upon aerial photographs. The Project site is not identified on any regulatory data base listings. No on -site environmental conditions were identified, no on -site historical environmental conditions were identified and no on -site environmental issues were identified as a result of the Phase I discovery process. The property to the southeast of the site is identified on a regulatory database as a Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) site and a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) small quantity generator site. Groundwater beneath the Project site flows to the southeast at a depth ranging from 30 to 44 feet below ground surface (bgs). IMPACTS a) and b) Hazardous Materials Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or if it were to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. The Project would support a mixed use residential, retail, commercial and potentially office land use. These types of land uses are not associated with moderate or heavy hazardous materials use. Residential and commercial land uses typically use gasoline and diesel for vehicles and gardening equipment; not the use of toxic and hazardous materials associated with heavy commercial and industrial land uses. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment did not identify any environmental concerns (i.e., no identification of contamination or the presence of hazardous or toxic materials) with respect to the site. The South San Francisco Fire Department, the City's lead division far hazardous materials, did not identify any concerns with respect to the Project. The impact of the Project with regards to hazardous materials transport or spill would be less than signtificant c) and d) Hazardous Materials Presence Significance Criter The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within a quarter mile of an existing or proposed school, or if it was located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 ( "Cortese List "). PAGE 2 -40 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY 325 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The El Camino High School is east of the Project site on Mission Road just south of the intersection of Mission Road and McLellan Drive. The Project site is not identified on a hazardous materials database _(Phase I). Handling of hazardous materials on the Project site, identified above, would be minimal and similar to that of the high school. The Project site is not listed on the Department of Toxic Substances Control's Cortese List California Department of Toxic Substance Control, http: / /www.dtsc.ca.gov/ database /Calsites /Cortese Listcfm and Phase I). Therefore, the Project would have no impact from the emission or handling of hazardous materials or wastes on schools or from any environmental contamination posed by sites listed on the Cortese List. The Project would have no impact with regards to the presence or release of hazardous materials or waste within a quarter mile of a school. e) and f) Safety Hazards Due to Nearby Airport or Airstrip Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were 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), if it would result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area; or if it were located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, if it would result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area. The Project site is located approximately four miles northwest of San Francisco International Airport, and within the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission's (ALUC) jurisdiction. The ALUC alloy development within ALUC boundaries, provided that development is below a prescribed height limit. In 1981, the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Plan, in coordination with Federal Aviation Regulation Part 77, established a 361 -foot height limit for properties adjacent to the Project area and a Transitional Surface Slope of 7:1 for the Project site. (Airport Related Height Limitations, Figure 2 -2, General Plan, page 34). Using the more conservative height limit of 361 feet, the ALUC height limit is 281 feet above the maximum of 80 feet permitted by the City's General Plan (Special Area Height Limitations, Figure 2 -3, 1999 General Plan, page 35) and 306 feet above the requested 50 foot height limit. The Project would be 306 feet below that established by the ALUC as requisite to protect public safety and would not result in a safety hazard for people working or living at the Project site. The Project would have no impactwith respect to height limitations due to a nearby airport. g) Conflict with Emergency Response Plan or Emergency Evacuation Plan Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. There are no emergency response or evacuation plans in effect in the Project vicinity. Therefore the proposed Project would have no impact on the implementation of any adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. 1309 MISSION ROAD — INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2 -41 326 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST h) Exposure of People or Structures to Wildland Fires Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant en'-ironmental impact if it were to exposepeopleorstructurestoasignificantriskofloss, injury or death involving wildland fires. The Project site is neither within a wildland fire management area (Fire Hazard Management Units, Figure 8 -4, General Plan, 1999, page 265) nor at an urban /wildland interface zone. The Project would have no impact on fighting wildland fires. Finding The Project site is appropriate for miffed use residential and commercial land use. The Project would not introduce a fire, safety or hazardous materials risk into the area beyond that normally anticipated with mixed use residential and commercial :!and use; would not expose a school to the risk from hazardous materials; and would not result in an impact or contribute to a cumulative impact from hazardous materials exposure. The Project would not impede emergencyresponse. PAGE 2 -42 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY 327 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 2.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact ImpactVIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY — Would the Project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste xdischargerequirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or xinterferesubstantiallywithgroundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g,, the production rate of pre - existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern xofthesiteorarea, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off -site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern xofthesiteorarea, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off -site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would xexceedthecapacityofexistingorplanned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?x g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard xareaasmappedonafederalFloodHazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area Xstructures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk xofloss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?X 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2 -43 328 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST SETTING Colma Creek, the City's main natural drainage system, is a perennial stream with a watershed of about 16.3 square miles that trends in a roughly southeasterly direction through the center of the City. The Colma Creek watershed is one of the three largest in. the County. The basin is bounded on the northeast by San Bruno Mountain and on the west by a ridge traced by Skyline Boulevard. Dominant topographic features of the drainage basin include two relatively straight mountain ridgesthatdivergetowardthesoutheastthatareconnectedbyalowridgeatthenorthernboundaryofthearea. The valley enclosed by the ridges widens toward the southeast where it drains into San Francisco Bay. The City, in 2005, completed channelization of the entire creek within South San Francisco from the Town of Coltna boundary to South Airport Boulevard. The flood maps have not been updated torepresenttheseimprovements; however, the City is in the process of doing so. The greatest portionofthecreekisdesignedtoafiftyyearfloodwithatwofootfreeboard. According to the City'sPublicWorksDirector, the BART station, just upstream of the station, under it, and on the exit side the creek has been designed to a 500 year flood (June, 2010). The Project site is currently undeveloped and conditions of project approval (Chapter 1, Section L3.4, Hydrology and Water Quality) would require the Project to comply with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Storm filtration, retention and drainage requirements (see RegulatoryFramework, below). Regulatory Framework National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Storm Water Discharge Permit The City of South San Francisco is a member of the San Mateo Countywide Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (STOPPP), an organization of the City /County Association of Governments C /CAG) of San Mateo County holding a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NPDES) Storm Water Discharge permit. STOPPP's goal is to :prevent polluted storm water from entering creeks, wetlands, and the San Francisco Bay. The City requires the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMP's) for new development and cons ruction as part of its storm water management program, as levied through standard City conditions of project approval. The City requires the implementation of BMP's to ensure the protection of water quality in storm runoff from the project site. In brief, the measures presented in the BMP handbook address pollution control and management mechanisms for contractor activities, e.g. structure construction, material delivery and storage, solid waste management, employee and subcontractor training, etc.The handbook also provides direction for the control of erosion and sedimentation as well as the establishment of monitoring programs to ensure the effectiveness of the BMP's. The City also requires an agreement with the applicant that ensures the permanent and on -going maintenance of water quality control improvements by the applicant and /or project site owner(s). Refer to the Bay Area Stotni Water Management Agencies Association (BASMAA) Start at the Source Design Guidance Manual for Storm Water Quality Protection (available from BASMAA @ 510622 - 2465 for a comprehensive listing of required measures. Typical storm water quality protection measures are identified in Chapter 1, Section 1.3.4 of this document. PAGE 2 -44 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY 329 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION State Water Quality Control Board's General Permitting Requirements The City of South San Francisco requires through conditions of project approval, project compliance with the State Water Quality Control Board's general permitting requirements which require the applicant to secure a Construction Activities Storm 'Water General Permit, complete a Notice. of Intent (NOl) and prepare and obtain approval of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP). The state issues a Waste Discharge Identification number within 10 days of receipt of a complete NOI and SWPPP. The applicant is then required to submit copies of the NOT and SWPPP to the City of South San Francisco, Public Works Department Division of Water Quality, prior to issuance of building and /or grading permits. IMPACTS a) Violation of Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in any violation of existing water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The Project as a matter of law is required to comply with the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan SWPPP). The City requires the implementation of BMP's for new development and construction as part of its storm water management program, as levied through standard City conditions of project approval by the Water Quality Control Division of the Public Works Department (see Chapter 13.4, Hydrology and Water Quality). The Project would present a less than significant impact with respect to violations of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. b) Deplete or Interfere Substantially with Groundwater Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it substantially depletes groundwater supplies or interferes substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. The Project would increase impervious surfaces on the site, but would result in approximately 50% more pervious area on the site than envisioned in the 2000 ECREIR. As noted in Chapter 1, Project Description, approximately half of the area (.34 acre) of the site in 2000 is now owned by SamTrans and is undeveloped. The Project site itself would include landscape areas that allow for water percolation. The Project would not draw its water source from groundwater but from California Water Service. The Project would have a less than significant impact with regards to groundwater depletion and would be an improvement over the conditions anticipated and analyzed in the 2000 ECREIR. c and d) Alter Existing Drainage Patterns /Erosion and Siltation Effects or Alter Existing Drainage Patterns /Flooding Effects Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation. The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were 1309 MISSION ROAD– INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2-45 330 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST to substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off -site. The Project would be required to incorporate BMP's into construction and design of the site and as such would not alter drainage patterns or cause siltation into the adjacent channelized Colma Creek. Incorporation of BMP's would improve the site over existing conditions as currently there are no BMP's employed on the site. There would be no impact related to altered drainage patterns or siltation at the Project site as compared to the 2000 ECREIR. e) Runoff Exceeding Drainage System Capacity /Increase Polluted Runoff Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources ofpolluted runoff. The project, as a matter of law, is required to submit a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan SWXTPP) and an Erosion Control Plan to the City Engineer and the Water Qualit<' Control Division prior to the commencement of any grading or construction of the proposed Project. The SWPPP as noted in the Setting Section, above, and Chapter 1, Section 1.3.4is required to include storm water pollution control devices and filters to be installed to prevent pollutants from entering the City's storm drain system and San Francisco Bay. The Plan shall be subject to review and approval of the City Engineer and the City's Storm Water Coordinator. Water quality measures are required to be included in the building permit packet; therefore all contractors are as a matter of law made aware of the requirements. Additionally, the Engineering Division of the Public Works Department as well as the Water Quality Control Division conducts routine inspections of this and all project sites to insure compliance. Failure to comply with the approved construction BMPs would result in the issuance of correction notices, citations or a Stop Work Order. Plans for the Project will as a matter of law include erosion control measures to prevent soil, dirt and debris from entering the storm drain system. Implementation of the measures required as a matter of law would reduce the Project's impact to a level of less than significant f) Otherwise Degrade Water Quality Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to degrade water quality. The Project would improve water quality over existing conditions in that BMP's would be required to filter, contain and direct water. Therefore, as.compared to existing conditions, there would be no impact on water quality from point source water pollution at the Project site. g — i) Flood Hazards Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to place any housing units within a designated 100 -year flood hazard area; if it placed any structures in a manner which would impede or redirect flood flows; or if it were to result in the exposure of people or structures to flooding hazards. PAGE 2 -46 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY 331 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The Project site is located in Flood Zone C (Federal Emergency Mapping Act Map (FEMA) Panel Number 065062 0008 B, September 2, 1981) which means that the site is not located in a 100 -year flood hazard zone. The Project site is adjacent to Flood Zone AH on the western side (the SamTrans Parcel), which indicates minimal flooding one to three feet above flood elevation. The Colma Creek channel is Flood Zone A which is the 100 year flood zone. The City completed channelization of the creek in 2005. As a result, the greatest portion of the creek is designed to a fifty year flood with a two foot freeboard. The :area of the BART station, upstream of it, under it and on the exit side is designed to a 500 year flood zone. (Terry White, Public Works Director. June 2010). The FEMA Map has not been amended to reflect the flood hazard improvements as a result of the City's channelizing the creek in 2005. As a result, potential impacts associated with flooding are overstated. The Project would have no impact related to the placement of people or structures in a flood hazard area, the exposure of people or structures to a flood hazard, or a structure in such a way that it would impede or redirect flood flows beyond that identified in the 2000 ECREIR. ABAG, http: / /ww .abag.ca.gov/bayarea/eqmaps j) Tsunami Hazards Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in the exposure ofpeople or structures to inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow. The City's General Plan estimates that potential wave run -up of a 100 -year tsunami would be approximately 4.3 feet above mean sea level (msl) and approximately 6.0 feet above msl for a 500 - year tsunami (Dyett and Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan, adopted October 1999, page 250). The Project site is not located in a low -lying area near San Francisco Bay where an earthquake could cause tsunamis (tidal waves) and seiches (oscillating waves in enclosed water bodies) that could impact the Project site. The Project site is at an elevation of approximately 100 feet above msl (Geotechnical Investigation 1/4 Acre Parcel, McLellan Drive and Mission Road, South San Francisco, California. April 6, 2009, Berloger Geotechnical Consultants) and would be too high for inundation by a 500 -year tsunami. Additionally, the Project would conform to the latest building code requirements. For these reasons, the impact of potential inundation by tsunami or seiche is considered to be less than significant Finding:. The City's standard conditions of approval which implement state, federal and local regulations are required by law and are adequate to address any potential water quality impacts as a result of project construction or occupation. No mitigation measures, above those required by the City as a matter of law, are identified in this Initial Study. The Project would not result in an impact or contribute to a cumulative impact to hydrology or water quality resources. Moreover, the Colma Creek flood improvement and channelization project was completed by the City in 2005, subsequent to the 2000 ECREIR. The channelization improved safety from flooding in the Project area. 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2 -47 332 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING — Would the Project: a) Physically divide an established community?x b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,x policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation x plan or natural community conservation plan? SETTING Regulatory Framework South San Francisco General Plan and Zoning Ordinance -1999 The South San Francisco General Plan (1999) identifies Project site as Community Commercial with a High Density Residential overlay. The Zoning Map identifies the site as Transit Village Medium Density Residential (TV-RM). The Project site is within the South San Francisco BART Transit Village Plan MT) and the BI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan (ECRRP) areas. Transit Village Plan and Zoning -2001 Existing Designations The existing land use and zoning designation is Transit Village Medium Density Residential. Maximum residential development density is 30 dwelling units per acre, notwithstanding a 25% density bonus for inclusionary housing meeting state and City requirements. Short building setbacks are required; an active streetscape is required. The maximum perrrutted building height is 35 feet. Residential land use above podium parking is permitted for sites designed with rear access and tuck under and surface parking configurations MT, Prototypes Key Map, PT3 and 4, page 63). The Project proposes surface and below -grade parking, bicycle parking and storage areas. Proposed Designation: The requested TVRH amendment permits 50 dwelling units per acre. The designation requires residential uses above podium parking and street front retail along McLellan Drive. The Project proposes 49 dwelling - units per acre, podium parking with residential above and retail commercial on the ground floor along the McLellan Street frontage. PAGE 2-48 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY 333 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The proposed TVP Land Use Map amendment to High Density Residential would result in the same zoning designation as the RH land use corresponds directly to high density residential development standards. The RH designation would also bring the TVP land use designation into conformance with the General Plan high density residential land use designation. El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan 1993 and 2000 Amendment In 2000 the City amended the El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan that was adopted July 14, 1993. The ECRRP's purpose is stated to eliminate blight, retain business, promote commercial rehabilitation, construct public infrastructure improvements and make improvements to various housing developments in the Plan .Area. The ECRRP amendment (2000 Amendment) added approximately 80 acres of property to the planning area (Plan Area) boundaries and modified development assumptions on 23 sites within the Plan Area. The 2000 ECREIR analyzed the development changes on each of the 23 sites. The Project Site is identified as Site 3, or the Cuneo Property in the 2000 ECREIR in Table 3.0 -1 (page 3.0 -7) and Figure 3.0-2 (unnumbered page 3.0 -12). Figure Li El Camino Redevelopment Project Area in Chapter 1 contains a summary of the development assumptions. The ECREIR analyzed the Project site development intensity at 21 multi- family residential units (37.5 dwelling units per. acre), 18,400 square feet of retail commercial (a 1.5 FAR) and 18,400 square feet of office. The Project proposes 20 dwelling units and 5,200 square feet of commercial. Development Assumptions on the Project Site As noted above, development intensity on the Project site has been envisioned and analyzed through various environmental documents associated with the General Plan, ECRRP and TVP. These three plans envisioned a maximum development of 37.5 dwelling units per acre (page 32, Table 2.2 -1 General Plan, Page 3.0 -7 ECREIR, page 105 TVP). The density corresponds to 30 dwelling units per acre plus a 25% density bonus for inclusionary housing, on a site larger than it exists today. The development assumptions for the Project site have remained constant over the past 12 years while the area of the site has changed. The acreage of the Project site changed as a result of the extension of BART to South San Francisco. In 1999 and 200() both the General Plan and Redevelopment Plan amendments noted the site at 0.75 acre. The 2001 TVP identifies the Project Site as 0.67 acres in anticipation of land area changes due to BART construction. Subsequently the Project site was reduced to 0.41 acres as a result of SamTrans' purchase of 0.34 acres which was used as staging and storage during BART construction. In summary, the maximum residential development intensity envisioned in the three plans for the Project site has remained constant for the past 12 years notwithstanding the changes in site area. The discrepancies between high and medium density development densities contained in the three plans are more a reflection of the changes in site area, and not planned development intensity. The maximum residential development permitted for the site, in absence of a density bonus, is 21 units. 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2-49 334 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Therefore, the Project proposes a Zoning Map amendment to Transit Village High Density Residential to construct 20 units of housing and 5,200 square feet of retail commercial on the 0.41 acre site in conformance with the density assumptions analyzed and planned over the past 12 years. County of San Mateo Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) State law establishes an ALUC, in each county where one or more airports exist, to coordinate the compatibility of new development near airports. The ALUC does not have any authority over airport operations, but it does have the authority to conduct land use planning for areas around airport in the county. The ALUC makes a determination that general plans, zoning standards, and any proposed new development in its planning area are in conformance with the Airport Land Use Plan. The 1981 San Mateo County Airport Land Use Plan, in coordination with Federal Aviation Regulation Part 77, established a 161 -foot above mean seal level height limit around San Francisco International Airport. The Project site is within the Transitional Surface Slope of 7:1 Zone established by the ALUC (General Plan, Figure 2 -2 Airport- Related Height Limitations, page 34). The Project site is not within a Special Area Height Limitation (General Plan, Figure 2 -3 Special Area Height Limitations, page 35). As noted in Chapter 1 Project Description, the maximum permitted height, pursuant to the zoning ordinance, is 35 feet and with an approved rezone would be 55 feet. The requested height limit of 55 feet is 306 feet under the 361 foot more conservative maximum permitted by the ALUC (Airport Related Height Limitations, Figure 2 -2, General Plan, Page 34). IMPACTS a) Division of an Established Community Significance Criteria The Project would have a significant environmental. impact if it were to physically divide an established community. The Project is located within an area planned for commercial retail /office and residential mixed use. The area immediately surrounding the Project site is mixed use with pedestrian oriented commercial and residential uses and mass transit. The TVP stated purpose is to "tie existing and new residential neighborhoods, commercial uses, transit facilities, parks and nearby schools together in a safe, convenient, and walkable environment for residents, employees, and visitors to the area" The Project site, identified as the Cuneo site in the TVP, is identified as "crucial to the identity of the transit village" (TVP, page 11). Thus, the Project would have no impact on dividing an established community. b) Conflicts with Land Use Plan and Zoning Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in a conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. PAGE 2 -50 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY 335 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The Project site is designated for mixed use residential and commercial uses and the Projectproposesamixedusecommercialresidentialuse. The requested zoning map change to TransitVillageHighDensityResidentialwouldbringtheTVPintoconformancewiththeGeneralPlandesignationofHighDensityResidentialandwouldpermitaheightofupto55feet. The Projectproposesa35footheightmaximumonallaspectsofthebuildingsavethecomeratMcLellanDriveandMissionRoadwheretheheightwouldbe50feet. The proposed maximum height would be 355feetbelowthatidentifiedbytheFederalAviationAdministrationdeemednecessarytoprotectpublicsafety. The Project, which includes the request of a rezone to Transit Village High Density Residential andaMaximitnumBuildingHeightMap (SSFMC Figure 20.250.004(D)) amendment to 55 feet, wouldconformtoallapplicablelanduseplansandzoningregulationsand, therefore, would have noimpact. Moreover, the Project would be consistent with the development assumptions for the siteoverthepast10yearsasidentifiedintheGeneralPlan, ECRRP and the TVP. c) Conflict with Conservation Plan Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in aconflictwithanyapplicablehabitatconservationplanornaturalcommunityconservationplan. There are no conservation plans either currently in force or proposed for application to the subjectpropertyasdiscussedinSection3.4, Biological Resources, above. Therefore, the Project wouldhavenoimpactonconservationplans. Finding: The Project would not physically divide an established community. The site is currentlydesignated, and used, and the surrounding land uses are mixed use residential, commercial andtransit. The Project would not result in any individually or cumulatively considerable impacts. 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2 -51 336 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2.10 Mineral Resources Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for potentially Less Than Less Than DeterminationofEnvironmentallmpact Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact X. MINERAL RESOURCES — Would the Project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known X mineral resource that would be ofvalue to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-X important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other and use plan? SETTING The Project site is in a built -out mixed use commercial and residential area. IMPACTS a and b) Loss of Mineral Resources Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state, or if it were to result in the loss of availability of a locally - important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan. No mineral resources of value to the region and the residents of the state have been identified at the Project site or within the Project area (General Plan Background Report, General Plan, 1993 and 2000 ECREIR, TNT). The Project site has not been delineated as a locally important mineral recovery site on the City of South San Francisco General Plan, on any specific plan, or on any other land use plan. Therefore, the proposed Project would have no irnpact on any known mineral resource, or result in the loss of availability of any locally important resource recovery site. Finding: The Project site does not contain any local or regionally significant mineral resources. The Project would not result in an impact or contribute to a cumulative impact to mineral resources. PAGE 2 -52 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY 337 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 2.11 NOISE Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less ThanDeterminationofEnvironmentalImpactSignificantSignificantwithSignificant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact XI. NOISE — Would the Project: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise x levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of x excessive groundborne vibration or groundbome noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient x noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in x ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project? e) For a Project located within an airport land use x plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a Project within the vicinity of a private x airstrip, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive nose levels? SETTING The dominant influences on sound levels in the Project area are derived from a combination of roadway, commercial and high school land uses. Temporary spikes in noise Levels in the Project area result from car horns and occasional aircraft flyovers. BACKGROUND Noise is generally defined as unwanted sound. Whether a sound is unwanted depends on when and where it occurs, what the listener is doing when it occurs, characteristics of the sound (loudness, pitch and duration, speech or music content, irregularity) and how intrusive it is above background sound levels. In determining the daily level of environmental noise, it is important to account for the difference in response of people to daytime and nighttime noises. During nighttime, exterior background noises are generally lower than daytime levels. However, most household noise also decreases at night and exterior noise becomes more noticeable. Further, most people sleep at night and are very sensitive to noise intrusion. Residential, schools and open space recreational uses are generally considered to be noise - sensitive uses or sensitive receptors. 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2 -53 338 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST To quantify the noise over a 24 -hour period, the Day /Night Average Sound level (DNL or Ldn) orCommunityNoiseequivalentLevel (CNEL) is used. These noise descriptors include a 10 decibeldB) penalty (addition to the actual measures levels) during nighttime hours (10 PM to 7AM) and afivedBpenaltyduringeveninghours (7 PM to 10 PM) for the CNEL to account for people'ssensitivityduringthesehours. Noise is measured and quantified with an A- weighted filter whichcloselyapproximatesthewaythehumanearhearssound; a de- emphasis low - frequency and high -frequency sound. The resulting measurement is quantified as a dBA. A change of three dBA is considered just noticeable to the human ear. A five dBA change is clearlynoticeableandatendBAchangeisperceivedasdoublinginloudness. Regulatory Framework South San Francisco General Plan The City adopted the state Noise Compatibility Guidelines promulgated by the Department ofHealthServices. These criteria define the desirable maximum noise exposure of various land uses inadditiontocertainconditionallyacceptablelevelscontingentupontheimplementationofnoisereductionmeasures. These guidelines identified in Table 9.2 -1 of the General Plan (page 280) statethatanoiseenvironmentoflessthan65dBA, CNEL or less is acceptable for residential lands useandlessthan70dBACNELisacceptableforcommerciallanduse. South San Francisco Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.32. Section 8.32.050) The City's Noise Ordinance restricts construction activities to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. onweekdays, 9:00 a.rn. to 8:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and .10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays.This ordinance also limits noise generation of any individual piec of equipment to 90 dBA, at thepropertyline (Section 8.32.050 (d) (2)). The California Building Code (CBC) Title 24, Part 2. Chapter 2.35 of the California Code ofRegulation The regulation is collectively known as Title 24 which contains acoustical requirements for interiorsoundlevelsinhabitableroomsformulti- family residential land uses. Title 24 containsrequirementsforconstructionofnewhotels, motels, apartment houses, and dwellings other thandetachedsingle - family dwellings intended to limit the extent of noise transmitted into habitablespaces. The standard specifies the extent to which walls, doors, and floor - ceiling assemblies must 6 The decibel (dB) is a logarithmic unit used to quantify sound intensity. Since the human ear is not equally sensitive toallsoundfrequencieswithintheentirespectrum, human response is factored into sound descriptions in a processcalled "A- weighting" written as "dBA". CNRT,: Community Noise Equivalent Level. Because community receptorsaremoresensitivetounwantednoiseintrusionduringtheeveningandatnight, state law requires that for planningpurposes, an artificial dB increment be added to quiet time noise levels in a 24 -hour noise descriptor called theCommunityNoiseEquivalentLevel (CNEL). PAGE 2 -54 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY 339 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION block or absorb sound in between units and the amount of attenuation needed to limit noise from exterior sources. The standard sets forth an interior noise level. of 45 dBA (CNEL or L in any habitable room with all doors and windows closed and requires an acoustical analysis demonstrating how dwelling units have been designed to meet this interior standard where such units are proposed in areas subject to noise levels greater than 60 dBA (CNEL or L Title 24 requirements are enforced as a condition of building permit issuance. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) The USEPA identifies 70 dBA, Leg as the noise level based on continuous exposure (i.e., 365 and 24- hour a day exposure) below which the public is protected from hearing loss due to ambient noise sources. The L measurement is not a "weighted" noise descriptor as is the L Existing and Projected Noise Environment The Project site is not within the 65 dBA, CNEL noise contour identified on Figure 9 -1, Aircraft Noise and Noise Insulation Program _ 4rea, General Plan, page 279), not within the 65 dBA, CNEL identified by the FAA as requisite for special insulation features to mitigate aircraft noise sources Figure 9 - 3, Potential .Irfll Residential Areas Relative to Noise Contours, General Plan, page 288) and is within the 60 to 65 dBA, CNEL noise contour influenced by rail and road noise sources (Figure 9- 2, Projected Road and RailNoise, General Plan, page 283). The 2000 ECREIR identifies the Project area along Mission Road north of Grand Avenue at 63.6 dBA, CNRT, and El Camino High School approximately 200 feet southeast of the Project site) at 61.3 dBA, CNEL. These noise level projections account for the entirety of the build -out assumptions identified in the ECRRP and shown in Chapter 1, Table 1,1of this document. IMPACTS a — d) Exposure of Persons to or Generation of Noise Levels in Excess of Standards, Exposure of Persons to or Generation of Excessive Groundborne Noise Levels, a Substantial Temporary or Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels in the Project Vicinity above Levels Existing Without the Project. Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the South San Francisco General Plan (i.e., 65 dBA, CNET, without noise insulation for residential and in excess of 70 dB, CNEL without insulation for commercial land sues), the City's Noise Ordinance 90 dBA, CNEL at the property line) or the USEPA's threshold of 70 dBA, L continuous noise exposure (i.e. 365 and 24 -hour a day exposure,). Project Construction Project construction would result in temporary short -term noise increases due to the operation of grading and some construction equipment. Noise levels from grading operations typically range from about 75 to 95 dBA at 50 feet for certain types of earthmoving and impact equipment. Construction noise would be lower ranging from 75 to 85 dBA at 50 feet for most types of construction equipment. Noise levels would attenuate approximately six dBA per doubling distance 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2 -55 340 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST from the source. Grading and site preparation is expected to take two months to complete. Grading activities would not be a continuous source of noise on any given day. Construction and finishing work would take up to another eight months. Therefore, during site preparation the use of heavy equipment, such as a tractor, would result in a temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project site. The site is in a mixed use commercial and residential area which is a moderately sensitive noise sensitive land use. Noise sensitive land uses around the Project site include multi-family residential adjacent and north of the Project site; cemetery use approximately 100 feet northeast; a mixed use ground floor commercial and upper level residential development west and approximately 60 feet from the site; and the El Camino High School approximately 200 feet south east of the Project site. The 2000 ECREIR analyzed construction and operational impacts associated with approximately 500,000 square feet of office and retail development for the entire ECRRP area. The Project represents 5,200 square feet of the total commercial square footage and 20 of the 757 residential units analyzed in the 2000 ECREIR. The Project itself would involve less grading and construction than envisioned and analyzed in the 2000 ECREIR as the Projecz site is approximately half the area and would construct approximately 18,000 square feet less office and 12,000 square feet less retail than analyzed in the 2000 ECREIR. All these factors reduce the noise impacts of the Project from that analyzed and envisioned in the 2000 ECREIR. The 1993 ECREIR identified and the 2000 ECREIR restated compliance with Title 24 noise mitigation standards, compliance with the City's Noise Ordinance, and compliance with typical noise attenuation requirements as mitigation measures for noise impacts. The noise mitigation measures are identified on page 5.3-23 of the 2000 ECREIR and include limiting noise-generating construction activities to the hours stipulated by the Noise Ordinance (Note: This is required by law as part of the Project and not a mitigation measure, per se.); muffling and maintenance of equipment; prohibiting unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines; maximum separation of stationary noise sources from sensitive receptors; using lower noise emitting equipment and muffling equipment; notification of neighbors within 1,000 feet of the construction site and designating a "noise disturbance coordinator" (i.e., a representative of the City typically paid for by a developer pass-through agreement) that is responsible for responding to and enforcing the noise mitigations. Construction noise was identified as a significant and unavoidable impact and Findings of Overriding Considerations were adopted in 1993 and restated in 2000. Noise associated with the most noise intense portions of Project construction, site preparation, could reach 95 dBA, intermittently throughout an eight-hour work day. Noise attenuation from point sources, such as construction equipment, is six dBA per doubling distance. Therefore noise reaching the cemetery approximately 100 feet could reach 83 dB_A. Noise at the mixed use development west of the project could reach 89 dBA and noise to the residential uses north of the project could be 95 dBA. Noise to El Camino High School could reach 65 dBA at the parking and outdoor areas. These numbers are intermittent and not continuous external noise levels. PAGE 2-56 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY 341 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Interior noise levels would be approximately 20 to 25 dBA lower for buildings of newer construction with closed doors and windows. Residential and commercial development in the Project area was constructed post 2000. Therefore, noise attenuation provided by the building envelope is assumed to range from 20 to 25 dBA. Maximum noise levels for the residential building north of the Project could be 70 -75 dBA. Development west of the Project could be 59 -64 dBA. The classrooms of the high school could be reduced 20 dB due to building attenuation. Although annoying at times, the noise levels would not represent a health risk set by the USEPA (70 dBA, Leq exposure 365 and 24 -hour a day). During later phases of Project construction the shell of the building would further attenuate noise to surrounding land uses. The attenuation afforded by the building would further reduce noise impacts. Construction related noise would be considered no impact over that identified in 1993 and 2000 environmental documents; noise associated with grading operations would be annoying but would not pose a health risk as identified by the USEPA. The mitigation measures required as part of the 1993 and 2000 environmental documents would reduce noise exposure and prepare residents to the north and west for a brief construction period thus allaying some annoyance. Project Operational Noise The operation of a Project could increase ambient noise levels in two ways, through the creation of additional traffic on local roadways and the operation of exterior mechanical equipment. Mechanical equipment shall be shielded as a result of Design Review Board and staff review and requirements i.e., as a matter of law). Typically, traffic volumes need to double in order to result in a barely 'perceptible increase in noise levels (i.e., 3 -5 dB). The Project would add approximately 181 average daily trips to the traffic stream (Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Rates, 7t Edition). The El Camino Real /McLellan intersection supports 25,000 ADT. The Project would not result in a doubling of traffic volumes and as such would not add audibly to the noise environment. Moreover, as noted above, the reduced size of the Project would reduce noise in the Project area beyond that envisioned in the 2000 ECREIR. The Project, as a matter of law, is required to comply with Title 24 noise insulation standards. Noise levels in habitable rooms trust be designed to 45 dBA. Title 24 requirements as a part of the building permit process would reduce interior ambient noise in the residential portion of the Project to 45 dBA, CNEL. The Project is within the 60 to 65 dBA, CNFT, noise contour (Figure 9 -2, Projected Road and Rail Noise, General Plan, page 283) which is under the 65 dBA, CNEL standard for residential and 70 dBA standard for commercial land uses. The Project is in compliance with the General Plan standards for noise. Operational noise impacts are considered to be less than significant for residential and commercial land uses and construction impacts are considered no impact beyond that identified in the 1993 and 2000 environmental documents. 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2 -57 342 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST e) and f) Aircraft Noise Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were 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) or in the vicinity of a private airstrip and were to expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels. The Project site is four miles from San Francisco International Airport and not within the 65 dBA, CNEL noise contour identified on Figure 9 -1, Aircraft Noise and Noise Insulation Program Area, General Plan, page 279). The Project site is also not within the 65 dBA, CNEL identified by the FAA as requisite for special insulation features to mitigate aircraft noise sources (Figure 9 -3, Potential infzll Residential Areas Relative to Noise Contours, General Plan, page 288). The Project, based on the City's land use criteria would not result in no impactwith respect to aircraft noise. Finding: Construction and grading related noise would be considered no impact beyond that identified in the 1993 and 2000 environmental documents. Construction noise was identified in the 2000 ECREIR as a significant unavoidable impact. The City adopted Findings of Overriding Considerations. Noise associated with grading operations would be annoying but would not pose a health risk as identified by the USEPA. The mitigation measures required as part of the 1993 and 2000 environmental documents would reduce noise exposure some, and prepare residents to the north and west for a brief construction period thus allaying some annoyance. The building envelope of the Project, during construction, would reduce noise impacts further than those identified in this analysis. The reduced size of the Project site and proposed construction would further reduce noise impacts beyond those identified in the 2000 ECREIR. The Project would have no impact with respect to aircraft noise as it is outside the aircraft impact zone of 65 plus dBA, CNEL. The Project would not double traffic volumes in the Project area and as such would not increase noise levels associated with operational use. PAGE 2 -58 1309 MISSION ROAD- INITIAL STUDY 343 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 2.12 POPULATION AND HOUSING Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the Project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,x either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing x housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people,x necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? SETTING The Project proposes a land use and development density that is consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning, the El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan and the Transit Village plan as noted above in Section 3.9 Land Use andPlanning, above. IMPACTS a) Population Growth Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to induce either directly of indirectly substantial population growth. The Project proposes 5,200 square feet of retail and 20 condominium units. The ECRRP amendment envisioned 21 units of housing and 18,400 square feet of office and 18,400 square feet of retail. The Project would result in less growth but would fit within growth assumptions identified in the planning documents. The Project's would have no impact on population growth. b and c) Displacement of Housing or People Signance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it would result in the displacement of substantial numbers of existing housing units or people living at the Project site. There are no residential units on the project site. The Project would not require the displacement of any existing residential units or persons living on -site and therefore would have no impact on the displacement of housing or people. 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2 -59 344 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Finding: The Project would not exceed the development and growth assumptions contained in General Plan, ECCRP or the TVP. The Project site does is vacant and would not displace housing units or residents. 2.13 PUBLIC SERVICES Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination ofEnvironmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No impact Mitigation Impact Impact XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES — a) Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection?X ii) Police protection?X iii) Schools?X iv) Parks?X v) Other public facilities?X SETTING The Project proposed a land use and development density that is consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning, El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan and Transit Village Plan as noted above in Section 3.9Land Use and Planning IMPACTS i -iv) Public Services Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection, police protection, schools, parks and recreational facilities, or other government facilities. As described above, in Section 3.9 Land Use and Planning and Section 3.12 Population and Housing, the Project would not increase the City of South San Francisco's population beyond the population projections contained in these plans. The Project would be developed in an area PAGE 2 -60 1309 MISSION ROAD- INITIAL STUDY 345 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION planned, used and zoned for mixed use residential and commercial land use and within thedevelopmentdensityenvisionedbytheseplanningdocumentsforresidentialuseandunderthe commercial density envisioned by these planning documents and their accompanying environmentaldocuments. No significant increase in the demand for public services would be expected with noincreaseinpopulation. The Project would result in no impact associated with public services. Finding: The Project would not exceed the development and growth assumptions contained in theGeneralPlan, TVP and ECRRP. School impact fees are collected by the City's Building Divisionbaseduponthesquarefootageofresidentialandcommercialconstruction. These fees are used bytheschooldistrictsforschoolservices. Development of the Project site would not increase thedemandforpublicservicesindividuallyorcumulatively. 2.14 RECREATION Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination ofEnvironmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact ImpactXIV. RECREATION — a) Would the Project increase the use of existingneighborhoodandregionalparksorother X recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the Project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of X recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? SETTING The Project proposes a land use and development density that is consistent with the City's GeneralPlanandZoning, as noted above in Section 3.9 Land Use and Planning and Section 3.12PopulationandHousing, above. IMPACTS a and b) Recreation. Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in an increase in the use of existing parks or recreational facilities such that substantial physicaldeteriorationofthesefacilitiescouldbeanticipated, or if it Ns ere to include recreational facilities, theconstructionofwhichmighthaveadversephysicaleffectsontheenvironment. Parks and recreational needs within the City are identified from the development assumptionscontainedintheSouthSanFranciscoGeneralPlan. Centennial Way a linear park above Colma 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2 -61 346 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Creek was constructed in the Project area extending from the City's southern boundary the BART station, just across the street from the Project. The Project is required by law to comply with the City's Quimby Act ordinance with respect to paying in -lieu fees for recreational purposes. The fee structure is based upon population per household as derived from the California Department of Finance and site acreage, and.is a required condition of subdivision approval. The Project's impact on recreation facility demand or construction would be less than significant as a result of the City's plans for park maintenance which is funded in part by in -lieu fees. The Project's in -lieu fee would be used for park and recreation maintenance and construction. Finding: Parks and recreational needs within the City are derived from the development assumptions contained in the South San Francisco General Plan. The Project is proposing development consistent with the General Plan and is required by law to pay Quimby Act fees for park and recreation development and maintenance. Therefore, the Project would not result in an individual or cumulatively considerable impact on parks and recreation. PAGE 2 -62 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY 347 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 2.15 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentialy Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact ImpactXV. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC — Would the Project: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial xinrelationtotheexistingtrafficloadandcapacity 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)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a x level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,xincludingeitheranincreaseintrafficlevelsora change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design xfeature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access?x f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?x g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or x programs supporting alternative transportation e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? SETTING The Project site is at the corner of Mission Road and McLellan Drive. Access to the site is derived from Mission Road, McLellan Drive, Hickey Boulevard and. El Camino Real. The South San Francisco BART station, public transit, is directly across from the Project site. The 2000 ECREIR describes the local and regional roadway system in detail. The 2000 ECREIR did not identify- anysignificantunavoidableimpactswithrespecttoredevelopmentplanbuild -out. IMPACTS a and b) Increase in Traffic in Relation to Existing Traffic Load and Street System Capacity Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2 -63 348 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST The Project would result in 12,200 square feet less retail development and 18,000 square feet less office development than envisioned and analyzed in the 2000 ECREIR. The reduction in squarefootageaccordinglytranslatestolessaveragedailyvehicletrips (AD I). Using the ITE standards identified in Section 2, Air Quality, approximately 306 less ADT's would be generated by theProjectfromthatanalyzedin2000. As a result, the Project would have no impact on local road networks beyond that identified in the 2000 ECREIR. Moreover, as identified in Chapter 1, Section 1.1, improvements to the circulation network have been constructed. The improvements provide for better vehicular and pedestrian movement in the Project area. The improvements include: Hickey Boulevard extension; Restriping of Hickey Boulevard at Tunipero Serra approach for an exclusive left turn lane, exclusive through lane, and a shared through /right turn lane; modification of east /west signal for an exclusive left turn lane; Widening the southbound El Camino Real approach for an exclusive right turn lane at the El Camino Real /Westborough Boulevard /Chestnut Avenue intersection; Fair share fee collection during entitlement review and approval (levied as a condition of approval) for the future signalization of Mission Road /Evergreen /Bart Access Road; BART Road construction; and McLellan Drive construction. The South San Francisco BART station has been constructed, and Centennial Way Trail (2.85 miles) from San Bruno BART Station to South San Francisco BART Station has been constructed. c) Alter Air Traffic Patterns Signficance Criteria: The Project would have a significant effect if it were to result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks Air Navigation 1lazards are discussed in Section 3.7: Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The Project would not alter any air traffic patterns that are already in place and, consistent with the previous discussion, the Project would have no impact. d) Hazards Due to Design Features or Incompatible Uses Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant effect if it were to increase traffic hazards due to its design or the introduction of incompatible traffic. Traffic patterns and circulation on the site would remain predominately as they currently exist.Currently, there are 12 parallel parking spaces along the McLellan Drive frontage. The Project would replace the parallel parking spaces with 6 angled parking spaces and the entrance to the podium parking. Pedestrian access would be improved off (BART, bicycle, pedestrian). The Project would have no impactwith respect to incompatible land uses. PAGE 2 -64 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY 349 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION e) Emergency Access Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant effect if it were to have inadequateemergencyaccess. The Project would keep the existing site access pattern off of McLellan Drive, and would not changetheemergencyvehicleaccesstotheProjectsite. Representatives from both the Police and FireDepartments (though entitlement review) have reviewed the Project and have not identified impactsassociatedwithemergencyvehicleaccess. The Project would have no impact on emergency vehicleaccess. f) Parking Significance Criteria: The Project would have significant effect if it would result in an inadequateamountofparkingbeingavailable. For residential units, the T`' -RH district requires a minimum of one and a maximum of 1.75 parkingspacesperresidentialunit, with the required amount dependant on access to transit facilities.SSFMC Table 20.250.004(N)) The Project would have 26 parking spaces for residential tenants onthebottomparkinglevel, within the range required for residential units. For commercial units, the T V RH district requires one parking space per 300 square feet of area.SSFMC Table 20.250.004(N)) On- street parking can be counted toward the parking requirements,and the number of required parking spaces may be reduced up to 25 percent with approval of a UsePermit (Section 20.250.004.N.2 -3.) The Project would have approximately 5,000 square feet ofcommercialspace, which would require a total of 17 parking spaces. The Project would providenineon -site parking spaces on the ground floor and six on- street parking spaces along the projectfrontage, resulting in a total of 15 parking spaces for commercial use. The Project, which includes a request for a reduction in the number of commercial parking spacesrequired, would conform to the zoning ordinance standards and have no impact with respect toparking. g) Alternative Transportation Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant effect if it were to conflict u;ith adoptedpolicies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation. (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks). The Project implements the TVP to encourage the use of public transit by being located withinwalkingdistanceoftheBARTstation, by providing less parking on site as stipulated in the TVP andbyprovidingpedestrianpathwaysandbicycleparkingandsecurity. The project would have noimpactonalternativetransportationgoalsandimplementationofthosegoals, Finding: The Project would result in less ADT's than envisioned in the 2000 ECREIR. TheProjectwouldnotresultinintroducinghazardstodesignfeaturesorincompatiblelanduses. TheProjectwouldnotalterairtrafficpatternsorimpacttheemergencyaccesstothesite. The Projectwouldnotresultinparkingimpacts. 1309 MISSION ROAD- INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2 -65 350 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2.16 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Environmental Factors and Focused questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination of Environmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS — Would the Impact — Mitigation Impact Impact Project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements oftheapplicableRegionalWaterQualityControl X Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project from existing entitlements and x resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve x the Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the Project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted xcapacitytoaccommodatetheProject's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? SETTING Utility requirements resulting from Project site buildout were analyzed in the 2000 ECREIR. TheProjectproposesapproximately18,400 square feet less office and 1.2,200 square feet less commercialthanenvisionedandanalyzedin2000. Moreover, in the ECRRP area, approximately 305,000 squarefeetlessretailand189,400 square feet less office has been constructed than envisioned. PAGE 2 -66 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY 351 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IMPACTS a) Regional Wastewater Treatment Standards Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control BoardRWQCB). The City's storm drain outfalls operate under NPDES permits granted by the RWQCB. The SouthSanFranciscoMunicipal. Code (Tide 14) contains regulations related to stormwater management.As identified in Chapter 1.3.4 as a matter of law, projects are required to implement BMP's andcomplywithSWPPPregulations. The 2000 ECREIR identified the need to upgrade stormwater infrastructure in the Project area.Stormwater and wastewater lines were upgraded along Mission Road, McLellan Drive and ElCaminoRealasapartoftheBARTstationconstruction (Sarn Bautista, Senior City Engineer, June2010). The Project would have no impact related to an exceedance of wastewater treatment requirementsoftheRWQCB. b and e) Water and Wastewater Treatment Facilities Significance Criteria The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in adeterminationbythewastewatertreatmentproviderwhichmayservetheProjectthatithasinadequatecapacitytoservetheProject's projected demand in addition to the provider's existingcommitments. All wastewater produced within the City of South San Francisco is treated at the City's WaterQualityControlPlant (WQCP), which is located at the end of Belle Air Road, near the edge of SanFranciscoBay. The WQCP is jointly owned by the Cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno,and it treats all wastewater generated within the two cities. The WQCP also has contracts to treat most of the wastewater produced by the City of Colma and a portion of the wastewater produced bytheCityofDalyCity. Wastewater The City's Water Quality Control Plant (WQCP) was upgraded in 2000 -01 since the certification of the 2000 ECREIR. The City of South San Francisco has a current allocation of 8.74 million gallonperday (MGD) and is currently generating 5.6 MGD. The capacity allocated to the City of SouthSanFranciscoisbaseduponthegrowthprojectionsidentifiedintheCity's General Plan, TVP and the ECRRP. The Project, as a condition of approval, would be required to pay a pro rata, fair sharesewerimprovementfeetocoverthecostsofthewastewaterimprovements. 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2 -67 352 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST The 2000 ECREIR identified the need to upgrade the WQCP and the plant was upgraded in the lastquarterof2000. The Project would generate less wastewater than envisioned and planned for in the2000ECREIR, as the Project proposes 18,400 square feet less office and 12,200 square feet lessretaildevelopment. The Project would have no Impactwith respect to wastewater treatment. Water See discussion under d, below. c) Storm Water Drainage Facilities Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to requireorresultintheconstructionofnewstormwaterdrainagefacilitiesorintheexpansionofexistingfacilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. The Project would connect into the stormwater facilities previously upgraded and located in Mission Road and McLellan Drive. On site trenching would occur to :install lines to connect to existingfacilities. The Project would have no impact beyond that analyzed in the 2000 ECREIR with respect to increased storm water runoff or the building or expansion of new storm water drainagefacilities. d) Water Supply Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to requireadditionalwatersupplybeyondthatavailablefromexistingentitlementsandresources. Senate Bill 610 (SB 610) was adopted in 2001 and became effective January 1, 2002. SB 610 requires cities toconsiderwatersupplyassessmentstodeterminewhetherprojectedwatersuppliescanmeeta project's water demand. SB 610 and the CEQA Guidelines (Section 15083.5) identify residential projects _generally exceeding 500 units and commercial or industrial projects employing more than1,000 persons as potential impact thresholds. Potable water is provided for the City of South San Francisco and much of San Mateo County bytheCaliforniaWaterServiceCompany (C\X'SC), which purchases most of its supply from the San Francisco Water Department (SFWD). CWSC drafted and adopted an Urban Water ManagementPlan (UWMP) in 2006. The UWMP was established in accordance with the California Urban Water Management Planning Act, (Division 6 Part 2.6 of the Water Code, Section 10610 - 10656). Water Code Section 10910 subd. (c)(2), Government Code, Section 66473.7, subd. (c)(1) notes that it is acceptable to use the most recently adopted UWMP to assess water supply in accordance with the California Urban Water Management Planning Act and SB 610. The Project would have a less than significant impact and arguably no impact on other water resources as it would not meet the impact thresholds identified above, and because the UWMP was based upon the development scenario for the site that includes 18,400 square feet of retail and 18,400 square feet of office land use. A new water assessment would not be required for the Project PAGE 2 -68 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY 353 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION as the Project would not exceed the development assumptions contained in the ECCRP and theLWMP. The Project would not result in a cumulative impact with respect to water usage. The UWMPprojectsandaccountsfortheSouthSanFranciscoserviceareawithintheCWSCjurisdiction. Theprojected2010populationis57,977 which includes the 2,410 additional persons anticipated as aresultoflanduseintensificationidentifiedintheS /ECRGPA discussed in Chapter 1. f) and g) Solid Waste Signfcance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to be servedbyalandfillwithinadequatepermittedcapacitytoaccommodatetheProject's solid waste disposalneeds, or if it were to fail to fully comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations relatedtosolidwaste. The Building Division, as a requirement of a demolition permit, requires the recycling and / or reuseofdemolitionmaterials (Jim Kirkman, Chief Building Inspector. June 2010). Project plans arerequiredbylawtoincluderecyclingareasonthebuildingpermitdrawings. The Project wouldgeneratelesssolidwastethanenvisionedinthe2000ECREIR. Construction and operation of theProjectwouldgeneratealessthansignificantamountofsolidwaste, and operation of the Projectwouldbeinfullcompliancewithallfederal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solidwaste. Finding: The City's wastewater treatment plant was upgraded in 2000 -01 and has adequate capacitytotreatProjectwastes. The Project as a matter of law would be required to pay wastewaterimprovementfees. The UWMP was adopted in 2006 and adequate water is available for the Project.New construction will be regulated by BMPs, an improvement over existing conditions. The Projectwouldnotcontributeindividuallyorcumulativelytowater, wastewater, stormwater and utilityimpacts. 1309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2 - 69 354 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2.17 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Environmental Factors and Focused Questions for Potentially Less Than Less Than Determination ofEnvironmental Impact Significant Significant with Significant No XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE — Impact Mitigation Impact Impact a) Does the Project have the potential to degrade Xthequalityoftheenvironment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the Project have impacts that are Xindividuallylimited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable' means that the incremental effects of a Project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past Projects, the effects of other current Projects, and the effects of probable future Projects.) c) Does the Project have environmental effects,Xwhichwillcausesubstantialadverseeffectson human beings, either directly or indirectly? a) Quality of the Environment Impacts of the Project are considered to be less than significant with measures that are required bylaw Implementation of the Project would not degrade the quality and extent of theenvironmentprovidedallpolicies, rules and regulations of all relevant governing bodies areadheredto, and the measures contained within this chapter are implemented. b) Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts of the Project are considered to be less than ,sigh &cant. As discussed in the preceding sections of this checklist, implementation of the Project would not cumulativelyimpacttheenvironmentprovidedallpolicies, rules and regulations of all relevant governingbodiesareadheredto, and the measures contained within this chapter are implemented. c) Adverse Effects on IIurnan Beings The Project would not have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Noise, air quality, and traffic impacts on adjacentlandusesarelessthansignificantTheProjectwouldnotexposepeopletonewhazardssuch PAGE 2 -70 1 309 MISSION ROAD— INITIAL STUDY 355 CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION as geologic risks, flooding, or airport hazards. There would be no other adverse effects onhumanbeings. 1309 MISSION ROAD — INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2 -71 356 CHAPTER 3 FINDINGS SUMMARY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 3.1 FINDINGS Aesthetics The Project would not have an impact on the aesthetics or scenic quality on the Project site or intheProjectarea. There would be no individual or cumulative impacts with respect to aestheticorvisualqualityassociatedwiththeproject. The Project would not exceed the height limitsposedforsafetyconcernsbytheALUCandat35to50feetwouldbecomparabletoadjacentdevelopmentwhichreaches55feetinheightforadesignfeature. The Project would not resultinimpactsbeyondthoseidentifiedinthe2000ECREIRandnonewmitigationisrequired. Agriculture The Project would not adversely affect any existing agricultural operations. The Project site isnotplannedorzonedforagriculturaluseandisnotinagriculturaluse. The 2000 ECREIR did not identify any agricultural uses or impacts associated with development on the Project site.The Project would not impact agricultural resources individually or cumulatively. Air Quality The Project would not result in a significant impact to air quality and would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria non - attainment pollutants (ozone precursorsandPM -10). The 2000 ECREIR did not identify any significant unavoidable impacts associatedwithairquality. This Initial Study does not identify any new or intensified project relatedimpacts. The project would not result in an impact or contribute to a cumulative impact to airqualitywithrespecttoGGEandGCC. The City's building permit procedure captures theBAAQh1Dpermittingregulations, as well as dust control measures. No mitigation measures,above those required by the City as a matter of law, are identified in this Initial Study. Biology The Project would not result in a significant impact or significant unavoidable impact tobiologicalresourcesindividuallyorcumulatively. The Project is not located on ecologicallysensitivelands, does not contain habitat and would have no impact on General Plan policies orordinancesprotectingbiologicalresources. Cultural Resources The Project is located on a previously graded parcel and in a developed area. There are nohistoric, archaeological or paleontological resources or human remains located on the Projectsiteorwithin1.0 miles of the Project site based upon existing data including literature searches,soil borings taken to a depth of 34 feet and grading. The Project would have a no impact onculturalresources. 1309 MISSION ROAD — ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION PAGE 3 -1 357 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Geology and Soils The Project site is not underlain by an earthquake fault and as such the potential for groundruptureisverylow. Conformance with the 2007 California Building Code would reduce seismic shaking impacts to less than significant. The site soils are not expansive with a Plasticity Indexof15. Site soils and are considered low impact with respect liquefaction. Subsidence would be approximately 0.1 inch which is considered low. The Project would not be connected to a septic system and as such would not contribute to ground failure. The site is flat and not subject tolandsliding. Hazards and Hazardous Materials The Project site is appropriate for mixed use residential and commercial land use. The Projectwouldnotintroduceafire, safety or hazardous materials risk into the area beyond that normallyanticipatedwithmixeduseresidentialandcommerciallanduse; would not expose a school totheriskfromhazardousmaterials; and would not result in an impact or contribute to acumulativeimpactfromhazardousmaterialsexposure. The Project would not impedeemergencyresponse. Hydrology and Water Quality The City's standard conditions of approval which implement state, federal and local regulationsarerequiredbylawandareadequatetoaddressanypotentialwaterqualityimpactsasaresultof project construction or occupation. No mitigation measures, above those required by the City as a matter of law, are identified in this Initial Study. The Project would not result in an impactorcontributetoacumulativeimpacttohydrologyorwaterqualityresources. Moreover, the Colrna Creek flood improvement and channelization project was completed by the City in 2005, subsequent to the 2000 ECREIR. The channelization improved safety from flooding in theProjectarea. Land Use and Zoning The Project would not physically divide an established community. The site is currentlydesignatedformixeduseandthesurroundinglandusesaremixeduseresidential, commercialandtransit. The Project would not result in any individually or cumulatively considerableimpacts. Mineral Resources The Project site does not contain any local or regionally significant mineral resources. The Project would not result in an impact or contribute to a cumulative impact to mineral resources. Noise Construction and grading related noise would be considered no impact beyond that identified in the 1993 and 2000 environmental documents. Construction noise was identified in the 2000 PAGE 3 -2 1309 MISSION ROAD— ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 358 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ECREIR as a significant unavoidable impact. The City adopted Findings of ON erridingConsiderations. Noise associated with grading operations would be annoying but would not pose a health risk as identified by the USEPA. The mitigation measures required as part of the1993and2000environmentaldocumentswouldreducenoiseexposuresome, and prepareresidentstothenorthandwestforabriefconstructionperiodthusallayingsomeannoyance.The building envelope of the Project, during construction, would reduce noise impacts furtherthanthoseidentifiedinthisanalysis. The reduced size of the Project site and proposedconstructionwouldfurtherreducenoiseimpactsbeyondthoseidentifiedinthe2000ECREIR The Project would have no impact with respect to aircraft: noise as it is outside the aircraftimpactzoneof65plusdBA, CNFT . The Project would not double traffic volumes in the Project area and as such would not increase noise levels associated with operational use. Population and Housing The Project would not exceed the development and growth assumptions contained in the General Plan, ECCRP or the TVP. The Project site is vacant and would not displace housingunitsorresidents. Public Services The Project would not exceed the development and growth assumptions contained in theGeneralPlan, TVP and ECRRP. School impact fees are collected by the City's BuildingDivisionbaseduponthesquarefootageofresidentialandcommercialconstruction. These fees are used by the school districts for school services. Development of the Project site would notincreasethedemandforpublicservicesindividuallyorcumulatively_ Recreation Parks and recreational needs within the City are derived from the development assumptionscontainedintheSouthSanFranciscoGeneralPlan. The Project is proposing developmentconsistentwiththeGeneralPlanandisrequiredbylawtopayQuimbyActfeesforparkandrecreationdevelopmentandmaintenance. Therefore, the Project would not result in an individual or cumulatively considerable impact on parks and recreation. Traffic and Transportation The Project would result in less ADT's than envisioned in the 2000 ECREIR. The Projectwouldnotresultinintroducinghazardstodesignfeaturesorincompatiblelanduses. TheProjectwouldnotalterairtrafficpatternsorimpacttheemergencyaccesstothesite. The Project would not result in parking impacts. Utilities and Service Systems The City's wastewater treatment plant was upgraded in 2000 -01 and has adequate capacity totreatProjectwastes. The Project as a matter of law would be required to pay wastewaterimprovementfees. The UWNIP was adopted in 2006 and adequate water is available for the 1309 MISSION ROAD — ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION PAGE 3 -3 359 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Project. New construction will be regulated by BMPs, an improvement over existing conditions.The Project would not 3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION I find that the Project impacts are equal to or less than the impacts and mitigation measures identified in the 2000 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (2000ECREIR) and the 1993 Environmental Impact Report and that the adopted MitigationMonitoringandReportingProgram (2000) shall be restated and re- adopted along withthis2010InitialStudyasanAddendumtothe2000ECREIR. This finding is based upontherequirementsofSection15164, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3 wherein anAddendummaybepreparedifsomechangesoradditionsarenecessarytoapreviouslycertifiedEIRandnoneoftheconditionsidentifiedinSection15162haveoccurred. I find that pursuanttoSection15161thereareno: 1) Substantial changes in the project that will require major revisions to the previous EIR duetotheinvolvementofnewsignificantenvironmentaleffectsorasubstantialincreaseintheseverityofpreviouslyidentifiedsignificanteffects. 2) Substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project will beundertakenwhichwillrequiremajorrevisionstothepreviousEIRduetonewsignificantenvironmentaleffectsorasubstantialincreaseintheseverityofpreviouslyidentifiedsignificanteffects. And that there is no: 3) New information of substantial importance that has become available and was not known atthetimeofthepreviousEIR's that would result in one or more significant effects notidentifiedpreviously, significant effects that would be substantially more severe thanidentifiedinthepreviousEIR, mitigation measures or alternatives previously found notfeasibleorconsiderablydifferentfromonesidentifiedbeforeandwouldsubstantiallyreducetheeffectsoftheprojectaredeclinedb3theprojectapplicant. Signature Date Susy Kalkin, Chief Planner PAGE 3 -4 1309 MISSION ROAD— ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 360 Exhibit B MMRP 361 fV a F 4 4 s r i a y C a.N E N N . . a y/ L1 -yc S Ts c L4. E n i trw*C CL' e- 7 ,. C..k 0 Xr.4.7.45 S N JD 5 OC Eli. 3 , a3sa M !Y a 0. iii ... i F , t' w , Eig 1 a tg G m`J f 16 FG g 0.0 a 2 Z ECG it g.. 3 5 S , uzs ° c > wg z „5 ag< Fi S a.a Ada 1 E i• .v PO 1.I r i it t;a V al 3 t c,-,M1 y b G 5 . 0 U je w 362 Y L g f ll 1 t4-r7-41 Li. f A s eltg aa ti Lii. EQ M r 'ha taiia-"? ar i i t c.i a: a }.y L',1 bo r4 4;,111 cco Et,, t fa a0.R tt r .*C d C e . y E - u ¢ w F i EL' tn ljHuuhI tJ RL a w A '2, i S• l's IS iejI. m 363 1 F T T • yr .Y•. M Oii . 0 N E "w nc c c A rt_ c3 c/. 1.E 1 P IL o 0.3 0 N4 0 v E Ei t.C....V A• 2, Q 2 E bo. 2 = — -g '-` ri, a tr psmk . E . TicaflJ22 v E '0 L 1idic s 7I 0-;c" c., Z t 2 2 t Go tc 4.—c At 2 s '2 0..— mg . " 4 7 21i , 3'2.E r. rip Ee g 6 C "4 Cl G Op E' °fir 0 . WQ y...,y o2C_ D fix 14 *, Oin o., a o d.4:. 3 c id c . - a > ' '• ,da a E a a 1 b e . "•V dEV5fa°o°o a t t i ,c 364 e :i23T.-3 h yi ' „ ai i t k r..ti T I .o 141J 151 21 8. 1 G 14.. • c,w a or. g d.t 2 i i i S9.I 2.i: iC C 1p O q -1gviAsE I 1 i f:9 1 I 1 i1 iI!: : .:g i 1 z, 5 s g241 ^ i1;76 tty C y LGC E c` C m 1 .P=To 1 i E 1.. roul 2 Q. p. cx804 off ag I pt v 3q - r 3 R v...:i Eg3 0 ig t.,...., ; uy (fi g a o o U 7 7) .5 <a gU LI m 365 7i Gb 1G r0.w 2 ; 10:4 04LJNt 1 " x -4 t x Al z4t Iku a a m.'" r - 5i1121 g7 I. l 17vgliii214 t,. t-rtf t, v gal i Nit' el/ t UIS 3 i E l T .,:t5. , ,r. 1, f t..., 191gIn ' tkil 4tim I kt s 1 !11 . a A 411 g e 2 Er t 0 x r-:, 4 i 1 E w i Vf d: a - 1 1ti. t e jjj .....Iv! I 1,1a.;,i c ill 366 Fll 1 „.... ;i1 a i 7 . I I. • t".0.. Z. 11 tsrcg at 81.1•42"8r1s- a g1c r x 2 s., E ft III; 2PtcSEtrE = t V - 2F:. se , g...---r, kr- z.1 gi A Ts td ,, , , 3ft 2Jt ' 0 . , " E 2 t i E cg.- 0 .1 g1billtk-14.F c ,*- a' TA,Z ei c Po / ! i g 1EEerU .. 7 - 1 i giv ii-r cr.. *El E..11 is g r a---EaCirgrili_..—zg 5.s s v.t.ie glcea1tg;1,E 7...2 E :,-G 1 tat 4 Z5 t E C It:1 C — te ;••c2,..2 ,‘, .... .... X1,2 1 k •1 e.' al 7.= t r 5 7C= . f: 8 bi 41 ;,...., , c , 4:2 d 4 m 8 1 XA" 14V to . S 2 I 4 c 1 7 i 2 Z tv e " . ' . . 4 i Z " . " C . Erk t t..g .I.?; t lix 2i t tit E ta0 g i 77-Ntz.!filkatt92ait-E • e E t ecel . A O U - 7 • a 15.'4'1 Il 8 SIY iiiiI-- ..g i E 7 I , ..1 •1 V 1a V C ..3 mea.0.11../ anmow.Ei!— 367 f 74., r. 2,1i .,„ lei 27rP rils lie sueI . mi 1a. 1Z' K • - itk`na Pt 1 1 1 P N 1 c 6i. 2 1 U j 368 Exhibit C Statement of Overriding Considerations 369 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 1. General. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15093, in development of a mixed -useprojectforthe1309Missionproperty, as described in more detail below, pursuant to anAddendumtothe2000SupplementalEnvironmentalImpactReportforthe2000ElCaminoCorridorRedevelopmentPlanAmendment ( "2000" SEIR), the City Council of the City of SouthSanFranciscoadoptsthisStatementofOverridingConsiderationsforthoseimpactsidentifiedassignificantandunavoidableinthe2000SEIR. (Resolution No.The City Council hascarefullyconsideredeachimpactinreachingitsdecisiontoapprovetheProject (as definedbelow). The proposed development consists of construction of a four -story mixed -use residentialandcommercialdevelopment, consisting of 20 residential condominiums above approximately5,200 square feet of ground -floor commercial space and 35 on -site and six on- street parkingspaces ( "Project ") on an approximately 17,582 square foot (0.41 acre) site, which is currentlyvacant, located at the northwest comer of McLellan Drive and Mission Road ( "Project Site ").Approval of the Project requires approval of Zoning Amendments, Use Permit, Design Review,Tentative Subdivision Map, and an Affordable Housing Agreement for the Project. DevelopmentoftheProjectSitewasanalyzedinthe2000SEIR. Because the proposed Project included onlyminorchangestothedevelopmentanalyzedinthe2000SEIR, none of which would requirepreparationofasubsequentEIR, an Addendum was prepared for the proposed Project, analyzingthechangesandexplainingwhyasubsequentEIRwasnotrequiredunderCEQA. The 2000 SEIR identified significant and unavoidable impacts of the 2000 El CaminoCorridorRedevelopmentPlanAmendment; therefore, prior to certifying the 2000 SEIR, the CityCounciladoptedaStatementofOverridingConsiderations, in accordance with CEQA.Resolution No. 64- 2000.) To the extent that any of those significant and unavoidable impactscontinuetoapplytotheproposedProject, the City Council hereby adopts specific overridingconsiderationsfortheimpactslistedbelowthatareidentifiedinthe2000SEIRassignificantandunavoidable. The City Council believes, as it did at the time it certified the 2000 SEIR, that all oftheunavoidableenvironmentaleffectsidentifiedinthe2000SEIRwillbesubstantiallylessenedbymitigationmeasuresandpoliciesadoptedwiththePlanAmendment. Even with thesepolicies, however, the City Council recognized and continued to recognize that theimplementationcarrieswithitunavoidableadverseenvironmentaleffectsasidentifiedintheEIR. The City Council specifically finds that to the extent the identified adverse or potentiallyadverseimpactshavenotbeenmitigatedtoacceptablelevels, there are specific economic, social,environmental, land use, and other considerations that support approval of the Amendment. 2. Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts. The following significant andunavoidableenvironmentalimpactshavebeenidentifiedinthe2000SE1R: IMPACTS TO TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION: Under the Amended Redevelopment Plan significant level of service impacts would occur in the AM peak hour atAvalonDrive / I -280 Southbound Onramp, Evergreen Avenue/Hillside Boulevard intersection,and Chestnut Avenue/Commercial Avenue; and in the PM peak hour at Hickey 370 Boulevard/Junipero Serra Boulevard, El Camino Real/Westborough Boulevard/ChestnutAvenue, Evergreen Avenue/Hillside Boulevard intersection, and Chestnut Avenue/CommercialAvenue. IMPACTS ON TRAFFIC SAFETY: The Plan Amendment would result in some pedestriansafetyimpactsaswellassafetyimpactsrelatedtoexcessivespeedsalongEvergreenDriveandtheprovisionofdrivewaysalongMissionRoadOakAvenueandElCaminoReal. CONSTRUCTION NOISE IMPACTS: The Amendment would result in short-term impactsrelatedtoconstructionnoise. No new or increased impacts other than those studied in the 1993EIRwouldoccurundertheRedevelopmentPlanAmendment. NOISE IMPACTS: On -site noise levels along El Camino Real in the vicinity of proposedresidentialusescouldexceed65dB(A) CNEL; this would be a significant impact. The impactwasaddressedbythe1993EIRandnoneworincreasedimpactswouldresultfromthePlanAmendment. Single -event aircraft flyovers could result in excessive noise levels at newresidentialuseswithintheProjectArea. The impact would be significant but has been addressedbythe1993EIRandnoneworincreasedimpactswouldoccur. Cumulative traffic would resultinon -site noise impacts to future residential uses along El Camino Real. This cumulative impactwouldbesignificantbuthasbeenaddressedbythe1993EIRandnoneworincreasedimpactswouldoccur. IMPACTS ON REGIONAL AIR QUALITY: The proposed Redevelopment Plan AmendmentwouldcontributetowardanincreaseinVMTthatisgreaterthantheincreaseinpopulationandwouldnotbeconsistentwiththe1997CleanAirPlan. The Plan Amendment would potentiallyresultinadditionalemissions. FURTHER IMPACTS ON AIR QUALITY: Fugitive dust generated by construction anddemolitionactivitiesundertheproposedRedevelopmentPlanAmendmentcouldresultin healthandnuisance -type impacts in the immediate vicinity of individual construction sites. IMPACTS ON CULTURAL RESOURCES: Updated studies have indicated that archaeologicalresourcescouldbepresentontheCaliforniaWaterServiceCompanyandChestnutCreeksites.There is a proposed senior housing project and a fire station planned for those sites that mayimpacttheseresources. 3.Overriding Considerations. The City Council now balances the unavoidableimpactsthatapplytotheproposedProject, against its benefits, and hereby determines that suchunavoidableimpactsareoutweighedbythebenefitsoftheProject, for the reasons set forth below. The following specific economic, legal, social, technological, land use, and otherconsiderationssupportapprovaloftheProject: A. The Project will further implement the City's vision of El Camino Real as anurban, pedestrian- friendly, transit - oriented corridor for residents to live, work, shop, and play, 371 consistent with the City's support of the Grand Boulevard Initiative which encourages compactmixed -use development and high - quality urban design along El. Camino Real. B.The Project will make use of a currently vacant and underutilized parcel. C. The Project will provide additional affordable housing for the community. D. The Project will generate additional tax dollars for the City. 372 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:23-91 Agenda Date:2/2/2023 Version:1 Item #:3a. Resolution making findings and recommending that the City Council determine that the proposed Vesting Tentative Map for the mixed-use development located at 889 McLellan Drive in the T5 Corridor (T5C) Zoning District is covered by the 2000 SEIR Addendum and approve the map. WHEREAS,in 2011 the City of South San Francisco (“City”)adopted (1)Resolution No.43-2011 adopting the Addendum to the 2000 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the 2000 El Camino Real Redevelopment Plan Amendment (“Addendum to the 2000 SEIR”)and (2)Resolution No.44-2011 approving a use permit,design review,tentative subdivision map and an affordable housing agreement for the construction of a four-story mixed-use residential and commercial development,consisting of 20 residential condominiums above approximately 5,200 square feet of ground-floor commercial space and 35 on-site and six on-street parking spaces on an approximately 17,582 square foot (0.41 acre)site located at the northwest corner of McLellan Drive and Mission Road (“Mission/McLellan Project”); and WHEREAS,as described in further detail herein and in the accompanying staff report,the construction of the Mission/McLellan Project has been delayed multiple times due to financing difficulties and other setbacks,but is now fully under construction with an anticipated project completion date of 2023; and WHEREAS,the previously approved tentative subdivision map expired prior to a final map being recorded, and therefore the applicant has submitted an application seeking approval of an updated Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (SA19-0002) (Exhibit A) for the Mission/McLellan Project; and WHEREAS,approval of the applicant’s proposal is considered a “project”for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §21000, et seq.) (“CEQA”); and WHEREAS,in 2011 the City Council found that the Mission/McLellan Project is within the parameters analyzed within the Addendum to the 2000 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (Addendum to the 2000 SEIR) prepared for the 2000 El Camino Real Redevelopment Plan Amendment; and WHEREAS,the proposed Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map does not propose any modifications to the project,and is therefore found to continue to be consistent with the analysis included in the previously entitled projects,and its approval would not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified effects beyond those disclosed and analyzed in the Addendum to the 2000 SEIR approved by City Council,nor do the proposed modifications constitute a change in the Project or change in circumstances that would require additional environmental review; and City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/27/2023Page 1 of 4 powered by Legistar™373 File #:23-91 Agenda Date:2/2/2023 Version:1 Item #:3a. WHEREAS,the City Engineer has reviewed the proposed map and determined that it complies with applicable City Standards; and WHEREAS,Section 19.40.090 of the Municipal Code requires the Planning Commission to make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the approval or denial of the map and specifying the reasons for the recommendation and any related conditions for approval; and WHEREAS,the Subdivision Map Act,implemented through Title 19 of the Municipal Code,requires the City to deny approval of a tentative map if it makes certain adverse findings,such as consistency with the general plan,physical suitability of the subject site,or design of the subdivision resulting in environmental or public health harms; and WHEREAS,in this case,the tentative map conforms with applicable City standards,as described in the accompanying staff report, and there are no grounds to find that it should be denied; and WHEREAS,the Planning Commission held a lawfully noticed public hearing on February 2,2023,at which time interested parties had the opportunity to be heard,and to review the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map of the Mission/McLellan Project and supporting documents,prior to making its recommendation on the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map; and WHEREAS,the Planning Commission exercised its independent judgment and analysis,and considered all reports, recommendations and testimony before making a determination on the Project. NOW THEREFORE,based on the entirety of the record before it,which includes without limitation,the California Environmental Quality Act,Public Resources Code §21000,et seq.(“CEQA)and the CEQA Guidelines,14 California Code of Regulations §15000,et seq.;the South San Francisco General Plan,and General Plan Environmental Impact Report;the South San Francisco Municipal Code;the 2000 El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Amendment,and the 2000 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, including all attachments and technical reports thereto;the Addendum to the 2000 SEIR prepared for the Project;Application materials prepared by the applicant,dated submitted August 19,2019;Project plans prepared by Pacific Crest Surveying dated January 16,2023;all site plans,and all reports,minutes,and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission’s duly noticed February 2,2023 meeting;and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e)and §21082.2),the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco hereby finds as follows: SECTION 1 FINDINGS A. General Findings 1.The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution. City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/27/2023Page 2 of 4 powered by Legistar™374 File #:23-91 Agenda Date:2/2/2023 Version:1 Item #:3a. 2.The Exhibits attached to this Resolution, including the Tentative Subdivision Map (Exhibit A) and the Draft Conditions of Approval (Exhibit B) are each incorporated by reference and made a part of this Resolution, as if set forth fully herein. 3.The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco,315 Maple Avenue,South San Francisco,CA 94080, and in the custody of Chief Planner. B. Tentative Parcel Map 1.The proposed vesting tentative map is consistent with the analysis included in the already approved Addendum to the 2000 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report prepared for the 2000 El Camino Real Redevelopment Plan Amendment,and the approval of this vesting tentative map would not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified effects beyond those disclosed and analyzed in the Addendum to the 2000 SEIR approved by City Council,nor does the vesting tentative map constitute a change in the Project or change in circumstances that would require additional environmental review. 2.The proposed vesting tentative map,prepared by Pacific Crest Surveying and dated January 16,2023, including the proposed designs and improvements,is consistent with the City’s General Plan because the tentative map would facilitate the infill and development of a mixed-use residential project which would create additional residential units and retail uses in proximity to the South San Francisco BART station. 3.The proposed vesting tentative parcel map is consistent with the standards and requirements of the City’s Zoning Ordinance. 4.The vesting tentative parcel map complies and meets all the requirements of Title 19 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code (“Subdivisions”)and with the requirements of the State Subdivision Map Act. 5.The Project Site is physically suitable for the type of development and density proposed,as the mixed- use residential project will be located on a vacant parcel in proximity to the South San Francisco BART station,which is identified as having the potential for more housing production and increased daily services to serve new and existing residents in the El Camino Real Sub-Area of the General Plan. 6.The design and improvements of the vesting tentative parcel map are not in conflict with any existing public easements. 7.The property is located in a developed,urban setting,and is not subject to a Williamson Act contract,on open space easement,a conservation easement,or an agricultural conservation easement.The City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/27/2023Page 3 of 4 powered by Legistar™375 File #:23-91 Agenda Date:2/2/2023 Version:1 Item #:3a. open space easement,a conservation easement,or an agricultural conservation easement.The surrounding land uses and resulting parcels would not support agricultural uses;the resulting parcels would result in mixed-use development not incidental to commercial agricultural use of the land. SECTION 2 DETERMINATION NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco hereby makes the findings contained in this Resolution and recommends that the City Council determine that the proposed vesting tentative map is consistent with the analysis included in the Addendum to the 2000 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report prepared for the 2000 El Camino Real Redevelopment Plan Amendment and approve the entitlements request for a Tentative Subdivision Map at 889 McLellan /1309 Mission (P09-0002: SA19-0002) subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption. ******* 3578387.1 City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/27/2023Page 4 of 4 powered by Legistar™376 377 378 EXHIBIT B DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL P09-0002: SA19-0002 TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR 889 McLELLAN / 1309 MISSION (As recommend by City Staff on February 2, 2023) The Applicant/Project shall conform to all the conditions of approval identified in City Council Resolution 44-2011, as well as the additional conditions contained herein. A. Planning Division requirements shall be as follows: 1. The applicant shall comply with the City's Standard Conditions of Approval for Commercial, Industrial, Mixed-Use and Multi-Family Residential Projects and with all the requirements of all affected City Divisions and Departments as contained in the attached conditions, except as otherwise amended by the following conditions of approval. 2. The final subdivision map shall substantially comply with the approved plans prepared by Pacific Crest Surveying, dated January 16, 2023, as approved by the Planning Commission in association with SA19-0002, as amended by the conditions of approval. The final plans shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer and Chief Planner. (Planning Division contact: Billy Gross, 650-877-8535) B. Engineering Division requirements shall be as follows: Engineering General 1. The Developer shall reimburse the City for all costs to plan check and inspect the subject development in accordance with the City’s Master Fee Schedule. 2. The applicant is advised that any work to be performed within Mission Road may require the approval of the design and an encroachment permit from the Town of Colma, if the work to be performed will be accomplished within the Town limits. Engineering Permits 3. At the time of each permit submittal, the Applicant shall submit a deposit for each of the following permit reviews and processing: a. Building Permit plan check and civil review. Provide cost of on-site improvements for deposit amount calculation. 379 b. Hauling/Grading plan check and permit processing. Provide Cubic Yards for deposit amount calculation. c. Public Improvement plan check and permit processing. Provide cost of ROW improvements for deposit amount calculation. 4. A Grading Permit is required for grading over 50 cubic yards and if 50 cubic yards or more of soil is exported and/or imported. The Applicant shall pay all permit fees, as well as any deposits and/or bonds required to obtain said permits. The Grading Permit requires several documents to be submitted for the City’s review and approval. The City Requires that the Developer enter into an Inspection Agreement with the Geotechnical Consultant. The Grading Permit Application, Checklist and Requirements may be found on the City website at http://www.ssf.net/departments/public-works/engineering-division. 5. A Hauling Permit shall be required for excavations and off-haul or on-haul, per Engineering requirements; should hauling of earth occur prior to receiving a Grading Permit. Otherwise, hauling conditions would be included with the grading permit. Hauling Permit may be found on the City website. 6. The Applicant shall submit to the Engineering Division for review erosion and sediment control plans for both construction and post-construction activities, that will result in the filtering of storm water runoff from the site, so as to prevent silt, debris and toxic materials from being discharged, transported or blown from the site and entering adjacent public or private property, Mission Road, McClellan Drive or the public storm drain system. These documents shall be submitted prior to receiving a grading or building permit for the subject project. 7. The City of South San Francisco is mandated by the State of California to divert sixty- five percent (65%) of all solid waste from landfills either by reusing or recycling. To help meet this goal, a city ordinance requires completion of a Waste Management Plan (“WMP”) for covered building projects identifying how at least sixty-five percent (65%) of non-inert project waste materials and one hundred percent (100%) of inert materials (“65/100”) will be diverted from the landfill through recycling and salvage. The Contractor shall submit a WMP application and fee prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit. 8. An Encroachment Permit is required for any work proposed within the public right-of- way. The Applicant shall pay all permit, plan check, and inspection fees, as well as, any deposits and/or bonds required to obtain said permits. Engineering Submittals 380 9. Improvement plans shall be printed to PDF and combined into a single electronic file, with each being stamped and digitally signed by a Professional Engineer registered in the State of California. Incorporated within the construction plans shall be applicable franchise utility installation plans, stamped and signed and prepared by the proper authority. Plans shall include the following sheets: Cover, Separate Note Sheet, Existing Conditions, Demolition Plan, Grading Plan, Horizontal Plan, Striping and Signage Plan, Utility Plan(s), Details, Erosion Control Plan, and Landscape Plans, (grading, storm drain, erosion control, and landscape plans are for reference only and shall not be reviewed during this submittal). 10. Prior to building permit issuance, the Applicant shall obtain a grading permit with the Engineering Division and shall submit an application, all documentation, fees, deposits, bonds and all necessary paperwork needed for the grading permit. The Applicant shall submit a grading plan that clearly states the amount of cut and fill required to grade the project. The Grading Plans shall include the following plans: Cover, Notes, Existing Conditions, Grading Plans, Storm Drain Plans, Stormwater Control Plan, and Erosion Control Plan. 11. Along with the building permit and grading permit submittals, Applicant shall submit separate Right-of-Way (ROW) improvement plans for the Encroachment Permit Application. An engineer’s cost estimate for the scope of work shown on the approved ROW improvement plans is required to determine the performance and payment bond amount. The submittal of the bonds is required prior to the execution of the Subdivision Improvement Agreement. 12. Prior to building permit issuance, the Applicant shall obtain a Public Improvement Permit for all proposed work within the City ROW and shall submit an application, all documentation, fees, deposits, bonds and all necessary paperwork needed for the Public Improvement Permit. The Public Improvement Plans shall include only the scope of work within the City ROW (with reference to the on-site plans) consisting of the following plans: Civil Plans, Landscape Plans, and Joint Trench Plans. 13. All improvements shall be designed by a registered civil engineer and approved by the Engineering Division. 381 14. The Engineering Division reserves the right to include additional conditions during review of the building permit, grading permit, or public improvement permit. Engineering Mapping 15. Applicant shall submit all documents required for review of the Final mapping application. 16. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the Applicant shall record a Final Map for the project site with the San Mateo County Recorder. The Final Map shall conform to the requirements of the Approved Tentative Map. 17. Prior to the approval of the Final Map, the Applicant shall enter into a Subdivision Improvement Agreement and Encroachment and Maintenance Agreement with the City. These agreements shall be approved by City Council prior to execution. a. The Subdivision Improvement Agreement shall require the Applicant to ensure the faithful performance of the design, construction, installation and inspection of all public improvements as reviewed and approved by the Engineering Division at no cost to the City and shall be secured by good and sufficient payment, performance, and one (1) year warranty bonds or cash deposit adequate to cover all of the costs, inspections and administrative expenses of completing such improvements in the event of a default. The value of the bonds or cash deposit shall include 110% of the cost of construction based on prevailing wage rates. The value of the warranty bond or cash deposit shall be equivalent to 10% of the value of the performance security. b. The Encroachment and Maintenance Agreement shall require the Applicant to maintain any street furniture (such as bike racks) that serves the property, structural features (such as stairs) serving the property, and all landscape and irrigation installed by the project at no cost to the City. The Encroachment and Maintenance Agreement shall be recorded with the San Mateo County Recorder and may be transferred to the property owner or Homeowner’s Association. Engineering Right-of-Way 18. All new public improvements shall be installed at no cost to the City and shall be approved by the City Engineer and constructed to City Standards. All new public improvements shall be completed prior to Final Occupancy of the project or prior any Temporary Occupancy as approved by the City Engineer. 382 19. Prior to Building Permit issuance, the Applicant shall submit a video survey of the adjacent streets (perimeter of proposed property location) to determine the pre- construction condition of the streets at no cost to the City. The Applicant will be responsible to ensure that the condition of the streets and striping is in at least existing condition or better after construction is completed. 20. The Applicant shall construct new curb, gutter, sidewalks, curb ramps, driveways, streetlights, and landscaping along the McLellan Drive frontage of the subject property. Unless separated by a planting strip, all sidewalks shall be monolithic to the curb and gutter. 21. The Applicant shall install angled parking stalls along McLellan Drive as shown on the entitlement plans. The Applicant shall reinstall parking meters along McLellan Drive. The Applicant shall coordinate the number of parking stalls with the Planning Division and Engineering Division. 22. Applicant shall ensure that any pavement markings impacted during construction are restored and upgraded to meet current City standards. 23. Existing driveway approaches or portions of approaches along the property frontage that will not serve the new development or do not serve any other access shall be removed and replaced with new curb, gutter, and sidewalk. Where new work is required, monolithic curbs, gutter, curb ramps, commercial driveway approaches and 4’ wide (minimum) sidewalks are to be constructed to current City standards and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 24. Upon completion of construction and landscape work at the site, the Applicant shall clean, repair or reconstruct, at their expense, as required to conform to City Standards, all public improvements including driveways, curbs, gutters, sidewalks and street pavements along the street frontages of the subdivision to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Damage to adjacent property caused by the Applicant, or their contractors or subcontractors, shall be repaired to the satisfaction of the affected property owner and the City Engineer, at no cost to the City or to the property owner. 25. The Applicant shall reslurry the property’s fronting roadway on McLelland Drive from the lip of gutter to lip of gutter of the opposite side. Street pavement markings shall be restored after the slurry. 383 26. The Applicant shall ensure the proposed trees and planting locations do not interfere with underground utilities or the joint trench. The Applicant will be required to install root barrier measures to prevent the sidewalk from uplift at no cost to the City. 27. Prior to the issuance of the Encroachment Permit, the Applicant shall submit Traffic and Pedestrian Control Plans for proposed work in Mission Road and McLellan Drive or any area of work that will obstruct the existing pedestrian walkways. Engineering Stormwater 28. The Applicant shall be responsible to conform to the requirements of the FEMA National Flood Insurance Program for the proposed improvements within the flood zone along Colma Creek. 29. The Applicant shall submit to the City Engineer a storm drainage and hydraulic study for the fully improved subdivision analyzing existing conditions and post-development conditions of the project site to the outfall at Colma Creek. The study shall demonstrate that the post-development peak flow will not exceed the pre-development peak flow. Initial time of concentration shall be 10 minutes. Precipitation shall be based on NOAA data for the site. The study shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. 30. Drainage runoff shall not be allowed to flow across lot lines or across subdivision boundaries onto adjacent private property without an appropriate recorded easement being provided for this purpose. 31. All building downspouts shall be connected to rigid pipe roof leaders which shall discharge into an approved drainage device or facility that meets the C3 stormwater treatment requirements of Municipal Regional Permit. 32. The on-site storm drainage system shall not be dedicated to the City for ownership or maintenance. The storm drainage system and any storm water pollutions control devices within the subdivision shall be owned, repaired, and maintained by the property owner or Homeowner’s Association. Engineering Sanitary Sewer 33. The sanitary sewer within Mission Road is owned and maintained by the City of South San Francisco. The Applicant shall video inspect the sanitary sewer main to the nearest manholes upstream and downstream of the project point of connection both prior to 384 construction and post construction. Video must be submitted to City Engineering for review. The Applicant shall make repairs to any damage to the existing sanitary sewer main that occurred during construction. 34. The Applicant shall submit a sewer capacity study to determine how the project impacts the public sanitary system and determine if there is adequate capacity of the existing or proposed sewer lines. The study shall include an analysis of the sanitary sewer main within Mission Road. Sanitary sewer mains shall not flow more than 2/3 full at peak wet weather flow. Please be sure to include all supporting calculations. 35. The applicant’s plans shall indicate where the project’s sanitary sewer lateral will connect to the public main. The Development shall connect to the existing 12-inch sanitary sewer main within Mission Road. The Developer shall obtain the Town of Colma’s permission and encroachment permits to perform work within the Town’s ROW to connect to this main. 36. Applicant shall install the new sewer lateral to City Standards including a clean out in the sidewalk and a new wye connection or taptite connection at the main. Lateral sizes of 8- inch or larger require a manhole connection at the City sewer main. No more than 1 sewer lateral shall be used per parcel. 37. The on-site sanitary sewer system shall not be dedicated to the City for maintenance. The sanitary sewer facilities within the subdivision shall be repaired and maintained by the property owner or Homeowner’s Association. Engineering Utilities 38. Prior to the building permit submittal, all utility crossings shall be potholed, verified and shown on the plans. 39. All electrical and communication lines serving the property, shall be placed underground within the property being developed to the nearest overhead facility or underground utility vault. 40. The Applicant shall include a 3” diameter City spare conduit with pull boxes and ropes for future fiber optics installation with the underground utilities. The conduits shall be dedicated to the City. 41. Each dwelling unit shall be pre-wired for Cable T.V. and Broadband Communication Services. 385 42. New City Standard CREE XPS Type 3 91-Watt streetlights or other approved by the City Engineer shall be utilized. Streetlights shall be connected to the P.G. & E. system with two (2) inch rigid conduit, pull boxes and stranded #8 THW or TW wire and activated per P.G.& E’s LS-2A rate schedule. 43. The Applicant shall coordinate with the California Water Service for all water-related issues. All water mains and services shall be installed to the standards of the California Water Service. 44. The Applicant shall install fire hydrants at the locations specified by the Fire Marshal. Installation shall be in accordance with City Standards as administered by the Fire Marshall. Engineering On-site Improvements 45. The Developer shall submit a construction access plan that clearly identifies all areas of proposed access during the proposed development. 46. All common areas are to be landscaped and irrigated and shall meet the requirements of the City’s Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance (WELO). Submit landscape, drainage and grading plans for review and approval by the Engineering Division. Engineering Grading 47. The recommendations contained within the geotechnical report shall be included in the Site Grading and Drainage Plan. The Site Grading and Drainage Plan shall be prepared by the developer’s civil engineer and approved by the project geotechnical engineer. 48. The entire project site shall be adequately sprinkled with water to prevent dust or sprayed with an effect dust palliative to prevent dust from being blown into the air and carried onto adjacent private and public property. Dust control shall be for seven days a week and 24 hours a day. Should any problems arise from dust, the developer shall hire an environmental inspector at his/her expense to ensure compliance with the grading permit. 49. Haul roads within the City of South San Francisco shall be cleaned daily, or more often, as required by the City Engineer, of all dirt and debris spilled or tracked onto City streets or private driveways. 386 50. The Applicant shall submit a winterization plan for all undeveloped areas within the site to control silt and stormwater runoff from entering adjacent public or private property. This plan shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to September 1 of each year. The approved plan shall be implemented prior to November 1 of each year. 51. Prior to placing any foundation concrete, the Applicant shall hire a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer authorized to practice land surveying to certify that the new foundation forms conform with all setbacks from confirmed property lines as shown on the Plans. A letter certifying the foundation forms shall be submitted to the Engineering Division for approval. 52. The applicant is required by ordinance to provide for public safety and the protection of public and private property in the vicinity of the land to be graded from the impacts of the proposed grading work. 53. All hauling and grading operations are restricted to between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. for residential areas and 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. for industrial/commercial areas, Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. 54. Unless approved in writing by the City Engineer, no grading in excess of 200 cubic yards shall be accomplished between November 1 and May 1 of each year. 387 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:23-94 Agenda Date:2/2/2023 Version:1 Item #:4. Appointment of a subcommittee to serve as the appeals panel for appeals regarding Chapter 8.70 of Title 8 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code related to property owner obligations to tenants displaced from unsafe or substandard units (Tony Rozzi, Chief Planner and Alexandra Wolf, Assistant City Attorney) City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/27/2023Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™388