The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About09-07-23 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda PacketThursday, September 7, 2023 7:00 PM City of South San Francisco P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA Municipal Services Building, Council Chambers 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, CA Planning Commission ALEX TZANG, Chairperson NORMAN FARIA, Vice Chairperson SAM SHIHADEH, Commissioner MICHELE EVANS, Commissioner SARAH FUNES, Commissioner AYSHA PAMUKCU, Commissioner JOHN BAKER, Commissioner Regular Meeting Agenda HYBRID IN-PERSON/VIRTUAL MEETING NOTICE 1 September 7, 2023Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda How to observe the Meeting (no public comment): 1) Local cable channel: Astound, Channel 26, Comcast, Channel 27, or AT&T, Channel 99 2 ) https://www.ssf.net/government/city-council/video-streaming-city-and-council-meetings/planning-com mission ZOOM LINK BELOW -NO REGISTRATION REQUIRED Join Zoom meeting: https://ssf-net.zoom.us/j/82584801637 (Enter your email and name) Webinar ID: 825 8480 1637 Join by Telephone: +1 669 900 6833 Teleconference participation is offered in the meeting via Zoom as a courtesy to the public. If no members of the Commission are attending the meeting via teleconference, and a technical error or outage occurs on the teleconference feed, the Commission will continue the meeting in public in the Council Chambers. How to Submit written Public Comment before the meeting: Email: PCcomments@ssf.net Members of the public are encouraged to submit public comments in writing in advance of the meeting. The email will be monitored during the meeting.The City encourages the submission of comments by 6:00pm on the date of the Public Hearing to facilitate inclusion in the meeting record. How to provide Public Comment during the meeting: LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES PER SPEAKER 1. By Zoom: When the Clerk calls for the item on which you wish to speak, click on "raise hand." Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. 2. By Phone: Enter the conference ID fund on the agenda. When the Clerk calls for the item on which you wish to speak, Click *9 to raise a hand to speak. Click *6 to unmute when called. 3. In Person: Complete a Digital Speaker Card located at the entrance to the Council Chamber’s. Be sure to indicate the Agenda Item # you wish to address or the topic of your public comment. When your name is called, please come to the podium, state your name and address (optional) for the Minutes. American Disability Act: Page 2 City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/8/2023 2 September 7, 2023Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda The City Clerk will provide materials in appropriate alternative formats to comply with the Americanswith Disabilities Act. Please send a written request to City Clerk Rosa Govea Acosta at 400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 94080, or email at all-cc@ssf.net. Include your name, address, phone number, a brief description of the requested materials, and preferred alternative format service at least 72-hours before the meeting. Accommodations: Individuals who require special assistance of a disability-related modification or accommodation to participate in the meeting, including Interpretation Services, should contact the Office of the City Clerk by email at all-cc@ssf.net, 72-hours before the meeting. Page 3 City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/8/2023 3 September 7, 2023Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AGENDA REVIEW ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM STAFF PUBLIC COMMENT Under the Public Comment section of the agenda, members of the public may speak on any item not listed on the Agenda and on items listed under the Consent Calendar. Individuals may not share or offer time to another speaker. Pursuant to provisions of the Brown Act, no action may be taken on a matter unless it is listed on the agenda, or unless certain emergency or special circumstances exist. The Planning Commission may direct staff to investigate and/or schedule certain matters for consideration at a future Commission meeting. Written comments on agenda items received prior to 5:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting will be included as part of the meeting record but will not be read aloud. If there appears to be a large number of speakers, the Clerk may reduce speaking time to limit the total amount of time for public comments (Gov. Code sec. 54954.3(b)(1).). Speakers that are not in compliance with the Planning Commission's rules of decorum will be muted. 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 August 3, 2023 Planning Commission1. 08-03-23 PC Final MinutesAttachments: PUBLIC HEARING Report regarding consideration of adoption of the Lindenville Specific Plan, associated General Plan Amendments, Zoning Code Amendments, and Addendum to the 2040 General Plan Environmental Impact Report. (Billy Gross, Principal Planner) 2. Att 1 - Summary of Public Outreach Att 2a - LSP Comment Matrix Summary Att 2b - LSP Comment Matrix Detailed Att 3 - Staff Presentation Attachments: Page 4 City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/8/2023 4 September 7, 2023Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda Resolution making findings recommending that the City Council make a determination that the Lindenville Specific Plan and its associated General Plan Amendments, Zoning Ordinance Amendments and Zoning Map Amendments are fully within the scope of environmental analysis in the 2040 General Plan Environmental Impact Report and that the Lindenville Specific Plan Addendum to the EIR is the appropriate environmental document for the Project. 2a. Exhibit A - 2040 GPU EIR and Appendices Exhibit B - LSP Addendum Exhibit B - Addendum Appendix B GHG Inventory and Forecast Memo Exhibit B - Addendum Appendix C VMT, Vehicle LOS and Traffic Sensitivity Analysis Attachments: Resolution making findings and recommending that the City Council adopt the Lindenville Specific Plan and associated General Plan Amendments. 2b. Exhibit A - Lindenville Specific Plan Exhibit B - General Plan Amendments Attachments: Resolution making findings and recommending that the City Council introduce an Ordinance adding Chapter 20.150 (“Lindenville Specific Plan District”), Chapter 20.160 (“Height Incentive Overlay District”), Chapter 20.190 (“Colma Creek Greenbelt Overlay District”), Chapter 20.200 (“Arts and Makers Overlay District”) Chapter 20.210 (“Active Ground Floor Use Overlay District”), make other related amendments to Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, and amending the South San Francisco Zoning Map. 2c. Exhibit A - Draft City Council Zoning Ordinance Exhibit A - Att 1 Zoning Text Amendments Exhibit A - Att 2 Zoning Map Amendment Attachments: ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 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 minutes on any agenda item. Questions from Commissioners to applicants or non-applicants may be answered by using additional time. ITEMS FROM THE COMMISSION ADJOURNMENT Page 5 City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/8/2023 5 September 7, 2023Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda **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. The cost to appeal for applicants, residents, and all others is $1,848. Additional meeting materials received or provided after initial publication of the Public Hearing Agenda may be found here: https://www.ssf.net/departments/economic-community-development/planning-division/planning-commission Page 6 City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/8/2023 6 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:23-668 Agenda Date:9/7/2023 Version:1 Item #:1. Consideration of draft minutes from the August 3, 2023 Planning Commission City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/1/2023Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™7 August 03, 2023 Minutes Page 1 of 2 MINUTES AUGUST 03, 2023 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION CALL TO ORDER / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TIME: 7:00 PM AGENDA REVIEW No changes. ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM STAFF None. PUBLIC COMMENTS • SSF Resident – public comment via email submission. • Jaime Vasquez – provided public comment. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Consideration of draft minutes from the July 6, 2023 Planning Commission Motion to approve: Commissioner Shihadeh, Second – Vice-Chair Faria, approved by roll call (6-0-0) Meeting Video: Planning Commission on 2023-08-03 7:00 PM - HYBRID IN- PERSON/VIRTUAL MEETING NOTICE (granicus.com) ADMINISTRATIVE 2. Report regarding the release of the Draft Lindenville Specific Plan. (Billy Gross, Principal Planner) ROLL CALL / CHAIR COMMENTS PRESENT: Chair Tzang, Vice Chair Faria Commissioners: Baker, Funes-Ozturk, Pamukcu, Shihadeh ABSENT: Evans STAFF PRESENT: Billy Gross - Principal Planner – Kelsey Evans – Clerk 8 August 03, 2023 Minutes Page 2 of 2 ▪ Ken - commented on Agenda item #2. Report was made, informational only. No other action taken. Meeting Video: Planning Commission on 2023-08-03 7:00 PM - HYBRID IN- PERSON/VIRTUAL MEETING NOTICE (granicus.com) ITEMS FROM THE COMMISSION None. ADJOURNMENT Chair Tzang adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 8:48PM. Tony Rozzi, Chief Planner, AICP Alex Tzang, Chairperson or Norm Faria, Vice Chairperson Secretary to the Planning Commission Planning Commission City of South San Francisco City of South San Francisco TR/tr 9 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:23-730 Agenda Date:9/7/2023 Version:1 Item #:2. Report regarding consideration of adoption of the Lindenville Specific Plan,associated General Plan Amendments,Zoning Code Amendments,and Addendum to the 2040 General Plan Environmental Impact Report.(Billy Gross, Principal Planner) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Planning Commission conduct the public hearing and take the following actions: ·Adopt a Resolution making findings and determining that the Lindenville Specific Plan and its associated General Plan Amendments,Zoning Ordinance Amendments and Zoning Map Amendments are fully within the scope of environmental analysis in the 2040 General Plan Environmental Impact Report and that the Lindenville Specific Plan Addendum to the EIR is the appropriate environmental document for the Project. ·Adopt a Resolution making findings and recommending that the City Council adopt the Lindenville Specific Plan and associated General Plan Amendments. ·Adopt a Resolution recommending that the City Council introduce an Ordinance adding Chapter 20.150 (“Lindenville Specific Plan District”),Chapter 20.160 (“Height Incentive Overlay District”),Chapter 20.190 (“Colma Creek Greenbelt Overlay District”),Chapter 20.200 (“Arts and Makers Overlay District”)Chapter 20.210 (“Active Ground Floor Use Overlay District”),make other related amendments to Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code,and amending the South San Francisco Zoning Map. MOTIONS FOR THE COMMISSION TO ADOPT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 1.Move to adopt the resolution recommending a determination that the Lindenville Specific Plan Addendum to the EIR is the appropriate environmental document for the Project. 2.Move to adopt the resolution recommending adoption of the Lindenville Specific Plan and associated General Plan Amendments. 3.Move to adopt the resolution recommending adoption of the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map Amendments. INTRODUCTION The City Council initiated the Lindenville Specific Plan process in mid-2022 to implement the General Plan, selecting Raimi +Associates consultant team to guide the effort.The process includes the creation of the Lindenville Specific Plan and associated amendments to the General Plan and Zoning Code and preparation of associated environmental analysis.The process to date has included community engagement meetings with the public,a technical advisory group,City boards and commissions,including the Planning Commission and City Council (see Attachment 1 -Summary of Public Outreach Meetings). Following the fourteen-month public engagement process,the Lindenville Specific Plan and associated City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/1/2023Page 1 of 10 powered by Legistar™10 File #:23-730 Agenda Date:9/7/2023 Version:1 Item #:2. Following the fourteen-month public engagement process,the Lindenville Specific Plan and associated documents are presented for formal consideration by the Planning Commission with a recommendation to the City Council for adoption.The Addendum to the 2040 General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report is also presented for consideration. The Planning Commission is the official recommending body to the City Council on Specific Plans and amendments to the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance following conduct of a duly noticed public hearing. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION 2040 General Plan Update In October 2022,the City adopted a comprehensive update of the General Plan,Zoning Code and Climate Action Plan (2040 General Plan Update),providing an updated vision for the city.The 2040 General Plan identifies a Vision for the Lindenville sub-area as “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.”To ensure that new development within the Lindenville sub-area 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. Lindenville Specific Plan The development of the Lindenville Specific Plan occurred in four stages that began in 2022. ·Project Initiation.In this initial phase,the planning team analyzed the existing conditions of Lindenville to understand the key issues,opportunities,and emerging trends of the Plan Area.This phase included a series of community outreach events where the team shared background information and gathered feedback on community priorities related to Lindenville. ·Land Use Alternatives.To compare distinct approaches for accommodating new residential and mixed uses while still supporting Lindenville’s current uses,different land use,mobility,open space,and urban design alternatives were prepared.Public feedback on the alternatives was gathered through workshops and a series of City Council,committee,and commission meetings,and this led to the development of a preferred land use plan in Winter 2023. ·Development of Preferred Plan,Technical Analysis,and Policies.The technical analysis of the preferred plan covered a range of study areas,such as sea level rise,traffic,health,and economic impacts in Lindenville.Likewise,the goals,policies,and development standards in the Draft Specific Plan built on the community input heard throughout the planning process and the technical analysis. ·Plan Release and Adoption.The last phase of the planning process included the June 2023 release of the Public Review Draft of the Specific Plan,which was then presented at community workshops and at hearings with various City boards and commissions,including the Planning Commission and City Council.Comments from these meetings have been incorporated into the final plan,which is presented City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/1/2023Page 2 of 10 powered by Legistar™11 File #:23-730 Agenda Date:9/7/2023 Version:1 Item #:2. Council.Comments from these meetings have been incorporated into the final plan,which is presented for adoption. The Lindenville Specific Plan will be the guiding document to help realize the General Plan's vision for the area as a mixed-use neighborhood,employment hub,and cultural center of South San Francisco.Walkable, connected districts,including the South Spruce corridor,are envisioned as lively destinations where people have easy access to retail,parks,and other community resources.The Plan will preserve the City's industrial heritage but will also provide new opportunities for people to live in the district.A revitalized Colma Creek has the potential to become a community-serving linear park with restored ecology that benefits the health and wellbeing of people and wildlife.Overall,the Plan presents a unique opportunity to balance priorities that have multiple benefits,including the City’s preparation for climate change impacts and changing demands in the housing and industrial sectors. Public Draft Lindenville Specific Plan The policies set forth in the Lindenville Specific Plan are consistent with the General Plan goals,but the Lindenville Specific Plan refines the General Plan land use pattern and creates specific development standards and implementation policies to realize the General Plan vision. The document is broken up into eight chapters that provide an Introduction (Ch.1)and the Vision for Lindenville (Ch.2),and then provide more detail on how that vision will be realized in relation to Land Use and Housing (Ch.3),Development Standards (Ch.4),Parks and Open Space (Ch.5),Mobility (Ch.6)and Infrastructure (Ch.7).Finally,the Implementation Chapter (Ch.8)identifies capital improvement projects, funding and financing strategies, and a list of implementation actions to realize the Specific Plan vision. Chapter 2:Vision for Lindenville describes where we want to be in the future and how we get there.The Plan’s major strategies to achieve this vision provide the framework for Lindenville’s evolution by laying out eight strategies to guide future changes in Lindenville. 1.Establishing Character Areas.The Specific Plan establishes four distinct Character Areas;standards and policies for each area are intended to guide the “look and feel”of each of these areas,specifying the attributes that make each of these places distinct and unique: a.Mixed Use Neighborhood.This area balances a mixture of housing,retail and services,open spaces,civic uses,and legacy industrial uses.The neighborhood is centered around a transformed Colma Creek,surrounded by mixed use areas that allow for a diversity of uses that transition over time.The area is characterized by both horizontal mixed use and vertical mixed use development. New housing types,including townhomes,live-work units,and multi-family housing in mid-rise and high-rise buildings provide new opportunities for rental and ownership housing.Residents can access their everyday needs,like restaurants,personal services,and retail within a convenient walk or bike ride to South Spruce Avenue and Downtown. b.South Spruce Avenue Corridor.The South Spruce Avenue Corridor is an active,safe,and City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/1/2023Page 3 of 10 powered by Legistar™12 File #:23-730 Agenda Date:9/7/2023 Version:1 Item #:2. b.South Spruce Avenue Corridor.The South Spruce Avenue Corridor is an active,safe,and inviting corridor for living,shopping,and working.Mixed use housing types described in the Mixed Use Neighborhood are allowed on most sites along the corridor.Smaller-scale housing types buffer existing residential uses in the Orange Park/Mayfair neighborhood from taller mixed-use multifamily buildings on the South Spruce Avenue Corridor.A node of publicly-accessible active ground floor uses,such as retail,restaurants,and clinics,are required in new development in order to create pedestrian activity and opportunities for interaction near Colma Creek.Along the entire corridor, engaging building frontage types like arcades and forecourts create varied building facades. c.Employment Area.A mixture of warehousing,manufacturing,processing,and storage and distribution uses are allowed in Lindenville to continue the city’s industrial heritage.High floor area ratio (FAR)allowances in industrial zones create potential for property owners to increase industrial building square footage and modernize Lindenville’s industrial building stock.Residential uses, except where the South Linden Avenue Arts and Maker Overlay applies,and R&D uses will not be allowed in industrial districts, limiting potential for loss of industrial uses. d.South Linden Arts and Makers District.The South Linden Arts and Makers District is comprised of a variety of uses to promote arts and cultural identity,including live-work housing,studios, makers spaces,and supportive uses such as restaurants and bars.The portion of the corridor north of Victory Avenue has a mix of housing,live-work,arts and makers spaces,and commercial uses, while the southern portion introduces arts and makers uses into its existing industrial character. Ground floors of buildings along the corridor are populated with arts and makers uses,contributing to Lindenville’s vibrancy and an eclectic streetscape.Older industrial buildings are adapted and newer structures are designed to suit the needs of artists and makers. 2.Creating a Complete Neighborhood.The Mixed Use Neighborhood and South Spruce Avenue Corridor will help to provide more neighborhood choice,spur the creation of new housing opportunities and community services,and help to create more complete and walkable neighborhoods.The introduction of housing in Lindenville also creates opportunities for people to live closer to work,help reduce traffic congestion by internalizing trips, and increase housing production. 3.Building on the Industrial Legacy.The Specific Plan encourages the creation of a second-generation industrial neighborhood that retains the logistics,manufacturing and warehousing uses it is known for, but encourages the adaptation of existing older industrial areas into new and modern industrial spaces that allow for more flexibility to support emerging industrial and creative uses.The Plan also includes retention strategies to prevent the displacement of existing businesses and increase City outreach and assistance to local businesses. 4.Cultivating Arts and Cultural Identity.Following the direction laid out in the General Plan and Public Arts Master Plan,the Lindenville Specific Plan establishes an overlay district that facilitates the retention and creation of new creative uses in the South Linden Avenue Arts and Makers District.This district would require arts and maker uses on the ground floor of buildings and minimizes the regulatory requirements for the adaptive reuse of existing buildings along South Linden Avenue.This district City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/1/2023Page 4 of 10 powered by Legistar™13 File #:23-730 Agenda Date:9/7/2023 Version:1 Item #:2. requirements for the adaptive reuse of existing buildings along South Linden Avenue.This district would also serve as a transitional area between the traditional industrial areas in the eastern and southern areas of Lindenville and the new,mixed-use residential uses in the northern portion of the Specific Plan area. 5.Building Climate Resilience.The Specific Plan’s blue-green infrastructure network works with the open space network in creating new parks and green spaces in Lindenville that are regenerative, enhanced with stormwater management strategies,and designed to increase Lindenville’s urban forest canopy.Strategies to build climate resilience are woven into all the chapters of the Specific Plan and have influenced the development of the policies, actions, and standards of the Specific Plan. 6.Enhancing Open Spaces.Lindenville currently has no publicly accessible open space.The proposed open space network would create new public parks and open space typologies that could connect to existing green spaces outside of the Plan Area.The open space framework is based on the following strategies: a.Colma Creek Greenbelt.Colma Creek Greenbelt is a nature-based enhancement to the Colma Creek flood channel that provides an active transportation connection through multi-use trails, facilitates passive recreation and gathering opportunities,and provides plant and animal habitat while addressing the area’s stormwater and floodwater management needs. b.Neighborhood Park.A new neighborhood park north of Colma Creek that is a local destination, providing publicly-accessible spaces and facilities for community gatherings,cultural events, recreation, and the social needs of both locals and visitors. c.Lindenville Linear Park.The Lindenville Linear Park runs north to south,connecting the Colma Creek Greenbelt and the Centennial Way Trail via green-lined pedestrian and bike path. d.Mini Parks and Plazas.Mini parks and plazas provide smaller-scale open space throughout Lindenville that support community gathering spaces adjacent to new development. 7.Promoting Health and Environmental Justice.Lindenville has historically supported light industrial, manufacturing,and service and repair businesses,which all contribute to the City’s legacy as the “Industrial City.”This legacy,plus its location adjacent to regional transportation infrastructure,has created environmental conditions that need to be mitigated to ensure the health and wellbeing of current and future residents and workers,and to create a healthier community overall.Considering the overall pollution burden of Lindenville,the Plan includes policies and design standards meant to protect residents and building occupants from air pollution and industrial pollutants present in the soil.The policies,actions,and standards of the Specific Plan have been developed through an environmental justice lens and with the intent to make Lindenville a healthy, livable community. 8.Connecting Communities.The mobility network of Lindenville is designed to be multimodal,safe, and connected while advancing sustainability and livability goals.Street space is limited throughout Lindenville,with each street presenting an opportunity to prioritize walking,biking,transit,truck,and City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/1/2023Page 5 of 10 powered by Legistar™14 File #:23-730 Agenda Date:9/7/2023 Version:1 Item #:2. Lindenville,with each street presenting an opportunity to prioritize walking,biking,transit,truck,and regional auto access.In the layered network presented in the Specific Plan,each mobility mode is prioritized within a subset of streets to offer high quality infrastructure for that mode,it is tied directly to the anticipated future land uses and local and regional mobility improvements. Ch.3:Land Use and Housing establishes land use and housing goals,policies,and standards to guide the City as Lindenville changes.This chapter describes land use,open space and blue-green infrastructure,and mobility frameworks for Lindenville character areas,and establishes land use districts and associated standards related to uses,densities and intensities,building height,and active ground floor uses.The Land Use and Housing Chapter also outlines procedures related to transfer of development rights and dedication and easement requirements and defines standards to enhance Lindenville’s arts and cultural identity. Ch.4:Design and Development Standards contains the standards that apply to new development in Lindenville.The development standards include Lindenville-wide design standards and development standards specific to Character Area and Land Use Districts. Ch.5:Parks and Open Space prioritizes the creation of an interconnected network of parks and open spaces that provides a wide range of uses to serve all ages and abilities and address ecological,social,equity,and health issues.The Plan identifies Park and Open Space Types to meet the goal of 43.7 acres of open space within the Plan Area. Ch.6:Mobility aims to make travel within Lindenville a more stress-free activity and to better connect local Lindenville streets to regional and active transportation facilities including BART,Caltrain,US-101,and Centennial Way Trail.The goals,policies and streetscape plans in the Chapter provide a vision that invites pedestrians,bicyclists,and transit users into the transportation network in a way that prioritizes their safety and comfort above vehicle speed and creates space for all types of roadway users. Ch.7:Infrastructure identifies the types of infrastructure improvements that are necessary to serve the new mixed-use neighborhoods in the north,an increase in residential population,and utilization of green infrastructure for stormwater management and public realm enhancement. Finally,Ch.8:Implementation describes the specific actions,funding approach,and plan administration needed to execute the vision for Lindenville.It identifies a range of funding programs to implement the capital improvements needed to support existing and future development. General Plan Amendments Through the process to prepare the Lindenville Specific Plan,staff identified necessary modifications to the General Plan to make the Specific Plan and General Plan consistent with one another.The Lindenville Specific Plan includes new land use districts,modifications to the bicycle and pedestrian networks,new proposed streets and other transportation investments,new park and open space standards and locations,and changes to the boundaries of the Lindenville Sub-Area. Amendments are proposed within the following General Plan Elements:Land Use and Community Design,Sub City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/1/2023Page 6 of 10 powered by Legistar™15 File #:23-730 Agenda Date:9/7/2023 Version:1 Item #:2. Amendments are proposed within the following General Plan Elements:Land Use and Community Design,Sub -Areas,Mobility and Access,Abundant and Accessible Parks and Recreation,and Community Health and Environmental Justice.The final General Plan Amendments document is included as Exhibit B to the associated Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment Resolution. Zoning Ordinance and Map Amendments In conjunction with the proposed Specific Plan and General Plan Amendments,amendments are also required to the Zoning Ordinance to ensure consistency.The primary changes to the zoning ordinance are related to the introduction of Chapter 20.150 “Lindenville Specific Plan District”.The new Lindenville Specific Plan District establishes the following three (3)new sub-districts with land use and development regulations.The Lindenville zoning districts are form-based zones,which focus on the intended form and character of the neighborhood as the primary organizing framework.These new form-based zones build on the concept of the recently adopted form-based zoning (SSFMC Section 20.135), and are as follows: ·T3 Makers Lindenville (T3ML) ·T4 Lindenville (T4L) ·T5 Lindenville (T5L) Chapter 20.150 establishes the use regulations,standards and other development procedures to implement the proposed Lindenville Specific Plan.The Zoning Map will also be amended to reflect the changes in zoning designations. The Zoning Ordinance Amendments also introduce four (4)new overlay districts associated with the Lindenville Specific Plan,including Chapters 20.160 “Height Incentive Overlay District”,20.190 “Colma Creek Greenbelt Overlay District”,20.200 “Arts and Makers Overlay District”and 20.210 “Active Ground Floor Use Overlay District”. The adoption of the new Lindenville Specific Plan District will also require changes and clarifications to the existing Zoning Ordinance to fulfill the vision of the Plan and remain consistent with proposed regulations in Chapter 20.150. These miscellaneous zoning text amendments include: ·Revise Chapter 20.040 to exclude above grade parking and active ground floor uses in the new T3ML, T4L and T5L zoning districts from maximum FAR calculations. ·Revise Chapter 20.135 Form-Based Districts to delete the T4 Corridor District and T4 Maker District, which are no longer being used within the Lindenville Specific Plan Area and clarify which building types and public open space types are allowed in the new transect zones. ·Revise Chapter 20.320 Non-Conforming Uses to streamline the process for substitution of legal non- conforming industrial uses. ·Revise Chapter 20.350.032 Outdoor Storage to clarify outdoor storage regulations for arts-related uses in the new T3ML zoning district. ·Revise Chapter 20.395 Community Benefits Program to reflect the community benefits priorities within City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/1/2023Page 7 of 10 powered by Legistar™16 File #:23-730 Agenda Date:9/7/2023 Version:1 Item #:2. ·Revise Chapter 20.395 Community Benefits Program to reflect the community benefits priorities within the Lindenville Specific Plan Area. ·Revise Chapters 20.440 Planning Agency and 20.450 Common Procedures to reflect the revised substitution of nonconforming use process. ·Revise Chapter 20.620 Use Classifications to include new use-classification definitions for “Arts and Makers Uses” and “Outdoor Storage - Arts”. The final Zoning Ordinance Update is included as Exhibit A to the Associated Zoning Ordinance Amendment Resolution. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The City Council certified a programmatic Environmental Impact Report for the 2040 General Plan Update, Zoning Code Update and Climate Action Plan Update (2040 General Plan EIR)(State Clearinghouse No. 2021020064).The City Council also adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations in 2022,which carefully considered each significant and unavoidable impact identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR,related to project-level vehicle miles traveled,project-level roadway safety,project-level conflict with 2017 Bay Area Clean Air Plan,and project-level criteria air pollutants and found that the significant environmental impacts were acceptable in light of the social,economic,and environmental benefits associated with implementation of the 2040 General Plan Update. An Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR was prepared (LSP Addendum)in accordance with CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15164 to evaluate whether preparation of a Subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration is required. The LSP Addendum concludes that: ·Implementation of the project will not cause significant impacts and it will not trigger any new or more severe impacts than were studied in the 2040 General Plan EIR that was previously certified. ·No significant information has come to light since the 2040 General Plan EIR was certified that shows new or more severe significant impacts. ·The project does not represent a substantial change to the 2040 General Plan EIR and that the project is fully within the scope of environmental analysis as described in the 2040 General Plan EIR. The City has reviewed the LSP Addendum and supplemental analysis (Exhibit A to the associated CEQA resolution)and has determined that the project is consistent with previously adopted environmental documents and that no further environmental review is required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15164, and the addendum is the appropriate CEQA document. AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION On August 24,2023,the Lindenville Specific Plan was approved with conditions by the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG)Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC).The ALUC included conditions of approval requiring that the City make modifications to language in Section 3.5 of the Specific Plan in order to avoid any potential ambiguity associated with height measurement/issues,as City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/1/2023Page 8 of 10 powered by Legistar™17 File #:23-730 Agenda Date:9/7/2023 Version:1 Item #:2. follows: ·Allowed maximum height.Allowed maximum height is regulated by Figure 13 or the maximum height limits permissible under FAA regulations and the SFO ALUCP Critical Aeronautical Surfaces requirements. For avoidance of doubt,the lower of the two three heights identified by Figure 13,the ALUCP,and the FAA shall be the controlling maximum height. ·Height measurement.Building height measurement procedures are defined in Zoning Code Chapter 20.040.005 (“Measuring Height”).Only for purposes of determining the allowed maximum height, buildings are evaluated using their top elevation above mean sea level as defined from the origin of the North American Vertical Datum of 1988.This includes any antennas,machine rooms,architectural parapets, or other appurtenances. ·Development incentives for the Height Incentive Overlay.Projects that comply with the requirements for the Height Incentive Overlay are eligible for the following incentives: o a.Building height.Within the overlay,the maximum primary building height is allowed to be up to 160 feet,allowing maximum primary building height in excess of maximum that is allowed under a site’s base district.This allowance does not negate the need to comply with the maximum height limits permissible under FAA regulations and the SFO ALUCP Critical Aeronautical Surfaces requirements, as described under Policy 1 of this section. The City has updated the Lindenville Specific Plan to address these conditions. CONCLUSION It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following actions: 1.Adopt a Resolution recommending that the City Council make findings and determining that the Lindenville Specific Plan and its associated General Plan Amendments,Zoning Ordinance Amendments and Zoning Map Amendments are fully within the scope of environmental analysis in the 2040 General Plan Environmental Impact Report and that the Lindenville Specific Plan Addendum to the EIR is the appropriate environmental document for the Project. 2.Adopt a Resolution recommending that the City Council make findings adopt the Lindenville Specific Plan and associated General Plan Amendments. 3.Adopt a Resolution recommending that the City Council introduce an Ordinance adding Chapter 20.150 (“Lindenville Specific Plan District”),Chapter 20.160 (“Height Incentive Overlay District”),Chapter 20.190 (“Colma Creek Greenbelt Overlay District”),Chapter 20.200 (“Arts and Makers Overlay District”)Chapter 20.210 (“Active Ground Floor Use Overlay District”),make other related amendments to Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code,and amending the South San Francisco Zoning Map. City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/1/2023Page 9 of 10 powered by Legistar™18 File #:23-730 Agenda Date:9/7/2023 Version:1 Item #:2. Attachments 1.Summary of Public Outreach meetings 2.Lindenville Specific Plan Comments and Responses 3.Staff Presentation Associated Files and Exhibits 1.CEQA Resolution (23-731) a.Exhibit A: 2040 General Plan EIR (web links) b.Exhibit B: Lindenville Specific Plan Addendum to 2040 General Plan EIR 2.Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment Resolution (23-732) a.Exhibit A: Lindenville Specific Plan b.Exhibit B: General Plan Amendments 3.Zoning Code Amendment Resolution (23-733) a.Exhibit A: Draft Zoning Code Amendment Ordinance b.Exhibit A, Attachment 1: Zoning Text Amendment and Map Amendment City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/1/2023Page 10 of 10 powered by Legistar™19 Attachment 1 - Engagement Summary for Lindenville Specific Plan The public process for the Lindenville Specific Plan process began in July 2022; throughout the 14 month process the City hosted a total of 36 outreach engagement events, meetings and activities, including three online surveys. This included 18 outreach engagement opportunities between March and August 2023 to gather feedback leading up to and following the release of the Public Review Draft of the Lindenville Specific Plan on June 30, 2023. Engagement opportunities were publicized through a combination of direct mailers, posted fliers, City-wide mailing lists, and via the City’s social media platforms. Half (3) of the pop-ups were held within the boundaries of Lindenville either at a lunch hour or at 5pm in an effort to directly reach current employees, employers, and visitors. The other half (3) of the pop-ups were held at Orange Park concurrently with Community Events (a summer concert series, a farmer’s market, and a summer movie night) to increase awareness of the project. All events, meetings and activities are enumerated below: ● 3 online surveys/ feedback forms ● 4 community workshops (2 in person, 2 virtual) ● 6 pop-up events ● 4 stakeholder meetings ● 6 Technical Working Group (TWG) meetings ● 13 Board and Commission meetings In an effort to be inclusive and far-reaching, the executive summary was available in English, Tagalog, Spanish, and Mandarin and the virtual workshop included live interpretation in all 4 languages, recordings of which are posted on the project website. A total of 200 people were directly engaged, and approximately 190 comments were collected during outreach events, city meetings, and from the feedback form, each of which was responded to by City staff and the consultant team. High-level themes and priorities that emerged from the comprehensive engagement efforts are listed below: ● Establish design standards that promote a green, resilient district and encourage a unique and bold character while allowing for creativity and architectural variety ● Create policies that encourage a truly mixed use district and prevent biotech from dominating the land use balance ● Enhance transitions/compatibility between uses (e.g., housing and industrial) ● Preserve and support industrial businesses that continue to provide essential services for local communities, residents, and business and provide a balance of uses ● Prioritize environmental justice issues such as contamination remediation, meaningful access to open space, and transit connectivity 20 ● Improve pedestrian and bike safety and mobility in Lindenville as well as connectivity between Lindenville and downtown ● Foster the growth of arts, culture, and the creative economy by creating incentives for artists and makers to move here ● Incentivize the development of affordable housing and push for more progressive requirements ● Promote affordability for new residents, small businesses and arts and makers ● Viable and comprehensive Colma Creek improvements List of all events and meetings in Chronological Order 1. Virtual Stakeholder Meeting #1 July 13, 2022 at 12:00-1:00pm 2. Virtual Stakeholder Meeting #2 July 15, 2022 at 12:00-1:00pm 3. Pop-Up #1 September 24, 2022 at 11:00am-5:00pm (Concert in Orange Park) 4. Virtual Community Workshop #1 September 29, 2022 at 6:00-7:30pm 5. Pop-Up #2 October 13, 2022 at 11:00am-1:00pm (Beyond the Border) 6. Pop-Up #3 October 27, 2022 at 11:00am-1:00pm (Subculture Deli) 7. Virtual TWG Meeting #1 November 28, 2022 at 10:00-11:30am 8. In-person Community Workshop #2 December 12, 2022 at 4:00-7:00pm (Emergency Operations Center) 9. Pop-Up #4 December 13, 2022 at 4:00-6:00pm (47 Hills Brewing Company) 10. Colma Creek Advisory Committee Meeting December 13, 2022 at 6:00pm 11. Virtual Stakeholder Meeting #3 December 14, 2022 at 12:00-1:00pm 12. Planning Commission December 15, 2022 at 7:00pm 13. Park and Recreation Commission Meeting on January 17, 2023 at 6:30pm 14. Cultural Arts Commission Meeting January 19, 2023 at 6:30pm 15. Virtual TWG Meeting #2 January 23, 2023 at 10:00-11:30am 16. Bike and Pedestrian Advisory Committee Meeting on February 1, 2023 at 6:00pm 17. Planning Commission Meeting on February 2, 2023 at 7:00pm, 18. City Council Meeting on February 23, 2023 at 6:00pm 19. Virtual TWG Meeting #3 February 27, 2023 at 10:00-11:30am 20. Virtual TWG Meeting #4 March 27, 2023 at 10:00-11:30am 21. Virtual TWG Meeting #5 April 24, 2023 at 10:00-11:30am 22. Virtual TWG Meeting #6 May 22, 2023 at 10:00-11:30am 23. Virtual Stakeholder Meeting #4 May 24, 2024 at 11:30am-1:00pm 24. Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee June 6, 2023 at 6:00pm 25. Colma Creek Citizens Advisory Committee June 13, 2023 at 6:00pm 26. Youth Commission July 3, 2023 at 6:30pm 27. Planning Commission July 6, 2023 at 7:00pm 21 28. Pop-Up #5 July 8, 2023 at 10:00am-1:00pm (Orange Park Farmer’s Market) 29. Virtual Community Open House July 12, 2023 at 11:30am-1:30pm 30. In-Person Community Open House July 13, 2023 at 5:30-7:30pm (Emergency Operations Center) 31. Equity and Public Safety Commission July 17, 2023 at 4:00pm 32. Design Review Board July 18, 2023 at 4:00pm 33. Cultural Arts Commission July 20, 2023 at 6:30pm 34. Pop-Up #6 July 21, 2023 at 6:00-8:00pm (Movie Night at Orange Park) 35. City Council July 26, 2023 at 6:00pm 36. Planning Commission August 3, 2023 at 7:00pm 22 LINDENVILLE SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL DRAFT FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS For project information and to view the Plan visit: SHAPESSF.COM/plan-lindenville Between June and August 2023, the City received over 200 comments and questions on the Public Review Draft of the Lindenville Specific Plan. A summary of responses to the most frequently asked comments and questions are provided below, organized by theme. When comments resulted in policy changes, the word “added” or “revised” is included to indicate the amendment. GENERAL What is the Lindenville Specific Plan? A comprehensive planning and zoning tool for a small area that refines the vision and guiding principles laid out in the City’s General Plan. The Specific Plan defines policy and development standards and has a strong focus on implementation. What is the time frame of the Specific Plan? The Specific Plan follows the horizon year of 2040 established in the General Plan. Changes outlined in the Specific Plan are expected to happen incrementally. What are the project goals? • Center the voices of people who will live, work, own property, and recreate in Lindenville. • Prepare a shared plan for achieving a successful, equitable, and resilient district through design standards, community benefits, and the provision of public amenities and services. • Retain existing industrial uses, while ensuring new neighborhoods are livable, healthy, quiet, and green. What is a Transfer of Development Rights program? Property owners in Lindenville are eligible to use the Transfer of Development Rights program. This program provides property owners an opportunity to capture value from their existing building square footage and/ or potential development rights if they choose to sell their property. Through the program property owners can transfer or sell square footage rights to a receiving site for the provision of parks and open spaces, public facilities, or affordable housing on the original property. The Transfer of Development Rights program is included in the Specific Plan as a mechanism to incentivize the development of the Colma Creek Greenbelt. Can we partner with other agencies to help build the district? Yes, the Specific Plan includes a number of partnership opportunities as defined in the implementation actions. These include continued work with the County, OneShoreline, the arts community, BART, Caltrain, neighboring communities, and more. DESIGN STANDARDS Why are we using objective design standards? California State laws, including Senate Bill No. 35 and Senate Bill No. 330, require housing development projects to be reviewed against objective design standards. Certain development projects may only be denied approval by the City if they do not adhere to these objective standards. Objective design standards must be verifiable and measurable. 23 LINDENVILLE SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL DRAFT FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS For project information and to view the Plan visit: SHAPESSF.COM/plan-lindenville What policies guide district character? • Policy DD-2.3 (revised): Façade composition. Shape building massing and/or architectural fenestration to provide visual interest, scale, and rhythm through building and/or building façade design. Use material, color, and solar shading to create a shared vocabulary unique to Lindenville. • Policy DD-2.4 (revised): High-quality and sustainable architecture. Facilitate high-quality and sustainable architecture to create a coherent place, while allowing individual buildings to be unique. What policies guide ecological, sustainable, and future-oriented design? • Policy DD-3.4 (added): Ecological design. Design new development to support a healthy and biodiverse environment through landscape and planting design, reduction in impervious coverage, green roof, and other site and building design strategies. Support design strategies at grade, on the podium, and on the roof. • Policy DD-4.5 (added): Sustainable development. Decarbonize new developments with low embodied carbon materials, renewable energy generation, and resource efficient design (energy, water, and waste) through development standards and incentives for higher performing new developments. • Policy DD-4.6 (added): Future conditions. Ensure that new and/or substantial construction is planned and designed to accommodate future conditions for the life of the project through implementation of the Flood Plain/Sea Level Rise Overlay (see Chapter 20.180) Why is there a 15’ setback required in the front and rear of residential development? The purpose of the setbacks is to create a gradual transition between the public and private realms, provide opportunities for canopy, landscaping, and other greening, and to soften the edges. The intent was to create a unique look and feel to Lindenville, distinguished from other areas. Development projects with unique site conditions may be granted exceptions per the following: • Table 6 Form-Based Zone Development Standards, footnote 5 (revision): Development projects with unique site conditions, including a narrow parcel depth, may apply for a Planned Development District Permit. OPEN SPACE & THE ENVIRONMENT How is contamination remediation addressed in the Plan? The Specific Plan development process included background analysis on environmental pollution in Lindenville. The Specific Plan requires additional soil and groundwater analysis for development projects in order to implement mitigation measures at the project level. There are also standards for noise and air pollution. How will the Plan’s open space framework build on and connect to existing open space networks in SSF? Lindenville’s planned linear park, trails, and greenways will connect to the Centennial Way Trail and Sister Cities Park, two parks that extend from Lindenville into other parts of the South San Francisco. Lindenville does not have any existing residential neighborhoods so the Lindenville Linear Park would, over time, connect to future mixed use neighborhoods via trails and greenways. How will the Plan mitigate the flooding of businesses in Lindenville? The Implementation Chapter of the Plan outlines next steps for studying and securing funding for the capital improvement projects that would increase resilience and improve stormwater management. Any project will require engagement with property owners. 24 LINDENVILLE SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL DRAFT FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS For project information and to view the Plan visit: SHAPESSF.COM/plan-lindenville How is Sea Level Rise (SLR) addressed in the potential plans for the Colma Creek Greenbelt? All development projects within the Flood Plain/Sea Level Rise District must adhere to Chapter 20.180 (“Flood Plain/Sea Level Rise Overlay”). The Flood Plain/Sea Level Rise District applies to all areas of South San Francisco that are within a FEMA flood zone map, identified as being in the 100-year flood plus 36 inches of sea level rise, or within Bay Conservation and Development Commission’s 100-foot shoreline band. Standards in the Lindenville Specific Plan are intended to protect areas projected to be impacted by sea level rise, mitigate the impacts of sea level rise, and protect the health, safety, and welfare of residents of the city. Can the Plan include a provision to continue studying flood control options for Colma Creek? • Implementation Item - Colma Creek Flood Control Feasibility Study Description (added): Conduct a feasibility study to identify the most impactful and cost-effective strategies to reduce flooding from Colma Creek in order to better enable decision-makers to make informed decisions on flood control options. How will Colma Creek improvements be financed? The City has been in close coordination with OneShoreline in looking at the soft infrastructure and naturalization improvement options for Colma Creek. The northern portion owned by the City has been part of a study by Hassell to introduce flood mitigation pilot projects. This visioning process and implementation actions in the Plan can help the City acquire grant funding and do more detailed studies. How does the Plan address the potential loss of property values when an area gets rezoned for greenspace? The Specific Plan sets a long-term vision for Lindenville’s parks and open space. Landowners are not forced to redevelop their properties, and the Specific Plan does not use eminent domain to create open space. The Specific Plan relies on market-based incentives, development standards, and partnerships. As redevelopment along Colma Creek starts to occur, there may be greater incentive to transition properties to greenspace. MIXED USE DISTRICT How will the Plan protect existing businesses, especially industrial uses? The Specific Plan maintains a core industrial area within Lindenville. Property owners within any area, including the mixed use residential area, will not be required to sell their properties, and industrial nonconforming uses will be allowed to continue for the structural life of the building. The plan contains strategies to retain existing businesses in the city under Goal LU-3. Will current landowners and business owners be forced to redevelop? Landowners are not going to be forced to redevelop their properties and eminent domain is not a part of the Specific Plan. Existing uses are allowed to continue into the future, consistent with the City’s Zoning Ordinance on non-conforming uses. If they choose to, property owners are eligible to participate in the Transfer of Development Rights program in which they can transfer or sell square footage rights to a receiving site for the provision of a park or open space, affordable housing, or public facility. Does the Plan favor Biotech uses? The Plan does not expand land available for biotech uses from what was established in the General Plan, which includes the Southline Campus adjacent to the San Bruno BART station and an area adjacent to US Highway 101. 25 LINDENVILLE SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL DRAFT FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS For project information and to view the Plan visit: SHAPESSF.COM/plan-lindenville We’ve seen areas designated for retail that don’t succeed. How does the Plan address this? Over 5,000 units are planned in Lindenville, and the Plan allocates areas for services that accommodate a new mixed use neighborhood. In the short-term, before a critical mass of housing is constructed, the Specific Plan provides allowance for temporary uses within those spaces. The Plan strategically allows retail and other commercial uses in places with higher volumes of people and vehicle movement, such as South Linden and South Spruce Avenues. Changes proposed in this Plan will make this neighborhood more desirable place to live. Can you talk about anti-displacement strategies? There are no residents currently living in this neighborhood. From a business perspective, the Plan includes policies under Goal LU-3 to provide services to help businesses stay in South San Francisco. Does the Plan include incentives for artists and makers to move to this district? The Plan contains strategies to employ public artists, create affordable arts spaces on the ground floor, and create community facilities. Policy LU-6.1 establishes transfer of development rights to encourage development of public facilities. Policy LU-4.2 supports the creation of deed restricted affordable live-work spaces by including these spaces as a priority in use of City affordable housing funds and partnering with nonprofit organizations focused on artists and makers. The Specific Plan’s Arts and Makers Overlay provides incentives for artists/makers. Developers maximize every square foot, won’t this impact whether we can implement the Plan, including provisions for open space and public realm improvements? The Specific Plan has specific standards for new development, including those that support the health and safety of residents and employees. These include open space, tree canopy, and active mobility improvements. • Design standard 8 (added): Combining mini-parks. Combine open spaces for multiple projects into a single open space area if the combined open spaces remain accessible to all residents, employees, and visitors. HOUSING & HEIGHT Why is the City building more housing? For the eight-year time frame covered by the current Housing Element cycle (2023-2031), the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) identified the region’s housing need, assigned a Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) to each jurisdiction, and distributed each jurisdiction’s housing unit allocation among four affordability levels. South San Francisco’s 2023 - 2031 Housing Element complies with these requirements and Lindenville was identified as an area to accommodate a portion of housing growth. The Sub-Areas Element of the General Plan further details a vision, goals, and a range of policies and implementation actions for Lindenville to develop housing units (5,000+ units through the year 2040) and grow jobs in Lindenville. What is the Height Incentive Overlay (HIO)? The Height Incentive Overlay District is intended to incentivize higher levels of green building performance, affordable housing, and the provision of additional open space in excess of the amount required under existing City and Specific Plan regulations and fees in exchange for increased building heights. • HIO (revised description): The Height Incentive Overlay allows for maximum building heights of up to ~150 160 feet, subject to consistency with the SFO ALUCP and FAA regulations, in exchange for affordable housing, open space dedication, and green buildings. 26 LINDENVILLE SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL DRAFT FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS For project information and to view the Plan visit: SHAPESSF.COM/plan-lindenville How does the Plan address setbacks and height transitions between existing residential neighborhoods and new development? For existing residential neighborhoods, the Plan establishes height transitions, setbacks, and development standards to prevent abrupt transitions. What does the Plan require regarding affordable housing? All projects in Lindenville are required to provide 15% affordable units per the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, and affordable housing is a priority community benefit. Policy LU-1.2 establishes a goal for 20% affordable housing in Lindenville, and Policy LU-1.3 aims for a diversity of housing types for a variety of household sizes. Policy LU-4.2 supports the creation of deed restricted affordable live-work spaces by including these spaces as a priority in use of City affordable housing funds and partnering with nonprofit organizations focused on artists and makers. • HIO (added): 5.c. Affordable housing. Provide an additional 5% affordable housing beyond requirements in Chapter 20.380 (“Inclusionary Housing Requirements”). Can more height be added near US-101 (Victory and Maple)? The Specific Plan establishes height transition guidelines and standards for future developments adjacent to existing residential neighborhoods. Shifting height and density east towards South Linden Avenue was considered. However, this change was not made due to parcel and right-of-way constraints in the corridor. BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIVITY How does the Plan improve bicycle and pedestrian connectivity within Lindenville and between Lindenville and greater SSF? The Specific Plan builds off of the General Plan by proposing streetscape improvements and bicycle, pedestrian, transit, and auto networks to make it easier and safer to get into and around Lindenville. The planned pedestrian network includes streetscape and pedestrian access improvements along many of Lindenville’s streets, including Canal Street and South Linden Avenue. Additional pedestrian paths connect South Spruce Avenue to South Linden Avenue, South Spruce Avenue to downtown, to the Centennial Way Trail, San Francisco Bay Trail, and Sister Cities Park. Developers will be required to provide some roadway and pedestrian and/or bicycle connections as conditions of development. The proposed Lindenville Linear Park connects users from Railroad Avenue and the Centennial Way Trail to Colma Creek. INFRASTRUCTURE How will critical infrastructural improvements be financed? The Implementation Chapter identifies types of improvements, potential funding sources and the time frame it may take the City to work on and complete the improvements. Individual capital improvements, if approved, would need to further designed, costed, and incorporated in the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The Specific Plan includes utility, infrastructure, and mobility improvements that would be incorporated into the CIP. Do we have enough public school infrastructure to support the families that will live in Lindenville? Per analysis conducted during the General Plan Update and via its Environmental Impact Report, the District has the infrastructure to support student population growth through the year 2040, the horizon year of the General Plan. 27 LINDENVILLE SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL DRAFT FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS For project information and to view the Plan visit: SHAPESSF.COM/plan-lindenville MISCELLANEOUS Are the Character Areas based on current demands for those type of spaces? The Specific Plan establishes four distinct Character Areas; the Mixed Use Neighborhood, the South Spruce Avenue Corridor, the Employment Area, and the South Linden Avenue Arts and Makers District. The Character Areas help to ensure complete, walkable communities and to articulate unique design standards for each Area. Where can a grocery store go in Lindenville? No grocery stores are proposed or under construction in the Specific Plan Area; however, grocery stores are not precluded from the Plan Area. The Safeway on El Camino Real, within a short distance of Lindenville, is redeveloping. There are many potential locations for grocery stores, including within the Active Ground Floor Use Overlay on South Spruce Avenue. 28 Lindenville Public Draft Specific Plan Comment MatrixComment # Comment Chapter Section Plan Page Number Response Action to be Taken1we don't need more people coming to SSF........with more traffic.......why?...just for money?Chapter 1: Introduction 1.1 About Lindenville 2 Residential growth in the Lindenville Specific Plan (5,000+ units) is consistent with growth planned for in the City's General Plan, adopted in 2022, and Housing Element. No change recommended.None2The City needs to steward this Plan because it is a great opportunity. Chapter 1: Introduction 1.1 About Lindenville 2 No change recommended. None3Would have been nicer to hear about this planning process earlier. Chapter 1: Introduction 1.2 Specific Plan Development6The planning process kicked off in May 2022. The City advertised the Plan through an interactive project website, signs and banners in Lindenville, email updates, presentations to boards and commission meetings, and advertisements on social media. No change recommended.None4You need to have a long‐term perspective for this Plan. Chapter 2: Vision for Lindenville2.1 Vision for Lindenville 16 No change recommended. None5Wondering if there’s too much dreaming going on in this Plan. Can’t fault what’s going on here, but have serious doubts that this is going to happen.Chapter 2: Vision for Lindenville2.1 Vision for Lindenville 16 The Specific Plan defines 20‐year vision for the future of Lindenville. The envisioned open spaces, blue‐green infrastructure, and arts district are transformative and will take years to implement. City staff will continually identify opportunities and partnerships to accelerate their implementation. No change recommended.None6Wants to be cautious we don’t dump everything on Lindenville. We don’t want to accidentally create problems there in the future.Chapter 2: Vision for Lindenville2.1 Vision for Lindenville 16 Changes will happen incrementally over time. The City will be able to carefully react to change and make adjustments over time. No change recommended.None7Really excited about the Plan. Likes the open space, mixed use, bike lanes Chapter 2: Vision for Lindenville2.2 Major Strategies 17 No change recommended. None8When presenting on this and the GP, make sure to include how the plan addresses health, schools, childcare, other family servicesChapter 2: Vision for Lindenville2.2 Major Strategies 17 The South San Francisco General Plan has the Equitable Community Services Element that addresses many of the intersections between schools, childcare, and social services. It sets goals, policies, and actions for the entire city, including the Lindenville Sub‐Area. The future development and enhancement of these services and public facilities in Lindenville would reflect the community vision established in the General Plan. No change recommended.None9How does the GP and LSP address care for elder veterans? Chapter 2: Vision for Lindenville2.2 Major Strategies 18 The City's General Plan establishes policies and actions that aim to improve all seniors' access to resources and services. As Lindenville develops and has residents, future senior programs and services in the Sub‐Area would reflect the vision established in the General Plan. No change recommended.None10Update Figure 7 with the revised version of Figure 23 that incorporates the updates listed in the Comment Matrix.Chapter 2: Vision for Lindenville2.2 Major Strategies 23 Update Figure 7 with the revised version of Figure 23: Parks and Open Space Framework Plan.Make change11Update Figure 8 and 9 with the revised versions of Figures 29 and 28. Chapter 2: Vision for Lindenville2.2 Major Strategies 25 Update Figure 8 with the revised Figure 29: Transit Priority Streets, and update Figure 9 with the revised Figure 29: Bicycle Priority Streets.Make change12Linden is situated between two Latinx neighborhoods Old Town and Mayfair village, industrial serving neighborhoods. Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing3.1 Goals and Policies 28 No change recommended. None13There are 4 title Los Cerritos, SSFHS, Spruce, and Martin schools adjacent to South Linden / Lindenville. TITLE 1: schools in which children from low‐income families make up at least 40 percent of enrollment. Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing3.1 Goals and Policies 28 No change recommended. None14In terms of allocation for affordable housing, is there anything envisioned for policies that might prioritize certain populations, such as the arts population?Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing3.1 Goals and Policies 28 Policy LU‐1.2 establishes a goal for 20% affordable housing in Lindenville, rather than the City's overall inclusionary goal of 15%. Policy LU‐1.3 aims for a diversity of housing types for a variety of household sizes and types. Policy LU‐4.2 supports the creation of deed restricted affordable live‐work spaces by including these spaces as a priority in use of City affordable housing funds and partnering with nonprofit organizations focused on artists and makers. No change recommended.None15It can be nice for existing businesses to operate according to code when the new residential uses come in.Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing3.1 Goals and Policies 28 Businesses are required to operate under code under the City's existing code enforcement regulations. No change recommended.NonePage 1 of 2629 Lindenville Public Draft Specific Plan Comment MatrixComment # Comment Chapter Section Plan Page Number Response Action to be Taken16Do we have enough public school infrastructure to support the families that will live in Lindenville?Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing3.1 Goals and Policies 28 Per analysis conducted during the General Plan Update and via its Environmental Impact Report, Lindenville has the infrastructure to support student population growth through the year 2040, the horizon year of the General Plan. No change recommended.None17Changes proposed in this Plan will make this neighborhood more desirable place to live. Can you talk about anti‐displacement strategies?Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing3.1 Goals and Policies 30 There are no residents currently living in Lindenville. From a business perspective, the Plan includes policies under Goal LU‐3 to provide services to help businesses stay in South San Francisco. No change recommended.None18Our city council is not representing, nor protecting its residents. We have been sold out – big time!Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing3.1 Goals and Policies 30 See previous response. No change recommended. None19There was also the disclosure that existing businesses likely would be displaced but would receive help to do so even if outside the city limits. While one planning commissioner didn't want it to look this way, I believe they were more concerned with the optics than the reality. Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing3.1 Goals and Policies 30 Goal LU‐3 prioritizes the City provide services to help businesses stay in South San Francisco. No change recommended.None20Is it possible to incentivize the first artists/makers that move to the A&M District, as they are taking a riskChapter 3: Land Use and Housing3.1 Goals and Policies 31 Policy LU‐4.2 supports the creation of deed restricted affordable live‐work spaces by including these spaces as a priority in use of City affordable housing funds and partnering with nonprofit organizations focused on artists and makers. The Specific Plan's Arts & Makers Overlay provides incentives for artists/makers. No change recommended.None21Character areas: Are those based on current demands for those type of spaces? Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing3.2 Land Use Vision 33 The Specific Plan establishes four different character areas in Lindenville. The character areas help to: ensure complete, walkable communities in the Mixed Use Neighborhood, South Spruce Avenue Corridor and along the South Linden Arts and Makers District; and to articulate unique design standards for each of the areas. No change recommended.None22The main thing I want to make sure is that we evolve from an employment area to a new district, and that the change is made as best we can. Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing3.2 Land Use Vision 33 No change recommended. None23To maintain consistency with existing zoning for a development project, revert parcels at 40 Airport Blvd, 20 Airport Blvd, and 10 Airport Blvd back to RH‐180.Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing3.2 Land Use Vision 38 Add the following description for the Residential High (RH‐180) Land Use District after the description for Medium Density Residential (RM‐22): "Residential High 180 (RH‐180)RH‐180 district provides for a mix of residential development, allowing a variety of multifamily housing choices, including townhouses, condominiums, and apartment buildings. It also supports residential care facilities, group residential homes, service‐enriched housing, parks and recreation facilities, and civic and institutional uses."Make change24Remove Medium Density Residential (RM‐22) designation and replace with the T3 Neighborhood (T3N) description.Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing3.2 Land Use Vision 38 Remove the following "Medium Density Residential (RM‐22)The RM‐22 district provides for a transition between existing single family residential neighborhoods and higher density neighborhoods in Lindenville. RM‐22 allows for attached or detached single‐family housing, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, townhouses, and condominiums. It also supports residential care facilities, service‐enriched housing, park and recreation facilities, civic, and institutional uses." Add the following description for the T3N Land Use District after the Residential High description: "The T3N district is a low‐intensity neighborhood mixed‐use district. Residential in character, it supports cultural institutions and neighborhood‐serving commercial uses in a walkable context. Buildings reflect the scale of surrounding low‐density neighborhoods and frontages are consistent with those of the surrounding neighborhood."Make changePage 2 of 2630 Lindenville Public Draft Specific Plan Comment MatrixComment # Comment Chapter Section Plan Page Number Response Action to be Taken25Update HIO text for clarity. Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing3.3 Land Use 39 Revise description for clarity: "Height Incentive Overlay (HIO)The Height Incentive Overlay allows for maximum building heights of up to ~150 160 feet, subject to consistency with the SFO ALUCP and FAA regulations, in exchange for affordable housing, open space dedication, and green buildings."Make change26Colma Creek Greenbelt: This is great and an interesting concept; strongly recommend also adding a Sea Level Rise Overlay that extends beyond Colma Creek frontageMore detailed suggested revisions to SSF's Ch. 20.180 Flood Plain/Sea Level Rise Overlay District were sent to Billy Gross on 7/16 can be a starting point for this.Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing3.3 Land Use 39 Existing Zoning Ordinance Chapter 20.180 (“Flood Plain/Sea Level Rise Overlay”) applies to all areas of the City that are within a FEMA flood zone map, identified as being in the 100‐year flood plus 36 inches of sea level rise, or within BCDC's 100‐foot shoreline band. The standards within this Chapter are intended to protect areas projected to be impacted by sea level rise, mitigate the impacts of sea level rise, and protect the health, safety, and welfare of residents of the City. No change recommended.None27Update the Medium Density Residential parcels to T3 Neighborhood land use district. Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing3.3 Land Use 40 Update the Medium Density Residential parcels to the T3 Neighborhood Land Use District, and add the new district as a legend item.Make change28To maintain consistency with existing zoning for a development project, revert parcels at 40 Airport Blvd, 20 Airport Blvd, and 10 Airport Blvd back to RH‐180 and reflect that in the Land Use Districts Map.Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing3.3 Land Use 40 Update the symbology of parcels at 40 Airport Blvd, 20 Airport Blvd, and 10 Airport Blvd to be RH‐180 instead of T5 Lindenville, and add RH‐180 as a legend item.Make change29To maintain consistency with the General Plan Land Use Map and the San Mateo County Assessor Map, revise the Land Use Districts Map so that the Navigable Slough parcel is included and is designated as Open Space. Revise 131 Terminal Court and 101 Terminal Court parcels to match the San Mateo County Assessor Map. Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing3.3 Land Use 40 Update the parcellation on the Land Use Districts Map so that the Navigable Slough parcel is included, matches the San Mateo County Assessor Map, and is designated as Open Space. Revise the 131 Terminal Court and 101 Terminal Court parcels to match the San Mateo County Assessor Map.Make change30Makerspace / open space on either side of the canal instead ‐ why put housing on a traffic corridor? The canal is the most attractive area for shops / restaurantsChapter 3: Land Use and Housing3.3 Land Use 40Property owners will have the option of developing ground floor commercial and arts and makers uses on either side of Colma Creek, but it will not be required. Concentrating uses in specific locations will help to activate a portion of South Linden Avenue. Retail often works best on corridors with higher volume of people and vehicle movement, such as South Linden and South Spruce. No change recommended. None31Lots of area allocated to commercial / arts / makers – maybe it should be mixed use Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing3.3 Land Use 40 The underlying Zoning Districts in the Arts & Makers district allow for residential, commercial, and/or industrial uses, depending on location. No change recommended.None32For building owners on Canal and Starlite, what are your plans? We very well may not be willing to sell. And if we are, how do you plan to purchase the property?Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing3.3 Land Use 40 Landowners are not forced to redevelop their properties. Existing uses are allowed to continue into the future, consistent with the City's Zoning Ordinance on non‐conforming uses. No change recommended.None33I am concerned with the further reduction of industrial zoned properties in SSF. It started on the East side of the 101 now it's spread to a good portion of the West side. Industrial tenants continue to be pushed out, prices continue to increase and landlords have buildings that do not conform with new zoning. Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing3.3 Land Use 40 The City recognizes this concern. The Specific Plan maintains a core industrial area within Lindenville. Property owners within any area, including the mixed‐use residential area, will not be required to sell their properties, and industrial nonconforming uses will be allowed to continue for the structural life of the building. The Plan contains strategies to retain existing businesses in the city. No change recommended.None34It is great when areas are up‐zoned for but not when it also eliminates the right for future tenants and landlords to use their industrial properties for an industrial use.Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing3.3 Land Use 40 Property owners within any area, including the mixed‐use residential area, will not be required to sell their properties, and industrial nonconforming uses will be allowed to continue for the structural life of the building. No change recommended.None35No biotech corporations should be on the west side of the city near neighborhoods. Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing3.3 Land Use 40 The Specific Plan does not expand land available for life science uses in Lindenville beyond those previously identified in the 2040 General Plan. No change recommended.None36The Plan Area starts just south of Railroad Avenue and there is a significant grade change at Spruce and Linden, I did see a slide with potential connections, can you speak to that?Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing3.3 Land Use 40 The Specific Plan includes a pedestrian / bicycle connection between Railroad Avenue and the Neighborhood Park. Connections, such as this, will also be handled on a case by case basis as new development projects move forward. No change recommended.NonePage 3 of 2631 Lindenville Public Draft Specific Plan Comment MatrixComment # Comment Chapter Section Plan Page Number Response Action to be Taken37Is there thinking of making connection from Lindenville to other neighborhoods? Looking at the graphic where you can go in 5 minutes, 15 minutes etc.…right now it’s hard to navigate from a pedestrian perspective.Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing3.3 Land Use 40 The Specific Plan builds off of the General Plan and existing bike and pedestrian plans. The City may prioritize some streets as capital improvements, such as South Spruce Avenue. Whereas in other cases, developers will be required to provide some multi‐modal improvements as conditions of development approval. No change recommended.None38I see there are lot of vacant spaces or spaces that were designated retail and didn’t succeed, so the use changed to residential for example. What’s your strategy? Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing3.3 Land Use 40 Over 5,000 units are planned in Lindenville, and the Plan allocates areas for services that accommodate a new mixed‐use neighborhood. In the short‐term, before a critical mass of housing is constructed, the Specific Plan provides allowance for temporary uses within those spaces. No change recommended.None39Southline area should have its own master plan; Phasing to get some development started sooner. Mix housing, office, retail.Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing3.3 Land Use 40 The Southline Specific Plan governs the Southline project area. It includes a mix of office, commercial, and open space. No change recommended.None40What happened to the industrial City? As a general contractor, I saw all of my suppliers move to SSF. All came to Lindenville with auto body shops, welding shops, etc. Where are these people going to go? Are we going to knock down their warehouses and build up boxes? Need to think about this from the standpoint of workers? Do they have to go to San Mateo or Burlingame. This Plan is a little extreme, and more care should be had to the people who work there. Outside of architecture, I don’t like this Plan.Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing3.3.3 Allowed Uses 41 The Specific Plan builds on the recently adopted General Plan's vision for the area. The Specific Plan defines the policies, development standards, and implementation actions to work towards that vision. No change recommended.None41The draft specific plan places too many additional restrictions on industrial uses. Specifically in the T4 and T5 districts industrial and R&D uses are subject to a minor use permit which is a multi month process and for all intensive purposes eliminates the feasibility of these uses. No Warehousing, Storage, and Distribution uses are allowed. Many of the properties in these areas are smaller individually owned industrial condominium uses where there is no path to redevelopment due to the large ownership groups. These mixed use neighborhoods should allow for industrial uses to be allowed to continue as by right uses.Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing3.3.3 Allowed Uses 41 To simplify the substitution of uses within existing buildings, the City is updating Chapter 20.320.005 (“Substitution of Nonconforming Uses”) to streamline and simplify the process. See Zoning Ordinance update for more information.None42Industrial, R&D, Warehouse, Distribution and Auto related uses should be allowed to continue in the mixed use districts as by right uses without the requirement of a minor use permit. These uses should receive a simple over the counter business license approval.Many of the properties in this area are small warehouse condo units owned by individuals as investments or owner/users. The restrictions on industrial uses makes it onerous on these small individual owners to continue to use their buildings for the intended use. Since they are multi‐tenant buildings there is no path to development and they will remain warehouses. This area should allow for historical uses to continue to be permitted, but also allow for new multi family residential development. Making it a true mixed use district.Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing3.3.3 Allowed Uses 41 To simplify the substitution of uses within existing buildings, the City is updating Chapter 20.320.005 (“Substitution of Nonconforming Uses”) to streamline and simplify the process. See Zoning Ordinance update for more information.None43There is a typo in the key at the top of Table 1 Use Regulations: “—” = Use Note Allowed Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing3.3.3 Allowed Uses 42 Revise "“—” = Use Note Allowed" to say "“—” = Use Not Allowed" Make change44Remove the RM‐22 land use district column from Table 1. Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing3.3.3 Allowed Uses 42 Remove the RM‐22 land use district column from Table 1. Make change45Add the T3N district to Table 1 Use Regulations. Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing3.3.3 Allowed Uses 42 Add T3N as a column before T3ML. Uses will be the same as the uses in the City's Zoning Code for T3N.Make change46District RH‐180 should be added to Table 1 Use Regulations as a column for consistency with existing zoning for a development project.Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing3.3.3 Allowed Uses 42 Add RH‐180 as a column after RM‐22. Uses are the same as the City's current Zoning Code for RH‐180.Make change47Revise the allowed use in the T4L column for Dwelling, Single‐Unit, Attached to be consistent with the building types allowed in this district. Rowhouse is a building types allowed in this district and the City defines this typology as a Single‐Unit Dwelling.Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing3.3.3 Allowed Uses 42 Replace "‐" with "P" to the T4L column for the Dwelling, Single‐Unit, Attached row in Table 1: Use Regulations.Make changePage 4 of 2632 Lindenville Public Draft Specific Plan Comment MatrixComment # Comment Chapter Section Plan Page Number Response Action to be Taken48Table 1: Use Regulations needs to be updated to be consistent with the existing Zoning Code and proposed updates to the Zoning Code.Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing3.3.3 Allowed Uses 42 Update Table 1: Use Regulations to incorporate the following changes: Ensuring existing use‐based districts (RM‐22, BPO, BTP‐H, MIM, MIH, PQP) to be consistent with the existing Zoning Code; updating uses of transect zones to be consistent with updated zoning; fixing various typos; removing new uses introduced in the Public Draft Specific Plan for consistency with the Zoning Code (e.g., arts exhibition space); adding uses that were not included in the Draft Specific Plan table that are in the existing Zoning Code (e.g., cannabis uses); removing PQ from the table.Make change49Opening my own small business, sustainable “refillery,” how are we as a community going to make this place more for families, artists, etc. I know this is a long‐term plan, but in the meantime, are there temporary uses that might help promote small businesses, especially craft/ boutique etc.?Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing3.3.3 Allowed Uses 42 The Plan allows for arts and makers uses in all districts except PQP, BPO, and RM‐22. It allows for general retail sales in all districts except PQP and RM‐22. The City is prepared a Public Arts Master Plan that will enhance arts and cultural identity citywide. No change recommended.None50I completed the survey. The plan has too many restrictions on warehouse, distribution, R&D and industrial uses in the mixed use districts. These uses should be allow to continue as permitted uses by right without the requirement for a minor use permit or any other approvals. Many of the properties in this area are small warehouse condo units owned by individuals as investments or owner/users. The restrictions on industrial uses makes it onerous on these small individual owners to continue to use their buildings for the intended use. Since they are multi‐tenant buildings there is no path to development and they will remain warehouses. This area should allow for historical uses to continue to be permitted, but also allow for new multi family residential development. Making it a true mixed use district.Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing3.3.3 Allowed Uses 42 To simplify the substitution of uses within existing buildings, the City is updating Chapter 20.320.005 (“Substitution of Nonconforming Uses”) to streamline and simplify the process. See Zoning Ordinance update for more information.None51Typo in Table 1 Use Regulations: "Hotel and Morel"Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing3.3.3 Allowed Uses 46 Revise "Hotel and Morel" to say "Hotel and Motel"Make change52Our city staff and the city council have sold out the residents by smoozing up to the biotech ‐‐ all the biotech cares about is themselves, and not the residents of SSF. Time for a change in "leadership."Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing3.3.3 Allowed Uses 47 The Specific Plan does not expand land available for life science uses in Lindenville beyond those previously identified in the 2040 General Plan. No change recommended.None53Add a column that contains the total floor area ratio for residential and non‐residential for each district.Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing3.4 Development Intensity51 Add column and the following for each district:"RH‐180: NA T3N: 0.5 min, 2.25 maxT3ML: 0.5 min; 2.5 maxT4L: 1.25 min; 3.5 maxT5L: 1.5 min; 3.75 max BPO: 2.5BTP‐H: 2.0MIM: 1.0MIH: 2.0PQP: NA"Make change54Discussion related to the Prologis site on South Spruce. Consideration for lowering the minimum residential density on the site.Suggestions to master plan the site, given its large size.Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing3.4 Development Intensity51 Prologis owns a large parcel along the South Spruce corridor. The Specific Plan splits the parcel between the T4 mixed use and BPO designations. The T4 zone requires a minimum residential density, which applies to the mixed‐use portion of the site only. The Specific Plan also identifies an open space and the Lindenville Linear Park, connecting to the Centennial Way Trail, on site. Given the size and complexity of the site, the mix of uses, and the likely need to phase a project of this size, a master plan or similar would help ensure site redevelopment works toward the vision of the Specific Plan. No change recommended.None55Table 2: Density and Intensity uses both "NA" and "‐" to show a district does not have a value assigned. Make the table consistent.Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing3.4 Development Intensity51 Replace "‐" with "NA"Make change56Remove RM‐22 row from Table 2: Density and Intensity. Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing3.4 Development Intensity51 Remove row RM‐22. Make changePage 5 of 2633 Lindenville Public Draft Specific Plan Comment MatrixComment # Comment Chapter Section Plan Page Number Response Action to be Taken57Add a row for T3N above the T3ML row. Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing3.4 Development Intensity51 Add a row for T3N and fill with the following information. Minimum density is 20 du/ac; maximum density is 60 du/ac; Base FAR is 0.5 maximum for non‐residential uses; Max FAR with Community Benefits is NAMake change58To make consistent with the City's current General Plan and Zoning Code, update the Maximum FAR allowed for BTP‐H.Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing3.4 Development Intensity51 Revise the Maximum FAR with Community Benefits description for BTP‐H: "2.0 2.5 for Clean Technology, Office, and R&D"Make change59To maintain consistency with existing zoning for a development project, add RH‐180 to Table 2: Density and IntensityChapter 3: Land Use and Housing3.4 Development Intensity51 Add a row for RH‐180. Minimum density is 80 du/ac, or existing density, whichever is greater; maximum density is 180 du/ac and footnote 1 applies. Add "NA" to Base Nonresidential Floor Area Ratio column and Maximum Floor Area Ratio with Community Benefits column.Make change60To maintain consistency with the General Plan's High Density Mixed Use designation and max FAR, update the max FAR to 4.5.Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing3.4 Development Intensity51 Revise the Maximum FAR with Community Benefits description for T5L: "4.5 4.0"Make change61Revise the Max FAR with Community Benefits for MIH district to be 2.0 for consistency with Zoning Code Update.Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing3.4 Development Intensity51 Revise the Maximum FAR with Community Benefits descriptions for MIH: "2.0 2.5 for all permitted uses except Office and R&D"Make change62Remove Note #3 from Table 2: Density and Intensity. Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing3.4 Development Intensity51 Delete note "3. Total Floor Area Maximum is total maximum for site, inclusive community benefits."Make change63Remove Note #2 from Table 2: Density and Intensity on the MIM Base Non‐Residential Floor Area RatioChapter 3: Land Use and Housing3.4 Development Intensity51 Delete note 2 next to MIM's base Non‐Residential Floor Area Ratio Make change64Add a footnote clarifying the additional density allowed under the Height Incentive Overlay for T5L.Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing3.4 Development Intensity51 Add the following footnote to the Notes section and add new note 3 in superscript to "140" in row T5L, column Maximum Residential Capacity."3. Projects within the Height Incentive Overlay that comply with Height Incentive Overlay requirements are eligible for a maximum of 180 du/ac. See the Section 3.5 for more information."Make change65Concern that the City will come forward with eminent domain procedures to force property owners to sell/redevelop.Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing3.4.3 Transfer of Development Rights53 The Specific Plan sets a long‐term vision for Lindenville's parks and open space. Landowners are not forced to redevelop their properties, and the Specific Plan does not use eminent domain to create open space. The Specific Plan relies on market‐based incentives, development standards, and partnerships. As redevelopment along Colma Creek starts to occur, the setbacks and transfer of development rights program becomes a greater incentive. No change recommended.None66Happy not to see eminent domain Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing3.4.3 Transfer of Development Rights53 See previous response. None67What will happen to businesses / properties already in the Colma Creek Greenbelt? Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing3.4.3 Transfer of Development Rights53 See previous response. None68Concern about the feasibility of transferring development rights to incentivize the development of a park along Colma CreekChapter 3: Land Use and Housing3.4.3 Transfer of Development Rights53 See previous response. None69Worry from property owners about losing property values when an area gets rezoned for greenspaceChapter 3: Land Use and Housing3.4.3 Transfer of Development Rights53 Property owners in Lindenville are eligible to use the Transfer of Development Rights Program. This program provides property owners an opportunity to capture value from their existing building square footage and/or potential development rights if they choose to sell their property. No change recommended.None70The plan looks great, but how will current landowners be compensated? Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing3.4.3 Transfer of Development Rights53 Landowners are not going to be forced to redevelop their properties and eminent domain is not a part of the Specific Plan. The Specific Plan relies on market‐based incentives, development standards, and partnerships. No change recommended.None71Place "Colma Creek Greenbelt" first on the list of TDR priorities for emphasis. Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing3.4.3 Transfer of Development Rights54 Change "Colma Creek Greenbelt" from "3a. d" Make changePage 6 of 2634 Lindenville Public Draft Specific Plan Comment MatrixComment # Comment Chapter Section Plan Page Number Response Action to be Taken72Need to be thoughtful in transitions. Don’t want to put giant buildings next to existing single‐family residents.Recommend shifting taller buildings (85 feet +) further east, closer to US‐101Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing3.5 Height 55 The Specific Plan establishes height transition guidelines and standards for future developments adjacent to existing residential neighborhoods. Shifting height and density east towards South Linden Avenue was considered. However, this change was not made due to parcel and right‐of‐way constraints in the corridor. No change recommended.None73You also made mention of the possibility for construction of twelve story buildings on the site. While that might exceed current zoning, just the mention means it is as good as done as our city officials historically acquiesce to anything a developer puts in front of them.Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing3.5 Height 55 The Height Incentive Overlay District is intended to incentivize higher levels of green building performance, affordable housing, and the provision of additional open space in excess of the amount required under existing City and Specific Plan regulations and fees in exchange for increased building heights. No change recommended.None74You have even mentioned that plans for a residential project will be placed in front of [City Council] in the next few weeks for [their] approval. What a surprise. Might it be some high rise, high density housing project to satisfy our little socialist Council member? One thing is sure, if it gets built, there is no guarantee that any of the public amenities will follow.Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing3.5 Height 55 No change recommended. None75Need for actual, strong setbacks to protect residential viewscapes Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing3.5 Height 55 The Specific Plan establishes height transition guidelines and standards for future developments adjacent to existing residential neighborhoods. No change recommended.None76Revise HIO description for clarity Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing3.5 Height 55 Revise description for clarity: "The Height Incentive Overlay allows for maximum building heights in excess of what is allowed under base zoning. In areas with this Height Incentive Overlay, building heights up to ~150 160 feet are permitted in exchange for additional affordable housing, green building development, and additional open space dedication."Make change77To avoid any potential ambiguity which may come from a project modifying the ground elevation, the Airport recommends thefollowing modifications to Section 3.5 of the LSP Draft (additions underlined; deletions in strikethrough; bold is original):1. Allowed maximum height. Allowed maximum height is regulated by Figure 13 or the maximum height limits permissible under FAA regulations and the SFO ALUCP Critical AeronauticalSurfaces requirements. For avoidance of doubt, the lower of the two three heights identified by Figure 13, the ALUCP, and the FAA shall be the controlling maximum height.Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing3.5 Height 55 To avoid any potential ambiguity which may come from a project modifying the ground elevation, Revise:"1. Allowed maximum height. Allowed maximum height is regulated by Figure 13 or the maximum height limits permissible under FAA regulations and the SFO ALUCP Critical AeronauticalSurfaces requirements. For avoidance of doubt, the lower of the two three heights identified by Figure 13, the ALUCP, and the FAA shall be the controlling maximum height."Make change78Because of the ambiguity between elevation AMSL and height AGL, the Airport recommends that the following underlined language be added to Section 3.5 of the LSP Draft:2. Height measurement. Building height measurement procedures are defined in Zoning Code Chapter 20.040.005 (“Measuring Height”). Only for purposes of determining the allowed maximum height, buildings are evaluated using their top elevation above mean sea level as defined from the origin of the North American Vertical Datum of 1988. This includes any antennas, machine rooms, architectural parapets, or other appurtenances.Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing3.5 Height 55 To remove potential ambiguity, revise: "2. Height measurement. Building height measurement procedures are defined in Zoning Code Chapter 20.040.005 (“Measuring Height”). Only for purposes of determining the allowed maximum height, buildings are evaluated using their top elevation above mean sea level as defined from the origin of the North American Vertical Datum of 1988. This includes any antennas, machine rooms, architectural parapets, or other appurtenances."Make change79To avoid ambiguity, the Airport recommends that the following underlined language be added to Section 3.5 of the LSP Draft:4. Development incentives for the Height Incentive Overlay. Projects that comply with the requirements for the Height Incentive Overlay are eligible for the following incentives.a. Building height. Within the overlay, the maximum primary building height is allowed to be up to 160 feet, allowing maximum primary building height in excess of maximum that is allowedunder a site’s base district. This allowance does not negate the need to comply with the maximum height limits permissible under FAA regulations and the SFO ALUCP Critical Aeronautical Surfaces requirements, as described under Policy 1 of this section.Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing3.5 Height 55 To avoid ambiguity, revise: "4a. Building height. Within the overlay, the maximum primary building height is allowed up to the maximum height allowances based on the San Francisco International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and FAA regulations, see Section 20.300.003 (“Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Consistency”). to be up to 160 feet, allowing maximum primary building height in excess of maximum that is allowed under a site’s base district. This allowance does not negate the need to comply with the maximum height limits permissible under FAA regulations and the SFO ALUCP Critical Aeronautical Surfaces requirements, as described under Policy 1 of this section."Make changePage 7 of 2635 Lindenville Public Draft Specific Plan Comment MatrixComment # Comment Chapter Section Plan Page Number Response Action to be Taken80Add a new standard to Standard 4. Development incentives for the Height Incentive Overlay about the maximum density allowed in HIO.Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing3.5 Height 55 Add new standard: "4.b. Density bonus. Within the overlay, project maximum density allowed is 180 du/ac."Make change81Add a new standard to Standard 4 to allow developers to build the Flex High‐Rise building type in the HIO.Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing3.5 Height 55 Add new standard: "4.c. Flex High‐Rise. Within the overlay, projects may build the Flex High‐Rise building type.Make change82Likes the Height Incentive Overlay and its incentives for green buildings and open space. Can there be an affordability incentive?Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing3.5 Height 55 All projects in Lindenville are required to provide 15% affordable units per the City's inclusionary Housing Ordinance, and affordable housing is priority community benefit.To further incentivize additional affordable housing, revise the Height Incentive Overlay to add: "5.d.Affordable housing. Provide an additional 5% affordable housing beyond requirements in Chapter 20.380 (“Inclusionary Housing Requirements”)."Make change83Update parcellation on map to be consistent with the San Mateo County Assessor Map so that the Navigable Slough parcel is on the map and update the maximum height to be consistent with the Open Space district designation from Figure 11.Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing3.5 Height 57 Update the maximum height allowed on the Navigable Slough parcel to be 0 ft. Make change84Where can a grocery store go in this Plan? Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing3.6 Active Ground Floor Uses58 The is no grocery store planned for within the Specific Plan; however, they are not precluded from the Plan Area. The Safeway on El Camino Real is redeveloping. There are many potential locations for grocery stores, including in the Active Ground Floor Use Overlay on South Spruce Avenue. No change recommended. None85Lindenville…we were promised an anchor store, Safeway, (years ago) and again that doesn’t look like it will happen. What is happening is that the biotech is moving into our neighborhoods on this side of the city. What is the danger? Plenty!Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing3.6 Active Ground Floor Uses58 The is no grocery store planned for within the Specific Plan; however, they are not precluded from the Plan Area. The Safeway on El Camino Real is redeveloping. There are many potential locations for grocery stores, including in the Active Ground Floor Use Overlay on South Spruce Avenue.The Specific Plan does not expand land available for life science uses in Lindenville. No change recommended.None86Art districts tend to organically evolve more than be planned out ahead of time. Admire the thought there, but in 9th Street Oakland, they built live/work spaces but nobody used them. This might be the same thing. Might need to accept the fact that other uses may move in there. Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing3.7 Arts and Makers 60 The Plan includes language about the South Linden Avenue Arts and Makers District evolving over time, with the understanding that future planning efforts may need to be undertaken by the City depending on how it evolves. While many arts districts evolve organically, many require support and partnership with City, non‐profit, and other organizations. No change recommended.None87line edits to paragraph 4 "The mix of land uses in the South Linden Avenue Arts and Makers District is critical to promoting pedestrian activity, thriving businesses, and creativity. new audiences for the arts. It importantly provides artists and other creatives with space to produce, perform, and exhibit their work. It also serves as a gathering space for artists and makers, empowering collaboration, creativity, innovation, and experimentation."Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing3.7 Arts and Makers 60 This change will be incorporated for consistency with the Public Arts Master Plan."The mix of land uses in the South Linden Avenue Arts and Makers District is critical to promoting pedestrian activity, thriving businesses, and creativity. new audiences for the arts. It importantly provides artists and other creatives with space to produce, perform, and exhibit their work. It also serves as a gathering space for artists and makers, empowering collaboration, creativity, innovation, and experimentation."Make change88Design of Arts & Makers area should reflect the arts ‐ e.g., public art, murals, etc.This designation should also make sure that it’s enabling small artists to use the space, like arts co‐op Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing3.7 Arts and Makers 60 The Plan contains strategies to employ public artists, create affordable arts spaces, and create community facilities. No change recommended.None89The city should establish a maker space / arts training space for the public to use for free; The old fire station on Baden would make a great space for the public, job training for the arts & makers areaChapter 3: Land Use and Housing3.7 Arts and Makers 60 The Plan does not include a City‐owned art and maker space as an implementation action. The City may evaluate such as option as part of the Park and Rec Master Plan update or Public Art Master Plan. The Specific Plan does include a Transfer of Development Rights program and community benefit options to incentivize creation of community facilities, including those used for the arts, by private developers. No change recommended.None90How will we ensure that this area is actually used / accessed by artists & makers? Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing3.7 Arts and Makers 60 The Specific Plan requires ground floor arts and makers uses in the South Linden Avenue Arts and Makers Overlay that will encourage artists and makers to use this area. No change recommended.NonePage 8 of 2636 Lindenville Public Draft Specific Plan Comment MatrixComment # Comment Chapter Section Plan Page Number Response Action to be Taken91Substantial interest in Arts & Makers zoning & how this designation can best open opportunities for small artists/makersChapter 3: Land Use and Housing3.7 Arts and Makers 60 The Specific Plan requires ground floor arts and makers uses in the South Linden Avenue Arts and Makers Overlay that will encourage artists and makers to use this area. No change recommended.None92Is the City able to build/manage arts space? Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing3.7 Arts and Makers 60 The Plan does not include a City‐owned art and maker space as an implementation action. The City may evaluate such as option as part of the Park and Rec Master Plan update or Public Art Master Plan. The Specific Plan does include a Transfer of Development Rights program and community benefit options to incentivize creation of community facilities, including those used for the arts, by private developers. In addition, land use regulations do not preclude the City from opening a public facility in the Arts and Makers District. The City's ability to build/manage an arts‐based public facility will depend on the City's finances. No change recommended.None93How to include youth in arts/makers programs? Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing3.7 Arts and Makers 60 This topic is covered in more detail in the Public Arts Master Plan. No change recommended.None94Update the reference at the end of the page to be accurate to the section of Chapter 5 that contains additional information about arts and culture.Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing3.7 Arts and Makers 61 Revise: "See Section 5.6 3.7 of Chapter 5: Parks and Open Space for information about arts and culture."Make change95Extend the Arts and Makers Overlay north to Railroad Ave. Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing3.7 Arts and Makers 62 Property owners will have the option of developing ground floor commercial and arts and makers uses on either side of Colma Creek, but it is not required. Concentrating uses in specific locations will help to activate a portion of South Linden Avenue. The City may consider expanding the Overlay north of Colma Creek in the future. No change recommended.None96S Linden Ave should also be allowed to build high‐density housing, with arts and maker space on the ground floor, like the other mixed‐use residential areas.Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing3.7 Arts and Makers 62 The T3ML district allows densities of up to 60 dwelling units per acre. Projects that comply with the City's inclusionary housing requirements would receive a density bonus. Higher density/height is not proposed in this area due to site and roadway constraints. No change recommended.None97Likes the Overlay. Wants to make sure these areas can accommodate performing arts, live music, performances, etc.Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing3.7 Arts and Makers 62 The Overlay allows a range of arts and cultural uses and eases restrictions on outdoor events in this area. No change recommended.None98Developments are going to try and maximize every square foot. Suppose the applicants don’t want to give up any space for open space or public realm improvements. Wouldn't this impact whether we can implement our plan?Chapter 3: Land Use and Housing3.8 Dedication and Easement Requirements63 The Specific Plan has specific standards for new development, including those that support the health and safety of residents and employees. These include open space, tree canopy, and active mobility improvements. No change recommended.None99Address fenestration in massing variation Chapter 4: Design and Development Standards4.1 Goals and Policies 66 Revise policy: "Policy DD‐2.3: Façade composition. Shape building massing and/or architectural fenestration to provide visual interest, scale, and rhythm through building and/or building façade design. Use material, color, and solar shading to create a shared vocabulary unique to Lindenville."Make change100Address sustainability in architecture Chapter 4: Design and Development Standards4.1 Goals and Policies 66 Revise policy: "Policy DD‐2.4: High‐quality and sustainable architecture. Facilitate high‐quality and sustainable architecture to create a coherent place, while allowing individual buildings to be unique."Make change101Interested in incorporating greenery and open spaces on buildings (rooftops, patios, etc.) Chapter 4: Design and Development Standards4.1 Goals and Policies 67 Add policy: "Policy DD‐3.4: Ecological design. Design new development to support a healthy and biodiverse environment through landscape and planting design, reduction in impervious coverage, green roof, and other site and building design strategies. Support design strategies at grade, on the podium, and on the roof." Make change102Address sustainable development in the policy Chapter 4: Design and Development Standards4.1 Goals and Policies 67 Add policy: "Policy DD‐3.5: Sustainable development. Decarbonize new developments with low embodied carbon materials, renewable energy generation, and resource efficient design (energy, water, and waste) through development standards and incentives for higher performing new developments."Make change103Should any goals/policies speak to safety or climate resilience? If appropriate, recommend referring to template goals/policies/actions in Chapter 2 of OneShoreline's Planning Policy Guidance (https://oneshoreline.org/wp‐content/uploads/2023/06/OneShoreline‐Planning‐Policy‐Guidance‐Final‐Draft‐June‐21‐2023‐For‐Web.pdf)Chapter 4: Design and Development Standards4.1 Goals and Policies 67 Add policy: "Policy DD‐3.6: Future conditions. Ensure that new and/or substantial construction is planned and designed to accommodate future conditions for the life of the project through implementation of the Flood Plain/Sea Level Rise Overlay (see Chapter 20.180)."Make change104Remove this standalone section and incorporate graphics showing the intended design vision throughout the Chapter.Chapter 4: Design and Development Standards4.2 Lindenville's Design Vision68 Remove this section. Renumber all subsequent sections of this Chapter. Make changePage 9 of 2637 Lindenville Public Draft Specific Plan Comment MatrixComment # Comment Chapter Section Plan Page Number Response Action to be Taken105Being a new plan, it’s going to develop it’s own look and feel, would like to see aesthetic continuity. Chapter 4: Design and Development Standards4.2 Lindenville's Design Vision68 No change recommended. None106excited about design standards that would encourage a bold and unique district character.Chapter 4: Design and Development Standards4.2 Lindenville's Design Vision68 No change recommended. None107People‐oriented elements need to be emphasized. A lot of the images don’t have spaces for people. No setbacks, no places for bike parking. Nothing showing bike lanes, nothing defining crosswalks.Chapter 4: Design and Development Standards4.3 Development Standards69 Additional images will be added to the Specific Plan. Make change108Changing sample images will give developers something to look for/aspire towards. Chapter 4: Design and Development Standards4.3 Development Standards69 Additional images will be added to the Specific Plan. Make change109Add a sentence to the first paragraph in this section explaining its connection to the Plan's vision.Chapter 4: Design and Development Standards4.3.1 Block Structure 69 Add sentence to the end of the paragraph: Development applicants shall implement the following connectivity improvements with associated standards to achieve the vision of the Specific Plan.Make change110Remove the reference to RM‐22 land use district. Chapter 4: Design and Development Standards4.3.2 Use‐Based Zone Development Standards70 Revise sentence to read: "..including for RM‐22, RH‐180, BPH, BPO, MIM, and MIH, the Zoning Code development standards apply."Make change111This Plan is a gamechanger to create more housing. Need to listen to neighbor concerns about height transitions. Chapter 4: Design and Development Standards4.3.3 Form‐Based Zone Development Standards70 The Specific Plan establishes height transition guidelines and standards for future developments adjacent to existing residential neighborhoods. No change recommended.None112Worry from residents about heights of new development adjacent to existing low‐rise residential areasChapter 4: Design and Development Standards4.3.3 Form‐Based Zone Development Standards70 The Specific Plan establishes height transition guidelines and standards for future developments adjacent to existing residential neighborhoods. No change recommended.None113Remove the reference to RM‐22 land use district. Chapter 4: Design and Development Standards4.3.3 Form‐Based Zone Development Standards70 Revise sentence to read: "..including for RM‐22, T3N, RH‐180, BPH, BPO, MIM, and MIH." Make change114The headers of Table 6: Form‐Based Zone Development Standards can be clearer and consistent with the Zoning Code if re‐organized so the acronym of the district comes after the full name of the district.Chapter 4: Design and Development Standards4.3.3 Form‐Based Zone Development Standards70 Revise "T3ML‐T3 MAKERS LINDENVILLE T3 Makers Lindenville (T3ML)" Revise "T4L‐T4 LINDENVILLE T4 Lindenville (T4L)2" Revise "T5L‐T5 LINDENVILLE T5 Lindenville (T5L)" Make change115Update the Side Street text for T3ML to be consistent with revised Zoning Code. Chapter 4: Design and Development Standards4.3.3 Form‐Based Zone Development Standards71 Change "10 0 ft min.; 15 ft max." Make change116Remove "(15‐20 ft planter is typical existing condition)," to match updated Zoning Code for Front as measured from back‐of sidewalk row, T4L columnChapter 4: Design and Development Standards4.3.3 Form‐Based Zone Development Standards71 Front as measured from back‐of sidewalk row, T4L column: "15 ft min. along Spruce Avenue and Railroad Avenue (15‐20 ft planter is typical existing condition), 10 ft min. along all other frontages; 20 ft max."Make change117Remove "(15‐20 ft planter is typical existing condition)," to match updated Zoning Code for Front as measured from back‐of sidewalk row, T5L columnChapter 4: Design and Development Standards4.3.3 Form‐Based Zone Development Standards71 Front as measured from back‐of sidewalk row, T5L column: "15 ft min. along Spruce Avenue and Railroad Avenue (15‐20 ft planter is typical existing condition), 10 ft min. along all other frontages; 20 ft max."Make change118To maintain consistency with updated Zoning Code, add Rowhouse as an allowed building type to section 6. Allowed Building Types for T4L.Chapter 4: Design and Development Standards4.3.3 Form‐Based Zone Development Standards72 Add Rowhouse after Live/work for column T4L, move following three rows down. Make change119To clarify the reference to the Height Incentive Overlay. Chapter 4: Design and Development Standards4.3.3 Form‐Based Zone Development Standards72 Replace: "(*May exceed maximum residential densitywithin Height Incentive Overlay)" with new note: "3. For Height Incentive Overlay standards, see Section 3.5."Make change120Note that some non‐residential uses may be exempt from a project's total FAR. Chapter 4: Design and Development Standards4.3.3 Form‐Based Zone Development Standards72 Add footnote: "4. Total FAR is the total of residential floor area, commercial and retail floor area, arts and makers space, and additional Transfer of Development Rights Program incentives. Ground floor nonresidential uses may be exempt from the maximum FAR, see Chapter 20.040.009 (“Determining Floor Area Ratio”). Ground floor nonresidential uses would count towards the minimum FAR."Make changePage 10 of 2638 Lindenville Public Draft Specific Plan Comment MatrixComment # Comment Chapter Section Plan Page Number Response Action to be Taken121The Plan has 15’ setback front and back for housing development. That might be prohibitive for smaller sites including the site on Railroad Avenue. The project on Railroad cannot build with this restriction. Asking for exception to this rule for narrow sites.Chapter 4: Design and Development Standards4.3.3 Form‐Based Zone Development Standards72 The referenced site along Railroad Avenue has unique site conditions and dimensions. For this project, a Planned Development district / permit is a better approach than changing the design standards for all projects within this zone. Planned Development provides flexibility by allowing diversification in regulations and allows for creative development projects that incorporate design features that are more sensitive to site conditions. Add note to Table 6: "5. Development projects with unique site conditions, including a narrow parcel depth, may apply for a Planned Development District."Make change122Attached here is a PDF‐copy of some extracted pages from the Lindenville development standards; which is imposing more restrictive development standards (T4L) than current zoning (T4C). Both front and rear setback will be drastically increased from 0 feet to minimum 15 feet from back‐of‐sidewalk, etc. Although we are submitting as a Planned Development application, these proposed development standards are still concerning to the development team at Railroad Avenue residential project. Chapter 4: Design and Development Standards4.3.3 Form‐Based Zone Development Standards72 The referenced site along Railroad Avenue has unique site conditions and dimensions. For this project, a Planned Development district / permit is a better approach than changing the design standards for all projects within this zone. Planned Development provides flexibility by allowing diversification in regulations and allows for creative development projects that incorporate design features that are more sensitive to site conditions. Add note to Table 6: "5. Development projects with unique site conditions, including a narrow parcel depth, may apply for a Planned Development District."Make change123I have concerns on the proposed setback with 15ft min (front and back) for the entire Colma Creek area. By putting a blanket requirement on all potential development sites would decrease housing for certain sites that might have inherited physical challenges. There should be exception where sites are small or narrow. For example, our site on Railroad Avenue where we are proposing to build 70 plus town homes there with 15% BMR would be impossible to meet the setback requirements due to the narrow depth (50 feet). The proposed setback requirement would put less housing to the community where we desperately need more housing. As such, there should be exception for sites that have narrow depth. Thank you for your consideration! Chapter 4: Design and Development Standards4.3.3 Form‐Based Zone Development Standards72 The purpose of the setbacks is to create a gradual transition between the public and private realms, provide opportunities for canopy, landscaping, and other greening, and to soften the edges. The intent was to create a unique look and feel to Lindenville, distinguished from other areas. See response above. None124Clarify that the Flex High‐Rise Type is only allowed for development projects that meet the requirements of the Height Incentive Overlay.Chapter 4: Design and Development Standards4.3.3 Form‐Based Zone Development Standards72Under 6. Allowed Building Types, revise "Flex High‐Rise3"Add new note "6. The Flex High‐Rise type is only allowed for development projects that meet the requirements of the Height Incentive Overlay. See Section 3.5 for more details."Make change125For residential, the intention is to create a visual curve with regard to heights. What kinds of exceptions are we willing to make?Chapter 4: Design and Development Standards4.3.3 Form‐Based Zone Development Standards73 The Specific Plan allows the tallest buildings within the center of the area and along the southern and eastern edges of the Plan Area. The intent is to provide a variety of building heights to enhance the district's character. Heights are also regulated by the ALUCP and FAA. No change recommended.None126We are building Soviet books. The character applied is a shading element, which is no character. Chapter 4: Design and Development Standards4.4 Form‐Based Zone Design Standards73 No change recommended. None127Other points made are good. Really dislike the thought that certain areas have to have certain character. Likes how in East of 101 there is a lot of architectural variety. Chapter 4: Design and Development Standards4.4 Form‐Based Zone Design Standards73 No change recommended. None128Nothing about character or heart. These are same stucco boxes you see everywhere. Chapter 4: Design and Development Standards4.4 Form‐Based Zone Design Standards73 No change recommended. None129Normative, prescriptive rules are just going to result in boxes Need to not result in sameness. Chapter 4: Design and Development Standards4.4 Form‐Based Zone Design Standards73 California state laws, including Senate Bill No. 35 and Senate Bill No. 330, require housing development projects to be reviewed against objective design standards. Certain development projects may only be denied approval by the City if they do not adhere to these objective standards. Objective design standards must be verifiable and measurable. No change recommended.NonePage 11 of 2639 Lindenville Public Draft Specific Plan Comment MatrixComment # Comment Chapter Section Plan Page Number Response Action to be Taken130Can there be roofing standards? Paint roofs white to combat heat Chapter 4: Design and Development Standards4.4 Form‐Based Zone Design Standards73 In California, all new or replacement low‐slope roofs are required by the building energy efficiency standards (Title 24) to be cool roofs, as are steep‐slope roofs in several California climate zones. Guidelines for green roofs have been added to a new 4.6 Landscape Design section. No change recommended.None131New Roem building – residents are saying they want more buildings like this rather than blocky buildings. We need to be more creative when it comes to architectural styles.Chapter 4: Design and Development Standards4.4 Form‐Based Zone Design Standards73 The ROEM building adheres to the standards defined within the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan. The Lindenville Specific Plan includes different development (greater setbacks) and design standards (entryways, color/materials, shading) to emphasize it's unique character. No change recommended.None132Add a new figure as Figure 16: Key Design Element in Lindenville Chapter 4: Design and Development Standards4.4 Form‐Based Zone Design Standards73 Add a new figure rending showing the standards in this section. Make change133Update Figure 16: Building Massing and Façade Composition to be Key Design Element in Lindenville.Chapter 4: Design and Development Standards4.4 Form‐Based Zone Design Standards73 Update Figure image and title "Key Design Element in Lindenville"Make change134Update the first sentence in Standard 1. Applicability to clarify where these standards apply.Chapter 4: Design and Development Standards4.4 Form‐Based Zone Design Standards73 Revise sentence: "This section applies to all multifamily and residential mixed use development in the Lindenville T3N, T3ML, T4L, and T5L transect zones."Make change135How are balconies handled on the residential masses? The way they are currently written (subtracting from the floorplate) is a problem.Chapter 4: Design and Development Standards4.4 Form‐Based Zone Design Standards74 Revise for clarity to: "c. Façade articulation. Between major breaks, primary façades shall be a continuous plane or undulating or angular planes that do not exceed 4 feet in change of depth. Primary façades shall include additive articulation to meet passive shading requirements. i. Horizontally‐oriented façade articulation shall not exceed the façade height. ii. Building recesses are allowed up to 2 feet in depth.iii. Bay windows and other minor modulations that exceed 6 inches in depth projection that are not associated with passive shading are not allowed.iv. If balconies are provided, balconies shall be integrated with major breaks, be recessed a minimum 6 inches from primary façade, or be fully extended from the primary façade." Make change136Is there a way you can prevent just modern cubes? Things looking uninteresting? Chapter 4: Design and Development Standards4.4 Form‐Based Zone Design Standards74 See previous response. None137Think the design standards are over simplistic. The type of district that would result from them would be boring and drab. It's like Concord and a bunch of little Italies – manneristic attempts to be clever, but it dumbs down the efforts of the designers to be innovative or creative. It is a district of rule and destroys innovation. It's like Pruitt Igoe. Dated and boring and applique. Overuse of design standards. Chapter 4: Design and Development Standards4.4 Form‐Based Zone Design Standards74 See previous response. None138Reorganize the building massing and façade composition section for clarity. Chapter 4: Design and Development Standards4.4 Form‐Based Zone Design Standards74 Reorganize standards in section Make change139Add Figure 17: Unique Entry Elements and Facades to complement the revised standards. Chapter 4: Design and Development Standards4.4 Form‐Based Zone Design Standards74 Add Figure 17: Unique Entry Elements and Facades and move the Primary Façade and Major Breaks Figure down to be Figure 18. Remove the Secondary Façade Figure image.Make changePage 12 of 2640 Lindenville Public Draft Specific Plan Comment MatrixComment # Comment Chapter Section Plan Page Number Response Action to be Taken140Revise unique entry element standard for clarity. Chapter 4: Design and Development Standards4.4 Form‐Based Zone Design Standards76Revise standard to be: "3. Unique entry element. To provide opportunity for creativity and unique architectural expressions, each building shall have a unique entry element for the primary building entry used for accessing the upper floors of a building. Unique entry elements shall adhere only to the following standards, and shall be exempt from other standards in Section 4.4.a. Purpose. Unique entry element shall contain the primary shared building entrance for upper floors of the building.b. Location. The unique entry element may occur at any point along a public facing façade. c. Dimensions. i. The unique entry element shall be a minimum 3 stories in height. ii. The unique entry element shall have a minimum width of 20 feet iii. Unique Entry element may include up to a maximum 25% of the public facing façade length and shall not exceed a linear dimension of equal length on any adjoining façade.d. Material. No more than 25% of the unique entry element façade area shall be stucco or similar material.e. Perceived height. The roof and/or parapet of the unique entry element shall be a minimum of 4 feet above or below adjacent roof / parapet heights. f. Building entry façade plane. A unique entry element’s façade plane shall be a minimum of 4 feet difference in depth from the adjoining façade. The unique entry element may project within the minimum front setback area up to 4 feet, including the ground floor."Make change141Add Figure 19: Unique Entry Elements to exemplify the revised standard. Chapter 4: Design and Development Standards4.4 Form‐Based Zone Design Standards77 Add Figure 19: Unique Entry Elements images. Make change142Are the colors shown in buildings on the slides the colors required? Passive shading device is this for Lindenville specifically?Chapter 4: Design and Development Standards4.4 Form‐Based Zone Design Standards78 Certain colors will not be required for buildings in Lindenville. The development standards are designed to give Lindenville its own unique look and feel. One of the standards is the passive shading standard, which can be performance based or based on specific requirements. No change recommended.None143Add Standard 4. Character Areas Identity to clarify the material and color standards for each area.Chapter 4: Design and Development Standards4.4 Form‐Based Zone Design Standards78a. South Spruce Avenue Corridori. Primary façades shall be neutral or natural in color(examples: white, cream, beige, wood colors, light grays, concrete, etc.).white or have a HSB saturation level less than 10. ii. All primary façades shall be the same color and material.iii. Major breaks and secondary façades shall be a contrasting color and/or material.b. Mixed Use Neighborhoodi. Primary façades shall be a bright solid color with an HSB saturation level greater than 10 or a bright solid color with a mural.ii. High‐rise masses may be any color bright or neutral....c. South Linden Avenue Arts and Makers Districti. Primary facades facing the street or north/south running publicly accessible pathways shall have a mural or similar artistic expression for a minimum 30% of the façade frontage."Make change144Move Standard 4. Ground floor residential units to 6. Chapter 4: Design and Development Standards4.4 Form‐Based Zone Design Standards78 RenumberMake change145Agree with other comments about transitions to residential neighborhoods Chapter 4: Design and Development Standards4.3.3 Form‐Based Zone Development Standards79 The Specific Plan establishes height transition guidelines and standards for future developments adjacent to existing residential neighborhoods. These standards exceed the setback and stepback standards in the current zoning code. A minor revision to screening is recommended.Revise standard to read: "7.d. Private alleys, pathways, and greenways Screening. If a private alley, pathway, or greenway is located along the property line bordering the RL district, a minimum 8 feet wide planting area shall be provided with a minimum average of 1 tree per 25 linear feet."Shifting residential density eastward was considered but was determined to be less feasible due to parcel size and configuration along South Linden Avenue, as well as ROW of constraints.Make changePage 13 of 2641 Lindenville Public Draft Specific Plan Comment MatrixComment # Comment Chapter Section Plan Page Number Response Action to be Taken146So glad to hear that Councilmembers have had concerns about height transitions. Not opposed to the rest of the Plan, just the transitions to Mayfair Village.Chapter 4: Design and Development Standards4.3.3 Form‐Based Zone Development Standards79 See previous response. None147Make building heights lower near single family areas but higher near US‐101 (Victory and Maple)Chapter 4: Design and Development Standards4.3.3 Form‐Based Zone Development Standards79 See previous response. None148Agree with comments about transitions from T4L to RL. Chapter 4: Design and Development Standards4.3.3 Form‐Based Zone Development Standards79 See previous response. None149Update Standards 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 to have the numbering 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12. Chapter 4: Design and Development Standards4.4 Form‐Based Zone Design Standards80 Update the numbering of Standards 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 to read 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 respectively.Make change150Add an alternative to the design standards Chapter 4: Design and Development Standards4.4 Form‐Based Zone Design Standards80 Add new standard: "Projects that do not comply with these objective design standards will be subject to the City’s discretionary design review process."Make change151Remove extra paragraph break. Chapter 4: Design and Development Standards4.5 Open Space 82 Revise: "ii. Required common open space shall be accessible to all living units on the development site by a stairway or other accessway qualifying as an egress facility iii. from a habitable room."Make change152Add canopy cover to standard Chapter 4: Design and Development Standards4.5 Open Space 82 Revise standard: "1.b.vii. Common spaces within the 65 dB CNEL noise contour shall be designed for passive recreational uses, and may include seating areas, paths, open spaces, and other such amenities, subject to the approval of the Chief Planner. Spaces shall be designed to buffer noise using strategies, such as trees, landscaping materials, and water features."Make change153Interested in incorporating greenery and open spaces on buildings (rooftops, patios, etc.) as part of development standards. Chapter 4: Design and Development Standards4.6 Landscape Design 83 Add the following text for section 4.6 Landscape Design and move Environmental Effects to new section 4.7."Landscape DesignThe purpose of the landscape design standards and guidelines is to create ecologically beneficial and resilient landscapes. Plant selection shall focus on native and climate‐adapted species that require minimal water use and maintenance. Other factors that may influence plant selection include aesthetics, cultural significance, and habitat value. The standards and guidelines below apply to new construction and landscape renovations of both public and private developments."Make change154Interested in incorporating greenery and open spaces on buildings (rooftops, patios, etc.) as part of development standards. Chapter 4: Design and Development Standards4.6 Landscape Design 83 Add "STANDARDS1. Existing site vegetation management. Design shall preserve portions of a lot largely occupied by native species. Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be implemented during construction and subsequent site maintenance to manage and control invasive species found on site, except when the nonnative vegetation supports habitat particularly useful to native wildlife. BMPs may include clearing infested areas prior to construction, planting native seed from a local source, and avoiding seed dispersal through construction equipment use.2. Native planting. Landscape area planting shall be comprised of a minimum of 50% native vegetation. Non‐native plants may only be used if they support habitat useful to native wildlife. Species locally native to San Mateo County should be prioritized. 3. Invasive species. Planting invasive species identified on the California Invasive Plant Council list is prohibited. 4. Trees. See Section 5.5.4 Urban Forest for information related to tree canopy cover, species, sizes, and placement. 5. Lawn areas. Lawn areas shall be minimized and used only in areas where passive or recreational uses require it." Make changePage 14 of 2642 Lindenville Public Draft Specific Plan Comment MatrixComment # Comment Chapter Section Plan Page Number Response Action to be Taken155Interested in incorporating greenery and open spaces on buildings (rooftops, patios, etc.) as part of development standards. Chapter 4: Design and Development Standards4.6 Landscape Design 83 Add: "LANDSCAPE GUIDELINES 1. Planting palette and structure. Plant selection should provide a coherent mixture of groundcover, shrub, and tree species that mimics plant assemblages in native landscapes. 2. Herbicide and pesticide use. Operational policies adopting integrated pest management and restricting herbicide and pesticide use are encouraged. 3. Maintenance equipment. Landscape maintenance practices should minimize leaf blowing (because decomposing leaf material builds soil) and in general minimize or eliminate the use of fossil‐fuel powered maintenance equipment.GREEN ROOF GUIDELINES1. Green roofs. Green roofs are encouraged for any new development or development expansions.2. Green roof coordination. Green roof habitat should be coordinated with green wall and/or ground‐level habitat to create a larger‐scale connected ecological infrastructure that maximizes effective habitat patch size. 3. Green roof accessibility. Access to, and views of the green roofs should be maximized to create opportunities for building occupants and the public (where applicable) to connect with nature. Thoughtful spatial planning can balance human enjoyment with high‐quality urban habitat."Make change156Should any development standards here speak to safety or climate resilience? If appropriate, recommend referring to template development standards in Chapter 3 of OneShoreline's Planning Policy Guidance (https://oneshoreline.org/wp‐content/uploads/2023/06/OneShoreline‐Planning‐Policy‐Guidance‐Final‐Draft‐June‐21‐2023‐For‐Web.pdf)More detailed suggested revisions to SSF's Ch. 20.180 Flood Plain/Sea Level Rise Overlay District were sent to Billy Gross on 7/16 that can be incorporated as well. Chapter 4: Design and Development Standards4.6 Environmental Effects83 All development projects within the Flood Plain/Sea Level Rise District must adhere to Chapter 20.180 (“Flood Plain/Sea Level Rise Overlay”) to protect areas projected to be impacted by sea level rise, mitigate the impacts of sea level rise, and protect the health, safety, and welfare of residents of the City. Add new standard referencing overlay: "1. Flood Plain/Sea Level Rise District. New development within the Flood Plain/Sea Level Rise Overlay shall implement regulations for addressing flooding and other hazards associated with sea level rise as defined in Chapter 20.180 (“Flood Plain/Sea Level Rise Overlay”)." Make change157As someone who bikes, happy to see the expansion of biking; looking at industrial areas, wondering about whether potential pollution has been considered, especially in T4 zones?Chapter 4: Design and Development Standards4.6 Environmental Effects83 The Specific Plan included background analysis on environmental pollution in Lindenville. The Specific Plan may require additional soil and groundwater analysis for development projects in order to implement mitigation measures at the project level. There are also standards for noise and air pollutions. No change recommended.None158We need to think about contaminants and health impacts Chapter 4: Design and Development Standards4.6 Environmental Effects83 The Specific Plan included background analysis on environmental pollution in Lindenville. The Specific Plan may require additional soil and groundwater analysis for development projects in order to implement mitigation measures at the project level. There are also standards for noise and air pollutions. No change recommended.None159Concern about the need for the inclusion of a rigorous plan for environmental remediationChapter 4: Design and Development Standards4.6 Environmental Effects83 See the response above. None160Excited about this vision. Chapter 5: Parks and Open Space5.1 Vision 86 No change recommended. None161We need to connect green open space to get new families in this area. Chapter 5: Parks and Open Space5.1 Vision 86 Pedestrian and bicycle networks, laneways/alleys, and linear parks are designed to connect open spaces throughout Lindenville, and to other parts of South San Francisco. No change recommended.None162Some open space should taken into consideration So. Sf "cold wind" evenings, so innovative wind protective screens. Chapter 5: Parks and Open Space5.1 Vision 86 No change recommended. NonePage 15 of 2643 Lindenville Public Draft Specific Plan Comment MatrixComment # Comment Chapter Section Plan Page Number Response Action to be Taken163Goals in this chapter have signposts but goals in other chapters do not Chapter 5: Parks and Open Space5.1 Vision 89 Remove goal sign posts for consistency with other chapters. Make change164Language reads like a policy. Change to "Lindenville provides..." Chapter 5: Parks and Open Space5.2 Goals and Policies 90 Revise to "Goal 2: Lindenville provides Provide a diverse array of..." Make change165Existing Spruce business park of 88 Units in 4 buildings is in the middle where Neighborhood Park and the extension of Maple Ave is planned. Who will develop that, and how will existing unit owners be compensated for giving up their Units to create the new park and streets?Chapter 5: Parks and Open Space5.3 Parks and Open Space Framework93 The Specific Plan sets a long‐term vision for Lindenville's parks and open space. Landowners are not forced to redevelop their properties, and the Specific Plan does not use eminent domain to create open space. The Specific Plan relies on market‐based incentives, development standards, and partnerships. No change recommended.None166Per discussions with City Staff, the Infinite 101 project is subject to the existing General Plan and Zoning and will not be subject to the Lindenville Specific Plan policies. All exhibits should be removed and/or updated to remove references to the Infinite 101 project.Chapter 5: Parks and Open Space5.3 Parks and Open Space Framework93 The Infinite 101 project is subject to the City's current General Plan and Zoning Code requirements, including 15% required landscaping and 10% open space. Revise Figure 23 with a more generalized open space on the 101 and 131 project sites. Make change167Don’t think Colma Creek widening can happen on this side of Linden Avenue. It might be more realistic further east where there are warehouses.Chapter 5: Parks and Open Space5.4.1 Colma Creek Greenbelt95 The Specific Plan sets a long‐term vision for Lindenville's parks and open space. The Resiliency by Design project imagined a naturalized Colma Creek east of Linden Avenue and that vision was incorporated into the General Plan. The Specific Plan relies on market‐based incentives, development standards, and partnerships. No change recommended.None168Plan is great, but far from where we’d like to be; with regard to the Creek, what I understand is we are hoping to take commercial property to expand the creek area. How is this possible, the incentives aren’t enough.Chapter 5: Parks and Open Space5.4.1 Colma Creek Greenbelt95 The Specific Plan sets a long‐term vision for Lindenville's parks and open space. Landowners are not forced to redevelop their properties, and the Specific Plan does not use eminent domain to create open space. The Specific Plan relies on market‐based incentives, development standards, and partnerships. As redevelopment along Colma Creek starts to occur, the setbacks and transfer of development rights program becomes a greater incentive. No change recommended.None169Likes the imagining of Colma Creek. A good, historic example is a daylighted river in Seoul (Cheong Gye Cheong) that is now a good public spaceChapter 5: Parks and Open Space5.4.1 Colma Creek Greenbelt95 No change recommended. None170Need to think about parks and recreation. Need to consider outdoor spaces and children, and not just a space along Colma Creek. Chapter 5: Parks and Open Space5.4 Parks and Open Space Types98 Chapter 5: Parks and Open Spaces plans for a variety of park and open space types. Sections 5.4 and 5.7 provide standards for park, recreation, and play spaces. No change recommended. None171Typo in "Adjacent development will front these park" ‐ update "these" to "the" Chapter 5: Parks and Open Space5.4 Parks and Open Space Types98 Revise typo: "Adjacent development will front these park" Make change172Supports bicycle infrastructure being proposed. Likes direction of Colma Creek, the Lindenville Linear ParkChapter 5: Parks and Open Space5.4.3 Lindenville Linear Park100 No change recommended. None173Linear park – how do you plan to integrate parks into existing neighborhoods? Chapter 5: Parks and Open Space5.4.3 Lindenville Linear Park100 Lindenville's linear park, trails, and greenways connect to the Centennial Way Trail and Sister Cities Park, two parks that extend from Lindenville into other parts of the city. Lindenville does not have any existing residential neighborhoods so the Lindenville Linear Park would, over time, connect to future mixed use neighborhoods via trails and greenways. No change recommended.NonePage 16 of 2644 Lindenville Public Draft Specific Plan Comment MatrixComment # Comment Chapter Section Plan Page Number Response Action to be Taken174Very excited about the Lindenville Linear Park Chapter 5: Parks and Open Space5.4.3 Lindenville Linear Park100 No change recommended. None175Section 5.4.4 Mini Parks: 15% required minimum public open space for R&D open campus; user security concerns of public access Chapter 5: Parks and Open Space5.4.4 Mini Parks 104 Overall, open space requirements are consistent with recently approved and constructed life science R&D projects in the East of 101 Area – see the Cove, Gateway of the Pacific, Kilroy Oyster Point, Southline and Genentech’s campus. For Terminal 131, this project is approximately 17.6 acres and would be required to provide about 114,000 of landscaped area (15%) and about 76,000 of open space (10%), per the current Zoning requirement. The Specific Plan mini‐park standard for parcels above 1 acre is 15% of the parcel area, equivalent to the landscape area minimum area.To address security concerns, add new standard: "7. Security and privacy. Allow a clear distinction between public, semi‐public, and private open space areas to preserve security and privacy. Define private spaces using planting beds, trellises, arcades, seating areas, and low landscape walls."Make change176Allow combined open spaces across properties to support unified planning and design. Chapter 5: Parks and Open Space5.4.4 Mini Parks 104 Add new standard: "8. Combining Mini Parks. Combine open spaces for multiple projects into a single open space area if the combined open spaces remain accessible to all residents, employees, and visitors."Make change177Typo in "Key Feature: Centennial Way Trail: the 2.85‐mile trail links Lindenville to other neighborhoods and public transit riders to two BART stations." Remove the second colon and revise the statement to be a complete sentence.Chapter 5: Parks and Open Space5.4.5 Greenways and Trails105 Revise to "Key Feature: Centennial Way Trail: is the 2.85‐mile trail which links Lindenville to other neighborhoods and public transit riders to two BART stations."Make change178Concerns with specific development standards with greenway and trails. The proposed project has allocated a 5’ easement for a bicycle and pedestrian path along the Navigable Slough. Chapter 5: Parks and Open Space5.4.5 Greenways and Trails105 Caltrans’ trail design standards and the Active South City Bike and Pedestrian Plan identifies 10’ of width to facilitate shared bicycle and pedestrian travel on a Class I facility. This width will be necessary to facilitate bicycle and pedestrian demand across US‐101 for travel to/from the East of 101 area. No change recommended. None179Typo in "Stormwater management, including grading and drainage, shall be provided in all parks, plazas, greenways, and open space areas to provide sufficient drainage, detention, conveyance, detention, and treatment of stormwater runoff... Where possible, multi‐parcel and large projects shall look to comprehensive Stormwater management strategies at scale." The word "detention" is repeated and the "s" in "Stormwater" is capitalized.Chapter 5: Parks and Open Space5.5.2 Stormwater Management108 Revise to "Stormwater management, including grading and drainage, shall be provided in all parks, plazas, greenways, and open space areas to provide sufficient drainage, detention, conveyance, detention, and treatment of stormwater runoff."Revise to "Where possible, multi‐parcel and large projects shall look to comprehensive Sstormwater management strategies at scale."Make change180How to maintain permeable pavement in public ROW? Chapter 5: Parks and Open Space5.5.2 Stormwater Management108 The City is generally responsible for maintaining roadway paving and other features in the roadway, such as medians. Permeable pavement requires periodic maintenance to retain its infiltration capacity. Permeable pavement should be vacuumed once or twice annually. The Specific Plan does not provide the level of detail of maintenance. No change recommended.None181Add new guideline in section 5.5.3 to reflect modeling results of microclimate evaluation. Chapter 5: Parks and Open Space5.5.3 Regenerative Landscapes108 Add new guideline "1. Microclimate considerations. The siting and species of regenerative landscapes in open spaces and streets should be determined in part by microclimate considerations, including impacts on air temperature and wind."Make change182Require silva cells with trees in paved areas in new development Chapter 5: Parks and Open Space5.5.4 Urban Forest 110 The standards drafted under the Urban Forest section call for the use of Silva cells for trees planted in the public rights‐of‐way and in private setbacks along publicly accessible areas. No change recommended.NonePage 17 of 2645 Lindenville Public Draft Specific Plan Comment MatrixComment # Comment Chapter Section Plan Page Number Response Action to be Taken183Add new guideline in section 5.5.4 to reflect modeling results of microclimate evaluation. Chapter 5: Parks and Open Space5.5.4 Urban Forest 110Add new guideline "3. Microclimate considerations. The siting and species of tree canopy should be determined in part by microclimate considerations, including impacts on air temperature and wind. "Make change184This change will be incorporated for consistency with the Public Arts Master Plan. Chapter 5: Parks and Open Space5.6 Arts and Culture 111 Revise paragraph 1: "Public art is essential to connecting communities with identity and place, celebrating an area’s unique history and culture, and enhancing the quality of life for all through cultural enrichment. The Lindenville Specific Plan intends to incorporate public art into all publicly accessible spaces. Public art may be incorporated within many facets of project delivery and implementation, including but not limited to stand‐alone works of art; features integrated in buildings, open spaces, infrastructure and public‐facing facilities; or even support functional elements such as seating, trash receptacles, and signage; and temporary installations."Make change185Provide the link to the adopting ordinance in the 1% for Arts discussion in Section 5.6, page 118 of pdf. (The purpose of this comment is to direct readers to the ordinance section, SSFMC Chapter 8.76 Public Art Requirement, rather than state the specifics, as the city may adopt different requirements over time.) https://library.qcode.us/lib/south_san_francisco_ca/pub/municipal_code/item/title_8‐chapter_8_76Chapter 5: Parks and Open Space5.6 Arts and Culture 112 Revise standard: "1. Public art. Projects are required to contribute public art with a value of at least 1% of the building permit valuation or make a public art contribution payment in an amount not less than 0.5% of construction costs into the public art fund, see Chapter 8.76 ("Public Art Requirement").Make change186We have concerns that “Iconic” will be interpreted as large‐scale objects and “installations” as temporary exhibitions. We suggest using the wording Public Art Projects rather than Iconic Public Art leaving room for different types of public art opportunities. Chapter 5: Parks and Open Space5.6 Arts and Culture 112 Revise standard: "3. Iconic pPublic art projects. Developers will work with the City to provide one or more significant public art projects iconic art installations within public parks, plazas of import, or the South Linden Avenue Arts and Makers District. Make change187Line edits to Standard 4 for consistency with the Public Arts Master Plan. Chapter 5: Parks and Open Space5.6 Arts and Culture 112 Revise standard "4. Local artists. Developers Implementation of public art shall prioritize opportunities for local artists and will also integrate work from nationally or internationally recognized as well as consider national and international artists."Make change188Typo "Materials for hardscape and pathways are strongly encouraged to embrace sustainability with minimal impacts on the environment, prioritize durability and be easy to maintain." Add a comma after "prioritize durability"Chapter 5: Parks and Open Space5.7.3 Hardscape Materials115 Revise "Materials for hardscape and pathways are strongly encouraged to embrace sustainability with minimal impacts on the environment, prioritize durability, and be easy to maintain."Make change189Are there alternative ways to irrigate open space areas? Chapter 5: Parks and Open Space5.7.6 Irrigation 118 The Specific Plan includes standards and guidelines that call for the open space network to use recycled water (such as greywater) and captured stormwater as irrigation sources in order to conserve water. These are in addition to the City's landscaping requirements. No change recommended.None190In section 5.7.9 Exterior lighting, all lighting should comply with the best practices of the International Dark Sky Association to minimize glare and the destructive effects of excess nighttime lighting on human and animal health.Chapter 5: Parks and Open Space5.7.9 Exterior Lighting 120 Add standard: "5. Dark sky. Light fixtures shall meet the Backlight‐Uplight‐Glare rating system requirements for the lighting zone corresponding to the land use where the light fixture is located (ex. residential, commercial, etc.) under the International Dark‐Sky Association’s model lighting ordinance."Make change191Bike program, are there more plans for giving away scooters/ bikes to encourage micro‐mobilityChapter 6: Mobility 6.1 Mobility Goals and Policies124 The City has a successful micro‐mobility program. The Plan improves connectivity and roadway conditions for non‐automobile travel, which should encourage travel via micromobility. No change recommended.None192The proposed Southline Avenue should be renamed Sneath Lane to avoid unnecessary confusion.Chapter 6: Mobility 6.1 Mobility Goals and Policies124 The name is proposed in another planning project. No change recommended. None193When will new Southline street come in? Chapter 6: Mobility 6.1 Mobility Goals and Policies124 It will be in place before Southline begins occupying the site. No change recommended. None194Who owns the road? [Southline street] Chapter 6: Mobility 6.1 Mobility Goals and Policies124 At the very least, Southline Street will have a public easement. There will likely be an agreement between the City and the developer for roadway maintenance. No change recommended.NonePage 18 of 2646 Lindenville Public Draft Specific Plan Comment MatrixComment # Comment Chapter Section Plan Page Number Response Action to be Taken195It’s hard to get in and out of Lindenville. Chapter 6: Mobility 6.1 Mobility Goals and Policies124 The bicycle, pedestrian, transit, and auto networks propose new roads and trails to facilitate easier movement into Lindenville and out to the rest of the city and region. No change recommended.None196Cars are blocking sidewalks, it’s hard to walk around. Chapter 6: Mobility 6.1 Mobility Goals and Policies124 The pedestrian network proposes improvements along many of Lindenville's streets to create improved streetscapes and pedestrian access. No change recommended.None197Update the goals to "Goal MOB‐X" to match the other goals in the Specific Plan. Chapter 6: Mobility 6.1 Mobility Goals and Policies125 Revise "Goal MOB GOAL‐2"Revise "Goal MOB GOAL‐3"Make change198Proposed Street/Trails legend item for Figures 27‐31 is hard to see, can you add a lightly colored backdrop behind the legend?Chapter 6: Mobility 6.1 Mobility Goals and Policies127 Add light gray backdrop to the legend for Figures 27‐31. Make change199Support the Plan’s prioritization of bikes and pedestrians but voiced some concern about the impact of development on South Spruce Avenue on traffic.Chapter 6: Mobility 6.1 Mobility Goals and Policies127 The proposed auto network maintains South Spruce Avenue as a route where local auto traffic is prioritized and the road configuration facilitates movement into Lindenville and out to the rest of the city and region. Additionally, the EIR addendum analyzes the effect increased development and traffic would have on South Spruce Avenue and contains mitigation actions. No change recommended.None200When will the envisioned bike and ped networks happen? Seems nebulous Chapter 6: Mobility 6.2 Mobility Framework 127 The Specific Plan sets an ambitious vision and implementation of the envisioned networks may depend on funding and partnering with agencies and developers. Certain portions of the networks will become more viable over time. No change recommended.None201I see a trail parallel to San Mateo Avenue. What is this? Chapter 6: Mobility 6.2 Mobility Framework 127 It is a proposed pedestrian/bike trail, that Steelwave could incorporate into their redevelopment proposal. No change recommended.None202Wants to make sure there are bike connections to trails shown on the mobility map Chapter 6: Mobility 6.2 Mobility Framework 127 There will be bicycle connections to linear parks and regional trails, as shown in Figure 28. No change recommended.None203It would be nice to have bike/pedestrian access through this area, but it would be hard to do this based on the way it is currently built out.Chapter 6: Mobility 6.2 Mobility Framework 127 No change recommended. None204It would be nice to see how you can connect through Sister Cities Park via bike. Chapter 6: Mobility 6.2 Mobility Framework 127 The Pedestrian Priority Streets map shows a proposed trail that would connect and extend Sister Cities Park into Lindenville. No change recommended.None205Support connectivity from Centennial Way Trail into Lindenville Chapter 6: Mobility 6.2 Mobility Framework 127 The Lindenville Linear Park, among other bicycle and pedestrian trail connections, connects the Centennial Way Trail to Colma Creek. No change recommended.None206Prioritize pedestrian access to connect the Lindenville district to other neighborhoods Chapter 6: Mobility 6.2 Mobility Framework 127 The proposed network of pedestrian paths connect to the Centennial Way Trail, Sister Cities Park, the San Francisco Bay Trail, and nearby neighborhoods. No change recommended.None207Preference for protected bike lanes vs shared bike/vehicular lanes. Chapter 6: Mobility 6.2 Mobility Framework 127 No change recommended. None208Support for more protected and safe pedestrian and bicyclist paths, especially to connect Centennial Way Trail to the Bay Trail, Downtown, etc. Currently difficult to get to the Bay Trail, which has an entrance on S Airport BlvdChapter 6: Mobility 6.2 Mobility Framework 127 The proposed network of pedestrian paths connect to the Centennial Way Trail, Sister Cities Park, the San Francisco Bay Trail, and nearby neighborhoods. No change recommended.NonePage 19 of 2647 Lindenville Public Draft Specific Plan Comment MatrixComment # Comment Chapter Section Plan Page Number Response Action to be Taken209Creating a walkable path to and from Downtown is crucial for our local business and city economy. Chapter 6: Mobility 6.2 Mobility Framework 127 The proposed Neighborhood Park connects Downtown residents from Railroad Avenue to Colma Creek. In addition, streetscape improvements along South Spruce Avenue and Linden Avenue are designed to provide improved walking conditions for pedestrians. No change recommended.None210North Linden and Spruce crosswalks into downtown aren't safe for elders or children. Wide and friendly for walking including slower street from victory to Commercial and south Canal to linden into Grand Ave. downtown. Chapter 6: Mobility 6.2 Mobility Framework 127 Victory Avenue is identified for auto priority, but Canal Street and South Linden Avenue from Victory to Commercial are prioritized for the pedestrian network. There are also proposed pedestrian paths that connect South Spruce Avenue to South Linden Avenue, and South Spruce Avenue to Downtown. No change recommended.None211Section 6.2 Mobility; pedestrian, bicycle, streets: a.Bike, pedestrian and transit access as proposed by Applicant and approved by DRB.Chapter 6: Mobility 6.2 Mobility Framework 127 The City will continue to work with Steelwave to ensure consistency between the intent of the Specific Plan and the I101/I131 projects as it nears Planning Commission and City Council approvals. No change recommended None212Section 6.2 Mobility; pedestrian, bicycle, streets: b.The Inﬁnite 131 Project recommends, prioriƟzes and supports the Utah Flyover and its use to connect to a future bicycle/pedestrian path.Chapter 6: Mobility 6.2 Mobility Framework 127 The Specific Plan identifies both the Utah extension and a bicycle/pedestrian trail bridge to improve connectivity across US‐101. The Utah extension will primarily function as an auto capacity and circulation improvement; while it will include bike lanes and sidewalks, it will not provide a direct low‐stress bikeway that will be attractive to all ages and abilities and would require a nearly one mile diversion to the Bay Trail. The trail crossing along the Navigable Slough will provide a more seamless connection between the Bay Trail and Shaw Road/Tanforan Avenue, which will eventually link to the South Linden Grade Separation and Centennial Way Trail. The Utah extension does not supplant the need for this trail crossing; the Specific Plan intends to advance both projects. No change recommended.None213Additionally, the Infinite 101 Project recommends, prioritizes and supports the Utah Flyover and its use to connect to a future bicycle/pedestrian path.Chapter 6: Mobility 6.2 Mobility Framework 127 See previous comment. None214Clarify sidewalk and planting strip dimensions. Chapter 6: Mobility 6.2 Mobility Framework 127 Revise text: "These streets should emphasize a vibrant pedestrian realm with sidewalks and planting zones that are 12 to 15 feet wide where possible."Make change215Update Figures 27‐31 with revised basemap. No changes to the network. Chapter 6: Mobility 6.2 Mobility Framework 128 Update figure with new basemap template. No change to the networks. Make change216Likes the cross‐town bike path. Chapter 6: Mobility 6.2 Mobility Framework 128 No change recommended. None217Suggest continuing Victory avenue across Caltrain tracks to Lowrie and San Mateo Avenue. Connecting Victory could better connect this area.Chapter 6: Mobility 6.2 Mobility Framework 130 This would improve connectivity, but creating a vehicular grade separation would be a massive infrastructure investment. No change recommended.None218Can the frontage on Linden be better used for besides parking? Chapter 6: Mobility 6.2 Mobility Framework 130 Figure 27 identifies Linden Ave as a Pedestrian Priority Street and Figure 31 identifies it as street with parking/flex space, creating more options for future frontage improvements along Linden Ave. No change recommended.None219Parking along Linden Avenue is already extremely challenging, and converting it into flex parking will exacerbate the issue. The City should prioritize purchasing at least one parcel to use as off‐street parking.Chapter 6: Mobility 6.2 Mobility Framework 131 See previous comment. No change recommended. None220Did the traffic modeling analyis show that the Utah Avenue overpass performed fine? Chapter 6: Mobility 6.2 Mobility Framework 130 Traffic modeling showed major delays into/out of East of 101 with the Overpass, but more significant delays without the Overpass. Existing connections were never designed for the intensity of development that has happened in East of 101 and Lindenville, so new connections are needed to better serve these areas. No change recommended.None221Wants language in the Plan focused on how to make this area more pedestrian friendly. Chapter 6: Mobility 6.3 Complete Streets Guidance132 The Chapter 6: Mobility proposes a layered transportation network, identifying improvements such as sidewalk widening, new connections, and streetscape improvements to improve walkability. In addition, Chapter 5: Parks and Open Spaces proposes a network of linear parks to better connect people in Lindenville. No change recommended.NonePage 20 of 2648 Lindenville Public Draft Specific Plan Comment MatrixComment # Comment Chapter Section Plan Page Number Response Action to be Taken2226.3.1 Based on existing and planned industrially focused land uses, it is unrealistic to expect that South Spruce Ave. will ever be a comfortable or desirable cycle path. However, it will always remain a vital trucking corridor as well as a vital link for motorists traveling across South San Francisco. South Spruce must remain two lanes in each direction. Cyclists should be routed toward off‐street or side street alternatives which are more compatible with cycling in every way. It is simply unrealistic to force a square peg (cycling) into a round hole (major arterial street). This approach works for no one.Chapter 6: Mobility 6.3.1 Street Layouts 132 The Specific Plan sets out a long‐term vision for the area's transition to a mixed use residential center. The proposed configuration for South Spruce Avenue as a neighborhood boulevard aligns with the vision for this corridor. Technical transportation analysis confirmed this transition works. No change recommended.None223Figures 35 and 36 are swapped. Section with bike lanes should be Figure 36: Proposed Cross Section ‐ South Linden Avenue (North of colma creek)Chapter 6: Mobility 6.3.1 Street Layouts 134 Switch Figures 35 and 36. Make change224Shared avenues – would this be two way traffic? Chapter 6: Mobility 6.3.1 Street Layouts 137 Laneways/alleys would allow two‐way traffic. No change recommended. None225Likes the alleyways a lot Chapter 6: Mobility 6.3.1 Street Layouts 137 No change recommended. None226Typo with an underlined letter "s" in paragraph 2. Chapter 6: Mobility 6.3.1 Street Layouts 137 Remove underlined "s" in the sentence and replace with "s." "The Mayfair green street will not contribute to the parks and open space acreage target but will offer significant benefits regarding connection of open space, access to nature, habitat, and stormwater management."Make change2276.3.3. Lowering design or posted speeds to 25 MPH on arterial streets is counterproductive. It will lead people to find parallel alternatives, forcing traffic onto residential or side streets which are not designed to accommodate such volumes. Major arterials like South Spruce should be designed for a 35 MPH limit or better and should always be posted according to the 85th percentile speed.Chapter 6: Mobility 6.3.2 Other Considerations139 Research shows that slower street speeds positively correlate with safer streets for non‐automobile modes of travel, and is a core element of Vision Zero (a strategy to eliminate all traffic fatalities and severe injuries, while increasing safe, healthy, equitable mobility for all). No change recommended.None228We want a better environment for the future. The creek is a big problem with potential flooding.Chapter 7: Infrastructure 7.4 Stormwater and Flooding150 The Plan employs blue‐green infrastructure and bigger infrastructure projects to mitigate flooding. No change recommended.None229How far has the City gone to find funding for extending greenway and flood control along Colma Creek? Would like to see more improvements along Northern part of Colma Creek where most pedestrian and active uses. These projects are expensive.Chapter 7: Infrastructure 7.4 Stormwater and Flooding150 The City has been in close coordination with One Shoreline in looking at the infrastructure and naturalization improvement options for Colma Creek. The northern portion (east of Linden Ave) is owned by the City and has been part of a study by Hassell to introduce flood mitigation pilot projects, including floodable parks. This visioning process and implementation actions in the Plan can help the City acquire grant funding and do more detailed studies. No change recommended.None230Concern about the viability of integrating resilient infrastructure (floodable playgrounds, drought tolerant vegetation) Chapter 7: Infrastructure 7.4 Stormwater and Flooding150 The City has been in close coordination with One Shoreline in looking at the infrastructure and naturalization improvement options for Colma Creek. The northern portion (east of Linden Ave) is owned by the City and has been part of a study by Hassell to introduce flood mitigation pilot projects, including floodable parks. This visioning process and implementation actions in the Plan can help the City acquire grant funding and do more detailed studies. Additionally, the design standards for all new development include landscape design standards and guidelines that aim to create resilient landscapes throughout Lindenville that contribute to the blue‐green infrastructure network. No change recommended.231How does detention work? What controls that? Is it automated? Chapter 7: Infrastructure 7.4 Stormwater and Flooding150 Detention strategies hold water for a short period of time by capturing water and slowly releasing it. There are a number of ways to detain and release water, the automation route would work with the small pump station to monitor the capacity of Colma Creek, similar to the Orange Memorial Park project. No change recommended.None232Recommend highlighting Lindenville in these Figure 43 and 44 for easier reference Chapter 7: Infrastructure 7.4 Stormwater and Flooding151 Add Lindenville boundary to figures. Make change233Concern about how flooding mitigation efforts along Colma Creek could be coordinated with the countyChapter 7: Infrastructure 7.4 Stormwater and Flooding152 The City of South San Francisco already coordinates with the San Mateo County Flood and Sea Level Rise Resiliency District (OneShoreline) to manage flood risk and flood control projects. Future flood mitigation projects along Colma Creek would be coordinated with OneShoreline. No change recommended.NonePage 21 of 2649 Lindenville Public Draft Specific Plan Comment MatrixComment # Comment Chapter Section Plan Page Number Response Action to be Taken234Not sure what this means; recommend this states Colma Creek Channel's design capacity, which is a 50‐year storm with 2 feet of freeboard (see latest H&H report: https://oneshoreline.org/wp‐content/uploads/2020/05/Colma_Creek_ModelingReport‐FINAL‐12052019‐with‐appendix.pdf)Chapter 7: Infrastructure 7.4 Stormwater and Flooding152 Revise bullet point: "Flood Control Channel. A 70’ wide concrete channel most recently improved in 2006 that has a design capacity, which is a 50‐year storm with 2 feet of freeboard can hold up to an additional 3’ of water height in the channel."Make change235Recommend calling this "Navigable Slough" for consistency with other technical and planning documents for this water body (e.g. https://oneshoreline.org/wp‐content/uploads/2020/06/Navigable‐Slough‐Flood‐Management‐Study.pdf)Chapter 7: Infrastructure 7.4 Stormwater and Flooding152 Revise bullet point: "Navigable Slough tidal channel. The Navigable Slough tidal channel is a tributary to Colma Creek, passing under US‐101 and South Airport Boulevard as culverts."Make change236This is not correct; the author seems to have gotten Navigable Slough and San Bruno Creek mixed up; all these flood control elements relate to San Bruno CreekChapter 7: Infrastructure 7.4 Stormwater and Flooding152 Since San Bruno Creek is outside the Plan area, remove text: "The Navigable Slough also has several flood control elements established by OneShoreline, including:• Two pump stations. 2 pump‐stations maintained by OneShoreline.• Two open channels. 2 open channels of the creek in the lower portion of the watershed.• Tide gate structure. A tide gate structure designed for the 25‐year flow consisting of four, 5’ diameter circular pipes with flap gates on the downstream side."Make change237Could detention facilities be greenfields? Likes the idea of detention facilities being greenfields.Chapter 7: Infrastructure 7.4 Stormwater and Flooding156 Water goes into detention facilities during extreme events and most of the time sits empty, so it could be an open space. No change recommended.None238Section 7.4 (Figure 48) Stormwater and Flooding: a.Floodwall ‐ Due to the nature of the riverine ﬂooding, any sort of resiliency should be done concurrently on both the North and South banks of the creek fronting the project. Schaaf & Wheeler recommends a 35‐ft buffer from the top of bank is left for a future project to be constructed together to protect all the existing and future properties along Navigable Slough. Protecting one bank of the creek at a time could have negative impacts to the properties on the other bank of the creek. b.Flood detenƟon –With regards to the detenƟon storage, Schaaf & Wheeler recommends the site mitigate any increases in runoff from the site, but does not include any onsite detention or underground detention due to the location in the watershed. Detaining water in the lower watershed can have compounding issues if water is released at the peak from the upper watershed. Additionally, since the existing site condition is entirely surface parking, the proposed design will reduce runoff.Chapter 7: Infrastructure 7.4 Stormwater and Flooding157Flooding on both sides of the creek needs to be managed, and the suggested approach is a combination of detention and raised walls that address both sides. Floodwalls alone would protect Lindenville at the expense of significant increased flooding in the area downstream of 101. Based on the modeling, flooding is much less severe north of the Slough than south. South of the Slough it was considered infeasible to expect that detention alone could be implemented to manage the flooding that results from larger storms (e.g., > 25‐yr) and so a partial floodwall (mainly to address a few low spill points) would be needed there as well. The approach proposed in the Specific Plan is conceptually acknowledging that some combination of raised bank height and detention will likely be necessary to manage the flooding in Lindenville while mitigating for additional flooding downstream. The detention storage was not considering runoff from any particular parcel, but rather was a general approach to managing the flooding originating from the Slough as observed in the model. A more detailed and iterative inflow and outflow analysis would necessary to fully understand the impacts of detention facilities and inform specific design details. With the 35' buffer, that would require additional modeling analysis, but furthermore would likely cause adjustments to proposed open spaces, given one of them is along Navigable Slough. No change recommended.None239It would be very helpful if these recommendations were cross‐walked with recommendations already in previous reports (e.g. Colma Creek H&H Study and Navigable Slough Flood Management Study); can this section include such a cross‐walk or at least reference where these recommendations are seconded by these already‐existing studies?Chapter 7: Infrastructure 7.4 Stormwater and Flooding157 The technical background reports provide details as to how these recommendatoins were evaluated relative to flood modeling conducted during the Lindenville Specific Plan process. No change recommended.None240Update maps to use updated base map template. Chapter 7: Infrastructure 7.4 Stormwater and Flooding157 Revised Figure 48 will use final updated base map template. Make change241Leader line to Neighborhood Park south of Railroad Ave should touch park Chapter 7: Infrastructure 7.4 Stormwater and Flooding157 Revised Figure 48 to that the leader line to Neighborhood Park south of Railroad Ave should touch parkMake change242San Bruno Creek is not on this map (Figure 48); this doesn't seem to be the correct label Chapter 7: Infrastructure 7.4 Stormwater and Flooding157 On Figure 48, relabel "San Bruno Canal" to "Navigable Slough" in the comment box label Make changePage 22 of 2650 Lindenville Public Draft Specific Plan Comment MatrixComment # Comment Chapter Section Plan Page Number Response Action to be Taken243Per discussions with City Staff, the Infinite 101 project is subject to the existing General Plan and Zoning and will not be subject to the Lindenville Specific Plan policies. All exhibits should be removed and/or updated to remove references to the Infinite 101 project.Chapter 7: Infrastructure 7.4 Stormwater and Flooding157 On Figure 48, revise location of flood detention facility north of Navigable Slough to west onto the property boundary. Make change244These are great plans, but based on potential development, the economy is at a standstill and development is slowing down, so with this plan we aren’t anticipating much happening in the next few years.Chapter 8: Implementation 8.1 Implementation Actions159 The General Plan establishes a horizon year of 2040, so changes are expected to happen incrementally. No change recommended.None245Market the A&M District / arts in general to attract developers/artists/public Chapter 8: Implementation 8.1 Implementation Actions159 Chapter 8: Implementation includes strategies to brand and market the district. No change recommended.None246Capital improvements will be big in this area. Have you been able to identify specific funding sources for capital improvements?Chapter 8: Implementation 8.1 Implementation Actions160 The Implementation Chapter identifies types of improvements and potential funding sources. Individual capital improvements, if approved, would need to further designed, costed, and incorporated in the CIP. No change recommended. None247Can we partner with other agencies to help build the district? Chapter 8: Implementation 8.1 Implementation Actions160 Yes, the Specific Plan includes a number of partnership opportunities as defined in the implementation actions. These include continued work with the County, OneShoreline, the arts community, BART, Caltrain, neighboring communities, and more. No change recommended.None248Strongly recommend adding a sea level rise zoning overlay district; This is very important as implementation of sea level rise resiliency through zoning/private developments can begin today in parallel with long‐term capital improvementsPlease see detailed suggested revisions to SSF's Ch. 20.180 Flood Plain/Sea Level Rise Overlay District were sent to Billy Gross on 7/16 as a place to startChapter 8: Implementation 8.1 Implementation Actions160 Existing Zoning Ordinance Chapter 20.180 (“Flood Plain/Sea Level Rise Overlay”) applies to all areas of the City that are within a FEMA flood zone map, identified as being in the 100‐year flood plus 36 inches of sea level rise, or within BCDC's 100‐foot shoreline band. The standards within this Chapter are intended to protect areas projected to be impacted by sea level rise, mitigate the impacts of sea level rise, and protect the health, safety, and welfare of residents of the City. No change recommended.None249Does implementation prioritization take into account utility needs as well as road improvements?Chapter 8: Implementation 8.1 Implementation Actions160 The Specific Plan does not consolidate above ground and below ground needs within a specific corridor to prioritize future capital improvement projects. The Specific Plan improvements that would be incorporated into the City's Capital Improvement Program, an ongoing program, and coordinated at that time. No change recommended.None250Recommend adding an implementation to continue studying flood control options for Colma CreekChapter 8: Implementation 8.1 Implementation Actions160 Add new implementation action related to the continued evaluation of flood control measures on/around Colma Creek: Implementation Item "Colma Creek Flood Control Feasibility Study;" Description "Conduct a feasiblity study to identify the most impactful and cost‐effective strategies to reduce flooding from Colma Creek in order to better enable decision‐makers to make informed decisions on flood control options"; Time Frame "Medium‐Term"; Responsibility "Planning, Engineering, Public Works."Make change251Recommend adding an implementation to continue studying flood control options for Colma CreekChapter 8: Implementation 8.1 Implementation Actions160 Add new implementation action related to funding and implementation of flood control measures on/around Colma Creek: Implementation Item "Colma Creek Flood Control Plan;" Description "Develop a plan identifying capital improvements, phasing, funding, and agencies responsible for implementing flood control measures"; Time Frame "Medium‐Term"; Responsibility "Planning, Engineering, Public Works."Make change252Update Figure 49 with the revised version of Figure 23 that incorporates the updates listed in the Comment Matrix.Chapter 8: Implementation 8.2.1 Park and Open Space Improvements163 Update Figure 49 with the revised version of Figure 23. Make change253Will there be lights added? Alleyways and trails need to be safe. Chapter 8: Implementation 8.1 Implementation Actions164 One of the implementation programs (Wayfinding, Signage and Furnishings Program) is meant to develop standards for amenities within the public right of way, including lighting.Under Section 8.2.2 Mobility Improvements, create a new section for new streets reading: New Streets 1. Create specific design standards for new streets and laneways.Make changePage 23 of 2651 Lindenville Public Draft Specific Plan Comment MatrixComment # Comment Chapter Section Plan Page Number Response Action to be Taken254I am concerned that we are spending too much money in the wrong place. In particular, $136 million on the Utah overpass that continues to sneak into planning documents, despite plans stated goals of environmental justice, climate change etc. The overpass requires eminent domain, and will cost as much as implementing almost the entirety of the Active South City Plan. I understand this is a visionary and long‐range plan, but this means it requires prioritization and metrics to be effective. I urge City Council not to adopt plan if Lindenville doesn’t commit to prioritize stated goals (environmental justice, equity etc.) and evaluate based on cost effectiveness of reaching those stated goals. If they do, they will see that Utah overpass is not in line with stated goals. Chapter 8: Implementation 8.2.2 Mobility Improvements164 The City needs more east and west connections across US‐101, and the Specific Plan proposes connections other than the Utah Avenue Overpass. In addition, the Utah Avenue Overpass is being planned in a separate process. No change recommended.None255I really like a lot of the aspects of the plan. The Utah Overpass – I don’t think the City should be spending money on this. City shouldn’t spend new money on roads that would add more traffic. Where is this idea coming from? I have a hunch that it is primarily biotech pushing this? It’s hard to endorse spending money on something that will only support biotech.Chapter 8: Implementation 8.2.2 Mobility Improvements164 See previous response. No change recommended. None256This Plan shows the Utah Overpass is included. Concerned that we are prioritizing this project when there are many bike/pedestrian projects we should prioritize.Chapter 8: Implementation 8.2.2 Mobility Improvements164 See previous response. No change recommended. None257Wants to second Councilmember Coleman’s concerns about the Utah Avenue overpass. Urge Council not to prioritize Utah Avenue OverpassChapter 8: Implementation 8.2.2 Mobility Improvements164 See previous response. No change recommended. None258Wants to third concerns regarding the Utah Avenue OverpassPrioritize bike/pedestrian connectionsChapter 8: Implementation 8.2.2 Mobility Improvements164 See previous response. No change recommended. None259Update Figure 52 with the revised version of Figure 48 that incorporates the updates outlined in the Comment Matrix.Chapter 8: Implementation 8.2.3 Infrastructure and Utility Improvements167 Update Figure 52 with the revised version of Figure 48 Proposed Stormwater and Flood Infrastructure Improvements and Upgrades.Make change260Businesses get flooded often near Navigable Slough. This may give them hope that something will happen. It will be important for the City to communicate next steps with business owners. Chapter 8: Implementation 8.3 Funding and Financing Strategies168 The Implementation Chapter of the Plan outlines next steps for studying and securing funding for the flooding projects. Any project will require engagement with property owners. No change recommended.None261Clarify the relationship between the Specific Plan and Zoning Code. Chapter 8: Implementation 8.4 Authority 173 Add new section: "8.4 AuthorityThis Specific Plan implements the General Plan’s goals and policies for Lindenville and establishes the area’s land use and development regulations. The Lindenville Specific Plan guides land use and development decision‐making processes for the area. The Specific Plan does not replace or augment building safety codes or other non‐planning related codes. All applications for new development, substantial modifications or improvements to existing buildings, and changes in land use shall be reviewed for conformance with this Specific Plan. This Specific Plan is adopted under the authority of the City’s Zoning Ordinance. Existing and previously entitled development may have their own approvals and requirements, which may supersede the requirements in this plan, unless additional approvals are required, or entitlements have expired."Make change262Clarify the relationship between the Specific Plan and Zoning Code. Chapter 8: Implementation 8.4 Authority 173 Continue 8.4: "In the event of inconsistencies or conflict between the Lindenville Specific Plan and any other provision of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, the provisions of the Lindenville Specific Plan take precedence, control, and govern in the Lindenville Specific Plan Area. Whenever the Lindenville Specific Plan document does not provide specific standards and/or procedures for the review, approval, and/or administration of development projects within the Lindenville Specific Plan district or for appeals concerning approvals or administration of development projects, the provisions of the South San Francisco Municipal Code shall apply."Make changePage 24 of 2652 Lindenville Public Draft Specific Plan Comment MatrixComment # Comment Chapter Section Plan Page Number Response Action to be Taken263Update all figures to use updated basemap template that shows updates to the pedestrian and bicycle lanes.General Comment NA NA Update all figures to use the updated basemap. Make change264New Figures in Chapter 4 changed the Figure numbering, update all Figures after it. General Comment NA NA Update the figure numbering in all chapters, beginning with Chapter 4. Make change265Update all instances of "mixed‐use" in the Specific Plan to "mixed use" for consistency throughout the plan.General Comment NA NA Update all instances of "mixed‐use" in the Specific Plan to "mixed use" Make change266As a successful, well established business in South San Francisco for 45 years, and located at 205 Shaw Road for the past 30 years, I believe our company, through its Senior Directors, have established repeated communication with the City of South San Francisco of our disapproval of the plans you have presented to change the environment of this City. Improvements, asthetically, structurally, transportation‐wise, utilities improvements, public park and recreation land use, and some addition low income housing (if truly low‐income) should be the primary focus of a City seeking improvement for it's citizens‐‐residents/small businesses. This massive plan, however, speaks only to creating a myriad of problems while succumbing to the lofty images presented by the developers courting the City. I recall asking someone on your panel in one of your recent presentations, as to what point (if at all) the plan would be submitted to CEQA. My question was met with a vague, non‐ answer.Frankly, it's futile to even comment and/or submit an opinion on this project as, it obviously has always been and will be a done deal. Why wouldn't South San Francisco follow the course of the rest of the Peninsula cities and communities too overrun the land with Tech and Biotech Industries, and the ensuing consequences? General Comment NA NA An Addendum will be prepared for the South San Francisco General Plan Update EIR to consider changes under the Lindenville Specific Plan and to document the conclusion that the changes will not result in new or significantly more severe effects. No change recommended. None267Do you expect much turnover in Lindenville? General Comment NA NA Implementation can take a lot of time, but if a couple parcels redevelop, it may spur more development. No change recommended.None268But, I’d like to know how many affordable housing or housing developments in general have been built nearby the biotech corporations on the east side.General Comment NA NA Housing has not been allowed in East of 101 until the adoption of the General Plan in 2022. Under the General Plan, housing is allowed in certain parts of East of 101, notably near the Caltrain Station and along South Airport Boulevard. Non‐residential development projects are required to pay fees to contribute to affordable housing development. No change recommended.None269As Planning Commissioners would make pretty poor spies, they have revealed that Lindenville will likely end up in the hands of biotech/life science concerns and high density housing developers with twelve story "rat cage" dreams. Still, as this plan that no resident asked for, joins many developments that have been put on pause, there was a mention of a housing project coming to the table in a few weeks. After viewing all the illustrations of the beautiful re‐imagined Lindenville, I'm curious, after all the mercenary developers build their "big ticket" projects, are you going to make them post a bond to guarantee they build the amenities they have promised? I think I know the answer. You can always hand out pictures of the "promised land" as impacted residents walk though another "rock garden" like the one created across from See's Candy. I know the residents were promised a new Safeway as Mr. Addiego embarrassingly genuflected in appreciation to the developer for the inclusion of this grocery store in the project when the residents were misled, yet again, that the Safeway would be the anchor store for this project. Another day, another dollar, another lie. To paraphrase, if the residents express concern, simply say "let them eat rocks."A little sage advice to any of you with developers with business before you. Don't even accept a free paperclip as you don't want to be caught in a "Nuru." You are being watched!General Comment NA NA The Specific Plan does not expand land available for biotech uses in Lindenville previously identified in the 2040 General Plan. No change recommended.NonePage 25 of 2653 Lindenville Public Draft Specific Plan Comment MatrixComment # Comment Chapter Section Plan Page Number Response Action to be Taken270After viewing several Planning Commission Meetings, it has become apparent that some of the commission members are attempting to use sleight of hand to deceive the public about the impact of this project that nobody asked for. Well nobody but those interests that are likely to profit. What stands out to me was one commissioner's mention that you can't let it look like all the small businesses operating in the area will be displaced. Seems, it's more about appearance than the reality. Fact is, another commissioner made mention that the "deep pocketed" life sciences concerns will likely be throwing big bucks in the till in competition for the properties. If the small business owner owns the property, he will sell as he will likely never see that much money again. If they lease, the property owner will sell for the same reason. End result, these businesses are doomed. Need further proof? At the last meeting there was discussion of relocating the businesses, including outside SSF city limits. While that is easier said than done, you've shown your "hand" and civic pride by showing longtime SSF businesses the door.General Comment NA NA No change recommended. None271Most troubling of all is the acknowledgement that this is a long term, twenty year vision. You can even hide behind the economic uncertainties facing our country. That's code for any public amenities promised in this reborn Lindenville will be last to be built, if at all. Long time residents have seen this act before. General Comment NA NA No change recommended. None272Bottom line, you guys are an "easy read." Lindenville likely will be pockets of high rise buildings designed to improve large businesses bottom lines, not the quality of life of South San Franciscans. Know this, those of us who genuinely care about the direction this city has taken after mercenaries found their way into government are watching you, enlisting the appropriate government agencies for help in oversight, and will be vigilant in preventing further exploitation of our city for nefarious purposes. Understood?General Comment NA NA No change recommended. NonePage 26 of 2654 Lindenville Specific Plan Planning Commission September 7, 2023 55 Give an overview of the Lindenville Specific Plan process Review changes to Public Draft Specific Plan Review summary findings of EIR Addendum Recommendation to City Council on Specific Plan, EIR Addendum, and other resolutions / ordinances The Purpose of Today’s Meeting is… Planning Commission / 2 56 Plan Updates Specific Plan •20-year Vision for Lindenville •Policy direction and development standards •Organized in 8 chapters •Implementation, including actions and capital improvements •Public Review Period: June 30 – August 3 Environmental Review •Inform decision makers and the public about project impacts •Identify ways to mitigate or avoid impacts •Addendum to the General Plan EIR Planning Commission / 3 57 Additional Ordinances and Amendments •General Plan Amendments •Zoning Ordinance Amendments •Zoning Map Amendments Planning Commission / 4 58 Specific Plan Area •Approximately 400-acre area •Standards and requirements do not apply to the Southline Campus Specific Plan area Planning Commission / 5 59 Specific Plan Process Existing Conditions Summer 2022 Alternatives Fall 2022 Preferred Plan Winter 2023 Technical Analysis Winter 2023 Specific Plan Winter – Summer 2023 Adoption September 2023 We are here! Planning Commission / 6 60 15 Engagement Activities for the Public Review Draft City Council / 7 •Community Open House Events •Virtual event: July 12 •In person event: July 13 •Pop-Up Events •Orange Memorial Park Farmers’ Market: July 8 •Orange Memorial Park Movie Night: July 21 •Boards and Commissions •Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee: June 6 •Colma Creek Citizens Advisory Committee: June 13 •Youth Commission: July 3 •Planning Commission: July 6 •Equity and Public Safety Commission: July 17 •Design Review: July 18 •Cultural Arts Commission: July 20 •City Council: July 26 •Planning Commission: August 3 •Online Feedback Form •Stakeholder Meeting 61 Summary of Engagement Process 460 members of the public engaged 35+ Total Events/Meetings/Activities •2 online surveys / feedback forms •3 community workshops (2 in person, 1 virtual) •4 pop-up events •3 rounds of stakeholder meetings •6 Technical Working Group meetings •16 Board and Commission meetings Planning Commission / 8 62 Vision 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. Planning Commission / 9 63 Planning Commission / 10 64 Public Comments on Draft Specific Plan Planning Commission / 11 65 Public Comment on the Specific Plan •Staff Recommended Changes to Draft Specific Plan •Simplified summary memo documenting the public comment •Staff Response to Public Comment and Recommendations Table •Responds to and documents all comments and changes to the Public Draft Specific Plan Planning Commission / 12 66 •Include design standards that encourage a unique and bold district character while allowing for creativity and architectural variety •Create policies that encourage a truly mixed-use district and prevent biotech from dominating the land use balance •Preserve and support businesses with industrial and light industrial uses that continue to provide essential services for local communities, residents, and business •Prioritize environmental justice issues such as contamination remediation, meaningful access to open space, and transit connectivity •Improve pedestrian and bike safety and mobility in the district as well as connectivity between the district and downtown •Foster the growth of arts, culture, and the creative economy by creating incentives for artists and makers to move here •Incentivize the development of affordable housing and push for more progressive requirements City Council / 13Key Themes from Input Received on Public Review Draft Responded to approx. 190 comments 67 Comments from Planning Commission •Feasibility of transferring development rights to incentivize the development of a park along Colma Creek •Flooding mitigation efforts along Colma Creek should be coordinated with San Mateo County •Viability of integrating resilient infrastructure (floodable playgrounds, drought tolerant vegetation) •Inclusion of a rigorous plan for environmental remediation •Design standards that would encourage a bold and unique district character •Prioritization of bikes and pedestrians and concern about the impact of development on South Spruce Avenue Planning Commission / 14 68 Summary of Key Changes to the Specific Plan •Reverted 40 Airport Blvd, 20 Airport Blvd, and 10 Airport Blvd back to RH-180 – consistent with GP and application •Reverted RM-22 to T3N to allow for continued mix of uses like the Basque Cultural Center •Added RH-180 and T3N designations to Specific Plan •Minor updates to Land Use table for consistency with Zoning Code Planning Commission / 16 Land Use 69 Summary of Key Changes to the Specific Plan •Added an additional 5% affordable housing requirement beyond the minimum 15% in Chapter 20.380 •Clarified incentives •Specified bonus du/ac •Specified allowed use of Flex High Rise building types •Incorporated technical clarifications from SFO staff on Airport Land Use Plan consistency Planning Commission / 17 Height Incentive Overlay 70 Summary of Key Changes to the Specific Plan •Added policies related to sustainable development, ecological design, and climate change •Clarified minimum, maximum, and total project FARs •Clarified use of Planned Development for project sites with unique site conditions, such as narrow parcel depth Planning Commission / 18 Design and Development 71 Summary of Key Changes to the Specific Plan •Minor updates to Open Space and Parks Framework map •Allowed for the combining of parks across projects to meet requirements •Clarified public art projects, local artist, and Public Art requirements •Added Dark Skies requirement Planning Commission / 19 Open Space and Parks 72 Summary of Key Changes to the Specific Plan •Reorganized chapter for clarity •Incorporated additional design standards for façade articulation, e.g. bay windows, balconies, etc. •Clarified standards associated with unique entry elements and identity •Added new landscape design standards •Incorporated additional images to illustrate standards Planning Commission / 20 Design and Development 73 Amendments to General Plan Planning Commission / 21 74 Amendments to General Plan •Revise Lindenville sub-area boundary on maps •Sphere of Influence and Sub- Areas (Figure 3) •Downtown, Lindenville, and Orange Park Sub-Area Diagrams •Disadvantaged Communities (Figure 37) •Revise Proposed Roadway Network (Figure 14) •Revise Existing and Potential Park Sites (Figure 31) •Modify policy language to reflect Specific Plan goals and policies •Lindenville Sub-Area (Chapter 6) •Mobility and Access (Chapter 9) •Abundant and Accessible Parks and Recreation (Chapter 10) Planning Commission / 22 75 General Plan Land Use Map Planning Commission / 23 76 Amendments to Zoning Code Planning Commission / 24 77 Amendments to Zoning Code •Other Minor Revisions to Zoning Code •Zoning Districts, Zoning Map, and Boundaries (20.020) •Transect Zoning Districts (20.135.020) •Non-Conforming Uses (20.320) •Outdoor Storage (20.350.032) •Community Benefits Program (20.395) •Planning Agency and Common Procedures (20.440 & 20.450) •Use Classifications (20.620) •Introduction of new Zoning District •Lindenville Specific Plan (20.150) •Introduction on new Overlay Districts •Height Incentive Overlay (20.160) •Colma Creek Greenbelt Overlay (20.190) •Arts and Makers Overlay (20.200) •Active Ground Floor Overlay (20.210) •Update Zoning Map Planning Commission / 25 78 Planning Commission / 26Zoning Map 79 Transect Zones Chapter 20.135.020 •Added •T3 Makers Lindenville (T3ML) •T4 Lindenville (T4L) •T5 Lindenville (T5L) •Removed •T4 Makers District (T4M) •T4 Corridor District (T4C) Planning Commission / 27 80 Addendum to the General Plan EIR Planning Commission / 28 81 2040 General Plan EIR •2040 General Plan EIR certified on October 12, 2022 •Significant Unavoidable Air Quality Impacts •Increase Criteria Air Pollutants •Inconsistent with 2017 Clean Air Plan •Significant Unavoidable Transportation Impacts •Vehicle-Miles-Traveled •Roadway Safety due to Vehicle Queues on City’s Freeway Off-ramps •All other impacts Less-than-Significant or Less-than-Significant- with-Mitigation Planning Commission / 29 82 2040 General Plan vs Lindenville Specific Plan * 259,479 square feet of which are existing development Planning Commission / 30 Residential Units Non-Residential Square Footage 2040 General Plan (Lindenville Area) 5,580 9,799,668 Lindenville Specific Plan 5,581 10,108,600 Net Change +1 +308,932* 83 Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR Planning Commission / 31 •Evaluated changes proposed by the Lindenville Specific Plan from General Plan buildout assumptions •Analyzed if changes in LSP would result in new significant impact or substantially increase the severity of impacts identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR •Addendum documents LSP results in same impacts as identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR 84 Staff Recommendation Planning Commission / 32 85 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that Planning Commission conduct the public hearing and take the following actions: 1.Move to adopt the resolution recommending determination that the Lindenville Specific Plan Addendum to the EIR is the appropriate environmental document for the Project. 2.Move to adopt a resolution recommending adoption of the Lindenville Specific Plan and associated General Plan Amendments. 3.Move to adopt the resolution recommending adoption of the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map Amendments. Planning Commission / 33 86 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:23-731 Agenda Date:9/7/2023 Version:1 Item #:2a. Resolution making findings recommending that the City Council make a determination that the Lindenville Specific Plan and its associated General Plan Amendments,Zoning Ordinance Amendments and Zoning Map Amendments are fully within the scope of environmental analysis in the 2040 General Plan Environmental Impact Report and that the Lindenville Specific Plan Addendum to the EIR is the appropriate environmental document for the Project. WHEREAS,in 2022 the City of South San Francisco (“City”)adopted (1)Resolution No.177-2022 certifying the Environmental Impact Report,including adoption of the Statement of Overriding Considerations and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program,for the 2040 General Plan Update,Zoning Code Amendments and Climate Action Plan (“2040 General Plan EIR”)(State Clearinghouse No.2021020064),(2)Resolution No.178-2022 adopting the 2040 General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan Update,and (3)Ordinance No. 1646-2022 repealing certain sections of Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code and adopting the Zoning Ordinance Update, including a new Title 20 and Zoning Map; and WHEREAS,the 2040 General Plan Update reflects the community’s vision and 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; and WHEREAS,to ensure that new development proceeds in an organized and well-planned manner and includes new housing opportunities,the City Council authorized the preparation of a Lindenville Specific Plan (“Specific Plan” or “Project”) and associated environmental analysis; and WHEREAS,adoption of the Lindenville Specific Plan is considered a “project”for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act, Pub. Resources Code § 21000, et seq. (“CEQA”); and WHEREAS,the 2040 General Plan EIR was certified in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code,§§21000,et seq.,“CEQA”)and CEQA Guidelines, which analyzed the potential environmental impacts of the Project; and WHEREAS,pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164,an Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR was prepared for the Lindenville Specific Plan (“LSP Addendum”)which evaluates whether preparation of a Subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration is required; and WHEREAS,the LSP Addendum concludes that in accordance with Public Resources Code §21166 and CEQA Guidelines §15162,the implementation of the Lindenville Specific Plan will not cause any new significant impacts,that it will not trigger any new or more severe impacts than were studied in the previously certified 2040 General Plan EIR,that no substantial changes in the project or circumstances justifying major revisions to the previous EIR have occurred,and that no new information of substantial importance has come to light since the 2040 General Plan EIR was certified that shows new or more severe significant impacts nor shows new, different or more feasible mitigation measures; and WHEREAS,the City Council previously adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/1/2023Page 1 of 3 powered by Legistar™87 File #:23-731 Agenda Date:9/7/2023 Version:1 Item #:2a. WHEREAS,the City Council previously adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the 2040 General Plan Update Project and a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the 2040 General Plan Update’s significant and unavoidable impacts,both of which remain in full force and effect for the Specific Plan; and, WHEREAS,the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on September 7,2023 to solicit public comment and take public testimony,at which time interested parties had the opportunity to be heard,to consider the Project and the LSP Addendum,for recommendation to the City Council to approve the Addendum and the Specific Plan; and WHEREAS,the Planning Commission exercised its independent judgment and analysis,and considered all reports, recommendations and testimony before making a recommendation to the City Council. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT FOUND,DETERMINED AND 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 2040 General Plan;the South San Francisco Municipal Code;the 2040 General Plan EIR and Statement of Overriding Considerations;the draft Lindenville Specific Plan,prepared by Raimi + Associates;the Lindenville Specific Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR;the draft General Plan Amendments;the draft Lindenville Specific Plan Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map amendments;all reports, minutes,and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission’s duly noticed September 7,2023 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. 2.The EIR for the 2040 General Plan Update,Climate Action Plan Update and Zoning Ordinance Update, including the CEQA Findings of Fact,Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibit A),and the LSP Addendum (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 the Chief Planner. 4.The Planning Commission pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164,has considered the LSP Addendum prepared for the Project including the related environmental analysis,along with the previously certified 2040 General Plan EIR. 5.Upon consideration of the LSP Addendum,the Planning Commission finds that,based on substantial evidence in the record,the proposed Project will not result in any of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines section 15162 that would require further environmental review through preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR. 6.The Planning Commission finds that the Project will not create any new significant impacts or City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/1/2023Page 2 of 3 powered by Legistar™88 File #:23-731 Agenda Date:9/7/2023 Version:1 Item #:2a. 6.The Planning Commission finds that the Project will not create any new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts as compared to those already identified and analyzed in the 2040 General Plan EIR.Further,the Planning Commission finds that there is no new information of substantial importance that demonstrates new or substantially more severe significant effects,as compared to those identified in the prior CEQA documents.In addition,there are no new,additional,or more feasible mitigation measures required to mitigate any impacts of the Project that the applicant declines to implement. 7.Accordingly,the Planning Commission finds that CEQA Guidelines section 15162 does not require any further CEQA review,and that the LSP Addendum,prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164, is the appropriate environmental document for approval of the Project. SECTION 2. RECOMMENDATION NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco hereby makes the findings contained in this Resolution and recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution making a determination that the LSP Addendum is the appropriate environmental document for approval of the Project and no further environmental review is required and to approve the Addendum. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption. City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/1/2023Page 3 of 3 powered by Legistar™89 Exhibit A 2040 General Plan Update EIR and Appendices Links: - Draft EIR - Final EIR - Appendix A – NOP and Scoping Comments - Appendix B – Air Quality, Energy and GHG Supporting Information - Appendix C – Biological Resources Supporting Information - Appendix D – Cultural Resources – Tribal Cultural Resources Supporting Information - Appendix E – Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Supporting Information - Appendix F – Hazards and Hazardous Materials Supporting Information - Appendix G – Noise Supporting Information - Appendix H – Transportation Supporting Information 90 Addendum Lindenville Speciﬁc Plan September 2023 In ConsultaƟon with P r eparedby 91 Lindenville Specific Plan i Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1.0 Introduction and Purpose ................................................................................................ 1 Section 2.0 Project Information ......................................................................................................... 2 2.1 Background Information and Project Location ...................................................................... 2 2.2 Project Description ................................................................................................................. 7 2.3 Approvals Required .............................................................................................................. 36 Section 3.0 Environmental Checklist ............................................................................................... 37 3.1 Aesthetics .............................................................................................................................. 40 3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ..................................................................................... 44 3.3 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................ 46 3.4 Biological Resources ............................................................................................................ 58 3.5 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................ 66 3.6 Energy ................................................................................................................................... 69 3.7 Geology, Soils, and Minerals ................................................................................................ 73 3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................................... 77 3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ........................................................................................ 85 3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality .............................................................................................. 91 3.11 Land Use and Planning ......................................................................................................... 96 3.12 Noise and Vibration .............................................................................................................. 98 3.13 Population and Housing ...................................................................................................... 105 3.14 Public Services.................................................................................................................... 107 3.15 Recreation ........................................................................................................................... 111 3.16 Transportation ..................................................................................................................... 113 3.17 Tribal Cultural Resources ................................................................................................... 119 3.18 Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................................................. 121 3.19 Wildfire ............................................................................................................................... 125 Section 4.0 References ................................................................................................................... 127 Section 5.0 Lead Agency and Consultants ..................................................................................... 129 5.1 Lead Agency ....................................................................................................................... 129 5.2 Consultants ......................................................................................................................... 129 Section 6.0 Acronyms and Abbreviations ...................................................................................... 130 92 Lindenville Specific Plan ii Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 TABLE OF CONTENTS Figures Figure 2.1-1: Regional Map ................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 2.1-2: Vicinity Map .................................................................................................................... 4 Figure 2.1-3: Aerial Map and Surrounding Land Uses .......................................................................... 5 Figure 2.1-4: Existing General Plan Land Use Designations within Lindenville .................................. 6 Figure 2.2-1: Existing and Proposed Lindenville Sub-Area Boundary ................................................. 8 Figure 2.2-2: Specific Plan Character Areas ........................................................................................ 11 Figure 2.2-3: Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations within Specific Plan Area ................... 14 Figure 2.2-4: Proposed Land Use Zoning Districts within Specific Plan area .................................... 17 Figure 2.2-5: Proposed Maximum Building Heights ........................................................................... 21 Figure 2.2-6: Proposed Roadway Network .......................................................................................... 23 Figure 2.2-7: Proposed Pedestrian Priority Streets .............................................................................. 24 Figure 2.2-8: Proposed Bicycle Priority Streets ................................................................................... 25 Figure 2.2-9: Proposed Transit Priority Streets ................................................................................... 26 Figure 2.2-10: Proposed Parks and Open Space .................................................................................. 27 Figure 2.2-11: Proposed Potable Water System Improvements .......................................................... 29 Figure 2.2-12: Planned and Proposed Sanitary Sewer System Improvements .................................... 32 Figure 2.2-13: Proposed Storm Drain and Flood Management Improvements ................................... 35 Figure 3.4-1: Ecologically Sensitive Habitats ...................................................................................... 60 Tables Table 2.1-1: 2040 General Plan Buildout in Lindenville ....................................................................... 2 Table 2.2-1: Summary of Existing, Existing + Recently Approved, Allowed, and Proposed Development by Land Uses ................................................................................................................... 9 Table 2.2-2: Summary of Existing, Existing + Recently Approved, Allowed, and Proposed Residential and Non-Residential Development ..................................................................................... 9 Table 2.2-3: Summary of Existing, Existing + Recently Approved, Allowed, and Proposed Residential and Non-Residential Population and Employment ........................................................... 10 Table 2.2-4: Existing and Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations within Lindenville .......... 15 Table 2.2-6: Lindenville Planned Parks and Open Space by Type ...................................................... 22 Table 2.2-7: Proposed Potable Water System Improvements .............................................................. 28 Table 2.2-8: Planned Sanitary Sewer System Improvements .............................................................. 30 Table 2.2-9: Proposed Sanitary Sewer System Improvements ............................................................ 31 93 Lindenville Specific Plan iii Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 Table 2.2-10: Planned Storm Drain System Improvements ................................................................ 33 Table 3.3-1: Specific Plan Consistency with the 2017 Clean Air Plan Control Measures .................. 51 Table 3.8-1: Project Consistency with Applicable Climate Action Plan Actions ................................ 79 Appendices Appendix A: Final Draft Lindenville Specific Plan Appendix B: Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Forecast Memorandum Appendix C: Lindenville VMT, Vehicle LOS, and Traffic Sensitivity Memorandum 94 Lindenville Specific Plan 1 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE This Initial Study Checklist/Addendum has been prepared by the City of South San Francisco as the Lead Agency, in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines, and the regulations and policies of the City of South San Francisco. This Addendum to the certified Program Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan (State Clearinghouse [SCH]#: 2021020064) (thereafter referred as the 2040 General Plan EIR) addresses proposed refinements to the previously approved project. The purpose of this Addendum is to evaluate whether the proposed refinements to the development studied in the 2040 General Plan EIR for the Lindenville Specific Plan area, which are described in Section 2.2 Project Description, will require major revisions to the certified 2040 General Plan EIR due to new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of significant impacts previously identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR. 95 Lindenville Specific Plan 2 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 SECTION 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 2.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND PROJECT LOCATION On October 12, 2022, the City of South San Francisco (City) adopted the Shape South San Francisco: 2040 General Plan (2040 General Plan) to provide a roadmap for the City to implement policies and actions that create a resilient community, improve the quality of life of its residents, and expand economic development opportunities. There are 11 sub-areas within the city, one of which is Lindenville. Lindenville is an approximately 400-acre area located in the southern portion of the city, bounded by U.S. Highway 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. Colma Creek runs through the northern portion of Lindenville between North Canal Street and South Canal Street. Lindenville is situated among multiple regional and local transportation facilities, including the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) San Bruno and South San Francisco stations, the Caltrain South San Francisco station, US 101, and the Centennial Way and Bay Trails. Lindenville is primarily made up of industrial space, representing 40 percent of the citywide industrial inventory and 15 percent of all industrial space in the San Mateo County. A regional map and a vicinity map of Lindenville are shown on Figure 2.1-1 and Figure 2.1-2. An aerial photograph of Lindenville and the surrounding area is shown on Figure 2.1-3. The 2040 General Plan identifies Lindenville as an opportunity area to introduce new residential uses that can help meet local and regional housing goals. It also strives to locate mixed use development and higher-density employment land uses near public transportation. To facilitate this opportunity in Lindenville, the 2040 General Plan identifies a range of policies and implementation actions related to housing, employment, connectivity, and open space with the following mission statement: 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. The 2040 General Plan projected buildout for Lindenville is summarized in Table 2.1-1 below. The General Plan land use designations within Lindenville are shown on Figure 2.1-4. Table 2.1-1: 2040 General Plan Buildout in Lindenville Retail (square feet) Services Hotel (square feet/rooms) Office/Research & Development (square feet) Industrial (square feet) Other* (square feet) Residential (dwelling units) A. 2040 General Plan Allowed Development 217,501 595,724 40,076/229 4,246,663 4,695,567 4,137 5,580 * This category represents the square footage of public uses. 96 San Bruno Millbrae South San Francisco San Francisco Bay San Francisco Daly City Daly City HillsboroughHillsborough San Bruno Millbrae South San Francisco San Francisco Bay San Francisco 101 101 101 280 280 280 380 82 82 1 1 Project Site REGIONAL MAP FIGURE 2.1-1 Paciﬁc Ocean Monterey Bay San JoséSan José SunnyvaleSunnyvale FremontFremontSan MateoSan Mateo Redwood CityRedwood City LivermoreLivermore OaklandOakland San FranciscoSan Francisco Santa CruzSanta Cruz Mountain ViewMountain View Morgan HillMorgan Hill Project SiteProject Site CuperƟnoCuperƟno 01.501.5 5 Miles5 Miles Lindenville Speciﬁc Plan City of South San Francisco 3 Addendum September 2023 97 South Sa n Fr ancisc o San Bru n o South San Francisco San BrunoHunƟngton Avenue Sneath L a n e E l C am i no R e a l V al leywo o d DriveJu nip ero Serra B oule var d W es tborough BoulevardChes tnut AvenPonder o s a R oa d S a n B r u n o Avenue G a t e w ay BoulevardOyster Point Boulevard Forbes Boulevard East Grand Avenue South A i rpo r t Bou leva rd North Access RoadHarbor WaySpruce AvenueSouth Linden AvenueAirport BoulevardGrand Av e n u e Orange AvenueAlta Vi st a D ri v e HunƟngton Avenue Sneath L a n e E l C am i no R e a l V al leyw oo d DriveJu nip eroSerra B oulev ar d W est boroughBoulevardChes tnutAvenPonder os a R oa d S a n B ru n o Avenue G a t e w ayBoulevardOyster Point Boulevard ForbesBoulevard East GrandAvenue South A i rpo r t Bou leva rd NorthAccess RoadHarbor WaySpruce AvenueSouth Linden AvenueAirport BoulevardGrand Av e n u e OrangeAvenueAlta Vi st a D ri v e Col m a C r e e k San Bruno Creek Colm a C r e e k SanBrunoCreek82 82 380 280 101 101 Base Map: ESRI, ArcGIS 0 .25 .5 .75 1 Mile Project Site City Limit VICINITY MAP FIGURE 2.1-2Lindenville Speciﬁc PlanCity of South San Francisco4AddendumSeptember 202398 South San Francisco San BrunoSouth S a n Francisc o San Bru n o ResidenƟal ResidenƟal School ResidenƟal ResidenƟal CommercialIndustrial Industrial/ Commercial Industrial/ Commercial Industrial/ Commercial San Francisco InternaƟonal Airport Future Commercial, Office & ResidenƟal Commercial Commercial San Bruno StaƟon South San FranciscoStaƟon San Bruno StaƟon South San FranciscoStaƟonRailroa d A v e n u e Baden A v e n u e South Spruce AvenueSouth Linden AvenueEas t G r a n d A v e n u e U ta h Avenue North Access Road GatewayBoulevardSouth A i rpo r t Bou le v a rd Mitchell Avenue El C am i n o R e a l Sneat h L a n e Hazelw o o d D ri v e Pond er os a R o a d Coun t r y Cl u b Dri v e Rock w o o d Drive We st O rangeAvenue Railroa d A v e n u e Baden A v e n u e South Spruce AvenueSouth Linden AvenueEas t G r a n d A v e n u e Uta h Avenue North Access RoadSouth A i rpo r t Bou le v a rd El C am i n o R e a l Sneat h L a n e Hazelw o o d D ri v e Pond er os a R o a d Coun t r y Cl u b Dri v e Rock w o o d Drive San Bruno Creek NavigableSlough Colma Cr e e k San Bruno Creek Colma Cr e e k 82 82 380 101 101 Photo Date: Apr. 2022 0 200 1,200 1,600 2,400 Feet Project Boundary Caltrain BART City Limit Aerial Source: Google Earth Pro, Aug. 10, 2023. AERIAL MAP AND SURROUNDING LAND USES FIGURE 2.1-3Lindenville Speciﬁc PlanCity of South San Francisco5AddendumSeptember 202399 Source: City of South San Francisco, Lindenville Speciﬁc Plan, June 30, 2023. Navi g a b l e S l o u g h San Brun o Creek Colma C r e e k South San Francisco Station San Bruno Station §¨¦380 ¬«82 £¤101 City of San Bruno Grand Av e Linden AveAirportBlvdMaple AveSpruceAveMyrtle A v e Fra n ciscoDrMayfair A v e MitchellAve Pr o d u c e AveSSpruceAveRailroad Ave El C am i n o R e a l Utah AveFir AveS Magnolia AveDollar AveCommer c i a l A v e Victory A v e S A i rp o r t B l v dGatewayBlvd Tanforan A v e Beacon StStarlite StS Linden AveH u n tin gto n A v e SMapleAveN Canal S t San Mateo AveLowrie AveShaw RdSouthline Lorem ipsum LAND USES Low Density ResidenƟal (LDR) Medium Density ResidenƟal (MDR) Medium High Density ResidenƟal (MHDR) High Density ResidenƟal (HDR) Downtown ResidenƟal Core (DRC) Urban ResidenƟal (UR) Low Density Mixed Use (LDMU) Grand Avenue Core (GAC) Medium Density Mixed Use (MDMU) High Density Mixed Use (HDMU) East of 101 Mixed Use (EMU) Downtown Transit Core (DTC) East of 101 Transit Core (ETC) Business and Professional Office (BPO) Business Technology Park High (BTPH) Community Commercial (CC) Mixed Industrial (MI) Mixed Industrial High (MIH) Industrial TransiƟon Zone (ITZ) Public (P) TransportaƟon (T) School (S) Planned Development (PD) Parks and RecreaƟon (PR) Open Space (OS) 0 .1 .15 .20.05 .25 Miles 0 .1 .15 .20.05 .250 .1 .15 .20.05 .25 MilesMiles Lindenville Area Boundary City of South San Francisco Southline Speciﬁc Plan Area Highway Caltrain BART LEGEND EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS WITHIN LINDENVILLE FIGURE 2.1-4 Lindenville Speciﬁc Plan City of South San Francisco 6 Addendum September 2023 100 Lindenville Specific Plan 7 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 As described in Section 1.0 Introduction and Purpose, the environmental impacts of the 2040 General Plan, including its planned growth for Lindenville, were disclosed in the 2040 General Plan EIR. To implement the vision of the 2040 General Plan for Lindenville, the City has prepared the Lindenville Specific Plan (Specific Plan), which contains specific directives, strategies, and standards aimed to develop Lindenville into a resilient and walkable mixed-use district. Key components of the Specific Plan are described below. A copy of the Specific Plan is included in Appendix A. 2.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed Specific Plan is a refinement to the 2040 General Plan by providing more detailed assignment of land uses, densities, development standards, parks and open space, mobility, infrastructure and public facilities, and implementation for Lindenville than what was provided in the 2040 General Plan. Through this refinement, the Specific Plan would also require a General Plan Amendment to change the General Plan sub-area boundaries and land use designations, and rezoning within the proposed Lindenville sub-area boundary to make both plans consistent with one another and work together to further City goals for Lindenville. The proposed Specific Plan would modify the Lindenville sub-area boundary, as shown on Figure 2.2-1, by incorporating the triangular area from the Downtown sub-area bounded by Produce Avenue to the west, US 101 to the east, Railroad Avenue to the north, and Colma Creek to the south, and the non-residential area from the Orange Park sub-area west of South Spruce Avenue generally bounded by Mayfair Avenue to the north, single-family residences to the west, and Centennial Way Trail to the south. The modification to include the triangular area from the Downtown sub-area is proposed because its intended character more closely aligns with the City’s vision for Lindenville. The modification to include the areas west of South Spruce Avenue is proposed because it would enable a more comprehensive planning of land use, mobility, and the public realm changes along South Spruce Avenue and provide thoughtful land use and building density and height transitions to the adjacent single-family neighborhoods. Table 2.2-1 summarizes the existing development, existing plus recently approved development, allowed development under the 2040 General Plan, and projected buildout of the Specific Plan, which would replace the allowed development under the 2040 General Plan, and Table 2.2-2 breaks the development down by residential and non-residential uses. While the Specific Plan would result in a notable net increase in services uses and industrial uses compared to the 2040 General Plan buildout, it assumes fewer existing services uses and industrial uses would be redeveloped to other uses. Compared to the 2040 General Plan, the project would result in a net increase in 49,233 square feet of new office/research & development uses, 220 square feet of new retail use, and 1 new dwelling unit, however, these additional development are reallocated from east of US 101 and do not increase the General Plan buildout for the city as a whole.1 Table 2.2-3 summarizes the population and employment of the existing development, existing plus recently approved development, allowed development under the 2040 General Plan, and projected buildout of the Specific Plan. Compared to the 2040 General Plan, the Specific Plan would increase the population by 2 residents and employment by 252 employees in Lindenville. The environmental impacts of the proposed Specific Plan (including the proposed General Plan Amendments) are the subject of this Addendum to determine whether the proposed Specific Plan would result in new or substantially more severe impacts than the environmental impacts identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR for the buildout of the 2040 General Plan. 1 Yurkovich, Eric. Principal, Raimi + Associates. Personal Communication. August 21, 2023. 101 South San Francisco San BrunoSouth S a n Francisc o San Bru n o San Bruno StaƟon South San FranciscoStaƟon San Bruno StaƟon South San FranciscoStaƟonRailroa d A v e n u e Baden A v e n u e South Linden AvenueEas t G r a n d A v e n u e U t a h Avenue North Access Road GatewayBoulevardSouth A i rpo r t Bou le v a rd Mitchell Avenue El C am i n o R e a l Sneat h L a n e Hazelw o o d D ri v e Pond er os a R o a d Coun t r y Cl u b Dri v e Rock w o o d Drive We s t O rangeAvenue Railroa d A v e n u e Baden A v e n u e South Linden AvenueEas t G r a n d A v e n u e U t a h A v e nu eSouth Spruce AvenueNorth Access RoadSouth A i rpo r t Bou le v a rd El C am i n o R e a l Sneat h L a n e Hazelw o o d D ri v e Pond er os a R o a d Coun t r y Cl u b Dri v e Rock w o o d Drive San Bruno Creek NavigableSlough Colma Cr e e k San Bruno Creek Colma Cr e e k 82 82 380 101 101SouthSpruceAvenueCaltrain Photo Date: Apr. 2022 0 200 1,200 1,600 2,400 Feet Proposed Project Boundary ExisƟng Project Boundary BART City Limit Aerial Source: Google Earth Pro, Aug. 10, 2023. EXISTING AND PROPOSED LINDENVILLE SUB-AREA BOUNDARY FIGURE 2.2-1Lindenville Speciﬁc PlanCity of South San Francisco8AddendumSeptember 2023102 Lindenville Specific Plan 9 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 Table 2.2-1: Summary of Existing, Existing + Recently Approved, Allowed, and Proposed Development by Land Uses Retail (square feet) Services Hotel (square feet/rooms) Office/Research & Development (square feet) Industrial (square feet) Other* (square feet) Residential (dwelling units) A. Existing Development 63,000 660,600 17,500/100 210,375 5,490,900 0 0 B. Existing Development + Recently Approved but not yet Constructed Projects 79,400 660,600 17,500/100 2,922,175 5,490,900 0 1,330 C. 2040 General Plan Allowed Development 217,501 595,724 40,076/229 4,246,663 4,695,567 4,137 5,580 D. Proposed Lindenville Specific Plan Development 217,721 621,038 31,341/179 4,295,896 4,938,467 4,137 5,581 Change Between Existing and Proposed Lindenville Specific Plan (D-A) +154,721 -39,562 +13,841/+79 +4,085,521 -552,433 +4,137 +5,581 Change Between Existing + Recently Approved and Proposed Lindenville Specific Plan (D-B) +138,321 -39,562 +13,841/+79 +1,373,721 -552,433 +4,137 +4,251 Change between 2040 General Plan and Proposed Lindenville Specific Plan (D-C) +220 +25,314 -8,375/-50 +49,233 +242,900 0 +1 * This category represents the square footage of public uses. Table 2.2-2: Summary of Existing, Existing + Recently Approved, Allowed, and Proposed Residential and Non-Residential Development Residential (dwelling units) Non-Residential (square feet) A. Existing Development 0 6,442,375 B. Existing Development + Recently Approved but not yet Constructed Projects 1,330 9,170,575 C. 2040 General Plan Allowed Development 5,580 9,799,668 D. Proposed Lindenville Specific Plan Development 5,581 10,108,600 Change Between Existing and Proposed Lindenville Specific Plan (D-A) +5,581 +3,666,225 Change Between Existing + Recently Approved and Proposed Lindenville Specific Plan (D-B) +4,251 +938,025 103 Lindenville Specific Plan 10 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 Table 2.2-2: Summary of Existing, Existing + Recently Approved, Allowed, and Proposed Residential and Non-Residential Development Residential (dwelling units) Non-Residential (square feet) Change between 2040 General Plan and Proposed Lindenville Specific Plan (D-C) +1 +308,932 Table 2.2-3: Summary of Existing, Existing + Recently Approved, Allowed, and Proposed Residential and Non-Residential Population and Employment Population (residents) Employment (employees) A. Existing Development 0 9,592 B. Existing Development + Recently Approved but not yet Constructed Projects 2,806 20,809 C. 2040 General Plan Allowed Development 11,773 23,114 D. Proposed Lindenville Specific Plan Development 11,775 23,366 Change Between Existing and Proposed Lindenville Specific Plan (D-A) +11,775 +13,774 Change Between Existing + Recently Approved and Proposed Lindenville Specific Plan (D-B) +8,969 +2,557 Change between 2040 General Plan and Proposed Lindenville Specific Plan (D-C) +2 +252 Note: Population and employment estimates provided by Raimi + Associates. 2.2.1 Character Areas The Specific Plan includes four distinct character areas, Mixed Use Neighborhood, South Spruce Avenue Corridor, Employment Area, and South Linden Avenue Arts and Makers District, as shown on Figure 2.2-2. Each character area contains its standards and policies to address land use, mobility, open space, and blue-green infrastructure,2 and urban design. 2 In contrast to the human engineered “gray” infrastructure, such as underground pipes or roadside swales, the nature-based “blue-green” infrastructure refers to using natural and semi-natural features to manage stormwater runoff and flooding, such as rain gardens, and green streets. 104 Navi g a b l e S l o u g h San Brun o Creek Colma C r e e k South San Francisco Station San Bruno Station §¨¦380 ¬«82 £¤101 City of San Bruno Grand Av e Linden AveAirportBlvdMaple AveSpruceAveMyrtle A v e Fra n ciscoDrMayfair A v e MitchellAve Pr o d u c e AveSSpruceAveRailroad Ave El C am i n o R e a l Utah AveFir AveS Magnolia AveDollar AveCommer c i a l A v e Victory A v e S A i r p o r t B l v dGatewayBlvd Tanforan A v e Beacon StStarlite StS Linden AveH u n tin gto n A v e SMapleAveN Canal S t San Mateo AveLowrie AveShaw RdSouthline Source: City of South San Francisco, Lindenville Speciﬁc Plan, June 30, 2023 (revised August 30, 2023). Lindenville Area Boundary City of South San Francisco Southline Speciﬁc Plan Highway Caltrain BART Proposed Streets Proposed Laneways/Alleys South Linden Arts and Makers District South Spruce Avenue Corridor Mixed Use Neighborhood Eployment Area LEGEND CHARACTER AREAS 0 .1 .15 .2.05 .25 Miles SPECIFIC PLAN CHARACTER AREAS FIGURE 2.2-2 Lindenville Speciﬁc Plan City of South San Francisco 11 Addendum September 2023 105 Lindenville Specific Plan 12 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 The Mixed Use Neighborhood is located in the northernmost portion of the Specific Plan area and a mixture of housing, retail and services, open space, civic uses, and legacy industrial uses are allowed. The South Spruce Avenue Corridor spans the western portion of the Specific Plan along South Spruce Avenue from Centennial Way Trail to Colma Creek and the mixed use housing types allowed in the Mixed Use Neighborhood character area are allowed here as well, with smaller-scale housing types buffering the adjacent residential uses in the Orange Park/Mayfair neighborhood, which is outside of the Specific Plan area. The Employment Area is located along the eastern portion east of the Caltrain railroad and south of the Mixed Use Neighborhood and a mixture of warehousing, manufacturing, processing, and storage and distribution uses are allowed to continue Lindenville’s industrial heritage. The South Linden Arts & Makers District is located in the middle of the Specific Plan area surrounded by the Mixed Use Neighborhood and the Employment Area character areas, and a variety of uses to promote arts and cultural identity, including live/work housing, studios, makers spaces, and restaurants/bars are allowed. The character areas are established to enable future changes in Lindenville while retaining an industrial core. 106 Lindenville Specific Plan 13 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 2.2.2 Development Standards and Guidelines The Specific Plan includes development standards and guidelines for the following subjects: • Land Use • Site, Block, and Building Design • Parks and Open Space • Complete Streets, Parking, and Transportation Demand Management • Infrastructure and Public Facilities The primary development standards and guidelines that result in changes to the environment are summarized below. Refer to Appendix A for a complete description of all the development standards and guidelines. General Plan Land Use Designations As described above, to achieve the Specific Plan's land use goals, the General Plan land use designations of select parcels within the Specific Plan area would need to be changed, as summarized in Table 2.2-4 and shown on Figure 2.2-3. Overall, the proposed Specific Plan would: • Reduce development intensity along Colma Creek by reducing the maximum mixed use density allowed at South Linden Avenue and changing the allowed use east of the Caltrain railroad from high-density mixed-use to industrial use (see ID #s 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7). • Increase the maximum mixed use density allowed along South Spruce Avenue and removing industrial as an allowed use (see ID #s 16, 17, and 18). • Remove industrial as an allowed use and allow commercial use with a reduced density on the north side of Victory Avenue, and reduce maximum industrial density allowed and remove residential as an allowed use on the south side of Victory Avenue (see ID #s 11, 12, 13, and 14). • Reduce the high density mixed use area and expand the office use area west of South Maple Avenue in the southwestern corner of the Specific Plan area (see ID #15). • Reduce the mixed use density at the northwestern corner of the Specific Plan area. • Increase the mixed use density on South Linden Avenue north of North Canal Street (see ID #2). • Designated slivers of open space between South Maple Avenue and South Linden Avenue (see ID #s 8, 9, and 10) 107 Source: City of South San Francisco, Lindenville Speciﬁc Plan, June 30, 2023 (revised August 30, 2023). Navi g a b l e S l o u g h San Brun o Creek Colma C r e e k South San Francisco Station San Bruno Station §¨¦380 ¬«82 £¤101 City of San Bruno Grand Av e Linden AveAirportBlvdMaple AveSpruceAveMyrtle A v e Fra n ciscoDrMayfair A v e MitchellAve Pr o d u c e AveSSpruceAveRailroad Ave El C am i n o R e a l Utah AveFir AveS Magnolia AveDollar AveCommer c i a l A v e Victory A v e S A i rp o r t B l v dGatewayBlvd Tanforan A v e Beacon StStarlite StS Linden AveH u n tin gto n A v e SMapleAveN Canal S t San Mateo AveLowrie AveShaw RdSouthline *Industrial TransiƟon Zone (ITZ) Lorem ipsum MDMUtoLDMU MDMUtoLDMU M DMU TO HMDUM DMUTOHMDUITZ to M D M U ITZ to M D M U MDMU to HDMU MDMU to HDMU HDMU to LDMU HDMU to PR ITZ to LDMU ITZtoMIH MIH to PR MIH to MI ITZ to PR MI to MIH BPO to MIH HDMU t o B P O ITZ to MI LDMU to MDMU MI to MDMU ITZ to H D M U HDMU to LDMU HDMU to PR ITZ to LDMU ITZtoMIH MIH to PR MIH to MI ITZ to PR HD M U t o M I H HD M U t o M I H MI to MIH BPO to MIH HDMU t o B P O ITZ to MI LDMU to MDMU MI to MDMU ITZ to H D M U 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 19 1617 18 5 LAND USES Low Density ResidenƟal (LDR) Medium Density ResidenƟal (MDR) Medium High Density ResidenƟal (MHDR) High Density ResidenƟal (HDR) Downtown ResidenƟal Core (DRC) Urban ResidenƟal (UR) Low Density Mixed Use (LDMU) Grand Avenue Core (GAC) Medium Density Mixed Use (MDMU) High Density Mixed Use (HDMU) East of 101 Mixed Use (EMU) Downtown Transit Core (DTC) East of 101 Transit Core (ETC) Business and Professional Office (BPO) Business Technology Park High (BTPH) Community Commercial (CC) Mixed Industrial (MI) Mixed Industrial High (MIH) Public (P) TransportaƟon (T) School (S) Planned Development (PD) Parks and RecreaƟon (PR) Open Space (OS) 0 .1 .15 .20.05 .25 Miles 0 .1 .15 .20.05 .250 .1 .15 .20.05 .25 MilesMiles Lindenville Area Boundary City of South San Francisco Southline Speciﬁc Plan Area Highway Caltrain BART Changes in General Plan Land Use Map LEGEND ID# PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS WITHIN SPECIFIC PLAN AREA FIGURE 2.2-3 Lindenville Speciﬁc Plan City of South San Francisco 14 Addendum September 2023 108 Lindenville Specific Plan 15 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 Table 2.2-4: Existing and Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations within Lindenville Parcel ID Existing Proposed 1 Medim Density Mixed Use (Floor Area Ratio [FAR] 0.5-3.5 with 0.5 non-residential; 120 Dwelling Units per Acre [du/ac]) Low Density Mixed Use (FAR 1.5-2.25; 60 du/ac) 2 Medim Density Mixed Use (FAR 0.5-3.5 with 0.5 non-residential; 120 du/ac) High Density Mixed Use (FAR 0.5-4.5 with 0.5 non-residential; 180 du/ac) 3 High Density Mixed Use (FAR 0.5-4.5 with 0.5 non-residential; 180 du/ac) Low Density Mixed Use (FAR 1.5-2.25; 60 du/ac) 4 Industrial Transition Zone (FAR 0.4-3.5; 120 du/ac) Low Density Mixed Use (FAR 1.5-2.25; 60 du/ac) 5 High Density Mixed Use (FAR 0.5-4.5 with 0.5 non-residential; 180 du/ac) Mixed Industrial High (FAR 0.4-2.0) 6 Industrial Transition Zone (FAR 0.4-3.5; 120 du/ac Mixed Industrial High (FAR 0.4-2.0) 7 Mixed Industrial (FAR 0.4-1.0) Mixed Industrial High (FAR 0.4-2.0) 8 High Density Mixed Use (FAR 0.5-4.5 with 0.5 non-residential; 180 du/ac) Parks and Recreation (density N/A) 9 Industrial Transition Zone (FAR 0.4-3.5; 120 du/ac) Parks and Recreation (density N/A) 10 Mixed Industrial High (FAR 0.4-2.0) Parks and Recreation (density N/A) 11 Industrial Transition Zone (FAR 0.4-3.5; 120 du/ac) High Density Mixed Use (FAR 0.5-4.5 with 0.5 non-residential; 180 du/ac 12 Industrial Transition Zone (FAR 0.4-3.5; 120 du/ac) Medim Density Mixed Use (FAR 0.5-3.5 with 0.5 non-residential; 120 du/ac) 13 Mixed Industrial High (FAR 0.4-2.0) Mixed Industrial (FAR 0.4-1.0) 14 Industrial Transition Zone (FAR 0.4-3.5; 120 du/ac) Mixed Industrial (FAR 0.4-1.0) 109 Lindenville Specific Plan 16 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 Table 2.2-4: Existing and Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations within Lindenville Parcel ID Existing Proposed 15 High Density Mixed Use (FAR 0.5-4.5 with 0.5 non-residential; 180 du/ac) Business and Professional Office (FAR 1.0-2.5) 16 Medim Density Mixed Use (FAR 0.5-3.5 with 0.5 non-residential; 120 du/ac) High Density Mixed Use (FAR 0.5-4.5 with 0.5 non-residential; 180 du/ac) 17 Low Density Mixed Use (FAR 1.5-2.25; 60 du/ac) Medim Density Mixed Use (FAR 0.5-3.5 with 0.5 non-residential; 120 du/ac) 18 Mixed Industrial (FAR 0.4-1.0) Medim Density Mixed Use (FAR 0.5-3.5 with 0.5 non-residential; 120 du/ac) 19 Business and Professional Office (FAR 1.0-2.5) Mixed Industrial High (FAR 0.4-2.0) Land Use Zoning Districts and Overlay Zones Similar to the General Plan land use designations, the zoning of select parcels within the Specific Plan area would also be rezoned, as shown on Figure 2.2-4. The Specific Plan includes 11 land use zoning districts within Lindenville to regulate allowed uses, residential density, intensity, and height: High Density Residential (RH-180), T3 Neighborhood (T3N), T3 Makers Lindenville (T3ML), T4 Lindenville (T4L), T5 Lindenville (T5L), Business and Professional Office (BPO), Business Technology Park-High (BTP-H), Mixed Industrial Medium (MIM), Mixed Industrial High (MIH), Public (PQP), Parks and Recreation (PR), and Open Space (OS). The T3ML, T4L, and T5L zoning districts would be new zoning districts to be added to the Zoning Code. The Specific Plan also includes four overlay zones to support arts and makers, transfer of development near Colma Creek, active ground floor uses, and high rise mass timber buildings: Height Incentive Overlay (HIO), Colma Creek Greenbelt Overlay (CCGO) Arts and Makers Overlay (AMO), and Active Ground Floor Use Overlay (AUO). These overlay zones would be new overlay zones to be added to the Zoning Code. The description of each of the land use zoning districts and overlay zones is described below. Minimum and maximum development numbers for each land use designation are summarized below in Table 2.2-5. 110 Navi g a b l e S l o u g h San Brun o Creek Colma C r e e k South San Francisco Station San Bruno Station §¨¦380 ¬«82 £¤101 City of San Bruno Grand Av e Linden AveAirportBlvdMaple AveSpruceAveMyrtle A v e Fra n ciscoDrMayfair A v e MitchellAve Pr o d u c e AveSSpruceAveRailroad Ave El C am i n o R e a l Utah AveFir AveS Magnolia AveDollar AveCommer c i a l A v e Victory A v e S A i r po r t B l v dGatewayBlvd Tanforan A v e Beacon StStarlite StS Linden AveH u n tin gto n A v e SMapleAveN Canal S t San Mateo AveLowrie AveShaw RdSouthline Source: City of South San Francisco, Lindenville Speciﬁc Plan, June 30, 2023 (revised August 30, 2023). Lindenville Area Boundary City of South San Francisco LEGEND Southline Speciﬁc Plan Area Highway Caltrain BART Proposed Streets Proposed Laneways/Alleys LAND USE ZONING DISTRICTS ResidenƟal High T3 Neighborhood T3 Makers Lindenville T4 Lindenville T5 Lindenville Public Parks Open Space TransportaƟon Mixed Industrial Medium Mixed Industrial High Business and Professional Office Business Technology Park High Height IncenƟve Overlay Colma Creek Greenway Overlay Arts & Makers Overlay AcƟve Ground Floor Use Overlay 0 .1 .15 .20.05 .25 Miles 0 .1 .15 .20.05 .250 .1 .15 .20.05 .25 MilesMiles PROPOSED LAND USE ZONING DISTRICTS WITHIN SPECIFIC PLAN AREA FIGURE 2.2-4 Lindenville Speciﬁc Plan City of South San Francisco 17 Addendum September 2023 111 Lindenville Specific Plan 18 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 Table 2.2-5: Lindenville Specific Plan Land Use Zoning Districts Density and Intensity District Minimum Residential Density (DU/AC) Maximum Residential Density (DU/AC) Base Non-Residential Floor Area Ratio Maximum Floor Area Ratio with Community Benefits2 Total Floor Area Ratio (Residential and Nonresidential)3 RH-180 80 or existing density, whichever is greater 1801 NA NA NA T3N 20 60 0.5 maximum for non-residential uses NA 0.5 min; 2.25 max T3ML 20 60 0.5 minimum for non-residential, 1.0 maximum for non-residential uses NA 1.0 min; 2.5 max T4L 80 120 0.5 maximum for non-residential uses NA 1.25 min; 3.5 max T5L 80 1404 0.5 maximum for non-residential uses NA 1.5 min; 3.75 max BPO NA NA 1 2.5 2.5 BTP-H NA NA 0.5 2.0 for Clean Technology, Office, and R&D 2.0 MIM NA NA 0.4 1.0 for all permitted uses except Office and R&D 1.0 MIH NA NA 0.4 2.0 for all permitted uses except Office and R&D 2.0 PQP NA NA NA NA NA Notes: 1. See Zoning Code Chapter 20.390 Bonus Residential Density for additional density based on the California State Density Bonus program. 2. See Zoning Code Chapter 20.395 Community Benefits Program. 112 Lindenville Specific Plan 19 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 3. Ground floor nonresidential uses may be exempt from the maximum FAR, see Chapter 20.040.009 Determining Floor Area Ratio. Ground floor nonresidential uses would count towards the minimum FAR. 4. Projects within the Height Incentive Overlay that comply with Height Incentive Overlay requirements are eligible for a maximum of 180 du/ac. See the Section 3.5 of Appendix A for more information. Zoning Districts High Density Residential (RH-180) - The RH-180 zoning district provides for a mix of high-density residential development with a variety of multifamily housing choices. It also supports residential care facilities, group residential homes, service-enriched housing, parks and recreation facilities, and civic and institutional uses. T3 Neighborhood (T3N) - The T3N district is a low-intensity neighborhood mixed-use district. Residential in character, it supports cultural institutions and neighborhood-serving commercial uses in a walkable context. Buildings reflect the scale of surrounding low-density neighborhoods and frontages are consistent with those of the surrounding neighborhood. T3 Makers Lindenville (T3ML) - The T3ML zoning district is a low- and medium-intensity mixed- use district that supports arts and makers, residential, and industrial uses along the South Linden Avenue corridor. This district supports flex low-rise buildings with diverse frontages that engage private development with the public realm and require ground floor arts and makers uses. T4 Lindenville (T4L) - The T4L form-based zoning district establishes a mixed-use urban area. The district supports medium- to high-intensity mixed-use development, with buildings that transition in scale to surrounding residential neighborhoods. Diverse frontages provide a relationship between private development and the public realm and a consistent frontage along the key rights-of-way. Minimum residential densities apply. T5 Lindenville (T5L) - The T5L zoning district supports a comfortable and walkable high-intensity urban core. As large sites transition into walkable blocks, the district supports vertical mixed use development with buildings facing the city’s corridors as well as internal street networks and publicly-accessible open spaces. Diverse frontages provide space for active ground-floor uses and shape the relationship between private development and the expanded public realm. Minimum residential densities apply. Business and Professional Office (BPO) - The BPO district provides areas for development of administrative, financial, business, professional, medical, and public offices, and research and development uses at locations close to transit stations, as well as limited retail development. Business Technology Park-High (BTP-H) - The BTP-H district provides area for campus-like environments for corporate headquarters, research and development facilities, and offices. Typical uses include incubator-research facilities, prototype manufacturing, testing, repairing, packaging, publishing, and printing as well as offices and research and development facilities. Warehousing, distribution, manufacturing, retail, personal services, grocery, and hotel uses are also allowed. Mixed Industrial Medium (MIM) - The MIM district supports a wide range of manufacturing, processing, general service, warehousing, storage and distribution, and service commercial uses. 113 Lindenville Specific Plan 20 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 Mixed Industrial High (MIH) - The MIH district supports a wide range of manufacturing, processing, general service, warehousing, storage and distribution, and service commercial uses. Public (PQP) - The PQP district is reserved for government-owned facilities, civic uses, and public utilities. It includes government offices, the library, and the sewer treatment plant. Parks and Recreation (PR) - This district includes parks, recreation complexes, public golf courses, and greenways. Open Space (OS) - This district includes reserved land for natural and active open space uses. Overlay Zones Height Incentive Overlay (HIO) – The Height Incentive Overlay allows for maximum building heights of up to ~150 feet, subject to consistency with the San Francisco International Airport (SFO) Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) and FAA regulations, in exchange for affordable housing, open space dedication, and green buildings. Colma Creek Greenbelt Overlay (CCGO) – The Colma Creek Greenbelt Overlay is intended to encourage transfer of development away from parcels fronting Colma Creek to implement the vision of the Colma Creek Greenbelt. The Overlay does not restrict new private development within the zone. Arts and Makers Overlay (AMO) – The Arts and Makers Overlay is intended to promote arts and cultural uses along South Linden Avenue. It requires specific uses in exchange for development incentives for parking, loading, and uses. Active Ground Floor Use Overlay (AUO) – The Active Ground Floor Use Overlay requires active ground floor uses—like restaurants, retail, and personal services—to spur pedestrian and economic activity. Maximum Building Heights The Specific Plan includes maximum building heights allowed for future developments in the Specific Plan area consistent with the SFO Comprehensive ALUCP and FAA regulations. The taller buildings would primarily be allowed in the T5L zoning district, with maximum building heights up to 85 feet above the ground surface. The tallest buildings would be allowed in the T5L zoning district with the Height Incentive Overlay, with a maximum building height up to ~150 feet or the ALUCP / FAA maximum height, whichever is less. The maximum building heights in other zoning districts of Lindenville would be up to 35 feet above the ground surface, 65 feet above the ground surface, or up to the ALUCP / FAA maximum height, based on district zoning and location. The maximum building heights allowed under the Specific Plan are shown on Figure 2.2-5. 114 Navi g a b l e S l o u g h San Bruno Creek Colma C r e e k South San Francisco Station San BrunoStation §¨¦380 ¬«82 £¤101 City of San Bruno Grand Ave Linden AveAirportBlvdMaple AveSpruceAveMyrtle A v e Fra n ciscoDrMayfair A v e MitchellAve Pr o d u c e AveSSpruceAveRailroad Ave El C am i n o R e a l Utah AveFir AveS Magnolia AveDollar AveCommer c i a l A v e Victory A v e S A i r po r t B l v dGatewayBlvd Tanforan A v e Beacon StStarlite StS Linden AveHu n tin g to n A v e SMapleAveN Canal S t San Mateo AveLowrie AveShaw RdSouthline Source: City of South San Francisco, Lindenville Speciﬁc Plan, June 30, 2023 (revised August 30, 2023). Lindenville Area Boundary LEGEND MAXIMUM HEIGHT City of South San Francisco Southline Speciﬁc Plan Highway Caltrain BART Proposed Streets Proposed Laneways/Alleys 0 Ō 35 Ō 65 Ō 85 Ō Up to ALUCP Max Height Height IncenƟve Overlay (HIO) 0 .1 .15 .2.05 .25 Miles PROPOSED MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHTS FIGURE 2.2-5 Lindenville Speciﬁc Plan City of South San Francisco 21 Addendum September 2023 115 Lindenville Specific Plan 22 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 Street Network The proposed street network for Lindenville would consist of improvements to existing streets and street extensions, and new streets and alleys for vehicles, public transportation, bicyclists, and pedestrians in Lindenville. The proposed street network is shown on Figure 2.2-6. The Specific Plan identifies pedestrian priority streets, bicycle priority streets, and transit priority streets, as shown on Figure 2.2-7, Figure 2.2-8, and Figure 2.2-9. Additional details on the street designs and minimum right-of-way widths are provided in Appendix A. Parks and Open Space The Specific Plan includes a parks and open space framework and plans for the Colma Creek greenbelt, neighborhood parks, linear parks, mini parks and plazas, trails, and open space in the Specific Plan area. The sizes of these parks and open spaces are summarized in Table 2.2-6 and shown on Figure 2.2-10. In addition, the Specific Plan would integrate blue-green infrastructure into parks and open spaces within the Specific Plan area, such as regenerative landscapes, green streets, urban forest, and stormwater management practices to improve existing stormwater and flood management. A maximum of 43.7 acre of open space is proposed under the proposed Specific Plan. Table 2.2-6: Lindenville Planned Parks and Open Space by Type Type of Open Space Required Open Space (acres) Colma Creek Greenbelt 16.3 Existing Creek Right-of-Way 3.1 East of South Linden Avenue 6.6 Between South Linden Avenue and South Spruce Avenue 5.5 West of South Spruce Avenue 1.1 Neighborhood Park* 3.00 Lindenville Linear Park 7.50 South of Colma Creek (to Victory Avenue) 2.50 Industrial Core (Victory to Myrtle Avenue) 2.00 At Centennial Way Trail (Myrtle Avenue extension to Trail) 3.00 Mini Parks and Plazas 12.4 Southline Commons 2.20 Other (East of Caltrain railroad) 3.5 Other (West of Caltrain railroad) 6.7 Centennial Way Trail 4.50 Total 43.7 * Neighborhood Park, per the 2040 General Plan, is defined as a 1-5 acre facility. For the purposes of the proposed Specific Plan, it is assumed to be a minimum of 3.0 acres north of Colma Creek, but additional space can be provided. 116 Source: City of South San Francisco, Lindenville Speciﬁc Plan, June 30, 2023 (revised August 30, 2023). Proposed Streets/Proposed Trails Bart Proposed Laneways/Alleys Regional Auto Access Routes Local Auto CirculaƟon Routes LEGEND Caltrain Highway Southline Speciﬁc Plan City of South San Francisco Lindenville Area Boundary 0 .1 .15 .2.05 .25 Miles PROPOSED ROADWAY NETWORK FIGURE 2.2-6 Lindenville Speciﬁc Plan City of South San Francisco 23 Addendum September 2023 117 Source: City of South San Francisco, Lindenville Speciﬁc Plan, June 30, 2023 (revised August 30, 2023). Proposed Laneways/Alleys Proposed Streets/Proposed Trails Pedestrian Priority Streets Bart LEGEND Caltrain Highway Southline Speciﬁc Plan City of South San Francisco Lindenville Area Boundary 0 .1 .15 .2.05 .25 Miles PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN PRIORITY STREETS FIGURE 2.2-7 Lindenville Speciﬁc Plan City of South San Francisco 24 Addendum September 2023 118 Source: City of South San Francisco, Lindenville Speciﬁc Plan, June 30, 2023 (revised August 30, 2023). Proposed Laneways/Alleys Proposed Streets/Proposed Trails Local Access Routes (Class II Bike Lanes) Bart LEGEND Caltrain Highway Southline Speciﬁc Plan City of South San Francisco Lindenville Area Boundary Backbone Routes (Class I Trails and Class IV Separated Bikeway)0 .1 .15 .2.05 .25 Miles PROPOSED BICYCLE PRIORITY STREETS FIGURE 2.2-8 Lindenville Speciﬁc Plan City of South San Francisco 25 Addendum September 2023 119 Source: City of South San Francisco, Lindenville Speciﬁc Plan, June 30, 2023 (revised August 30, 2023). Proposed Laneways/Alleys Proposed Streets/Proposed Trails Bus Stop/ShuƩle Stop Bart LEGEND Caltrain Highway Southline Speciﬁc Plan City of South San Francisco Lindenville Area Boundary Bus Route/ShuƩle Route 0 .1 .15 .2.05 .25 Miles PROPOSED TRANSIT PRIORITY STREETS FIGURE 2.2-9 Lindenville Speciﬁc Plan City of South San Francisco 26 Addendum September 2023 120 Source: City of South San Francisco, Lindenville Speciﬁc Plan, June 30, 2023 (revised August 24, 2023). 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 Miles LAND USES Colma Creek Greenbelt Neighborhood Park Lindenville Linear Park Mini Parks/Plazas Centennial Way Trail Open Space at Navigable Slough Open Space Beyond Borders Trails/Greenways PROPOSED PARKS AND OPEN SPACE FIGURE 2.2-10 Lindenville Speciﬁc Plan City of South San Francisco 27 Addendum September 2023 121 Lindenville Specific Plan 28 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 Infrastructure Water Infrastructure Implementation of the Specific Plan would require upgrades to the potable water system. The Specific Plan identifies potable water system improvements needed to accommodate its planned growth. These improvements are summarized in Table 2.2-7 below and shown on Figure 2.2-11. Table 2.2-7: Proposed Potable Water System Improvements ID Street Location Existing Diameter (inches) Proposed Diameter (inches) 1 North Canal Street 8 12 2 South Maple Avenue 6 12 3 South Linden Avenue 6 12 4 Dollar Avenue 6 12 122 Source: City of South San Francisco, Lindenville Speciﬁc Plan, June 30, 2023. LEGEND Lindenville Area Boundary City of South San Francisco Highway Caltrain BART Rivers/Streams ExisƟng Potable Water Mains ExisƟng Fire Hydrants Proposed Potable Water Mains* Proposed New Potable Water ConnecƟons *PotenƟal proposed pipe sizes, pendinghydrological modeling & analysis 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 Miles PROPOSED POTABLE WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS FIGURE 2.2-11 Lindenville Speciﬁc Plan City of South San Francisco 29 Addendum September 2023 123 Lindenville Specific Plan 30 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 Sanitary Sewer System Implementation of the Specific Plan would require upgrades to the sanitary sewer system. The City’s Sewer Master Plan and City’s records identify planned sanitary sewer capital improvements within Specific Plan area. These improvements are summarized in Table 2.2-8 below. Table 2.2-8: Planned Sanitary Sewer System Improvements ID Street Location Existing Diameter (inches) Proposed Diameter (inches) Sewer System Master Plan LI-P1 Along Colma Creek, west of South Canal Street 8 12 LI-P2 South Canal Street 12 15 LI-P3 Victory Avenue 15 18 LI-P4 Victory Avenue 15 18 LI-P5 South Linden Avenue 15 18 LO-P11 South Spruce Avenue 15 21 LO-P12 East of 245 South Spruce between South Spruce Avenue and South Maple Avenue 15 21 LO-P13 South Maple Avenue 18 21 LO-P14 East of 275 South Maple Avenue Between South Maple Avenue and San Mateo Avenue 18 24 City Records* N/A Railroad Avenue 6 10 N/A Produce Avenue/Airport Boulevard/South Airport Boulevard 6 10 N/A Across San Bruno Canal unknown 6 * These sanitary sewer improvements are planned in City records, but not included in the Sanitary Sewer Master Plan. Source: City of South San Francisco. City-Wide Sewer System Master Plan. July 2022. 124 Lindenville Specific Plan 31 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 The Specific Plan also identifies additional sanitary sewer improvements needed to accommodate its planned growth. These improvements are summarized in Table 2.2-9 below. The planned and proposed sanitary sewer system improvements are shown on Figure 2.2-12. Table 2.2-9: Proposed Sanitary Sewer System Improvements Zones Street Location Existing Diameter (inches) Proposed Diameter (inches) 16431 Mayfair Avenue 6 8 16435 Along Colma Creek 8 12 19121 South of 1431 San Mateo Avenue 4,6 8 19123 South Linden Avenue 6 10 19125 Starlite, South Maple Avenue, Victory Avenue, and Ryan Way 8,15,18 12,21,24 19126 San Mateo Avenue 6 10 19127 Park and Fly site crossing to Lowrie Street 4 and 6 8 125 Source: City of South San Francisco, Lindenville Speciﬁc Plan, June 30, 2023. LEGEND Lindenville Area Boundary City of South San Francisco Highway Caltrain BART Rivers/Streams ExisƟng Sanitary Sewer ExisƟng Sewer Pump StaƟons Proposed Sanitary Sewer Lines Proposed Sanitary Sewer Lines from SSF City-wide SSMP Proposed Sanitary Sewer Lines from City Records, but not in SSF City-wide SSMP 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 Miles PLANNED AND PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS FIGURE 2.2-12 Lindenville Speciﬁc Plan City of South San Francisco 32 Addendum September 2023 126 Lindenville Specific Plan 33 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 Stormwater and Flood Management Implementation of the Specific Plan would require upgrades to the storm drain and flood management system. The City’s Storm Drain Master Plan identifies planned storm drain capital improvements within the Specific Plan area. These improvements are summarized in Table 2.2-10. Table 2.2-10: Planned Storm Drain System Improvements ID Street Location Existing Size (inches) Proposed Size (inches) SD_G4.5 Spruce Avenue 36 RCP 84 RCP SD_G7.1 Spruce Avenue 15 RCP 24 RCP SD_G8.1 Spruce Avenue 15 RCP 24 RCP SD_G9.2 Spruce Avenue 36 RCP 60 RCP SD_G9.3 Spruce Avenue 36 RCP 72 RCP SD_G9.4 Canal Street 36 RCP 84 RCP SD_G9.5 Canal Street 36 RCP 6 x 10 RCB* SD_B42.1 Spruce Avenue 66 RCP 5 x 12 RCB* SD_B42.2.1 Spruce Avenue 66 RCP 5 x 12 RCB* SD_B42.2.2 Spruce Avenue 66 RCP 5 x 12 RCB* SD_B42.3 Spruce Avenue 66 RCP 5 x 12 RCB* SD_B42.4 Spruce Avenue 66 RCP 5 x 12 RCB* SD_B43.1 Spruce Avenue 66 RCP 5 x 12 RCB* SD_B43.1.2 Spruce Avenue 66 RCP 5 x 12 RCB* SD_B43.2 Spruce Avenue 18 RCP 60 RCP SD_B43.3 Spruce Avenue 66 RCP 7 x 12 RCB* SD_B41.1 Spruce Avenue 18 RCP 60 RCP SD_A13.1 San Mateo Avenue 15 RCP 36 RCP SD_A15.1 San Mateo Avenue 24 RCP 48 RCP SD_A15.1 San Mateo Avenue 42 RCP 66 RCP SD_A12.1 Tanforan Avenue 15 RCP 48 RCP SD_A12.2 Tanforan Avenue 42 RCP 66 RCP SD_A12.3 Shaw Road 42 RCP 66 RCP SD_A10.1 Shaw Road 42 RCP 66 RCP SD_A10.2 Shaw Road 12 RCP 36 RCP SD_A10.3 Shaw Road 30 RCP 54 RCP SD_A10.4 Shaw Road 42 RCP 5 x 12 RCB SD_A3.1 Shaw Road 24 RCP 48 RCP SD_A17.1 Terminal Court 18 RCP 36 RCP 127 Lindenville Specific Plan 34 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 Table 2.2-10: Planned Storm Drain System Improvements ID Street Location Existing Size (inches) Proposed Size (inches) SD_A17.2 Terminal Court 18 RCP 36 RCP SD_A17.3 Terminal Court 18 RCP 42 RCP SD_H12.1 Airport Boulevard 12 RCP 54 RCP SD_H12.2 Airport Boulevard 12 RCP 60 RCP RCP = Reinforced Concrete Pipe RCB = Reinforced Concrete Box * The identified RCB sizes are in addition to the existing storm drain systems. Source: City of South San Francisco. Storm Drain Master Plan. February 2016. In addition, the Specific Plan includes design standards for incorporating blue-green infrastructure in future developments, streets, and open spaces within the Specific Plan area. The Specific Plan also identifies the following storm drain system improvements, as shown on Figure 2.2-13, in addition to improvements already identified in the City’s Storm Drain Master Plan: • Regrade the existing grass ditch west of US 101 between Terminal Court and the Navigable Slough to integrate bioretention cells and improve conveyance. • Install rain garden or shallow bioretention basin adjacent to North Canal Street between the railroad tracks and South Magnolia Avenue. The Specific Plan identifies the following as floodable parks and streets to manage flooding: • Colma Creek Greenbelt • Neighborhood Park north of South Canal Street • Victory Avenue • Starlight Street • Shaw Road • South Canal Street • Eastern extension of Mayfair Avenue • East of 245 South Spruce between South Spruce Avenue and South Linden Avenue 128 Source: City of South San Francisco, Lindenville Speciﬁc Plan, June 30, 2023 (revised August 30, 2023). LEGEND Lindenville Area Boundary City of South San Francisco Highway Caltrain Bart Rivers/Streams ExisƟng Storm Drains ExisƟng Storm Pump StaƟons ExisƟng Stormwater Ouƞalls Proposed Storm Drain Lines Proposed Open Spaces Proposed Greenway Corridors Proposed Stormwater Conveyance Proposed UƟlity Corridors Proposed Closed Water Loops Proposed RetenƟon Streets 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 Miles FIGURE 2.2-13PROPOSED STORM DRAIN AND FLOOD MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENTS Lindenville Speciﬁc Plan City of South San Francisco 35 Addendum September 2023 129 Lindenville Specific Plan 36 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 Other Infrastructure Improvements The Specific Plan also identifies utility concepts of having closed water loop systems3 in the industrial area, and utility corridors4 along major thoroughfares such as South Spruce Avenue, South Maple Avenue, South Linden Avenue, and San Mateo Avenue. Note: The infrastructure improvements identified in the Specific Plan are conceptual and have not been designed. Implementation of these infrastructure improvements would require design and undergo separate project-level environmental review once they are adequately designed to allow for analysis. 2.3 APPROVALS REQUIRED The discretionary action for the project includes Specific Plan adoption by the City Council and related General Plan amendments, Zoning Code amendments, and rezoning. Following adoption, subsequent submittal, and review of specific development projects (including street, open space, infrastructure improvements) within the Specific Plan area by property owners/developers would then be required, and subject to project-level environmental review. 3 A sealed heating and cooling system used for industrial or commercial environments that recirculates a fixed volume of water, and therefore, reduces water use and contamination to water quality. 4 A district-scale energy system shared by multiple buildings to reduce energy costs and improve energy efficiency. 130 Lindenville Specific Plan 37 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 SECTION 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST The purpose of the checklist is to evaluate the categories in terms of any “changes” or “new information” that may result in a changed environmental impact evaluation. A “no” answer does not necessarily mean that there are no potential impacts relative to the environmental category, but that there is no relevant change in the condition or status of the impact due to its insignificance or its treatment in a previous environmental document. Overriding considerations were adopted in connection with adoption of the 2040 General Plan, following the certification of the 2040 General Plan EIR, that accepted the possibility of certain impacts regardless of whether mitigations could reduce them to a less-than-significant level. Thus, certain environmental categories might be answered with a “no” in the checklist because the proposed project does not introduce changes that would result in a modification to the conclusion of the EIR Findings Document. EXPLANATION OF CHECKLIST EVALUATION CATEGORIES: A. Where an Impact Was Analyzed in Prior Environmental Documents This column provides a reference to the pages of the other environmental documents where information and analysis may be found relative to the environmental issue listed under each topic. B. Do Proposed Changes Involve New or More Severe Impacts? Pursuant to Section 15162(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, this column indicates whether the changes represented by the proposed project will result in new significant impacts not disclosed in the prior EIR or substantial increases in the severity of a previously identified significant impact. A yes answer is required if there are new or worsened significant impacts that require “major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration.” If a “yes” answer is given, additional mitigation measures or alternatives may be needed. C. Any New Circumstances Involving New or More Severe Impacts? Pursuant to Section 15162(a)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, this column indicates whether changed circumstances affecting the proposed project will result in new significant impacts not disclosed in the prior EIR or substantial increases of the severity of a previously identified significant impact. A yes answer is required if there are new or worsened significant impacts that require “major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration.” If a “yes” answer is given, additional mitigation measures or alternatives may be needed. 131 Lindenville Specific Plan 38 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 D. Any New Information of Substantial Importance Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Pursuant to Section 15162(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, this column indicates whether new information “of substantial importance” is available requiring an update to the analysis of a previous EIR to verify that the environmental conclusions and mitigations remain valid. Any such information is only relevant if it “was not known and could not have been known with reasonable diligence at the time of the previous EIR.” To be relevant in this context, such new information must show one or more of the following: (A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; (B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; (C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. If the new information shows the existence of new significant effects or significant effects that are substantially more severe than were previously disclosed, then new mitigation measures should be considered. If the new information shows that previously rejected mitigation measures or alternatives are now feasible, such measures or alternatives should be considered again. If the new information shows the existence of mitigation measures or alternatives that are (i) considerably different from those included in the prior EIR and (ii) able to substantially reduce one or more significant effects, then such mitigation measures or alternatives also should be considered. E. Prior Environmental Document Mitigations Implemented or Mitigations Address Impacts. Pursuant to Section 15162(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, this column indicates whether the EIR provides mitigations to address effects in the related impact category. If N/A is indicated, the EIR and this checklist conclude that the impact does not occur with this project and, therefore, no mitigation is needed. 132 Lindenville Specific Plan 39 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 DISCUSSION AND MITIGATION SECTIONS Discussion A discussion of the elements of the checklist is provided under each environmental category in order to clarify the answers. The discussion provides information about the particular environmental issue, how the project relates to the issue and the status of any mitigation that may be required or that has already been implemented. Standard Mitigation Measures Applicable standard mitigation measures are listed under each environmental category. EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable mitigation measures from previous EIRs that apply to the changes or new information are referenced under each environmental category. Special Mitigation Measures If changes or new information involve new impacts, special mitigations will be listed which will be included as project conditions to address those impacts. 133 Lindenville Specific Plan 40 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 3.1 AESTHETICS A. Where Impact Was Analyzed in Prior Environmental Documents. B. Do Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? C. Any New Circumstances Involving New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? D. Any New Information of Substantial Importance Requiring New Analysis or Verification? E. Prior Environmental Documents Mitigations Implemented or Mitigations Address Impacts. Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 2040 General Plan EIR pp. 3.1-12-3.1-14 No No No N/A b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? 2040 General Plan EIR pp. 3.1-14-3.1-16. No No No N/A c. In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings?5 If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? 2040 General Plan EIR pp. 3.1-16-3.1-17. No No No N/A d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 2040 General Plan EIR pp. 3.1-18. No No No N/A 3.1.1 Existing Setting The existing aesthetics setting, including regulatory framework, has not substantially changed since the certification of the 2040 General Plan EIR. The Specific Plan area is characterized as low-density industrial and is developed with large blocks of industrial and warehouse buildings of varying sizes, and paved parking with minimal landscaping. The style of buildings within the Specific Plan area are predominantly utilitarian with concrete, metal sheets, and stucco facades. 5 Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point. 134 Lindenville Specific Plan 41 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 3.1.2 Discussion The 2040 General Plan EIR concluded that the build-out of the 2040 General Plan would result in less than significant impacts to aesthetic resources. a. The Specific Plan area is relatively flat and views of the South San Francisco Hillside Sign (Sign Hill), San Bruno Mountain, the Coast Range, and the San Francisco Bay are limited. Colma Creek, which the City identifies as a scenic resource, passes through the Specific Plan area. The portion of Colma Creek that passes through the Specific Plan is channelized in a concrete channel. Along Colma Creek, the Specific Plan would overall reduce the planned residential density at South Spruce Avenue by changing the land use designation from High Density Mixed Use to Low Density Mixed Use (see ID #3 of Table 2.2-4 and Figure 2.2-3), and replace residential/commercial as an allowed use with industrial east of the Caltrain railroad by changing the land use designation from High Density Mixed Use to Mixed Industrial High (see ID #5 of Table 2.2-4 and Figure 2.2-3). The change from High Density Mixed Use to Low Density Mixed Use would reduce the maximum FAR from 4.5 to 2.25 and residential density from 180 du/ac to 60 du/ac. The change from High Density Mixed Use to Mixed Industrial High would reduce the maximum FAR from 4.5 to 2.0 and residential density from 180 du/ac to 0. These changes would substantially reduce the building mass and scale allowed along Colma Creek Similar to what was assumed in the 2040 General Plan EIR, future development under the Specific Plan would alter the existing views surrounding Colma Creek. However, the Specific Plan also proposes to transform South Canal Street, which is adjacent to Colma Creek, into a greenbelt with blue-green infrastructure.6 The Specific Plan also includes Policy LU-6.3, which would increase the existing building setbacks from Colma Creek and create development standards to ensure high- quality design along Colma Creek, and Chapter 5.5.3 Regenerative Landscapes, which requires regenerative landscape7 along Colma Creek to enhance the view of the Colma Creek in the Specific Plan area. In addition, there are General Plan policies related to improving the visual character along Colma Creek, including General Plan Policy SA-24.3, which promotes high-quality building design along Colma Creek, and General Plan Policy LU-8.7, which promotes the restoration of Colma Creek. The Specific Plan would be consistent with these policies. Future developments within the Specific Plan area would be subject to the City’s design review process (Municipal Code Chapter 20.480 Design Review), which would ensure developments are consistent with the relevant City design policies to include high-quality design that preserve or enhance existing visual resources. For these reasons, the Specific Plan would result in the same less than significant impact on scenic vistas as disclosed in the 2040 General Plan EIR. b. There are no officially designated State Scenic Highways in the Specific Plan area, nor is the Specific Plan area visible from a designated State Scenic Highway. The proposed Specific Plan 6 In contrast to the human engineered “gray” infrastructure, such as underground pipes or roadside swales, the nature-based “blue-green” infrastructure refers to using natural and semi-natural features to manage stormwater runoff and flooding, such as rain gardens, green streets. 7 Regenerative landscapes incorporate natural elements such as native and drought tolerant plants that improve soil conditions and allow for enhanced biodiversity, reduced water and energy consumption, and reduced runoff and erosion. 135 Lindenville Specific Plan 42 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 would not, therefore, damage scenic resources within a State Scenic Highway and there would be no impact. This is the same impact as disclosed in the 2040 General Plan EIR. c. The Specific Plan area is located within an urbanized area. Future developments within the Specific Plan area are subject to the City’s 2040 General Plan policies and Municipal Code design and development standards, such as General Plan policy LU-4.5, which requires new development to be compatible with existing residential neighborhoods, LU-4.6, which requires design guidelines for residential neighborhoods to promote high-quality design, and LU-5.2, which requires high-quality design and development standards for research and development companies. The Municipal Code contains the Zoning Code, which contains architectural guidelines, design review criteria, lot and development standards, landscaping requirements, and other regulations in order to promote aesthetic quality within the City. Future development under the Specific Plan would be subject to the City’s design review process, which would ensure compliance with the City’s regulations related to scenic quality in urbanized areas. The Specific Plan includes design and development standards and policies to redevelop the Specific Plan area from an industrial area to an area with a diverse mix of land uses with high-quality design, open spaces, and blue-green infrastructure (nature-based stormwater infrastructure) while retaining industrial uses. Chapter 4 Design and Development Standards of the Specific Plan contains development standards specific for the Specific Plan area based on the character area (as shown on Figure 2.2-2) and zoning districts (as shown on Figure 2.2-4), which define the “look and feel” of each character area. The Specific Plan Policy DD-2.1 encourages buildings of varied building heights and sizes, Policy DD-2.2 encourages tall buildings to provide distinct open space, Policy DD-2.3 requires building massing to provide visually interesting facade, Policy DD-2.4 facilitates high- quality architecture to create a coherent place, and Policy DD-3.2 requires dedication of new public park and open spaces. The City’s design review process would ensure future developments are consistent with the applicable City regulations governing scenic quality. For these reasons, implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would result in the same less than significant impact disclosed in the 2040 General Plan EIR. d. Future development under the Specific Plan would create new sources of light and glare from exterior light fixtures, signage on businesses, interior lighting, headlights from vehicles, building surfaces and vehicle surfaces. As described in Section 2.3 Project Description and depicted on Table 2.2-2, the 2040 General Plan would allow a buildout of 5,580 residential units and 9,799,668 square feet of non-residential development within the Specific Plan area. Compared to the 2040 General Plan buildout, the Specific Plan would increase the residential buildout by 1 dwelling unit and non- residential buildout by 308,932 square feet, which would result in additional sources of light and glare than what was assumed in the 2040 General Plan EIR. Future development, however, would be subject to Municipal Code, which establishes regulations to minimize sky brightness, glare, light trespassing across property lines, and disruption to nocturnal ecosystems, and the California Energy Code (Title 24), which regulate design of lighting, such as maximum power and brightness, shielding, and sensor controls to turn lights on and off. The Specific Plan also includes Policy OS- 3.4, which requires development to mitigate lighting impacts by integrating “dark sky” best practices, and Chapter 5.7.9 Exterior Lighting, which prohibits lighting design that could provide a visual hazard to aircraft, requires lighting near habitat areas to only illuminate areas of human use, and requires development projects to complete lighting studies for exterior lighting. Future development under the Specific Plan, in compliance with applicable design standards regulating light and glare, 136 Lindenville Specific Plan 43 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 would not result in significant light and glare impacts. For these reasons, implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would result in the same less than significant light and glare impact disclosed in the 2040 General Plan EIR. 3.1.3 Conclusion The proposed project would not result in a new significant aesthetic impact or a substantial increase in the severity of the aesthetic impacts disclosed in the 2040 General Plan EIR. 137 Lindenville Specific Plan 44 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 3.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES A. Where Impact Was Analyzed in Prior Environmental Documents. B. Do Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? C. Any New Circumstances Involving New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? D. Any New Information of Substantial Importance Requiring New Analysis or Verification? E. Prior Environmental Documents Mitigations Implemented or Mitigations Address Impacts. Would the project: a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? 2040 General Plan EIR pp. 6-1 to 6-2 No No No N/A b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 2040 General Plan EIR pp. 6-1 to 6-2 No No No N/A c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? 2040 General Plan EIR pp. 6-1 to 6-2 No No No N/A d) Result in a loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? 2040 General Plan EIR pp. 6-1 to 6-2 No No No N/A e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? 2040 General Plan EIR pp. 6-1 to 6-2 No No No N/A 138 Lindenville Specific Plan 45 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 3.2.1 Existing Setting The existing agricultural and forestry resources setting, including regulatory framework, has not substantially changed since the certification of the 2040 General Plan EIR. The Specific Plan area is located within an urban area of the City and is developed with urban uses. According to the California Department of Conservation Important Farmland Map, the Specific Plan area is designated as “Urban and Built-Up Land.”8 3.2.2 Discussion a-e. The 2040 General Plan EIR concluded that implementation of the 2040 General Plan would have no impact on agricultural or forestry resources. As discussed above, the Specific Plan area is located within an urban area of the City and is designated as Urban and Built-Up Land. There is no existing farmland or forestry land within the Specific Plan area. In addition, all parcels within the Specific Plan area are General Plan designated and zoned for urban development. For these reasons, implementation of the Specific Plan would not result in the conversion of Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance to nonagricultural uses, nor would it conflict with any zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act Contract, or any zoning for forestland or timberland and would not result in loss or conversion of forestland to non-forest uses. This is the same impact as disclosed in the 2040 General Plan EIR. 3.2.3 Conclusion The proposed project would not result in a new significant agricultural and forestry resources impact or a substantial increase in the severity of the agricultural and forestry resources impacts disclosed in the 2040 General Plan EIR. 8 California Department of Conservation. “California Important Farmland Time Series”. 2018. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciftimeseries/. 139 Lindenville Specific Plan 46 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 3.3 AIR QUALITY Environmental Issue Area A. Where Impact Was Analyzed in Prior Environmental Documents. B. Do Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? C. Any New Circumstances Involving New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? D. Any New Information of Substantial Importance Requiring New Analysis or Verification? E. Prior Environmental Documents Mitigations Implemented or Mitigations Address Impacts. Would the project: a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? 2040 General Plan EIR pp. 3.2-35-3.2-50 No No No MM AIR-1a, MM AIR-1b, MM TRANS- 1 b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? 2040 General Plan EIR pp. 3.2-50-3.2-54 No No No MM AIR-1a, MM TRANS- 1 c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? 2040 General Plan EIR pp. 3.2-54-3.2-56 No No No MM AIR-1a, MM AIR-1b d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? 2040 General Plan EIR pp. 3.2-57-3.2-58 No No No N/A 3.3.1 Existing Setting The Specific Plan area generates air pollutant emissions from building operations and vehicle trips driving to and from the Specific Plan area. Sensitive receptors adjacent to the Specific Plan area include the residential development 50 feet to the north across Railroad Avenue, immediately adjacent to the western Specific Plan area boundary and across Centennial Way Trail, and 40 feet to the south across Tanforan Avenue. 3.3.2 Discussion The 2040 General Plan EIR concluded that buildout of the 2040 General Plan would result in significant and unavoidable air quality impacts even with mitigation incorporated due to inconsistency with the 2017 Clean Air Plan and a cumulatively considerable net increase in criteria air pollutants as a result of an increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) that outpaces the forecasted population growth through 2040. The 2040 General Plan EIR also concluded that buildout of the 2040 General Plan would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated for impacts to sensitive receptors, and a less than significant impact from odor emissions. 140 Lindenville Specific Plan 47 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 a. The City is located within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (Air Basin), and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is the agency primarily responsible for assuring that the federal and state ambient air quality standards are maintained in the Air Basin. The current air quality plan applicable to the proposed Specific Plan area is BAAQMD’s 2017 Bay Area Clean Air Plan (2017 CAP). According to the BAAQMD’s guidance, a proposed land use plan, such as the proposed Specific Plan, would be consistent with the air quality plan if it would: (1) support the primary goals of the air quality plan, (2) include applicable control measures from the air quality plan, (3) not disrupt or hinder implementation of any AQP control measures, and (4) the plan’s projected VMT increase must be less than or equal to its projected population growth. The 2040 General Plan EIR concluded that while buildout of the 2040 General Plan would support the primary goals of the 2017 CAP, include applicable control measures from the 2017 CAP, and not disrupt or hinder implementation of any 2017 CAP control measures, it would increase VMT that outpaces the forecasted population growth through 2040. The 2040 General Plan would allow a buildout of 5,580 residential units and 9,799,668 square feet of non-residential development within the Lindenville Specific Plan area. Compared to the 2040 General Plan buildout, the proposed Specific Plan would increase the residential buildout by 1 dwelling unit and non-residential buildout by 308,932 square feet, as shown on Table 2.2-1 in Section 2.2 in Project Description. In addition, as described in Section 2.2.2.1 General Plan Land Use Designations, the Specific Plan proposes changes to the General Plan land use of select parcels within the Specific Plan area, including the following: • Reduce development intensity along Colma Creek by reducing the maximum mixed use density allowed at South Linden Avenue and changing the allowed use east of the Caltrain railroad from high-density mixed-use to industrial use (see ID #s 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of Table 2.2-4 and Figure 2.2-3). • Increase the maximum mixed use density allowed along South Spruce Avenue and removing industrial as an allowed use (see ID #s 16, 17, and 18 of Table 2.2-4 and Figure 2.2-3). • Remove industrial as an allowed use and allow commercial use with a reduced density on the north side of Victory Avenue, and reduce maximum industrial density allowed and remove residential as an allowed use on the south side of Victory Avenue (see ID #s 11, 12, 13, and 14 of Table 2.2-4 and Figure 2.2-3). • Reduce the high density mixed use area and expand the office use area west of South Maple Avenue in the southwestern corner of the Specific Plan area (see ID #15 of Table 2.2-4 and Figure 2.2-3). • Reduce the mixed use density at the northwestern corner of the Specific Plan area (see ID #1 of Table 2.2-4 and Figure 2.2-3). • Increase the mixed use density on South Linden Avenue north of North Canal Street (see ID #2 of Table 2.2-4 and Figure 2.2-3). • Designated slivers of open space between South Maple Avenue and South Linden Avenue (see ID #s 8, 9, and 10 of Table 2.2-4 and Figure 2.2-3) 141 Lindenville Specific Plan 48 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 Primary Goals of the 2017 CAP The primary goals of the 2017 CAP are to attain air quality standards, reduce population exposure and protect public health, and reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and protect the climate. An analysis of the project’s consistency with the 2017 CAP goal of reducing GHG emissions and protecting the climate is discussed separately in Section 3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The proposed Specific Plan’s consistency with the 2017 CAP goals of attaining air quality standards and reducing population exposure and protecting the public health is discussed below. Attain Air Quality Standards The Air Basin is currently designated a nonattainment area for the federal O3 and PM2.5 standards and for the state O3, PM10, and PM2.5 standards.9 The Specific Plan would be consistent with the 2017 CAP primary goal of achieving and maintaining attainment status for ambient air quality standards as it would further intensify land use development within an urbanized and transit-oriented area with access to jobs, neighborhood amenities, and services. Consistent with the development assumed in the 2040 General Plan EIR, the Specific Plan would also plan for efficient land uses by concentrating population, employment, and services within an already developed urban area with existing access to transit (BART and Caltrain), and consequently, reduce vehicle miles traveled per service population (residents plus employees) and related mobile source emissions, as further discussed below and in Section 3.16 Transportation. In addition, future development under the Specific Plan would be subject to the City’s Municipal Code, 2040 General Plan policies, and Climate Action Plan regulations related to air quality improvement. Section 20.300.009 Lighting and Illumination of the Municipal Code requires outdoor lighting to be energy efficient, which reduces emissions from energy use. Chapter 20.480 Design Review of the Municipal Code requires design review for all projects that require a building permit, assigns design review authority for all projects requiring Planning Commission approval, and provides the City with additional decision-making authority related to future development projects to assist in reducing or avoiding impacts related to air quality. Section 20.300.010 Performance Standards of the Municipal Code establishes regulations related to air contaminants, requiring that uses, activities, and processes shall not operate in a manner that emit excessive dust, fumes, smoke, or particulate matter. The 2040 General Plan includes Action CHEJ-3.2, which would promote the reduction of mobile source pollution from diesel-based trucks and vehicles that travel to, from, or through the city, Action CHEJ-3.2.2, which requires the City to manage truck idling in new residential neighborhoods in Lindenville and east of US 101, Action CHEJ-3.3.2, which encourages retrofitting of existing buildings to reduce indoor air pollution, Policy CR-6.1, which supports resilient building design which also improves indoor air quality, and Policy CR-6.5, which promotes a transportation system coordinated with air quality improvements. The city’s Climate Action Plan includes several actions that assist in reducing or avoiding impacts related to air quality. Action CE 1.1, CE 1.3, and CE 1.6 promote solar or renewable energy usage which would indirectly reduce air quality emissions. Action TL 1.1, TL 2.2, and TL 2.6 promote the 9 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. “Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status.” Accessed August 16, 2023. https://www.baaqmd.gov/about-air-quality/research-and-data/air-quality-standards-and-attainment-status. 142 Lindenville Specific Plan 49 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 use of electric vehicles or a reduction in VMT which would result in a reduction in mobile source air emissions. Chapter 3 Land Use of the Specific Plan also contains land use standards for regulating nonconforming industrial uses, which prohibits such buildings from being enlarged, extended, reconstituted or substituted, or substantially altered, unless its purpose is to mitigate environmental impacts. Future development under the Specific Plan would be required to undergo their own CEQA environmental review, and complete a project-level air quality analysis to evaluate the project’s impacts on criteria air pollutants during project construction and operation. In addition, future development under the Specific Plan would be required to implement 2040 General Plan EIR mitigation measure MM AIR-1a, which is the BAAQMD-recommended dust control best management practices (BMPs), to reduce construction fugitive dust impacts to a less than significant level. 2040 General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure MM AIR-1a: Individual development projects facilitated by the proposed project shall incorporate the following Basic Construction Mitigation Measures recommended by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD): • All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. • All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. • All visible mud or dirt trackout onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. • All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. • All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. • Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California Airborne Toxics Control Measure [ATCM] Title 13, Section 2485 of the California Code of Regulations). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. • All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. • Prior to the commencement of construction activities, individual project proponents shall post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This 143 Lindenville Specific Plan 50 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Future development projects, with the implementation of MM AIR-1a, would reduce the construction fugitive dust emissions to a less than significant level. Reduce Population Exposure and Protect Public Health The 2040 General Plan would allow a buildout of 5,580 residential units and 9,799,668 square feet of non-residential development within the Specific Plan area. Compared to the 2040 General Plan buildout, the Specific Plan would increase the residential buildout by 1 dwelling unit and non- residential buildout by 308,932 square feet. The Specific Plan would also change the land use designations within the Specific Plan area, where the industrial uses would be located on the southeastern portion of the Specific Plan area, mostly east of the Caltrain railroad and closer to US 101 and SFO, while the residential uses would be located on the northwestern portion of the Specific Plan area west of the Caltrain railroad and interfacing the existing residential uses. As further discussed below, the Specific Plan would result in the same VMT as what was estimated for the 2040 General Plan buildout, which would result in a reduced VMT per service population (residents plus employees) compared to existing conditions as a result of intensifying growth in an urbanized and transit-oriented area. The reduction in VMT per service population, would in turn, reduce the population’s exposure to toxic air contaminants (TACs) from transportation-related sources. While the Specific Plan allows a mix of residential, commercial, industrial, and office uses within the Specific Plan area, and could place sensitive receptors next to land uses that generate toxic air contaminant sources, future development under the Specific Plan would be required to implement 2040 General Plan EIR MM AIR-1b, presented below, to ensure impacts related to exposing receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations would be reduced to a less than significant level. 2040 General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure MM AIR-1b: Projects that may result in additional toxic air contaminants (TACs) that are located within 1,000 feet of a sensitive receptors(s) or would place sensitive receptors within 1,000 feet of uses generating TACs, such as roadways with volumes of 10,000 average annual daily trips or greater, shall implement Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Guidelines and California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) policies and procedures requiring a Health Risk Assessments (HRA) for residential development and other sensitive receptors. Screening area distances may be increased on a case-by-case basis if an unusually large source or sources of hazardous emissions are proposed or currently exist. Based on the results of the HRA, identify and implement measures (such as air filtration systems) to reduce potential exposure to particulate matter, carbon monoxide, diesel fumes, and other potential health hazards. Measures identified in HRAs shall be included into the site development plan as a component of a proposed project. 144 Lindenville Specific Plan 51 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 Future development projects, with the implementation of MM AIR-1b, would reduce public health impacts to a less than significant level by requiring projects that generate TACs to complete a health risk assessment and implement necessary measures to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Applicable Control Measures from the 2017 CAP The 2017 Clean Air Plan contains 55 control measures aimed at reducing air pollution in the Bay Area. These include control measures addressing stationary, area, mobile source, and transportation emissions. They also include control measures designed to protect the climate and promote mixed use, compact development to reduce vehicle emissions and exposure to pollutants from stationary and mobile sources. BAAQMD encourages lead agencies to incorporate these measures into plan elements. As summarized in Table 3.3-1 below, the Specific Plan is consistent with the applicable control measures from the 2017 CAP. Table 3.3-1: Specific Plan Consistency with the 2017 Clean Air Plan Control Measures 2017 Clean Air Plan Control Measure Consistent with Control Measure? Discussion TR2 (Trip Reduction Programs): Encourage trip reduction policies and programs in local plans, e.g., general and specific plans while providing grants to support trip reduction efforts. Encourage local governments to require mitigation of vehicle travel as part of new development approval, to adopt transit benefits ordinances in order to reduce transit costs to employees, and to develop innovative ways to encourage rideshare, transit, cycling, and walking for work trips. Yes Development under the Specific plan would be subject to the City’s Transportation Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 20.400) and required to implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program that includes a set of strategies, measures, and incentives to encourage walking, bicycling, transit use, and carpooling. TR9 (Bicycle and Pedestrian Access Facilities): Encourage planning for bicycle and pedestrian facilities in local plans, e.g., general and specific plans, fund bike lanes, routes, paths and bicycle parking facilities. Yes Chapter 6.1 Mobility Goals and Policies of the Specific Plan outlines goals and policies of transforming the Specific Plan area from an auto-oriented to a multimodal-oriented area with low-stress pedestrian and bicycle facilities throughout the Specific Plan area, creating shorter blocks within new streets to support bicycle and pedestrian connections, and prioritizing pedestrian and bicycle access in site design. Chapter 6.2 Mobility Framework of the Specific Plan establishes pedestrian and bicycle priority streets within the Specific Plan area. The pedestrian priority streets incorporate wider sidewalks, landscaping, 145 Lindenville Specific Plan 52 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 Table 3.3-1: Specific Plan Consistency with the 2017 Clean Air Plan Control Measures 2017 Clean Air Plan Control Measure Consistent with Control Measure? Discussion parklets, curb extensions, and other traffic calming features to create walkable environments in support of active ground floor land uses. The bicycle priority streets incorporate low-stress bicycle facilities that accommodate people of all ages and abilities to facilitate cross-town travel and local access. Chapter 6.3 Complete Street Guidance of the Specific Plan provides standards to transform streets within the Specific Plan area into complete streets with bicycle and pedestrian facilities. EN2 (Decrease Electricity Demand): Work with local governments to adopt additional energy efficiency policies and programs. Support local government energy efficiency program via best practices, model ordinances, and technical support. Work with partners to develop messaging to decrease electricity demand during peak times. Yes Future development under the Specific Plan would incorporate energy efficient systems as required under the current Title 24 as adopted and amended in Municipal Code Chapter 12.26. In addition, the Specific Plan Chapter 4.4 Form-Based Zone Design Standards establishes design standards for including passive shading on building facades, and Policy I-5.3 encourages installation of solar arrays on roofs, parking lots, and shade structures paired with battery storage. BL4 (Urban Heat Island Mitigation): Develop and urge adoption of a model ordinance for “cool parking” that promotes the use of cool surface treatments for new parking facilities, as well existing surface lots undergoing resurfacing. Develop and promote adoption of model building code requirements for new construction or reroofing/roofing upgrades for commercial and residential multi-family housing. Collaborate with expert partners to perform outreach to cities and counties to make them aware of cool roofing and cool paving techniques, and of new tools available. Yes Future development under the Specific Plan would be subject to the current Title 24 cool roof requirement. In addition, the Specific Plan proposes blue-green infrastructure throughout the Specific Plan area, which would reduce the urban heat island effect within the city. Chapter 5.7.3 Hardscape Materials of the Specific Plan also recommends using high reflectance paving for hardscapes within the proposed open space. Chapter 5.7.5 Planting and Vegetation of the Specific Plan includes tree selection guidelines to select native species with sufficient canopy to reduce heat island effect. NW2 (Urban Tree Planting): Develop or identify an existing model municipal tree planting ordinance and encourage local governments to adopt such an ordinance. Include tree planting Yes Future development under the Specific Plan would be subject to Chapter 13.30 of the Municipal Code, which provides standards and requirements for the protection of certain large trees and trees with unique characteristics; provides standards and 146 Lindenville Specific Plan 53 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 Table 3.3-1: Specific Plan Consistency with the 2017 Clean Air Plan Control Measures 2017 Clean Air Plan Control Measure Consistent with Control Measure? Discussion recommendations the Air District’s technical guidance, best practices for local plans and CEQA review. requirements for planting and maintenance of trees for new development; and establishes recommended standards for planting and maintaining trees on property that is already developed. In addition, Chapter 5.7.5 Planting and Vegetation of the Specific Plan includes tree selection guideline to select native species with sufficient canopy to reduce heat island effect. WA3 (Green Waste Diversion): Develop model policies to facilitate local adoption of ordinances and programs to reduce the amount of green waste going to landfills. Yes Future development under the Specific Plan would be subject to the City’s Waste Reduction Plan to ensure consistency with the state’s waste reduction goals. WA4 (Recycling and Waste Reduction): Develop or identify and promote model ordinances on community-wide zero-waste goals and recycling of construction and demolition materials in commercial and public construction projects. Yes Future development under the Specific Plan would be subject to Chapter 15.60 of the Municipal Code by submitting a recycling management plan to redirect recyclable construction materials away from landfills. WR2 (Support Water Conservation): Develop a list of best practices that reduce water consumption and increase on-site water recycling in new and existing buildings; incorporate into local planning guidance. Yes Future development under the Specific Plan would be subject to all applicable water conserving requirements of Title 24, California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) water efficiency requirements, General Plan policies, and Municipal Code, as well as requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. In addition, the Specific Plan includes guidelines for including energy efficient irrigation systems in the proposed open space. Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Final 2017 Clean Air Plan. April 19, 2017. As shown in Table 3.3-1 above, the proposed project would be consistent with the 2017 CAP control measures and would not hinder the implementation of the 2017 CAP control measures. VMT Per Capita As previously discussed, one of the criteria for determining project consistency with the 2017 Clean Air Plan is determining if the proposed plan's projected VMT increase is less than or equal to its projected population increase. The 2040 General Plan EIR identified that buildout of the 2040 General Plan would increase annual VMT from 3,387,200 to 6,585,400 (94.42 percent increase) and increase the population from 67,200 to 108,100 (60.86 percent increase), compared to existing conditions. It 147 Lindenville Specific Plan 54 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 should be noted that the 2040 General Plan EIR analysis strictly looked at the City’s total annual VMT (from residents, employees, and visitors) in relation to the projected population (residents only). Therefore, the Addendum utilizes the same approach to determine consistency with the 2017 Clean Air Plan. Compared to the 2040 General Plan, the Specific Plan would result in a net increase of 2 residents and 252 employees. As further discussed in Section 3.16 Transportation, the annual VMT from implementation of the Specific Plan would result in the same VMT as what was identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR due to placing the added jobs within half a mile of the San Bruno BART station. While the Specific Plan would increase the population (residents only) within the Specific Plan area, the additional growth would be reallocated from the East of 101 area, and therefore, not increase the City’s overall population. As required by the 2040 General Plan EIR MM TRANS-1, the City adopted its TDM Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 20.400) and would be required to update the TDM ordinance every five to ten years. 2040 General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure MM TRANS-1: Transportation Demand Management To reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), the City shall implement its Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Ordinance as part of the Zoning Code Amendments and parking requirements. The City shall also update its TDM Ordinance and parking requirements every five to ten years and establish an East of 101 Area Trip Cap, to achieve the maximum feasible reductions in vehicle travel. The City shall achieve the performance standards outlined in the TDM Ordinance. The City shall update its TDM Ordinance every 5 to 10 years to limit Total VMT and Work-Based VMT by incentivizing use of transit and active transportation and disincentivizing auto use. The TDM Ordinance shall cover all development projects generating greater than 100 daily trips, with the most stringent requirements for office/Research and Development (R&D) land uses that disproportionately account for the highest rates of VMT in the City. Development projects shall implement a combination of TDM programs, services, and infrastructure improvements, including but not limited to: establishing trip reduction programs; subsidizing transit and active transportation use; coordinating carpooling and vanpooling; encouraging telecommuting and flexible work schedules; designing site plans to prioritize pedestrian, bicycle, and transit travel; funding first/last mile shuttle services; establishing site-specific trip caps; managing parking supply; and constructing transit and active transportation capital improvements. Developments shall be subject to annual monitoring. The City shall establish an administrative fine structure for developments found to be out of compliance and apply any revenues from fines to infrastructure and services aimed at reducing VMT. The City shall establish an East of 101 Area Trip Cap to support the monitoring of vehicle trip activity and focus efforts to reduce VMT. The area-wide trip cap shall 148 Lindenville Specific Plan 55 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 apply to the high density employment uses in the East of 101 Area. The City shall conduct annual traffic counts along the cordon area perimeter. Should the trip cap be reached, the City shall consider corrective actions such as: revising mode share targets for projects subject to the TDM Ordinance, identifying new funding measures for TDM services, implementing new vehicle user charges, creating new street connections, or slowing the pace of development approvals within the cordon zone. The City shall update its parking requirements every 5 to 10 years to align with its TDM Ordinance and East of 101 Area Trip Cap. The City shall establish parking maximums for office/R&D uses to ensure that VMT reduction goals are incorporated into the design of development projects. Future development under the Specific Plan would also be subject to the City’s TDM Ordinance and required to implement a TDM program. The 2040 General Plan EIR concluded that buildout of the 2040 General Plan, even with implementation of MM TRANS-1 to require TDMs, would not be able to reduce the VMT impacts to a less than significant level, and that the VMT increase would outpace population growth. Therefore, the Specific Plan, which would generate the same VMT and result in the same population as what was identified in the 2040 General Plan, would also contribute to the 2040 General Plan EIR’s significant and unavoidable impact related to VMT growing at a faster rate than population growth. b. The criteria identified by BAAQMD for determining plan-level significance with respect to criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors is by determining project consistency with the current air quality plan control measures, which are intended to ensure the region's achievement and maintenance of attainment of federal and state air quality standards, and if its projected VMT increase is less than or equal to its projected population increase. As discussed under checklist question a, the Specific Plan would be consistent with the applicable control measures of the 2017 Clean Air Plan, however it would result in VMT that outpaces the population growth. Similar to the 2040 General Plan buildout, future development under the Specific Plan would result in short-term construction-related criteria pollutant emissions. Fugitive dust emissions would typically be greatest during building demolition, site preparation, and grading due to the disturbance of soils and transport of material. NOX emissions would also result from the combustion of diesel fuels used to power off-road heavy-duty vehicles and equipment (e.g., backhoes, bulldozers, excavators). The types and quantity of equipment, as well as duration of construction activities, would be project specific, for example, larger projects would require more equipment over a longer timeframe than that required for redevelopment of smaller projects. While BAAQMD does not require plan-level threshold of significance for construction emissions, it contains recommended project-level thresholds that future development projects would be subject to. For fugitive dust emissions, implementing dust control BMPs would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. As described above, future development projects under the Specific Plan would be required to implement MM AIR-1a, which includes the dust control measures recommended by the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, to reduce its construction fugitive dust emissions impacts to a less than significant level. Similar to the 2040 General Plan buildout, future development under the Specific Plan would result in operational-related criteria pollutant emissions. Operational criteria air pollutant emissions from 149 Lindenville Specific Plan 56 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 developments come from various emission sources such as vehicle emissions, the use of outdoor landscape maintenance equipment, use of consumer products such as cleaning products, use of fireplaces and hearths, and periodic reapplication of architectural coatings. As described above, the 2040 General Plan would allow a buildout of 5,580 residential units and 9,799,668 square feet of non- residential development within the Specific Plan area. Compared to the 2040 General Plan buildout, the Specific Plan would increase the residential buildout by 1 dwelling unit and non-residential buildout by 308,932 square feet. Of the 308,932 square feet of non-residential development, 268,214 square feet are existing service and industrial development. The existing service and industrial development are part of the existing conditions, and therefore, retaining the existing development would not change the existing operational criteria air pollutant emissions. The increase in planned retail office/research, and residential development would be reallocated from the East of 101 area and not increase the overall planned buildout of the 2040 General Plan EIR. Future development under the Specific Plan would be subject to the City’s standard CEQA review process and assess project-specific criteria air pollutant emissions in relation to the BAAQMD significance thresholds, which may result in additional mitigation measures to reduce any potential impacts that could occur. Based on the discussion above, the Specific Plan would contribute to the 2040 General Plan EIR’s significant and unavoidable impact related to criteria air pollutant impacts as a result of VMT growing at a faster rate than population growth. c. Local risks are primarily associated with exposure of toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions. TAC emissions can come from various sources, such as stationary sources (dry cleaners, diesel backup generators, and gas stations), mobile sources (vehicles on high-volume roads), off-road mobile sources (construction equipment), and diesel-powered trains traveling on the railroad. The Specific Plan would change the land use designations of select parcels within the Specific plan area. The Specific Plan would reduce the mixed use density allowed at the northwestern corner of the Specific Plan area (see ID #1 of Table 2.2-4 and Figure 2.2-3), increase mixed use density on South Linden Avenue north of North Canal Street (see ID #2 on of Table 2.2-4 and Figure 2.2-3), increase the maximum mixed use density allowed along South Spruce Avenue and remove industrial as an allowed use (see ID #17 and #18 of Table 2.2-4 and Figure 2.2-3), and change the allowed use on the northeast corner of Tanforan Avenue and Dollar Avenue to industrial use (see ID # 19 of Table 2.2-4 and Figure 2.2-3). These changes would overall place more residential development on the northwestern portion of the Specific Plan area and keep the industrial use in the southeastern portion of the Specific Plan area, consistent with the surrounding land uses. As discussed above, future development under the Specific Plan would result in construction activities that would emit TACs, and once operational, may contain operational equipment that emit TACs. Future development under the Specific Plan would be subject to the City’s standard CEQA review process, and as required under MM AIR-1a and MM AIR-1b, required to implement fugitive dust BMPs during construction, and development proposed within 1,000 feet of a sensitive receptor would be required to complete a health risk assessment to identify any health risk impacts and mitigation measures to reduce such impacts to a less than significant level. With implementation of MM AIR-1a and MM AIR-1b, future development under the Specific Plan would result in the same less than significant impact to sensitive receptors. d. Consistent with the BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, a plan-level analysis must acknowledge odor sources within the planning area and identify policies, goals, and objectives aimed at reducing potential odor impacts to ensure that potential impacts would be less than significant. 150 Lindenville Specific Plan 57 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 According to the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, land uses associated with odor complaints typically include agricultural operations, wastewater treatment plants, landfills, and certain industrial operations such as chemical and other manufacturing. While odors do not present a health risk of themselves, they are often considered a nuisance by people who live, work, or otherwise are located near outdoor odor sources. The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines identify a screening distance for 1 and 2 miles for the most common odor-generating land uses. Projects located outside of these screening distances would be presumed to not be exposed to odors, while projects within these screening distances present a potential to be exposed to odors. Compared to the 2040 General Plan buildout for the Specific Plan area, the net new retail, office/research and development, and residential uses proposed by the Specific Plan are not land uses associated with odor complaints. Furthermore, Section 20.300.010 Performance Standards of the Municipal Code establishes regulations related to odors and restricts uses, processes, or activities that produce objectionable odors that are perceptible without instruments by a reasonable person at the lot lines of a site. Municipal Code Sections 20.410.004 Indoor Commercial Cannabis Cultivation, 20.410.005 Commercial Cannabis Manufacturing, and 20.410.006 Cannabis Testing Operations require that operators install and maintain, in good working-order, air treatment or other ventilation systems to prevent odors generated from the cultivation of cannabis from being detected within 10 feet of the structure in which commercial cannabis cultivation occurs. BAAQMD Regulation 7 Odorous Substances, which contains emission limitations on odorous substances, would apply to any odor source within the proposed Specific Plan area. In addition, Chapter 3.3 Land Use of the Specific Plan includes land use standards prohibiting new industrial uses within existing nonconforming industrial buildings from impacting the surrounding properties with odors, and Chapter 3.7 Arts and Makers includes guidelines that prohibit commercial and industrial uses in the Arts and Makers Overlay from producing excessive odor beyond the property line. Therefore, compliance with the applicable regulations in the Municipal Code, BAAQMD rules and regulations, and Specific Plan standards and guidelines would result in the same less than significant odor emissions disclosed in the 2040 General Plan. 3.3.3 Conclusion The proposed project would not result in a new significant air quality impact or a substantial increase in the severity of the air quality impacts disclosed in the 2040 General Plan EIR. 151 Lindenville Specific Plan 58 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Environmental Issue Area A. Where Impact Was Analyzed in Prior Environmental Documents. B. Do Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? C. Any New Circumstances Involving New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? D. Any New Information of Substantial Importance Requiring New Analysis or Verification? E. Prior Environmental Documents Mitigations Implemented or Mitigations Address Impacts. Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)? 2040 General Plan EIR pp. 3.3-18 to 3.3-22 No No No MM BIO-1 b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS? 2040 General Plan EIR pp. 3.3-22 to 3.3-23 No No No N/A c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? 2040 General Plan EIR pp. 3.3-23 to 3.3-26 No No No MM BIO-3 d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish and wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? 2040 General Plan EIR pp. 3.3-26 to 3.3-27 No No No MM BIO-1, MM BIO-3 e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? 2040 General Plan EIR pp. 3.3-27 to 3.3-28 No No No N/A 152 Lindenville Specific Plan 59 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 Environmental Issue Area A. Where Impact Was Analyzed in Prior Environmental Documents. B. Do Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? C. Any New Circumstances Involving New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? D. Any New Information of Substantial Importance Requiring New Analysis or Verification? E. Prior Environmental Documents Mitigations Implemented or Mitigations Address Impacts. Would the project: f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? 2040 General Plan EIR pp. 3.3-28 to 3.3-29 No No No N/A 3.4.1 Existing Setting The existing biological setting, including regulatory framework, has not substantially changed since the certification of the 2040 General Plan EIR. The Specific Plan area is approximately 400-acres (surrounded by urban development including buildings, roadways, hardscapes, and landscaping), and is predominantly developed with industrial uses. As shown in the 2040 General Plan EIR, the majority of the Specific Plan area is urban land and does not contain any ecologically sensitive habitat, except for the channelized portion of Colma Creek that runs through the northern portion of the Specific Plan area, and the Navigable Slough, which passes through the southern portion of the Specific Plan area, as shown on Figure 3.4-1.10 The primary biological resources within the Specific Plan area are landscaped trees, Colma Creek, and the Navigable Slough, which can provide nesting and foraging habitat to birds. Colma Creek and the Navigable Slough within the project area can also provide habitat for aquatic species. However, due to the modified conditions of Colma Creek and the Navigable Slough, these habitats are not likely to contain special-status plant and wildlife species. 3.4.2 Discussion The 2040 General Plan EIR concluded that build-out of the 2040 General Plan would result in less than significant impacts to biological resources with mitigation incorporated, where relevant. a. The 2040 General Plan EIR concluded that implementation of the General Plan would have a less than significant impact on special-status species. Biological concerns identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR specific to the Specific Plan area are in regard to migratory and nesting birds, Colma Creek, and the Navigable Slough along the southeastern edge of the Specific Plan area. 10 City of South San Francisco. Draft Program Environmental Impact Report General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California. SCH#2021020064. June 24, 2022. Exhibit 3.3-1, Exhibit 3.3-2. 153 Source: City of South San Francisco, 2040 General Plan, October 2022. Ecologically SensiƟve Areas City of South San Francisco Caltrain StaƟon Caltrain BART StaƟon BART Highway Arterial Road Local Road Waterbody StreamsCity Parks, Open Space, & Joint FaciliƟes Context Parks Unincorporated Area in City Sphere Ferry Terminal StaƟon 0.5.25 1 Miles LEGEND Project Site ECOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE HABITATS FIGURE 3.4-1Lindenville Speciﬁc PlanCity of South San Francisco60AddendumSeptember 2023154 Lindenville Specific Plan 61 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 Migratory and Nesting Birds Raptors (birds of prey) and nesting birds are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the California Fish and Game Code. Urban-adapted raptors and other birds nesting could be disturbed by construction activities within the Specific Plan area and result in the loss of fertile eggs or nestlings, or otherwise lead to nest abandonment. Disturbance that causes abandonment and/or loss of reproductive efforts is considered a taking by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and would constitute an impact. In compliance with the MBTA and CDFW standard species management practices, future development under the Specific Plan must implement the 2040 General Plan EIR mitigation measure MM BIO-1. 2040 General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure MM BIO-1: Special-status Species, Migratory Birds, and Nesting Birds Special-status species are those listed as Endangered, Threatened or Rare, or as Candidates for listing by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), or as Rare Plant Rank 1B or 2B species by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS). This designation also includes CDFW Species of Special Concern and Fully Protected Species. Applicants or sponsors of projects on sites where potential special-status species, migratory birds, or nesting birds are present shall retain a qualified Biologist to conduct a focused survey per applicable regulatory agency protocols to determine whether such species occur on a given project site. The project applicant or sponsor shall ensure that, if development of occupied habitat must occur, species impacts shall be avoided or minimized, and if required by a regulatory agency or the CEQA process, loss of wildlife habitat or individual plants shall be fully compensated on the site. If off-site mitigation is necessary, it shall occur within the South San Francisco Planning Area whenever possible, with a priority given to existing habitat mitigation banks. Habitat mitigation shall be accompanied by a long-term management plan and monitoring program prepared by a qualified Biologist, and include provisions for protection of mitigation lands in perpetuity through the establishment of easements and adequate funding for maintenance and monitoring. Implementation of MM BIO-1.1 would protect special-status species, including raptors and nesting birds, by requiring future development under the Specific Plan to retain a qualified biologist to conduct habitat and pre-construction nesting surveys and provide mitigation to avoid disturbance of species and any loss of wildlife habitat. Consistent with the conclusions in the 2040 General Plan EIR, implementation of the Specific Plan, with implementation of MM BIO-1.1, would not result in significant impacts to migratory and nesting birds. 155 Lindenville Specific Plan 62 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 Colma Creek and Navigable Slough Colma Creek and the Navigable Slough, which are within the Specific Plan area, are identified ecologically sensitive areas in the 2040 General Plan EIR, as shown on Figure 3.4-1. The Specific Plan proposes a greenbelt along Colma Creek, and a neighborhood park to the north of Colma Creek in order to provide a buffer between development and the creek, as shown on Figure 2.2-10. The Colma Creek greenbelt would increase the existing development setback from the existing Colma Creek right-of-way, by creating setbacks ranging from 50 to 140 feet, and including blue-green infrastructure as part of the greenbelt to improve stormwater quality. Along Colma Creek, the Specific Plan would overall reduce the planned residential density at South Spruce Avenue by changing the land use designation from High Density Mixed Use to Low Density Mixed Use (see ID #3 of Table 2.2-4 and Figure 2.2-3), and replace residential/commercial as an allowed use with industrial east of the Caltrain railroad by changing the land use designation from High Density Mixed Use to Mixed Industrial High (see ID #5 of Table 2.2-4 and Figure 2.2-3). The change from High Density Mixed Use to Low Density Mixed Use would reduce the maximum FAR from 4.5 to 2.25 and residential density from 180 du/ac to 60 du/ac. The change from High Density Mixed Use to Mixed Industrial High would reduce the maximum FAR from 4.5 to 2.0 and residential density from 180 du/ac to 0. These changes would substantially reduce the building mass and scale allowed along Colma Creek There is an existing grass ditch that outfalls directly into the Navigable Slough. The Specific Plan identifies a stormwater infrastructure improvement to regrade the ditch to integrate bioretention cells and improve conveyance. Along the Navigable Slough, the proposed Specific Plan would increase the planned industrial density by changing the land use designation from Mixed Industrial to Mixed Industrial High (see ID #7 of Table 2.2-4 and Figure 2.2-3), which would increase the maximum FAR from 1.0 to 2.0, therefore, allowing additional development than what was assumed in the 2040 General Plan EIR. General Plan Policy ES-3.3 requires the City to maintain development standards and guidelines for new construction within 80 feet of Colma Creek, such as maintaining or increasing building setbacks to support habitat areas.11 General Plan Policy ES-6.3 requires that permit applications for projects located within ecologically sensitive habitat areas to prepare site-specific biological assessments for review and approval by City Planning staff, and to incorporate the recommended measures during construction to protect ecologically sensitive habitat areas.12 Municipal Code Section 20.310.002 General Site and Building Design requires all development within 300 feet of an Urban Bird Refuge with uninterrupted glazed segments 24 square feet or larger to incorporate bird-safe glazing 11 Policy ES-3.3: Maintain development standards along Colma Creek to support habitat. Maintain development standards and guidelines for new construction within 80 feet that support urban ecology and ecosystem resilience. Provide project applicants with a process for exemptions and/or offsets under limited circumstances. Standards include: • Requiring no net new impervious areas. • Maintaining (or increasing) building setbacks to support habitat areas. • Encouraging new construction to construct bioswales or similar features to treat runoff before it enters the creek. • Using a planting palette consisting of native species and species that provide valuable resources for native wildlife. 12 Policy ES-6.3: Conduct site-specific assessments for new development in ecologically sensitive habitat areas. On a parcel-by-parcel basis, require that permit applications for projects located within ecologically sensitive habitat areas, as shown on Figure 3.4-1, prepare site-specific biological assessments for review and approval by City Planning staff, and incorporation of the recommended measures during construction to protect ecologically sensitive habitat areas. 156 Lindenville Specific Plan 63 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 measures; the City is in the process of amending this code to require all development within the City that proposes uninterrupted glazed segments 24 square feet or larger, to incorporate bird-safe glazing.13 Future development under the Specific Plan area that are within 80 feet of Colma Creek and along the Navigable Slough would be required to comply with General Plan Policy ES-3.3, ES-6.3, Municipal Code Section 20.310.002 General Site and Building Design (which would apply to all development), and, if special-status species are located on-site, implement MM BIO-1.1, identified above. In addition, the Specific Plan contains Policy LU-6.3, which increases building setbacks from Colma Creek to allow for improved habitat conditions, Chapter 5.4.1 Colma Creek Greenbelt, which establishes setbacks of the proposed greenbelt from Colma Creek, Chapter 5.7.9 Exterior Lighting, which requires lighting be diverted away from wildlife habitat and limited to human use areas, Policy OS-3.2, which requires native and biodiverse landscape in parks, open spaces, and public right-of- way, and Policy OS-3.3, which requires parks and open spaces be designed with bird-safe design and landscape/planting designs that reduce impervious surfaces and decrease stormwater runoff. Consistent with the conclusions in the 2040 General Plan EIR, implementation of the Specific Plan, in compliance with General Plan Policies ES-3.3 and ES-6.3, MM BIO-1, and Specific Plan Policies LU-6.3, OS-3.2, OS-3.3, Chapters 5.4.1 and 5.7.9, would not result in significant impacts to special- status species within Colma Creek and the Navigable Slough. b, c. The Specific Plan area is comprised of mostly developed/landscaped habitat. Colma Creek and the Navigable Slough are the only identified aquatic habitats and ecologically sensitive habitats within the Specific Plan area. As discussed under checklist question a above, while the Specific Plan would change the land uses and density along Colma Creek and the Navigable Slough than what was assumed in the 2040 General Plan EIR, the 2040 General Plan contains Policies ES-3.3 and ES-6.3 and the Specific Plan contains Policies LU-6.3 and Chapter 5.4.1 Colma Creek Greenbelt, which require future development to maintain setbacks from Colma Creek and prepare biological assessments for development within identified ecologically sensitive areas, such as Colma Creek and the Navigable Slough. The proposed Specific Plan contains Policy OS-3.2, which would reduce stormwater runoff to Colma Creek and the Navigable Slough, and Chapter 5.7.9 Exterior Lighting, which would require lighting be diverted away from wildlife habitat and limited to human use areas. In addition, future development within the Specific Plan area, where potential jurisdictional wetlands or waterways may be found, would be required to implement the 2040 General Plan EIR mitigation measure MM BIO-3, below. 2040 General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure MM BIO-3: Assess Potential Wetland Impacts Applicants or sponsors of projects on sites where potential jurisdictional wetlands or waterways are present shall retain a qualified Biologist/wetland regulatory specialist to conduct a site investigation and assess whether wetland or waterway features are jurisdictional with regard to the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and/or California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). This investigation shall 13 Amendment to Municipal Code Section 20.310.002 General Site and Building Design is not part of the proposed project. The City anticipates completing this amendment in fall of 2023. 157 Lindenville Specific Plan 64 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 include assessing potential impacts to wetlands and other waters of the United States and/or State. If a feature is found to be jurisdictional or potentially jurisdictional, the project applicant or sponsor shall comply with the appropriate permitting process with each agency claiming jurisdiction prior to disturbance of the feature, and a qualified Biologist/wetland regulatory specialist shall conduct a detailed wetland delineation if necessary. Implementation of MM BIO-3 would reduce impacts to wetlands or waterways by requiring future development to formally delineate any potential jurisdictional wetlands or waterways and obtain necessary permits from each agency claiming jurisdiction. Consistent with the conclusions in the 2040 General Plan EIR, implementation of the Specific Plan, in compliance with General Plan Policies ES-3.3 and ES-6.3, Specific Plan Policy LU-6.3, and Specific Plan Chapter 5.4.1 Colma Creek Greenbelt, would not result in significant impacts to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities, such as wetlands or waterways. d. The 2040 General Plan EIR concluded that implementation of the General Plan would have a less than significant impact on wildlife movement corridors and nursery sites with implementation of mitigation measures MM BIO-1 and MM BIO-3. The Specific Plan area is approximately one mile west of the San Francisco Bay, a major wildlife movement corridor and nursery site. As such, Colma Creek and the Navigable Slough of San Bruno Creek provide areas for wildlife movement. As described under checklist question a, while the Specific Plan proposes changes to land uses and intensity along Colma Creek and the Navigable Slough than what was assumed in the 2040 General Plan EIR, future development under the Specific Plan would be required to implement the 2040 General Plan EIR mitigation measures MM BIO-1 and MM BIO-3, which require site investigations and assessments for special-status species and wetland habitat. Implementation of these mitigation measures would ensure wildlife movement corridors are protected and not significantly impacted as a result of future development under the Specific Plan. In addition, future development projects within 80 feet of Colma Creek would comply with General Plan Policies ES-3.3, which requires compliance with development standards and guidelines related to development along Colma Creek, and ES-6.3, which requires development impacting ecologically sensitive areas (including Colma Creek and the Navigable Slough) to complete site-specific biological assessments, Specific Plan Policy LU-6.3 and Specific Plan Chapter 5.4.1 Colma Creek Greenbelt, which require buffers around Colma Creek, Policy OS-3.2, which requires reduction in stormwater runoff to Colma Creek and the Navigable Slough, and Chapter 5.7.9 Exterior Lighting, requires lighting be diverted away from wildlife habitat and limited to human use areas. These policies and requirements would minimize adverse effects on wildlife movement corridors or nurseries and result in a less than significant impact. This is the same impact as disclosed in the 2040 General Plan EIR. e. The 2040 General Plan EIR concluded that implementation of the 2040 General Plan would not conflict with local polices or ordinances protecting biological resources, including Chapter 13.28 and 13.30 of the Municipal Code outlining the City’s Street Tree Preservation Policy and Tree Preservation standards, respectively. Future development projects within the Specific Plan area would be required to comply with these chapters of the Municipal Code, including obtaining a tree removal permit and providing replacement trees. In addition, development under the Specific Plan would be required to comply with General Plan Policy ES-4.1 and Specific Plan Chapter 5.5.4 Urban Forest, which require the City to expand the tree canopy coverage, and General Plan Policy ES-4.2, which requires the avoidance of tree removal wherever possible, and, if trees must be removed, 158 Lindenville Specific Plan 65 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 replaced at a three to one ratio. Specific Plan Chapter 5.7.5 requires developments to design for native vegetation within the Specific Plan area. As discussed under checklist question a above, while the Specific Plan proposes changes to land uses and intensity along Colma Creek and the Navigable Slough than what was assumed in the 2040 General Plan EIR, future developments under the proposed Specific Plan would also be required to comply with the Municipal Code and General Plan policies. For these reasons, the proposed Specific Plan would not result in any new or more significant conflicts with local polices or ordinances protecting biological resources than previously disclosed in the 2040 General Plan EIR. f. The 2040 General Plan EIR concluded that implementation of the 2040 General Plan would not conflict with an adopted habitat plan. There are two areas within the City covered by habitat conservation plans; Sign Hill Park and San Bruno Mountain State Park. In addition, the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) has jurisdiction over land near the San Francisco Bay and the tidally influenced Navigable Slough. The Specific Plan area is 1.5-miles south of Sign Hill Park and San Bruno Mountain State Park. As such, it is not located within the Sign Hill Park or San Bruno Mountain habitat conservation plan areas. Any development that would require permits from the BCDC would be subject to the applicable permit requirements to mitigate any impacts. Thus, implementation of the Specific Plan would not conflict with an adopted habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan and any impact would be less than significant, consistent with the 2040 General Plan EIR. 3.4.3 Conclusion The proposed project would not result in a new significant biological resources impact or a substantial increase in the severity of the biological resources impacts disclosed in the 2040 General Plan EIR. 159 Lindenville Specific Plan 66 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES Environmental Issue Area A. Where Impact Was Analyzed in Prior Environmental Documents. B. Do Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? C. Any New Circumstances Involving New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? D. Any New Information of Substantial Importance Requiring New Analysis or Verification? E. Prior Environmental Documents Mitigations Implemented or Mitigations Address Impacts. Would the project: a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? 2040 General Plan EIR pp. 3.4-32 to 3.3- 34 No No No N/A b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? 2040 General Plan EIR pp. 3.4-34 to 3.3-36 No No No N/A c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside the formal cemeteries? 2040 General Plan EIR pp. 3.4-36 No No No N/A 3.5.1 Existing Setting The existing cultural resources setting, including regulatory framework, has not substantially changed since the certification of the 2040 General Plan EIR. There is one known historic resource located within the Specific Plan area. The historic resource is located at 499 Railroad Avenue and is the South City Lumber building. This building is a designated City Historic Landmark and is a two-story, wood-sided industrial building. There are no other known historic resources within the Specific Plan area. There are several known archaeological sites within the City in both developed and undeveloped areas. The potential for additional archaeological sites to be found within the Specific Plan area varies depending on location and underlying geological conditions; however, areas closest to water sources, such as Colma Creek, have the greatest potential for buried archaeological resources to be found.14 There are at least two known archaeological resources within the Specific Plan area, one near Colma Creek, and one in the southern portion of the Specific Plan area. 3.5.2 Discussion The 2040 General Plan EIR concluded that buildout of the 2040 General Plan would have a less than significant impact on historic resources through implementation of 2040 General Plan policies and compliance with the City’s Municipal Code. 14 City of South San Francisco. Draft Program Environmental Impact Report General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California. SCH#2021020064. June 24, 2022. Page 3.4-34. 160 Lindenville Specific Plan 67 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 a. As discussed above, there is one known historic resource within the Specific Plan area, the South City Lumber building. The site containing the City Lumber building is currently designated Medium Density Mixed Use. The Specific Plan does not propose changes to the land use designation of the site, therefore, would not result in new cultural resources impacts to the site than what was identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR. Future development under the Specific Plan would be required to comply with General Plan Policy SA-2.2, which requires the City to protect historic buildings, Policy ES-9.5, which requires the preparation of historic reports and surveys as part of the environmental review process, and Sections 2.56.080 and 2.56.130 of the City’s Municipal Code, which require future development to preserve existing historic resources and obtain a permit for any alterations.15 In addition, there may be other historic resources present within the Specific Plan area that have not yet been surveyed, and to protect against the potential for demolition or alteration of historic structures, future development under the Specific Plan that would alter a building or structure greater than 45 years old, would undergo project-specific CEQA review and comply with Policy ES-9.5, including an assessment of any structures over 45 years in age proposed for alteration or demolition, in order to determine if that building or structure qualifies as a historic resource. For these reasons, implementation of the Specific Plan would not result in a new significant impact or substantially increase impacts to historic resources than what was disclosed in the 2040 General Plan EIR. b, c. The 2040 General Plan EIR concluded that buildout of the 2040 General Plan would have a less than significant impact on archaeological resources and human remains through implementation of General Polices, discussed below. As noted above, areas near water sources have a greater potential for previously undiscovered archaeological resources. The Specific Plan area is in close proximity to the San Francisco Bay, and Colma Creek runs through the northern portion of the Specific Plan area. Redevelopment within the Specific Plan area, including near the creek, could impact previously undiscovered archaeological resources or human remains during excavation, construction, or infrastructure improvements. Similar to what was planned in the 2040 General Plan, the Specific Plan would allow redevelopment within the Specific Plan area. Redevelopment would involve excavation into native soils, which have the potential to contain sub-surface cultural resources. Future development under the Specific Plan would comply with General Plan Policies ES-10.1, which requires the City to maintain formal procedures for minimizing and mitigating impacts to archaeological resources, ES-10.3, which requires that development proposals be referred to the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) of the California Archaeological Inventory, Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), and local Native American tribes, for review and recommendations regarding supplemental field investigation, ES-10.4, which requires a records review for any development proposed in areas of known archaeological resources, and ES-10.5, which mandates, if construction or grading activities result in the discovery of historic or prehistoric archaeological artifacts, all work within 100 feet of the discovery shall cease, the Economic and Community Development Department shall be notified, and the resources shall be examined by a qualified archaeologist for appropriate protection and 15 Policy SA-2.2: Protect historic buildings. Protect historic buildings and the local building fabric in the Downtown through adaptive reuse and other strategies. Policy ES-9.5 Require historic surveys as part of development project requirements. Require the submittal of historic reports and surveys prepared as part of the environmental review process. 161 Lindenville Specific Plan 68 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 preservation measures.16 Consistent with General Plan Policies ES-10.1, ES-10.3, and ES-10.4, new development within the Specific Plan area would be required to conduct a records search with NWIC to determine the archaeological sensitivity of the site. In addition, the City would implement General Plan Policy ES-11.1, which requires the City to identify, preserve, and protect tribal cultural resources (TCRs), including traditional cultural landscapes, sacred sites, places, features, and objects, including historic or prehistoric ruins, burial grounds, cemeteries, and ceremonial sites in consultation or coordination with the appropriate Native American tribe(s).17 With implementation of General Plan Policies ES-10.1, ES-10.3, ES-10.4, ES-10.5, and ES-11.1, future development under the Specific Plan would result in the same less than significant archaeological resources and human remains impacts disclosed in the 2040 General Plan EIR. 3.5.3 Conclusion The proposed project would not result in a new significant cultural resources impact or a substantial increase in the severity of the cultural resources impacts disclosed in the 2040 General Plan EIR. 16 Policy ES-10.1: Maintain archaeological procedures for new development. Maintain formal procedures for minimizing and mitigating impacts to archaeological resources. Policy ES-10.3: Require development proposals be referred to archaeological resources. Require that development proposals be referred to the Northwest Information Center of the California Archaeological Inventory, Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), and local Native American tribes for review and recommendations regarding supplemental field investigation. Policy ES-10.4: Ensure the protection of known archaeological resources through records review. Ensure the protection of known archaeological resources in the City by requiring a records review for any development proposed in areas of known resources. Policy ES-10.5: Discovery of significant historic or prehistoric archaeological artifacts. If construction or grading activities result in the discovery of significant historic or prehistoric archaeological artifacts, then all work within 100 feet of the discovery shall cease, the Economic and Community Development Department shall be notified, the resources shall be examined by a qualified archaeologist for appropriate protection and preservation measures; and work may only resume when appropriate protections are in place and have been approved by the Economic and Community Development Department. 17 Policy ES-11.1: Identification of tribal cultural resources. Encourage the identification, preservation, and protection of tribal cultural resources, traditional cultural landscapes, sacred sites, places, features, and objects, including historic or prehistoric ruins, burial grounds, cemeteries, and ceremonial sites in consultation or coordination with the appropriate Native America tribe(s), and shall ensure appropriate treatment of Native American and other human remains discovered during project construction. 162 Lindenville Specific Plan 69 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 3.6 ENERGY Environmental Issue Area A. Where Impact Was Analyzed in Prior Environmental Documents. B. Do Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? C. Any New Circumstances Involving New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? D. Any New Information of Substantial Importance Requiring New Analysis or Verification? E. Prior Environmental Documents Mitigations Implemented or Address Impacts. Would the project: a. Result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy, or wasteful use of energy resources, during project construction or operation? 2040 General Plan EIR pp. 3.5-17 to3.5-22 No No No N/A b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? 2040 General Plan EIR pp. 3.5-22 to 3.5-23 No No No N/A 3.6.1 Existing Setting The existing energy setting, including regulatory framework, has not substantially changed since the certification of the 2040 General Plan EIR. The Specific Plan area currently uses energy in the form of electricity and natural gas from operations, lighting, heating, and cooling of existing buildings. Vehicle trips by employees and visitors visiting the Specific Plan area use gasoline, electricity, and diesel fuel. 3.6.2 Discussion The 2040 General Plan EIR concluded that buildout of the 2040 General Plan would result in less than significant impacts to energy. a. Implementation of the Specific Plan would utilize energy during construction and operational activities. The 2040 General Plan would allow a buildout of 5,580 residential units and 9,799,668 square feet of non-residential development within the Specific Plan area. Compared to the 2040 General Plan buildout, the Specific Plan would increase the residential buildout by 1 dwelling unit and non-residential buildout by 308,932 square feet, which includes retaining 242,900 square feet of existing industrial use and 25,314 square feet of service use. The additional net new retail, office/research and development, and residential development would be reallocated from the East of 101 area within the city, and therefore, would not increase the 2040 General Plan buildout for the city. However retaining the 268,215 square feet of existing industrial and service development within the Specific Plan area (that the General Plan assumed would be redeveloped with new uses) would 163 Lindenville Specific Plan 70 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 increase the 2040 General Plan buildout by approximately 0.4 percent.18 Compared to what was assumed in the 2040 General Plan EIR, these changes would overall result in a net increase of approximately two residents and 252 employees within the Specific Plan area. Compared to the 2040 General Plan buildout for the City, which would result in a buildout population of 107,203 residents and 137,557 jobs in the City, the increase in population and jobs in the City due to what is now proposed by the Specific Plan would be considered nominal and not substantially increase the amount of energy that would be consumed at the 2040 General Plan buildout compared to what was disclosed in the 2040 General Plan EIR. The Specific Plan area is currently developed with industrial uses, and any new development would take place on developed parcels. The 2040 General Plan identified the Lindenville sub-area as one of the primary sub-areas to accommodate growth within the city due to its proximity to Caltrain, BART, with good access to jobs, neighborhood amenities, and services. One of the key 2040 General Plan policy goals is to create transit-oriented communities near Caltrain and BART and linking housing growth with job access. By allowing residential, commercial, and industrial development within the already developed Lindenville plan area, the concentration of population, employment, and services allows for more efficient use of energy. Construction Construction activities associated with future development under the Specific Plan would consume energy in the form of petroleum fuel for heavy equipment, as well as from worker trips and material delivery trips to the construction sites. Temporary electrical grid power may also be provided to construction sites. As described in Section 3.3 Air Quality, future development under the Specific Plan would be required to evaluate, measure, and mitigate air quality impacts generated from construction activities, such as implementing MM AIR-1a, which would also reduce energy consumption by limiting idling and ensuring equipment is properly maintained according to manufacturer’s specifications. Action CHEJ-3.2.2 of the 2040 General Plan also requires the City to manage truck idling in new residential neighborhoods in Lindenville. Chapter 15.60 of the Municipal Code requires development projects to complete and submit a construction recycling management plan. Section 15.60.020 of the Municipal Code requires the City to encourage contractors to make every structure planned for demolition available for deconstruction, salvage, and recovery prior to demolition; and to recover the maximum feasible amount of salvageable designated recyclable and reusable materials prior to demolition. CALGreen also requires projects to recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste. Future development under the Specific Plan would require subsequent environmental review and assess potential energy consumption impacts at a project-level and be subject to the Municipal Code and the General Plan policies and actions that directly and indirectly reduce energy consumption during construction. As such, construction activities associated with implementation of the Specific Plan would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy, and result in the same less than significant impact as identified in the 2040 General Plan. 18 The 2040 General Plan allows for a buildout of 60,193,220 square feet of development. Source: City of South San Francisco. Draft Program Environmental Impact Report General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California. SCH#2021020064. June 24, 2022. Tables 2-5 and Table 2-7. 164 Lindenville Specific Plan 71 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 Operation Operation of development allowed under the Specific Plan would consume natural gas and electricity for building heating and power, lighting, water conveyance, and other operational requirements. Indirect energy use would include the pumping, treatment, and conveyance of water for buildings, landscaping, and many other end uses. It is estimated that buildout of the Specific Plan would consume approximately 129,305,404 kilowatt-hour (kWh)of electricity per year and 4,021,281 therms of natural gas per year.19 As further discussed in Section 3.16 Transportation, the Specific Plan would reduce VMT per service population from 27.42 to 26.80, and therefore, improve energy efficiency for transportation related energy usage. Within Lindenville, the total daily VMT would increase from 314,022.1 to 1,076,477.1 compared to existing conditions,20 resulting in a net increase of 762,455. The increase in daily VMT would result in an increase in approximately 12,205,965 gallons of annual gasoline consumption.21 The Specific Plan is consistent with General Plan Policy LU-1.1, Action LU-1.1.2, Policy LU-1.2, and Policy LU-2.1 by allowing a mix of land uses placing housing, employment, services, and gathering places in proximity to each other, improving the bicycle and pedestrian network in the Specific Plan area (as described in Section 2.2 Project Description), and intensifying development near transit (BART and Caltrain). General Plan Policy CP-2.1 requires the City to maintain membership in the Peninsula Clean Energy and continue to work to maintain a high level of private property owner participation in Peninsula Clean Energy. Policy CP-2.2 requires the City to partner with PG&E to develop options for reducing greenhouse gas emissions associated with the existing natural gas grid. General Plan Action CP-3.1.1 requires the City to provide incentives to encourage new construction to exceed Title 24 requirements. Policy LU-1.2 requires the City to improve opportunities to walk and bike, and accessibility in complete neighborhoods. Policy LU-2.1 requires the City to collaborate with developers and property owners to locate new housing, mixed use, and employment uses near transit centers to minimize reliance on personal automobiles. General Plan Action CHEJ-3.3.1 requires the City to explore opportunities for production, distribution, and warehousing uses in Lindenville to reduce pollution, such as greener trucks, energy efficient buildings, and other strategies. Future development under the Specific Plan would also be subject to state and local energy efficiency regulations. The Municipal Code Chapters 15.22 and 15.26 contain the current Title 24, as amended. Chapter 15.62 of the Municipal Code aims to encourage the use of solar energy systems. Municipal Code Section 20.300.009 requires outdoor lighting to minimize energy waste. Municipal Code Section 20.300.008 includes a number of requirements for new construction to aid in energy conservation by providing shade from the sun and shelter from the wind and encourage the conservation of water resources through the use of native and drought-tolerant plans and water- conserving irrigation practices. Municipal Code Section 15.26.020 requires new residential development to only include all-electric design features and prohibits the use of natural gas utilities. 19 Raimi + Associates. Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Forecast Memorandum. August 2023. 20 VMT data provided by Fehr & Peers Transportation Solutions. 21 The most recent national miles per gallon rate is 22.8 miles per gallon for light-duty vehicles. Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics. “Average Fuel Efficiency of U.S. Light Duty Vehicles.” Accessed August 16, 2023. https://www.bts.gov/content/average-fuel-efficiency-us-light-duty-vehicles. 165 Lindenville Specific Plan 72 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 Compliance with the General Plan policies and actions, Municipal Code, and state regulations by future development allowed under the Specific Plan would ensure that implementation of the Specific Plan would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy. Future development would also be subject to the City’s TDM ordinance, which in turn, would further reduce gasoline consumption. For these reasons, future development under the Specific Plan would be designed and built to minimize energy consumption and would ensure that building energy consumption would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary. In addition, implementation of the Specific Plan would minimize gasoline use for transportation and not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary gasoline consumption. Specific Plan would result in the same less than significant energy impact as identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR. b. As discussed under checklist question a, the Specific Plan is consistent with the 2040 General Plan policies by allowing and intensifying a mix of land uses, placing housing, employment, services, and gathering places in proximity to each other, improving the bicycle and pedestrian network in the Specific Plan area, in a transit-oriented area, and future development would be subject to state and local building regulations for energy efficiency. Furthermore, as discussed in Section 3.3 Air Quality, the Specific Plan is consistent with the 2017 CAP control measures, which would help meet BAAQMD’s primary goal of attaining air quality standards, which in turn, would improve energy efficiency within the Specific Plan area. The Specific Plan does not propose any features that would obstruct, or be in conflict with any state or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency. For these reasons, the Specific Plan would result in the same less than significant energy impact as identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR. 3.6.3 Conclusion The proposed project would not result in a new significant energy impact or a substantial increase in the severity of the energy impacts disclosed in the 2040 General Plan EIR. 166 Lindenville Specific Plan 73 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 3.7 GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND MINERALS Environmental Issue Area A. Where Impact Was Analyzed in Prior Environmental Documents. B. Do Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? C. Any New Circumstances Involving New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? D. Any New Information of Substantial Importance Requiring New Analysis or Verification? E. Prior Environmental Documents Mitigations Implemented or Mitigations Address Impacts. Would the project: a. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides? 2040 General Plan EIR pp. 3.6-17 to 3.6-23 No No No N/A b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 2040 General Plan EIR pp. 3.6-23 to 3.6-24 No No No N/A c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? 2040 General Plan EIR pp. 3.6-24 to 3.6-26 No No No N/A d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in the current California Building Code, creating substantial risks to life or property? 2040 General Plan EIR pp. 3.6-26 to 3.6-27 No No No N/A 167 Lindenville Specific Plan 74 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 Environmental Issue Area A. Where Impact Was Analyzed in Prior Environmental Documents. B. Do Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? C. Any New Circumstances Involving New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? D. Any New Information of Substantial Importance Requiring New Analysis or Verification? E. Prior Environmental Documents Mitigations Implemented or Mitigations Address Impacts. Would the project: e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? 2040 General Plan EIR pp. 3.6-27 to 3.6-28 No No No N/A f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature? 2040 General Plan EIR pp. 3.6-28 to 3.6-29 No No No MM GEO-6 g. 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? 2040 General Plan EIR pp. 6-2 No No No N/A h. 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? 2040 General Plan EIR pp. 6-2 No No No N/A 3.7.1 Existing Setting The existing geology, soils, and mineral resources setting, including regulatory framework, has not substantially changed since the certification of the 2040 General Plan EIR. The Specific Plan area is within a seismically active region and is located within a liquefaction hazard zone.22 Lateral spreading, due to liquefaction, could also occur along Colma Creek and the Navigable Slough.23 The Specific Plan area is flat and is not subject to landslide hazards. As disclosed in the 2040 General Plan EIR, the Specific Plan area is underlain by primarily Urbanland and Urbanland-Orthents soils.24 Urban Land consists of areas covered by roads, driveways, parking lots, houses, and other structures. The soils under these structures have been 22 City of South San Francisco. Draft Program Environmental Impact Report General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California. SCH#2021020064. June 24, 2022. Exhibit 3.6-4, Exhibit 3.6-5. 23 Ibid. Page 3.6-5. 24 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. “Web Soil Survey”. Accessed: February 4, 2021. https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx 168 Lindenville Specific Plan 75 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 graded and mixed or have been covered with fill material. Urban Land-Orthents is a combination of Urban Land and smoothed, well-draining soils with sandy loam. According to the 2040 General Plan EIR, soils in the eastern portion of the City (including the Specific Plan area) are susceptible to damage from expansive soils and differential settlement due to the artificial fill overlaying tidal flats, alluvium, and slope debris.25 There are no known paleontological or mineral resources within the City of South San Francisco. 3.7.2 Discussion The 2040 General Plan EIR concluded that buildout of the General Plan would result in less than significant impacts to geology, soils, paleontology, and mineral resources. a. As disclosed in the 2040 General Plan EIR, the Specific Plan area is located within a seismically active region and, as such, strong to very strong ground shaking would be expected during the lifetime of the Specific Plan. The Specific Plan area is not located within an Alquist-Priolo special study zone. While no active faults are known to cross the Specific Plan area and fault rupture is not anticipated to occur, ground shaking could damage structures and threaten future occupants of the Specific Plan area. In addition, the Specific Plan area is located in a liquefaction hazard area, which is consistent with the conclusions in the 2040 General Plan EIR. While the Specific Plan would allow more growth than what was identified in the 2040 General Plan (see Table 2.2-1 in Section 2.2 Project Description), similar to what was identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR, future development under the Specific Plan would be designed and constructed in accordance with Chapter 15.08 of the City’s Municipal Code, which implements the California Building Code (CBC) requirements that foundations and other structural support features would be designed to resist or absorb damaging forces from strong ground shaking, liquefaction, lateral spreading, and subsidence. In addition, given that the Specific Plan area is located within a liquefaction hazard area, future projects would be required to comply with Section 20.170.004 of the City’s Municipal Code, which requires site-specific soils and geologic reports be prepared prior for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to development, and incorporation of the recommended actions during construction. Compliance with the City’s Municipal Code would reduce seismic and seismic-related impacts to a less than significant level. Future development under the Specific Plan would not be subject to substantial slope instability or landslide related hazards due to the relatively flat topography of the area. The impacts of landslides on future development within the Specific Plan area would, therefore, be less than significant. This is the same impact as disclosed in the 2040 General Plan EIR. b. Topography of the Specific Plan area is relatively flat; therefore, the area would not be exposed to substantial erosion. Future development projects under the Specific Plan would be required to comply with the City’s Municipal Code to ensure that erosion would not occur during construction and operation, as described in detail in Section 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality. This is the same impact as disclosed in the 2040 General Plan EIR. 25 City of South San Francisco. Draft Program Environmental Impact Report General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California. SCH#2021020064. June 24, 2022. Page 3.6-6. 169 Lindenville Specific Plan 76 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 c, d. Given the proximity (within 10-miles) of seismically active faults to the Specific Plan area, seismic ground shaking could result in liquefaction, lateral spreading, or differential settlement. As discussed above, soils with a high expansion potential occur in the Specific Plan Area, which can cause heaving and cracking of slabs on-grade, pavements, and structures founded on shallow foundations. In addition, lateral spreading may occur along the Colma Creek corridor in the northern portions of the Specific Plan area. Compliance with the City’s Municipal Code requiring preparation of site-specific soils and geology reports and implementing the recommendations in the reports would reduce the impacts of seismic and seismic-related hazards and expansive soils to a less than significant level. This is the same impact as disclosed in the 2040 General Plan EIR. e. Future development under the Specific Plan would connect to existing City sewer lines and would not require treatment of wastewater on-site using a septic system or alternative wastewater disposal system. Therefore, the Specific Plan would have no impact on the ability of on-site soils to support alternative wastewater systems. This is the same impact as disclosed in the 2040 General Plan EIR. f. As discussed above, there are no known paleontological resources within the City and, per the 2040 General Plan EIR, the areas within the City that have the highest potential for previously undiscovered paleontological resources are located within the Merced Formation and Colma Formation, both of which are located west of the Specific Plan area. The Specific Plan area is mostly underlain by Urbanland and Urbanland-Orthents, which contain fill materials and are of younger geologic age. Thus, there is low sensitivity for paleontological resources within the Specific Plan area. Nonetheless, in the event that any earth-disturbing construction activities uncover paleontological resources (e.g., bones, teeth, well-preserved plant elements), potential impacts to paleontological resources would be minimized to a less than significant level through compliance with Public Resources Code Section 5097, which specifies procedures to be followed in the event of unexpected discovery of paleontological resources.26 Future development under the Specific Plan, with compliance of Public Resources Code Section 5097, would have a less than significant impact on paleontological resources. This is the same impact as disclosed in the 2040 General Plan EIR. g, h. As stated in the 2040 General Plan EIR, no minerals or aggregate resources of statewide importance are located within the City of South San Francisco. Thus, there would be no impact. 3.7.3 Conclusion The proposed project would not result in a new significant geology and soils impact or substantially increased impacts than were disclosed in the 2040 General Plan EIR. 26 City of South San Francisco. Draft Program Environmental Impact Report General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California. SCH#2021020064. June 24, 2022. Page 3.6-28. 170 Lindenville Specific Plan 77 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 3.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Environmental Issue Area A. Where Impact Was Analyzed in Prior Environmental Documents. B. Do Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? C. Any New Circumstances Involving New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? D. Any New Information of Substantial Importance Requiring New Analysis or Verification? E. Prior Environmental Documents Mitigations Implemented or Mitigations Address Impacts. Would the project: a. Generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? 2040 General Plan EIR pp. 3.7-53 to 3.7- 66 No No No N/A b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions? 2040 General Plan EIR pp. 3.7-66 to 3.7-83 No No No N/A 3.8.1 Existing Setting The existing setting for climate change and greenhouse gas emissions has not substantially changed since the certification of the 2040 General Plan EIR. The Specific Plan area is currently developed primarily with industrial uses. The existing development within the Specific Plan area generates GHG emissions primarily from vehicle trips by employees and visitors, as well as for heating and cooling of buildings, conveyance of water, treatment of wastewater, and from the transport and disposal of solid waste. Note since the City adopted the 2040 General Plan EIR on October 12, 2022, BAAQMD adopted its 2022 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines on April 20, 2023, which includes updated thresholds for evaluating GHG emissions impacts. However, an updated threshold is not considered a change in circumstances under which a project would occur, for purposes of CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, which is a change in the real world that would materially change the impacts a project would have. As described above, there has not been substantial changes to the GHG emissions setting, therefore, the following analysis relies on the same GHG thresholds used in the 2040 General Plan EIR, which is an interpolated threshold from the California Air Resources Board (CARB) 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, as further discussed below. It should also be noted that the City as lead agency has the discretion to apply what is considers the appropriate threshold for a given environmental topic, and therefore continues to have the discretion to continue to rely on the interpolated threshold from the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. 171 Lindenville Specific Plan 78 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 3.8.2 Discussion The 2040 General Plan EIR concluded that buildout of the 2040 General Plan would result in less than significant GHG impacts. Interpolating from the CARB 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan’s plan-level GHG emissions efficiency targets, the 2040 General Plan EIR utilized a GHG significance threshold based on whether the 2040 General Plan buildout would result in greater than 4.0 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MT CO2e) per service population (residents plus employees) by 204027. CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b) allows projects and plans to be analyzed through a streamlined or tiered approach utilizing an adopted GHG Reduction Plan. The City’s 2022 Climate Action Plan (2022 CAP) is a qualified greenhouse gas reduction strategy. Projects that demonstrate consistency with the 2022 CAP, including future redevelopment projects under the Specific Plan, would be eligible for streamlined CEQA review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5. a. The Specific Plan would allow future development within the Specific Plan area that slightly exceeds planned growth from the 2040 General Plan, which would allow a buildout of 5,580 residential units and 9,799,668 square feet of non-residential development within the Specific Plan area. Compared to the 2040 General Plan buildout, the proposed Specific Plan would increase the residential buildout by 1 dwelling unit and non-residential buildout by 308,932 square feet. Construction activities associated with future development would generate temporary short-term GHG emissions. Neither the CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan nor the current BAAQMD guidelines recommend quantitative thresholds of significance for GHG emissions resulting from construction activities at the plan level. Rather, the City would consider construction emissions to be potentially significant if a project would not incorporate construction BMPs to reduce GHG emissions during construction. As discussed in Section 3.2, Air Quality, new development within the City, including the Specific Plan area, would be subject to construction BMPs for reducing construction emissions through MM AIR-1a by limiting idling and requiring equipment to be properly maintained and tuned. With implementation of MM AIR-1a, GHG emissions from construction activities of future development under the Specific Plan would be reduced to a less than significant level. In addition, Chapter 15.60 of the Municipal Code requires development projects to complete a recycling management plan, and Section 15.60.020 requires the City to encourage contractors to make every structure planned for demolition available for deconstruction, salvage, and recovery prior to demolition; and to recover the maximum feasible amount of salvageable designated recyclable and reusable materials prior to demolition, but at least at the rate set forth in CALGreen. Once built and occupied, future development within the Specific Plan area would result in long-term operational sources of GHG emissions associated with mobile sources (e.g., vehicle exhaust) from vehicle trips by employees, visitors, and residents, energy consumption (e.g., electricity and natural gas) of buildings, solid waste, wastewater treatment, and water consumption (e.g., electricity used to deliver and treat water consumed by customers in the City). The operational GHG emissions from buildout of the Specific Plan have been calculated (see Appendix B). The GHG emissions accounted for emission reductions resulting from the following state-level and City-level policies: 27 Note that the metric from the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan is expressed in per capita (residents) because it accounts for the total forecasted population and emissions of the state, while the City’s significance threshold metric is expressed in per service population (residents plus employees) because the GHG emissions of the city would be the result of residents and employees who work in the City but may not live in the City. 172 Lindenville Specific Plan 79 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 • Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), a law which requires electrical utilities to provide an increased amount of electricity from eligible renewable sources. SB 100 requires that 33 percent of electricity sold by utilities in 2020 be renewable, 60 percent be renewable in 2030, and 100 percent be carbon-free in 2045. • Title 24: Title 24 is the set of regulations that specifies how new buildings must be constructed, including specifying minimum energy efficiency standards. These standards are updated triennially to be more stringent. California has set a goal for zero-net energy new construction by 2030. • Pavely Clean Car Standards: These standards require that vehicles sold in California meet minimum fuel efficiency requirements, and that fuel sold in the state emits less GHGs during production and use. • Municipal Code Chapter 15.26: All-electric residential new construction • 2040 General Plan: Mobility improvements • 2022 Climate Action Plan It is estimated that the Specific Plan would result in annual GHG emissions of 78,808 MT CO2e with implementation of the above policies, which would result in an efficiency emission of 2.24 MT CO2e per service population. The GHG emissions per service population for the Specific Plan, therefore, would not exceed the 2040 General Plan EIR’s GHG efficiency threshold of 4.0 MT CO2e per service population. The Specific Plan and future development allowed under the Specific Plan would be subject to the City’s 2022 CAP, a qualified GHG reduction plan. As summarized in Table 3.8-1 below, the Specific Plan and future development allowed would comply with the applicable 2022 CAP measures. Because the Specific Plan would not exceed the efficiency threshold of 4.0 MT CO2e per service population, and be consistent with the City’s 2022 CAP, it would result in the same less than significant GHG impact as identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR. Table 3.8-1: Project Consistency with Applicable Climate Action Plan Actions Action Description Consistency CE 1.1 Require the construction of any new nonresidential conditioned space of 5,000 square feet or more, or the conversion of unconditioned space 5,000 square feet or more, to meet a minimum of 50 percent of modeled building electricity needs with on-site renewable energy sources, as is feasible. To calculate 50 percent of building electricity needs for the new conditioned space, the applicant shall calculate building electricity use as part of the Title 24 compliance process. Total electricity use shall include total use for the new conditioned space excluding process energy. Future non-residential development under the Specific Plan would be required to comply with CE 1.1 by providing on-site renewable energy sources for 50 percent of the modeled building electricity needs. BNC 1.1 Provide a combination of financial and development process incentives (e.g., Expedited permitting, FAR increases, etc.) to encourage new development to exceed Title 24 energy efficiency standard. Specific Plan Chapter 3.5 Height allows a maximum building height of 160 feet or the ALUCP maximum height, whichever is less, for developments in the Height Incentive Overlay by requiring a score of at least 173 Lindenville Specific Plan 80 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 Table 3.8-1: Project Consistency with Applicable Climate Action Plan Actions Action Description Consistency 120 points on the Green Point Rated system and a whole building life cycle assessment per the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) requirement. Future development under the Specific Plan would be subject to the Municipal Code Chapter 15.26 California Energy Code, which adopts the state’s current Title 24 building requirements, as amended. BNC 2.1 Implement residential all-electric reach code and adopt all-electric reach code for nonresidential new construction. Exempt occupancies must install electric building systems (e.g., space and water heating equipment) where feasible. Until the adoption of the nonresidential all-electric reach code, require any new nonresidential conditioned space of 5,000 square feet or more, or the conversion of unconditioned space 5,000 square feet or more to comply with CALGreen Tier 2 energy efficiency requirements to exceed mandatory energy efficiency requirements by 20 percent or more. For additions to existing development of 5,000 square feet or more, CALGreen Tier 2 shall be calculated as part of the Title 24 compliance process. Existing building space already permitted shall not be subject to CALGreen Tier 2 requirements. Future residential development under the Specific Plan would be subject to the City’s residential all-electric reach code, and future non-residential development would be required to meet CALGreen Tier 2 energy efficiency requirements or City’s non-residential all-electric reach code when adopted. In addition, Specific Plan Policy 5.2 prohibits new natural gas services in buildings and transition infrastructure to be all electric. BE 1.2 Update zoning and building codes to require alternations or additions at least 50 percent the size of the original building to comply with minimum CALGreen requirements. Future alterations to existing buildings within the Specific Plan would be subject to the zoning and building code in effect at the time the project is proposed. BE 1.6 Adopt energy and water benchmarking ordinance for commercial buildings over 10,000 square feet to empower owners to control utility costs. Future commercial development would be subject to the City’s water benchmarking ordinance once adopted to track and report annual water consumption. Action BE 2.1 Develop a date certain, phased-in Existing Building Electrification Plan to retrofit 90 percent of existing homes and businesses to all electric by 2040. Existing development within the Specific Plan area would be subject to Action BE 2.1 to retrofit 90 percent of existing business to all electric by 2040. In addition, Specific Plan Policy 5.2 requires existing infrastructure to transition infrastructure to all electric. BE 2.4 Adopt an all-electric reach code for major renovations, alterations, additions. Future development involving major renovations, alternations, or additions to existing buildings within the Specific Plan area would be subject to 174 Lindenville Specific Plan 81 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 Table 3.8-1: Project Consistency with Applicable Climate Action Plan Actions Action Description Consistency the all-electric reach code adopted at the time the project is proposed. In addition, Specific Plan Policy 5.2 requires existing infrastructure to transition infrastructure to all electric. TL 1.1 Implement EV reach code Future development under the Specific Plan would be subject to the City’s EV reach code. TL 2.2 Implement, monitor, and enforce compliance with the City’s TDM Ordinance. Future development under the Specific Plan would be subject to the City’s TDM ordinance and its compliance requirements. TL 2.3 Evaluate the current and best use of curb space in the City’s activity centers and repurpose space to maximize people served (i.e., for loading, bikeways, bike parking, bus lanes, EV charging, or parklets). Chapter 6 Mobility of the Specific Plan proposes a grid of pedestrian priority streets within the Specific Plan area by incorporating wider sidewalks, landscaping, parklets, curb extensions, and other traffic calming features to create walkable environments in support of active ground floor land uses. The Specific Plan also proposes a grid of bicycle priority streets incorporating low-stress bicycle facilities that accommodate people of all ages and abilities to facilitate cross-town travel and local access. TL 2.4 Incorporate maximum parking requirements for new residential and office/R&D projects. Future development under the Specific Plan would be subject to Municipal Code Chapter 20.330 On-Site Parking and Loading parking requirements, which avoids the over-supply of parking and promoting travel via walking, bicycling, transit, and carpooling TL 2.5 For all new land use and transportation projects, adhere to the City’s VMT Analysis Guidelines and qualitatively assess the project’s effect on multimodal access. Use the development review process to identify opportunities to enhance bicycle, pedestrian, and transit connectivity. As further discussed in Section 3.16 Transportation, future development, including transportation projects, under the Specific Plan would be subject to subsequent environmental review, which would evaluate project- level impacts on VMT and the multimodal system, and identify any multimodal improvements needed. TL 2.6 Ensure that all roadway and development projects are designed and evaluated to meet the needs of all street users, and that development projects contribute to multimodal improvements in proportion to their potential impacts on vehicle miles traveled. Develop a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) prioritization criteria, including equity considerations for SB Chapter 6.3 Complete Streets Guidance of the Specific Plan contains guidance for developing complete streets within the Specific Plan area. Future development under the Specific Plan would be subject to subsequent environmental review to evaluate its VMT impact and demand to the 175 Lindenville Specific Plan 82 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 Table 3.8-1: Project Consistency with Applicable Climate Action Plan Actions Action Description Consistency 1000 neighborhoods, to strategically advance multimodal Complete Streets projects. All capital improvements and development projects incorporate bicycle and pedestrian improvements identified in the Active South City Plan, such as trails, bikeways, bicycle detection at traffic signals, high-visibility crosswalks, and pedestrian-oriented site plans. multimodal system and require fair- share contribution to multimodal street improvements. TL 2.8 Leverage public-private partnerships to increase transit ridership and improve transit station access by incorporating first/last mile bus, shuttle, and active transportation connections between employment hubs and regional transit stations. Chapter 6.2 Mobility Network of the Specific Plan establishes transit priority streets within the Specific Plan area. These streets incorporate bus and shuttle service and high-quality shelters. The Specific Plan identifies first/last mile shuttles along Southline Avenue, South Linden Avenue, and Airport Boulevard connecting the Southline and Terminal Court employment centers with Caltrain and BART. SW 1.1 Adopt an SB 1383 compliant zero-waste plan for municipal operations and the community that includes: mandatory residential and commercial recycling and collection of organics/food waste, mandatory commercial edible food recovery program (per MOU with San Mateo County Office of Sustainability), and updated trash enclosure space and access requirements based on hauler recommendations to accommodate all waste streams (e.g., recycling, trash, and organics). Future development under the Specific Plan would be subject to the City’s waste-reduction regulations in place, such as an adopted zero-waste plan, and design trash enclosure space and access requirements per City standards. WW 1.1 Achieve greater water use reductions than WELO by requiring all landscapes obtain a landscape permit, decreasing the size threshold to capture all landscape renovations, adding prescriptive irrigation plant lists, or water budget requirements. Future development under the Specific Plan would require a landscape permit and comply with the water reduction requirements of the permit. WW 1.4 Develop a plant list, landscaping palette for efficiency and habitat/wildlife for new development and landscape retrofits. Policy OS-3.2 of the Specific Plan requires planting of a native and biodiverse landscape in parks, open spaces, and the public right-of-way within the Specific Plan area. Chapter 5.5.2 Stormwater Management of the Specific Plan area requires stormwater treatment areas to include native tree and plant species. Chapter 5.5.4 Urban Forest of the Specific Plan proposes to increase tree canopy within the Specific Plan area by achieving a 22 percent canopy coverage. New plantings would be locally adapted, 176 Lindenville Specific Plan 83 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 Table 3.8-1: Project Consistency with Applicable Climate Action Plan Actions Action Description Consistency site-appropriate, or native species. Chapter 5.7.5 Planting and Vegetation of the Specific Plan includes standards and guidelines to create ecologically beneficial and resilient landscapes. WW 2.1 Require high-efficiency fixtures in all new construction and major renovations, comparable to CALGreen Tier 1 or 2 standards. Future development under the Specific Plan would be required to include high-efficiency fixtures comparable to CALGreen Tier 1 or 2 standards. CS 2.1 Expand the canopy cover to reach the goals of the Urban Forest Master Plan and increase environmental benefits, prioritizing disadvantaged communities and connected wildlife corridors. Chapter 5.5.4 Urban Forest of the Specific Plan proposes to increase tree canopy within the Specific Plan area by achieving a 22 percent canopy coverage, consistent with the Urban Forest Master Plan. CS 2.2 For nonresidential and residential new construction, require silva cell structures and soil compaction plan for tree growth, and require the preservation and addition of trees on private property in residential neighborhoods through design review where appropriate. Incorporate Parks and Recreation urban forest staff in the review process. Chapter 5.5.2 Stormwater Management and Chapter 5.5.4 Urban Forest of the Specific Plan requires installation of silva cell, or a comparable soil cell system, to allow water retention and adequate tree growth. CS 3.1 Enhance Colma Creek as an ecological corridor, restoring 5 miles of creek ecologies and creating transitional habitat zones to build resilience and ecosystem services. Protect and expand existing marsh and wetland habitat to improve water quality, adapt to climate change, and provide habitat for wildlife. The Specific Plan proposes a greenbelt with blue-green infrastructure along Colma Creek and would increase the building setbacks along Colma Creek to enhance Colma Creek as an ecological corridor. CL 1.7 Adopt municipal TDM policy or participate in City ordinance that encourages alternatives to SOVs and established telecommute policy to allow remote work when feasible. Future development under the Specific Plan would be subject to the City’s TDM ordinance. b. The CARB’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, the MTC/ABAG Plan Bay Area 2050, and the BAAQMD 2017 Clean Air Plan are statewide and regional plans adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. As discussed under checklist question a, the project would not exceed the efficiency threshold of 4.0 MT CO2e per service population, which is interpolated from the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan’s plan-level GHG emissions efficiency target. Therefore, the Specific Plan is consistent with the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. Plan Bay Area 2050 establishes a course for reducing per capita GHG emissions through the promotion of compact, high-density, mixed-use neighborhoods near transit, particularly within identified Priority Development Areas. While the Specific Plan area is currently not mapped as a PDA,28 it would be added to the City’s Downtown PDA if the City adopts the Specific Plan.29 28 Association of Bay Area Governments. "Priority Development Area Program Overview.” Access August 18, 2023. https://abag.ca.gov/technical-assistance/priority-development-area-program-overview. 29 Gross, Billy. Principal Planner, City of South San Francisco. Personal Communication. August 25, 2023. 177 Lindenville Specific Plan 84 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 Furthermore, the South San Francisco Caltrain station is approximately a quarter mile north of the Specific Plan area, and the San Bruno BART station is adjacent to the southern boundary of the Specific Plan area. The Specific Plan area is serviced by San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) Route 141, which stops at the San Bruno BART station and through the western part of the Specific Plan on Spruce Avenue , and Route 292, which stops at the northeastern corner of the Specific Plan area and SFO to the south and adjacent to the South San Francisco Caltrain Station to the north. Furthermore, the Specific Plan area would have first/last mile shuttles along Southline Avenue, South Linden Avenue, and Airport Boulevard connecting the Southline and Terminal Court employment centers with Caltrain and BART. Therefore, the Specific Plan is consistent with the goals of Plan Bay Area 2050. The BAAQMD 2017 CAP focuses on two goals: protecting public health and protecting the climate. The 2017 CAP includes air quality standards and control measures designed to reduce emissions of GHGs. As discussed in Section 3.3 Air Quality, the Specific Plan would be consistent with the 2017 Clean Air Plan control measures as summarized in Table 3.3-1. In addition, the Specific Plan and future development would be required to comply with the applicable policies and requirements included within the 2040 General Plan, the 2022 Climate Action Plan, and the Municipal Code aimed at reducing GHG emissions. For these reasons, the Specific Plan would result in the same less than significant impact as identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR. 3.8.3 Conclusion The proposed project would not result in a new significant GHG impact or a substantial increase in the severity of the GHG impacts disclosed in the 2040 General Plan EIR. 178 Lindenville Specific Plan 85 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 3.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Environmental Issue Area A. Where Impact Was Analyzed in Prior Environmental Documents. B. Do Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? C. Any New Circumstances Involving New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? D. Any New Information of Substantial Importance Requiring New Analysis or Verification? E. Prior Environmental Documents Mitigations Implemented or Mitigations Address Impacts. Would the project: a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 2040 General Plan EIR pp. 3.8-24 to 3.8- 26 No No No N/A b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? 2040 General Plan EIR pp. 3.8-26 to 3.8- 28 No No No N/A c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 2040 General Plan EIR pp. 3.8-28 to 3.8- 29 No No No N/A d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? 2040 General Plan EIR pp. 3.8-29 to 3.8-30 No No No N/A e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 2040 General Plan EIR pp. 3.8-30 to 3.8-32 No No No N/A f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 2040 General Plan EIR pp. 3.8-32 to 3.8-34 No No No N/A 179 Lindenville Specific Plan 86 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 Environmental Issue Area A. Where Impact Was Analyzed in Prior Environmental Documents. B. Do Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? C. Any New Circumstances Involving New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? D. Any New Information of Substantial Importance Requiring New Analysis or Verification? E. Prior Environmental Documents Mitigations Implemented or Mitigations Address Impacts. Would the project: g. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? 2040 General Plan EIR pp. 3.16-11 to 3.16-15 No No No N/A 3.9.1 Existing Setting The existing hazardous materials setting, including regulatory framework, has not substantially changed since the certification of the 2040 General Plan EIR. According to the 2040 General Plan EIR, the Specific Plan area has a history of industrial uses dating back to the 1920s and 1930s that generated hazardous materials.30 Many of these industrial buildings are still standing and may also contain asbestos-containing materials (ACM), lead based paint (LBP), and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). The 2040 General Plan EIR reviewed federal, state, and local databases for hazardous materials sites within the city, including the Specific Plan area. There are no Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Superfund sites within the Specific Plan area; however, there are two former state response cleanup sites, four voluntary cleanup sites, and multiple leaking underground storage tank (LUST) cases. The two state response cleanup sites (Reichhold Chemicals and Sun Chemical) are closed and certified with no land use restrictions. Of the four voluntary cleanup sites, two are certified and have land use restrictions (Basapco, Inc. and Upper Linden Union Pacific Railroad) and two are still active cleanup cases (Morena Trust and Union Pacific). The Morena Trust site, located at 437 South Canal Street, has been an open case since 2012 with the primary contaminant of concern as Trichloroethylene (TCE) and tetrachloroethylene (PCE).31 The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) is currently overseeing implementation of a sub-slab depressurization system and indoor air monitoring. The Union Pacific site, located at 69 South Linden Avenue, has been an open case since 2012 with the primary contaminant of concern as chlorinated volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and metals (i.e., arsenic and lead).32 A Remedial Design Implementation Plan (RDIP) was prepared and submitted to DTSC in January 2022 to describe the design of the soil cap and the in-situ bioremediation system and is currently under review.33 30 City of South San Francisco. Draft Program Environmental Impact Report General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California. SCH#2021020064. June 24, 2022. Page 3.8-4. 31 Ibid. Page 3.8-8 to 3.8-9. 32 Ibid. Page 3.8-8. 33 Department of Toxic Substances and Control. “EnviroStor”. Accessed June 28, 2023. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/profile_report?global_id=60001636. 180 Lindenville Specific Plan 87 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 The LUST cases within the Specific Plan area are spread throughout the area, but are mainly concentrated east of South Spruce Avenue and south of Colma Creek. The Specific Plan area is located within two miles of SFO and is located within the airport influence area (AIA) of the SFO ALUCP. In addition, the entire Specific Plan area is located within the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Part 77 Surfaces area and the southern portions of the Specific Plan area are located within the Safety Compatibility Zones Zone 2 and Zone 3 (south of Shaw Road), and Zone 4 (southern tip of adjacent to Tanforan Avenue) of the SFO ALUCP. The Specific Plan area is not located within a designated fire hazard zone. 34 3.9.2 Discussion The 2040 General Plan EIR concluded that buildout of the General Plan would result in less than significant impacts with regard to hazards and hazardous materials. a. The proposed Specific Plan calls for a reduction in services and industrial uses compared to existing conditions, however, plans for an increase in office/research and development uses compared to existing conditions and what was planned in the 2040 General Plan (refer to Table 2.2-1). Future development under the Specific Plan could involve the routine use, transportation, and disposal of hazardous materials, mainly in the MIH, MI, and B&PO land use designations. These land use designations are in the southeastern half of the Specific Plan area where there are existing industrial uses with pre-existing routine transport of hazardous materials. In addition, during construction activities of any redevelopment within the Specific Plan area, limited amounts of hazardous materials (i.e., fuels, solvents, paints) would be used and transported to development sites. Per the City’s Municipal Code Section 20.300.010, future development under the Specific Plan would be required to comply with the provisions of the California Hazardous Materials Regulations and the California Fire and Building Code as well as the laws and regulations of the DTSC and the County Environmental Health Agency regarding the use, handling, storage, and transportation of hazardous and extremely hazardous materials. The City would also implement General Plan Policy CHEJ-4.4, which requires the City to maintain an up-to-date truck routes map that minimizes exposures to sensitive land uses from vehicles carrying hazardous materials and toxic waste, Policy CR-7.2, which requires the City to cooperate with federal, State, and County agencies to effectively regulate the management of hazardous materials and hazardous waste, Policy CR-7.3, which requires the City to assess the use of hazardous materials as part of a development’s environmental review, and Policy CHEJ-4.5, which prohibits new nonresidential uses that are known to release or emit toxic waste at levels that are harmful to human health.35 For these reasons, future development under the 34 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). “Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer”. Accessed June 28, 2023. http://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/. 35 Policy CHEJ-4.4: Maintain map of hazardous materials transport route. Maintain an up-to-date truck routes map that minimizes exposures to sensitive land uses from vehicles carrying hazardous materials and toxic waste. Policy CR-7.2: Coordinate hazardous material regulation and management. Continue to cooperate with federal, State, and County agencies to effectively regulate the management of hazardous materials and hazardous waste. Policy CR-7.3: Assess hazardous materials management during development review. Assess the use of hazardous materials as part of a development’s environmental review and/or include the development of a hazardous management and disposal plan, as a condition of project approval, subject to review by the San Mateo County Health Department. Policy CHEJ-4.5: Establish land use restrictions on new toxic wastes. Prohibit new nonresidential uses that are 181 Lindenville Specific Plan 88 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 Specific Plan, through compliance with the City’s Municipal Code and General Plan Policies, would result in the same less than significant impact as disclosed in the 2040 General Plan EIR. b, d. The Specific Plan area is currently developed with buildings that could contain ACMs, LBP, and PCBs given their age. Future development under the Specific Plan would disturb and potentially release these materials into the environment during demolition activities. Future development under the Specific Plan would be required to comply with local, state, and federal laws, which require surveys be completed by a qualified professional to determine the presence of ACMs, LBP, and PCBs on the structures proposed for alteration or demolition and their appropriate disposal, if present. Thus, impacts from ACMs, LBP, and PCBs would be reduced to a less than significant level, as described on the 2040 General Plan EIR The Specific Plan area contains two active voluntary cleanup sites and multiple LUST cases, which are listed on hazardous materials lists compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Future construction activity in proximity to these sites may encounter contaminated soils or groundwater. As discussed above under checklist question a, future development under the Specific Plan would be required to comply with City Municipal Code Section 20.300.010 and General Plan Policies, CHEJ-4.4, CR-7.2, CR-7.3, and CHEJ-4.5, which are described above in a to reduce hazardous materials impacts. In addition, future development would be required to comply with General Plan Policy CHEJ-4.2 which requires that contaminated sites are adequately remediated before allowing new development, Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) regarding Cal/OSHA public/worker safety requirements, Title 17 of the CCR regarding asbestos removal, and Title 22 of the CCR regarding contaminated soil excavation.36 With compliance of existing regulations (including General Plan policies and Municipal Code) as identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR and described above, future development in the Specific Plan area would have a less than significant impact with respect to development on a location listed on a hazardous materials site and possible emission of hazardous materials into the environment. For this reason, the Specific Plan would result in the same less than significant impact as disclosed in the 2040 General Plan EIR. c. There are no schools located within the Specific Plan area; however, South San Francisco High School and Los Cerritos Elementary School are within 0.25-mile from the western boundary of the Specific Plan area, with South San Francisco High School being closer to the Specific Plan area. Within 0.25 mile from South San Francisco High School, the Specific Plan proposes to increase the mixed-use density allowed on the west side of the Specific Plan area closest to the school, and reduce the maximum industrial density allowed and remove residential as an allowed use on the south side of Victory Avenue. As discussed under checklist questions a, b, and d above, future development would comply with all federal, state, and local regulations (including General Plan policies and Municipal Code) regarding hazardous waste. In addition, as discussed in the 2040 General Plan EIR, the South San Francisco Fire Department (SSFFD) and City Building Division would coordinate review of building permits to ensure hazardous materials requirements are met prior to construction, known to release or emit toxic waste at levels that are harmful to human health while continuing to allow life science, research and development, medical, and other necessary services such as dry cleaners. 36 Policy CHEJ-4.2: Require remediation before development. Require that contaminated sites are adequately remediated before allowing new development. 182 Lindenville Specific Plan 89 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 including required separation between hazardous materials and sensitive land uses and proper hazardous materials storage facilities.37 Future development under the Specific Plan would be subject to the City’s development review process and would comply with the same regulations and requirements identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR. Based on the above discussion, the Specific Plan would result in the same less than significant impact to existing and future schools as disclosed in the 2040 General Plan EIR. e. The Specific Plan is located within the AIA for SFO. Future development projects under the Specific Plan would be required to comply with existing FAA regulations and the SFO ALUCP. In addition, Chapter 3.3 Land Use of the Specific Plan requires standards to adhere to the land use restrictions in the ALUCP safety zones. Chapter 3.5 Height Standards of the Specific Plan regulates building heights within the Specific Plan area and limits building heights according to the FAA regulations and the ALUCP critical aeronautical surface requirements. Compliance with these regulations, polices, and standards, including the obtainment of a Determination of No Hazard when required under FAA Part 77 regulations, would ensure that potential impacts on airport safety operations for SFO are less than significant. This is the same impact as disclosed in the 2040 General Plan EIR. f. Future development under that Specific Plan would result in 2 additional residents and 252 additional employees in the Specific Plan area compared to the 2040 General Plan, which could increase the demand for emergency response services and evacuation routes. However, as further discussed in Section 3.14 Public Services, the incremental increase in service population is not considered substantial and would not require additional public services than what was identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR. In addition, the 2040 General Plan contains Policy CR-1.6, which requires the City to strengthen emergency management capacity and coordination with the San Mateo County Emergency Operations Center (EOC), and Policy CR-1.7, which requires the City to expand the reach of the Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) program to strengthen community cohesion and emergency preparedness through community engagement efforts. In addition, the San Mateo County Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) is reviewed and updated on a regular basis; thus, the EOP can be modified to reflect the development allowed under the Specific Plan area. The 2040 General Plan EIR concluded that consistency with the above General Plan policies would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Since the proposed Specific Plan would not substantially change the buildout of the 2040 General Plan, the Specific Plan would result in the same less than significant impact to emergency response and evacuation plans as disclosed in the 2040 General Plan EIR. g. The Specific Plan area is located within an urban area of the City and is not located within a designated State Responsibility Area (SRA) or a Local Responsibility Area (LRA) Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ); thus, there would be no wildland fire impact.38 This is the same impact as disclosed in the 2040 General Plan EIR. 37 City of South San Francisco. Draft Program Environmental Impact Report General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California. SCH#2021020064. June 24, 2022. Page 3.8-29. 38 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). “Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer”. Accessed June 28, 2023. http://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/. 183 Lindenville Specific Plan 90 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 3.9.3 Conclusion The proposed project would not result in a new significant hazardous materials impact or a substantial increase in the severity of the impacts disclosed in the 2040 General Plan EIR. 184 Lindenville Specific Plan 91 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 3.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Environmental Issue Area A. Where Impact Was Analyzed in Prior Environmental Documents. B. Do Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? C. Any New Circumstances Involving New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? D. Any New Information of Substantial Importance Requiring New Analysis or Verification? E. Prior Environmental Documents Mitigations Implemented or Mitigations Address Impacts. Would the project: a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? 2040 General Plan EIR pp. 3.9-27 to 3.9- 31 No No No N/A b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? 2040 General Plan EIR pp. 3.9-31 to 3.9- 33 No No No N/A c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: i. result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; ii. substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site; iii. create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or iv. impede or redirect flood flows? 2040 General Plan EIR pp. 3.9-33 to 3.9-37 No No No N/A 185 Lindenville Specific Plan 92 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 Environmental Issue Area A. Where Impact Was Analyzed in Prior Environmental Documents. B. Do Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? C. Any New Circumstances Involving New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? D. Any New Information of Substantial Importance Requiring New Analysis or Verification? E. Prior Environmental Documents Mitigations Implemented or Mitigations Address Impacts. Would the project: d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? 2040 General Plan EIR pp. 3.9-38 to 3.9-40 No No No N/A e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? 2040 General Plan EIR pp. 3.9-40 to 3.9-41 No No No N/A 3.10.1 Existing Setting The existing hydrology and water quality setting, including regulatory framework, has not substantially changed since the certification of the 2040 General Plan EIR. The Specific Plan area is located within the Colma Creek watershed, which drains into San Francisco Bay, and is located within the boundaries of the Westside Groundwater Basin. The elevation at the Specific Plan area ranges from approximately 30 feet above mean sea level (amsl) on the western edge of the Specific Plan area, to five feet amsl in the southeast corner of the Specific Plan area. The Specific Plan area is located within several flood hazard zones, with Colma Creek within flood hazard zone A, and parts of the eastern portion of the Specific Plan area within flood hazard zone AE. Both flood hazard zone A and AE are 100-year flood, or 1 percent annual chance, flood zones.39 Additional areas within the Specific Plan east of the Caltrain tracks are within the 0.2 percent chance annual flood zones.40 The Specific Plan area is not located within a tsunami inundation zone.41 The Specific Plan area is primarily developed with industrial and commercial uses, with limited amounts of landscaping and open space. As such, the majority of the Specific Plan area is covered with impervious surfaces. 3.10.2 Discussion The 2040 General Plan EIR concluded that the buildout of the 2040 General Plan would result in less than significant impacts to hydrology and water quality. 39 Federal Emergency Management Agency. “FEMA Flood Map Service Center”. April 5, 2019. Accessed August 15, 2023. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=south%20san%20francisco%2C%20ca. 40 Ibid. 41 City of South San Francisco. Draft Program Environmental Impact Report General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California. SCH#2021020064. June 24, 2022. Exhibit 3.9-4. 186 Lindenville Specific Plan 93 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 a. As discussed in the 2040 General Plan EIR, buildout of the General Plan would require excavation, grading, and potentially dewatering of sites, which could result in sediment and other pollutants being transported from active construction sites to nearby creeks, marshes, and the Bay through soil erosion, wind-blown dust, and stormwater runoff. The 2040 General Plan EIR concluded that future development under the General Plan, in compliance with City and Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements (which include compliance with the statewide NPDES General Construction Permit, implementation of stormwater control BMPs, and implementation of construction sediment and erosion control plans), would reduce water quality impacts during construction activities to a less than significant level. While the proposed Specific Plan would incrementally increase growth within the Specific Plan area compared to what was assumed in the 2040 General Plan EIR (the 2040 General Plan would allow a buildout of 5,580 residential units and 9,799,668 square feet of non-residential development within the Lindenville Specific Plan area, while the proposed Specific Plan would increase the residential buildout by 1 dwelling unit and non- residential buildout by 308,932 square feet), the growth would be in the form of intensification to the same areas already planned for redevelopment, and would also be subject to the same regulations, standards, and guidelines identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR to reduce construction water quality impacts, the proposed Specific Plan would result in the same less than significant impact as disclosed in the 2040 General Plan EIR. The 2040 General Plan EIR also discussed how post-construction water quality impacts could occur from new development. The 2040 General Plan EIR concluded that future development, in compliance with the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit Provision C.3 requirements, General Plan policies, and the City’s Municipal Code (which include Low Impact Development [LID] requirements, stormwater control BMPs, hydromodification management, and site design measures), would ensure new development would not result in significant post-construction water quality impacts. In addition, the Specific Plan proposes to integrate blue-green infrastructure into parks and open space, such as regenerative landscapes, green streets, and urban forest, as a stormwater management strategy. The proposed Specific Plan also includes Policy I-4.1, which promotes green infrastructure to reduce runoff and increase infiltration, Policy I-4.2, which promotes stormwater enhancements within public right-of-way (ROW), and Policy I-4.3, which incentivizes LID strategies.42 Since future development under the proposed Specific Plan would be subject to the same regulations, standards, and guidelines identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR to reduce post- construction water quality impacts and includes additional stormwater management policies as part of the Specific Plan, the proposed Specific Plan would result in the same less than significant impact as disclosed in the 2040 General Plan EIR. b. The 2040 General Plan EIR concluded that buildout of the General Plan could increase impervious surfaces within the City and increase demand for water, which could lead to an increase in groundwater pumping. The 2040 General Plan EIR concluded that future development, in compliance with the City’s Municipal Code and General Plan polices, would not deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge. The proposed uses in the Specific Plan area would not extract groundwater for irrigation or drinking purposes and any temporary dewatering during construction would not extract quantities that would deplete groundwater aquifers. In addition, the proposed Specific Plan would add 43.7 acres of parks and open space with blue-green infrastructure, which would increase the amount of pervious surfaces within the Specific Plan area 187 Lindenville Specific Plan 94 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 and increase infiltration compared to existing conditions. Since the proposed Specific Plan would increase pervious surfaces and is consistent with the analysis in the 2040 General Plan EIR, the Specific Plan would result in in the same less than significant impact as disclosed in the 2040 General Plan EIR. c. The 2040 General Plan EIR concluded that buildout of the General Plan would contribute runoff to the storm drain system serving the City and include development within Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) designated 100-year flood zones. The 2040 General Plan EIR concluded that future development, in compliance with General Plan polices and the City Municipal Code, would ensure new development does not cause exceedances in the storm drain system and would reduce the risks of flooding to a less than significant level. The proposed Specific Plan would redevelop an existing urban area that is currently developed with industrial uses. The redevelopment of the Specific Plan area would not alter the drainage pattern of the area and would result in a decrease in impervious surface area given the inclusion of 43.7 acres of parks and open space and the current state, regional, and local regulations requiring development to manage stormwater (as discussed in checklist question a above). In addition, as discussed in Section 2.2.2.5 Infrastructure, the proposed Specific Plan includes blue-green infrastructure such as bioretention cells, rain gardens, bioretention basins, and floodable parks to reduce surface runoff and flooding impacts (see Figure 2.2-13). The City’s Storm Drain Master Plan also includes planned storm drain capital improvements within the Specific Plan area (see Table 2.2-10) to increase the capacity of the storm drain system. Since the proposed Specific Plan is fundamentally consistent with the General Plan and would include blue-green infrastructure to reduce surface runoff, the proposed Specific Plan would result in the same less than significant impact to storm drainage system capacity, drainage patterns, and water quality from runoff as disclosed in the 2040 General Plan EIR. d. As discussed in the 2040 General Plan EIR, parts of the City could be affected by tsunamis, flooding, and sea level rise that could potentially lead to a release of pollutants. The 2040 General Plan EIR, however, concluded that future development, in compliance with the City’s Municipal Code and General Plan policies, would not result in a release of pollutants due to a tsunami, sea level rise, or flooding. The Specific Plan area is not located within a tsunami or seiche hazard zone; however, certain areas along Colma Creek and in the western portions of the Specific Plan area are located within a FEMA designated 100-year flood zone.43 In addition, the proposed Specific Plan identified additional areas subject to flooding due to sea level rise (see Figure 46 of Appendix A). As discussed under checklist question c, the proposed Specific Plan includes blue-green infrastructure such as bioretention cells, rain gardens, bioretention basins, and floodable parks and the City’s Storm Drain Master Plan includes planned upgrades to the storm drain system within the Specific Plan area. Further, as discussed in Section 3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials under checklist question a, compliance with the City’s Municipal Code and General Plan Policies would ensure the proper storage and use of hazardous materials to ensure appropriate containment to prevent spills. Since the proposed Specific Plan is fundamentally consistent with the 2040 General Plan, would include blue-green infrastructure, and construct planned storm drain system improvements per the Storm Drain Master 43 City of South San Francisco. Draft Program Environmental Impact Report General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California. SCH#2021020064. June 24, 2022. Exhibit 3.9-2. 188 Lindenville Specific Plan 95 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 Plan, the proposed Specific Plan would not result in release of pollutants from flooding, seiche, or tsunamis. This is the same impact as disclosed in the 2040 General Plan EIR. e. The 2040 General Plan EIR concluded that buildout of the 2040 General Plan could increase impervious surfaces within the City and increase demand for water, which could lead to increased groundwater pumping and conflict with an adopted groundwater management plan. The 2040 General Plan EIR, however, concluded that compliance with the City’s Municipal Code and General Plan polices would ensure buildout of the 2040 General Plan would not conflict with groundwater management plans. The Specific Plan area is located within the Westside Groundwater Basin, which is managed by the California Water Service Company (Cal Water) 2020 Urban Water Management Plan and the South Westside Basin Groundwater Management Plan. There are no recharge facilities, pump plants, or drinking water treatment plants within the Specific Plan area. In addition, as discussed under checklist question b, the proposed Specific Plan would increase pervious surfaces through the provision of 43.7 acres of parks and open space and compliance with state, regional, and local stormwater regulations, further increasing infiltration and recharging of groundwater. Thus, the proposed Specific Plan would not conflict with a groundwater management plan. This is the same impact as disclosed in the 2040 General Plan EIR. 3.10.3 Conclusion The proposed project would not result in a new significant hydrology and water quality impact or a substantial increase in the severity of the impacts disclosed in the 2040 General Plan EIR. 189 Lindenville Specific Plan 96 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 3.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING Environmental Issue Area A. Where Impact Was Analyzed in Prior Environmental Documents. B. Do Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? C. Any New Circumstances Involving New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? D. Any New Information of Substantial Importance Requiring New Analysis or Verification? E. Prior Environmental Documents Mitigations Implemented or Mitigations Address Impacts. Would the project: a. Physically divide an established community? 2040 General Plan EIR pp. 3.10-15 to 3.10-17 No No No N/A b. Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 2040 General Plan EIR pp. 3.10-18 to 3.10-21 No No No N/A 3.11.1 Existing Setting The existing land use setting, including regulatory framework, has not substantially changed since the certification of the 2040 General Plan EIR. The Specific Plan area is developed with predominantly industrial uses, and surrounded by residential development to the north and west, commercial/office/retail to the west, residential/commercial/industrial to the south, and industrial/commercial to the east, as shown on Figure 2.1-3. 3.11.2 Discussion The 2040 General Plan EIR concluded that buildout of the 2040 General Plan would result in less than significant land use impacts. a. The Specific Plan does not involve infrastructure components, such as highways or railways, that would physically divide an existing community. The proposed Specific Plan includes new roadways and multimodal improvements that would improve connections within the Specific Plan area, as shown on Figure 2.2-6, Figure 2.2-7, and Figure 2.2-8. The Specific Plan would not physically divide an established community and would result in the same less than significant impact as what was identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR. b. The 2040 General Plan EIR concluded that the 2040 General Plan incorporates standards and guidelines to minimize environmental impacts of future development. While the Specific Plan would change the land uses and density of select parcels, as described in Section 2.2 Project Description and shown on Table 2.2-4 and Figure 2.2-3, the Specific Plan would place residential growth on the northwestern portion of the Specific Plan area adjacent to existing residential uses and keeping industrial uses in the southeastern portion of the Specific Plan area east of the Caltrain railroad closer to US 101, SFO, and industrial uses east of the Specific Plan area. Specific Plan Chapter 4.6 190 Lindenville Specific Plan 97 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 Environmental Effects includes standards for requiring environmental site assessments for development projects and to clean up any contamination under regulatory oversight. Chapter 3.5 Heights regulates building heights within the Specific Plan to ensure compliance with the FAA regulations and SFO ALUCP to prevent aircraft hazard. Chapter 3.3 Land Use prohibits existing nonconforming industrial uses from including new industrial uses with a potential to impact surrounding properties with noise, odors, or light. Chapter 3.7 Arts and Makers includes standards for prohibiting excessive odor, fumes, dust, light, glare, noise, or other similar impacts extending beyond the property line. Future development would be subject to applicable federal, state, regional, and local regulations related to environmental protection and require subsequent project-level environmental review to identify project-specific environmental impacts and mitigation measures to reduce its impacts. 3.11.3 Conclusion The proposed project would not result in a new significant land use impact or a substantial increase in the severity of the impacts disclosed in the 2040 General Plan EIR. 191 Lindenville Specific Plan 98 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 3.12 NOISE AND VIBRATION Environmental Issue Area A. Where Impact Was Analyzed in Prior Environmental Documents. B. Do Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? C. Any New Circumstances Involving New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? D. Any New Information of Substantial Importance Requiring New Analysis or Verification? E. Prior Environmental Documents Mitigations Implemented or Mitigations Address Impacts. Would the project result in: a. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? 2040 General Plan EIR pp. 3.11-24 to 3.11-32 No No No MM NOI-1 b. Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? 2040 General Plan EIR pp. 3.11-32 to 3.11-34 No No No N/A c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 2040 General Plan EIR pp. 3.11-34 to 3.11-36 No No No MM NOI-3 3.12.1 Existing Setting The existing noise and vibration setting, including regulatory framework, has not substantially changed since the certification of the 2040 General Plan EIR. The Specific Plan area is predominantly developed with industrial uses and surrounded by residential development to the north and northwest, commercial/office to the west, residential / commercial/ industrial to the south, and industrial/commercial to the east, as shown on Figure 2.1-3. Existing noise sources in the Specific Plan area and its surrounding area are primarily from vehicles traveling on the roadways, Caltrain operation, and aircraft noise from SFO. According to the 2040 General Plan EIR, the Caltrain railroad, US 101, I-380, and El Camino Real are roadways in the project area that generate noise levels above 65 A-weighted sound level (dBA) Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). Therefore, all other roadways in the project area have noise levels no more than 65 dBA. 192 Lindenville Specific Plan 99 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 Portions of the southern part of Specific Plan area are subject to elevated noise levels, including areas in the 65 to 70 dBA CNEL contour, the 70 to 75 dBA CNEL contours, and the tip of the southernmost corner of the Specific Plan area is in the 75 dB or greater CNEL contour. Sensitive noise receptors adjacent to the Specific Plan area include the residential development 50 feet to the north across Railroad Avenue, immediately adjacent to the western Specific Plan area boundary and across Centennial Way Trail, and 40 feet to the south across Tanforan Avenue. 3.12.2 Discussion a. The Specific Plan would allow future development within the Specific Plan area that slightly exceeds planned growth from the 2040 General Plan, which would allow a buildout of 5,580 residential units and 9,799,668 square feet of non-residential development within the Specific Plan area. Compared to the 2040 General Plan buildout, the proposed Specific Plan would increase the residential buildout by 1 dwelling unit and non-residential buildout by 308,932 square feet. Future development under the Specific Plan would generate noise from construction activities, traffic, and development operational activities. The temporary and permanent noise impacts of the Specific Plan are described below. Construction Activities Noise impacts from construction activities vary depending on the noise generated by the construction equipment, equipment location, distance to and sensitivity of nearby land uses, timing, and duration of construction activities. Construction of future development under the Specific Plan could expose nearby sensitive receptors to excessive noise levels. The City does not have adopted numeric thresholds of significance for construction noise. Construction noise is typically considered temporary in nature, intermittent, and a normal part of living in a developed, urban area. However, the City has adopted mandatory requirements in the Municipal Code and 2040 General Plan to ensure construction noise associated with the 2040 General Plan would be less than significant. Municipal Code Section 8.32.050 regulates the time when construction activities may occur, limiting such activities to the period between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on weekdays, on Saturdays between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., and on Sundays and holidays between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. or when authorized by a permit. According to Section 8.32.060 of the Municipal Code, an exception may be granted to these hours only if an application for construction-related exception is made to and considered by the City Manager or the City Manager’s designee. Section 8.32.050 of the Municipal Code is applied to all construction permits and compliance is mandatory and is monitored by City grading and building department personnel and is also monitored and addressed through reporting by members of the public when construction hours are not being observed. Furthermore, General Plan Policy 1-2 requires enforcement of the City’s Noise Ordinance noise performance standards. In addition, the Actions of Policy 1-2 include the requirement to restrict construction activities to acceptable time periods and to consider constructing temporary sound walls surrounding construction sites during construction. These City regulations would ensure construction noise would not occur during acceptable time periods. Compliance with mandatory requirements of the Municipal Code and General Plan policies would ensure that construction noise impacts from the Specific Plan would result in the same less than significant impact as what was identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR. 193 Lindenville Specific Plan 100 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 Traffic Based on the 2040 General Plan Land Use/Noise Compatibility guidelines, noise environments with noise levels of up to 65 dBA CNEL are considered normally acceptable for residential, industrial, commercial, open space, and school uses. Based on Municipal Code Chapter 20.300 Lot and Development Standards, noise environments with noise levels of 65 to 70 dBA CNEL are considered conditionally acceptable for residential and school uses. Based on the 2040 General Plan EIR, a significant traffic noise impact would occur if the 2040 General Plan would cause the CNEL to increase by any of the following: • 5 dBA or more even if the CNEL would remain below normally acceptable levels for a receiving land use. • 3 dBA or more, thereby causing the CNEL in the vicinity of the proposed project to exceed normally acceptable levels and result in noise levels that would be considered conditionally acceptable for a receiving land use. • 1.5 dBA or more where the CNEL currently exceeds conditionally acceptable levels. As summarized in Table 2.2-3 in Section 2.2 Project Description, the Specific Plan buildout would result in a total population of 11,775 residents and 23,366 employees, which would increase the population by 2 residents and employment by 252 employees compared to the 2040 General Plan buildout assumed within the Specific Plan area. In addition, the Specific Plan proposes roadway improvements to provide additional connectivity within the Specific Plan area, as shown on Figure 2.2-6. Since local roadways within and adjacent to the Specific Plan area do not have noise over 70 dBA (exceeding the conditionally acceptable noise level for the most noise sensitive land uses), the 1.5 dBA or more threshold would not apply to these roadways. The 2040 General Plan EIR identified that buildout of the 2040 General Plan would increase traffic noise levels in certain roadways and reduce noise levels in other roadways. The highest noise increase of 1.7 dBA was identified along Grand Avenue from Linden Avenue to Airport Boulevard, resulting in a noise level increase to 61.9 dBA CNEL in 2040 conditions, which did not exceed the applicable 5 dBA increase threshold, used for roadways that were already below 65 dBA. Based on a review of traffic volumes in the Specific Plan area and its surroundings, buildout of the land uses and development expected within the Specific Plan would reduce traffic volumes on Railroad Avenue, South Spruce Avenue, Maple Avenue, Huntington Avenue, and Airport Boulevard, compared to the 2040 General Plan buildout.44 These changes, therefore, would not result in greater impacts, i.e. noise levels in excess of what was identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR. Compared to the 2040 General Plan buildout, the Specific Plan would increase traffic volumes on South Linden Avenue, Mayfair Avenue, Myrtle Avenue, and Tanforan Avenue, however, these increases would not double the volumes at these roadways compared to the 2040 General Plan buildout condition and would not result in a 3 dBA noise increase. For these reasons, the Specific Plan would result in the same less than significant traffic noise impact disclosed in the 2040 General Plan EIR. 44 Traffic volumes of the 2040 General Plan buildout and proposed Specific Plan buildouts are provided by Fehr & Peers. 194 Lindenville Specific Plan 101 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 Operational Activities A significant operational noise impact would occur if the noise levels generated by stationary noise sources at development projects under the Specific Plan would exceed the following noise performance standards: • Residential: 60 dBA maximum dBA (Lmax) between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. and 50 dBA Lmax between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. • Light Industrial: 60 dBA Lmax between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. and 55 dBA Lmax between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. • Business Park: 65 dBA Lmax between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. and 60 dBA Lmax between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Future development under the Specific Plan would include new stationary noise sources such as parking lot activities, loading/unloading activities, standby/backup emergency generators, and mechanical ventilation system equipment, which could exceed the noise performance standards described above, including noise-sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the Specific Plan area. As described in the 2040 General Plan EIR, typical parking lot activities include people conversing, doors shutting, and vehicles idling which could generate noise levels ranging from approximately 60 dBA to 70 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 feet. Typical maximum noise levels from truck loading and unloading activities could range from 70 dBA to 80 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 feet. Typical rooftop mechanical equipment noise levels could range from 50 dBA to 60 dBA Leq at a distance of 25 feet. Typical standby/backup emergency generators noise levels are approximately 90 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. These operational noise levels could exceed the City’s noise performance thresholds at adjacent land uses. The 2040 General Plan EIR identified mitigation measure MM NOI-1 to reduce operational noise impacts to a less than significant level. 2040 General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure MM NOI-1: Operational Noise Reduction Plan Prior to issuance of building permits, the project applicant or sponsor shall implement the following measures to limit on-site operational stationary noise source impacts: • Any proposed development projects that include parking areas, terminals, or loading docks of commercial or industrial land uses within 300-feet of a residential receptor shall demonstrate compliance with Policies NOI-1.1 and NOI-1.2 of the City’s Noise Element by submitting a final acoustical report prepared to the satisfaction of the Planning Division that identifies design measures to adequately minimize the potential noise impacts of vehicles on the site to adjacent land uses. The report must be approved by the Planning Division prior to issuance of building permits. 195 Lindenville Specific Plan 102 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 • For any future development project that would include exterior mechanical systems (such as mechanical ventilation systems) within 50 feet of a residential receptor, the project applicant or sponsor shall submit a final acoustical report prepared to the satisfaction of the Planning Division that demonstrates compliance of the project with Policies NOI- 1.1 and NOI-1.2 of the City’s Noise Element. Noise reduction design features may include, but are not limited to, locating stationary noise sources on the site to be shielded by structures (buildings, enclosures, or sound walls) or by using equipment that has a quieter rating. The report must be approved by the Planning Division prior to issuance of building permits. Future development under the Specific Plan that fell within the distance requirements to sensitive receptors contained in MM NOI-1 would be required to implement MM NOI-1 by preparing a noise study to identify noise levels as a result of the project and identify design measures to reduce the noise levels below the applicable performance thresholds. For these reasons, the Specific Plan would result in the same less than significant operational noise impacts as identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR. b. Future development under the Specific Plan could result in short-term vibration impacts during construction activities, and depending on the equipment used, could exceed the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) damage threshold criteria of 0.12 in/sec peak particle velocity (PPV). The 2040 General Plan includes policies to ensure that construction vibration impacts associated with future development under the 2040 General Plan would be less than significant. General Plan Policy NOI-2.1 requires a vibration impact analysis for any construction activities, located within 100-feet of residential or sensitive receptors that require the use of pile driving or other construction methods that have the potential to produce high groundborne vibration levels. Policy NOI-3.1 requires vibration impact analysis for historic structure protection for construction activities within 150 feet of historic structures. Compliance with these standards is also reiterated in Municipal Code Section 20.300.009. A site-specific analyses would identify measures needed to reduce vibration levels below FTA’s threshold, such as setback requirement, use of alternate construction methods, or pre-emptive trenching to interrupt groundborne vibration transmission. These policies are applied to all construction permits and compliance is mandatory and monitored by City grading and building department personnel to ensure vibration levels do not exceed FTA’s threshold. Therefore, compliance with General Plan Policies NOI-2.1 and NOI-3.1 and Municipal Code 20.300.009 would result in the same less than significant impact as identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR. Operations that generate vibration within the City are primarily from rail activities from the Caltrain rail tracks. The Specific Plan does not propose modifying the Caltrain rail tracks within the Specific Plan area or propose vibration-generating operations. Compared to the 2040 General Plan, the Specific Plan proposes to change the land use designations along the Caltrain train tracks by reducing the residential density allowed on the west side (see IDs #3 and 4 shown on Table 2.2-4 and Figure 2.2-3) and changing residential as an allowed use to industrial (see ID #6 shown on Table 2.2-4 and Figure 2.2-3). Groundborne vibration from rail activity could result in levels of annoyance or 196 Lindenville Specific Plan 103 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 disturbance for residential type land uses located within 200 feet of existing rail lines within the City. The residential uses on the west side of the Specific Plan would be within 200 feet of the Caltrain train tracks. As identified in the 2040 General Plan, Policy NOI-2.2 requires that a vibration impact analysis be prepared for new land use developments located within 200 feet of an existing rail line, which would ensure groundborne vibration impacts are minimized to acceptable levels. For these reasons, the Specific Plan would result in the same less than significant operational vibration impact as identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR. c. Same as the 2040 General Plan, the Specific Plan does not propose changes to the operation of SFO, and therefore, would not result in changes to the geographic extent and location of the 65 dBA CNEL airport noise contours. Within the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour area, the Specific Plan would change the land use designation of select areas from Mixed Industrial to Medium Density Mixed Use (see ID #15 on Table 2.2-4 and Figure 2.2-3), Industrial Transition Zone to Mixed Industrial (see ID #11 on Table 2.2-4 and Figure 2.2-3), Mixed Industrial High to Mixed Industrial (see ID #10 on Table 2.2-4 and Figure 2.2-3), and High Density Mixed Use to Business and Professional Office (see ID #12 on Table 2.2-4 and Figure 2.2-3). These changes, however, would continue to allow residential, industrial, and office uses within the 65 to 70 dBA CNEL airport noise contours as currently allowed under the 2040 General Plan. These land uses could experience noise levels exceeding the City’s noise/land use compatibility standards. The 2040 General Plan EIR identified mitigation measure MM NOI-3 required for future development to reduce noise effects of aircraft noise to meet the City’s noise/land use compatibility standards. 2040 General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure MM NOI-3 Airport Noise Impact Reduction Plan Prior to issuance of building permits, the project applicant or sponsor of proposed development projects shall implement the following measures to limit airport activity noise source impacts: • Any proposed residential development project or any hotel, motel, or transient lodging land use development project, that would be located within the San Francisco International Airport (SFO) 65 A-weighted decibel (dBA) Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) noise contours, shall demonstrate compliance with Policies NOI-1.1 and NOI- 1.2 of the City’s Noise Element by submitting a final acoustical report prepared to the satisfaction of the Planning Division that identifies design measures to adequately minimize airport activity noise levels to meet the interior noise level standards shown in Table 11 of the Noise Element. Outdoor active use space must also comply with the exterior noise standards of Table 11 of the Noise Element or must be excluded from such projects. The report must be approved by the Planning Division prior to issuance of building permits. • Any proposed commercial development project that would be located within the SFO 70 dBA CNEL noise contours shall demonstrate 197 Lindenville Specific Plan 104 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 compliance with Policies NOI-1.1 and NOI-1.2 of the City’s Noise Element by submitting a final acoustical report prepared to the satisfaction of the Planning Division that identifies design measures to adequately minimize airport activity noise levels to meet the interior noise level standards shown in Table 11 of the Noise Element. The report must be approved by the Planning Division prior to issuance of building permits. • Any proposed institutional or public facility development project that would be located within the SFO 65 dBA CNEL noise contours shall demonstrate compliance with Policies NOI-1.1 and NOI-1.2 of the City’s Noise Element by submitting a final acoustical report prepared to the satisfaction of the Planning Division that identifies design measures to adequately minimize airport activity noise levels to meet the interior noise level standards shown in Table 11 of the Noise Element. Outdoor active use space must also comply with the exterior noise standards of Table 11 of the Noise Element or must be excluded from such projects. The report must be approved by the Planning Division prior to issuance of building permits. With implementation of MM NOI-3, future development under the Specific Plan would not expose people residing or working in the Specific Plan area to excessive aircraft noise levels, and result in the same less than significant impact with mitigation as identified in the 2040 General Plan. 3.12.3 Conclusion The proposed project would not result in a new significant noise and vibration impact or a substantial increase in the severity of the noise and vibration impacts disclosed in the 2040 General Plan EIR. 198 Lindenville Specific Plan 105 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 3.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING Environmental Issue Area A. Where Impact Was Analyzed in Prior Environmental Documents. B. Do Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? C. Any New Circumstances Involving New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? D. Any New Information of Substantial Importance Requiring New Analysis or Verification? E. Prior Environmental Documents Mitigations Implemented or Mitigations Address Impacts. Would the project: a. Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? 2040 General Plan EIR pp. 3.12-19 to 3.12-21 No No No N/A b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 2040 General Plan EIR pp. 3.12-21 to 3.12.22 No No No N/A 3.13.1 Existing Setting The existing population and housing setting, including regulatory framework, has not substantially changed since the certification of the 2040 General Plan EIR. The Specific Plan area currently contains no housing units and has a total of approximately 9,592 employees between the existing commercial, office, and industrial uses. There have been development projects approved but not yet constructed within the Specific Plan area that would add a population of 2,806 residents and 11,217 employees to the Specific Plan area, resulting in a total of 20,809 employees. The 2040 General Plan buildout would result in a total population of 11,773 residents and 23,114 employees within the proposed Specific Plan area. These population and employment scenarios are summarized in Table 2.2-3. 3.13.2 Discussion Based on the 2040 General Plan EIR, the buildout of the 2040 General Plan would result in less than significant impacts with regard to population and housing. a. The Specific Plan area is a sub-area within the City that is developed with predominantly industrial uses and surrounded by urban development. The 2040 General Plan identifies the Lindenville sub- area as one of the major growth areas within the city. Buildout of the Specific Plan area would result in 11,775 new residents and 23,366 employees to the Specific Plan area, resulting in 2 additional residents and 252 additional employees beyond what was assumed in the 2040 General Plan for the Specific Plan area. The increase in population and employment is the result of retaining an additional 25,315 square feet of existing service use and 242,900 square feet of existing industrial use than what 199 Lindenville Specific Plan 106 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 was assumed in the 2040 General Plan, and increasing the planned retail development by 221 square feet, office/research and development by 49,233 square feet, and residential development by 1 dwelling unit, and reducing hotel development by 50 rooms compared to the 2040 General Plan. While the additional net new retail, office/research and development, and residential development would be reallocated from elsewhere within the city (as described in Section 2.2 Project Description), and would not increase the 2040 General Plan buildout for the city, keeping 268,215 square feet of existing development would increase the 2040 General Plan buildout by approximately 0.4 percent, which falls within the margin of error for planned growth for the city and would not lead to growth inducement in the Specific Plan area and the city. 45 The Specific Plan area is urbanized and served by existing roads, public transit, utilities, and public services. As described in Section 2.2 Project Description, the Specific Plan also proposes new roadways and utility improvements; however, these roadways and utility improvements are physically limited to the Specific Plan area and would not increase capacity beyond what is needed to serve the proposed growth or leave an opening for infrastructure connection at undeveloped areas within the city. For these reasons, implementation of the Specific Plan would not contribute to substantial unplanned growth in the city and result in the same less than significant population growth impacts as what was identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR. b. There are no residential units within the Specific Plan area. For this reason, the implementation of the Specific Plan would not displace existing residents or housing and would result in the same less than significant displacement impacts as previously disclosed in the 2040 General Plan EIR. 3.13.3 Conclusion The proposed project would not result in a new significant population and housing impact or a substantial increase in the severity of the population and housing impacts disclosed in the 2040 General Plan EIR. 45 The 2040 General Plan allows for a buildout of 60,193,220 square feet of development. Source: City of South San Francisco. Draft Program Environmental Impact Report General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California. SCH#2021020064. June 24, 2022. Tables 2-5 and Table 2-7. 200 Lindenville Specific Plan 107 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 3.14 PUBLIC SERVICES Environmental Issue Area A. Where Impact Was Analyzed in Prior Environmental Documents. B. Do Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? C. Any New Circumstances Involving New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? D. Any New Information of Substantial Importance Requiring New Analysis or Verification? E. Prior Environmental Documents Mitigations Implemented or Mitigations Address Impacts. 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: a. Fire protection? 2040 General Plan EIR pp. 3.13-22 to 3.13-24 No No No N/A b. Police protection? 2040 General Plan EIR pp. 3.13-24 to 3.13-26 No No No N/A c. Schools? 2040 General Plan EIR pp. 3.13-26 to 3.13-27 No No No N/A d. Parks? 2040 General Plan EIR pp. 3.13-30 to 3.13-32 No No No N/A e. Other public facilities? 2040 General Plan EIR pp. 3.13-27 to 3.13-29 No No No N/A 3.14.1 Existing Setting The existing public services setting, including regulatory framework, has not substantially changed since the certification of the 2040 General Plan EIR. The Specific Plan area is served by the SSFFD. The nearest fire station to the Specific Plan area is Fire Station #61 located at 480 North Canal Street in the northwest portion of the Specific Plan area. Police protection services are provided by the South San Francisco Police Department (SSFPD). The SSFPD has an authorized staff of 84 sworn and 35 civilian positions divided into two Divisions: Operations and Services.46 The SSFFD is headquartered approximately one mile northwest of the Specific Plan area at 1 Chestnut Avenue. 46 City of South San Francisco. “Police Divisions”. Accessed August 1, 2023. https://www.ssf.net/departments/police/divisions. 201 Lindenville Specific Plan 108 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 The Specific Plan is located within the South San Francisco Unified School District (SFFUSD), which provides kindergarten through 12th grade education to residents of the city and portions of Daly City and Brisbane. SSFUSD operates nine elementary schools, four middle schools, and three high schools. There are currently no parks or open space within the Specific Plan area. The nearest park to the Specific Plan area is the Sister Cities Park, located adjacent to the northwest corner of the Specific Plan area, and Orange Memorial Park, located approximately 0.6-mile northwest of the Specific Plan area. Per Chapter 8.67 Parks and Recreation Impact Fee of the Municipal Code, the City has set a standard of three acres of improved parkland per 1,000 residents and 0.5-acres of improved parkland per 1,000 new employees. There are no public libraries within the Specific Plan area. The South San Francisco Public Library is temporarily closed as it moves to the new Parks and Recreation Center (scheduled to open October 2023) located at the northeast corner of Chestnut Avenue and El Camino Real, approximately one mile northwest of the Specific Plan area. 3.14.2 Discussion The 2040 General Plan EIR concluded that the build-out of the 2040 General Plan would result in less than significant impacts with regard to public services. a, b. Buildout of the 2040 General Plan would increase the need for fire suppression, rescue response services, and police protection services, and as concluded in the 2040 General Plan EIR, could result in the need for new or physically altered fire/police facilities in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives. However, no known locations or designs of additional fire/police facilities are known at this time. Any future fire/police facilities would be located on land designated as Public in the General Plan and would undergo separate CEQA environmental review in order to reduce any potential environmental impacts. As discussed in Section 3.13 Public Services, the Specific Plan would retain an additional 25,315 square feet of existing service use and 242,900 square feet of existing industrial use than what was assumed in the 2040 General Plan, and increase the planned retail development by 221 square feet, office/research and development by 49,233 square feet, and residential development by 1 dwelling unit, and reduce hotel development by 50 rooms compared to the 2040 General Plan. The additional net new retail, office/research and development, and residential development would be reallocated from elsewhere within the city (as described in Section 2.2 Project Description) and would not increase the 2040 General Plan buildout for the city, however, keeping 268,215 square feet of existing development would increase the 2040 General Plan buildout by approximately 0.4 percent. The incremental increase of 0.4 percent falls within the margin of error for the City’s planned growth, and therefore, is considered to be consistent with the 2040 General Plan buildout. In addition, future development under the Specific Plan would be constructed to meet current Fire and City Municipal Code standards to increase fire safety and security overall, and would be required to pay public safety impact fees (used to fund SSFFD and SSFPD facilities) per Chapter 8.75 Public Safety Impact Fee of the Municipal Code. In addition, the Specific Plan would comply with General Plan Policy SA-22.7, which requires the City to coordinate with the SSFFD and SSFPD to ensure 202 Lindenville Specific Plan 109 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 public services can accommodate growth impacts of new development in Lindenville.47 For these reasons, the Specific Plan would have the same less than significant impact on fire/police services and facilities as disclosed in the 2040 General Plan EIR. c. The 2040 General Plan EIR concluded that buildout of the 2040 General Plan would not require the construction of new or expansion of existing school facilities. The Specific Plan would result in one additional dwelling unit above what was assumed in the 2040 General Plan buildout. Since 2014, enrollment in SFFUSD has declined year over year. SFFUSD has a maximum capacity of 12,000 students and, in March 2022, had 7,888 students enrolled (65.7 percent capacity).48 Therefore, there would continue to be sufficient capacity at SFFUSD with implementation of the Specific Plan. Furthermore, General Plan Policy SA-22.7 requires the City to coordinate with the SSFUSD to ensure public services can accommodate growth impacts of new development in Lindenville. In addition, future residential development under the Specific Plan would be required to pay school impact fees to offset impacts to local schools. Consistent with state law (Government Code Section 65996) and the 2040 General Plan EIR, payment of fees would reduce impacts to schools to a less than significant level. d. As discussed in the 2040 General Plan EIR, the increases in residents and employees from the implementation of the 2040 General Plan would increase the use and demand for park facilities throughout the City. Per City Municipal Code Chapter 8.67 Parks and Recreation Impact Fee, the City has set a standard of three acres of improved parkland per 1,000 residents and 0.5-acres of improved parkland per 1,000 new employees. The Specific Plan is estimated to increase the City’s population by approximately 11,775 residents and employment by 23,366 employees to the Specific Plan area; thus, to meet the City standards, the Specific Plan would need to provide a total of approximately 47 acres of improved parkland (approximately 35.32 acres of improved parkland to meet the three acres per 1,000 residents standard and approximately 11.68 acres of improved parkland to meet the 0.5-acre per 1,000 employees standard). As discussed in Section 2.3 Project Description, the Specific Plan proposes a total of 43.7 acres of parks and open space. These parks and open space would help offset the demand on park land by future residents and employees in the Specific Plan area. For the remaining 3.3 acres of open space needed to meet the City’s parkland standards, future development under the Specific Plan would be required to pay the park recreation impact fee, per City Municipal Code Chapter 8.67 to offset the recreational impacts. For these reasons buildout of the Specific Plan would result in the same less than significant impact as identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR. e. Buildout of the 2040 General Plan would increase demand for library services as described in the 2040 General Plan EIR. The 2040 General Plan EIR concluded that buildout of the 2040 General Plan could result in the need for additional library facilities; however, no known locations or designs 47 General Plan Policy SA-22.7: Adequate public services in Lindenville. Coordinate with the South San Francisco Unified School District and City public services, including the Fire Department and the Police Department, to ensure public services can accommodate growth impacts of this new development in Lindenville. 48 City of South San Francisco. Draft Program Environmental Impact Report General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California. SCH#2021020064. June 24, 2022. Page 3.13-7. 203 Lindenville Specific Plan 110 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 of additional library facilities are known at this time. Any future library facilities would be located on land designated as Public in the 2040 General Plan and would undergo separate CEQA environmental review in order to reduce any potential environmental impacts. In addition, future development projects are required to pay a library impact fee, per City Municipal Code Chapter 8.74 Library Impact Fee, which helps finance library facilities. As discussed under checklist questions a and b, the Specific Plan would not increase the population of the 2040 General Plan buildout; therefore, the Specific Plan would result in the same less than significant impact to library facilities as disclosed in the 2040 General Plan EIR. 3.14.3 Conclusion The proposed project would not result in a new significant public services impact or a substantial increase in the severity of the public services impacts disclosed in the 2040 General Plan EIR. 204 Lindenville Specific Plan 111 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 3.15 RECREATION Environmental Issue Area A. Where Impact Was Analyzed in Prior Environmental Documents. B. Do Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? C. Any New Circumstances Involving New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? D. Any New Information of Substantial Importance Requiring New Analysis or Verification? E. Prior Environmental Documents Mitigations Implemented or Mitigations Address Impacts. a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? 2040 General Plan EIR pp. 3.13-30 to 3.13-31 No No No N/A b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 2040 General Plan EIR pp. 3.13-31 to 3.13-32 No No No N/A 3.15.1 Existing Setting The existing recreational setting, including regulatory framework, has not substantially changed since the certification of the 2040 General Plan EIR. As described in Section 3.14 Public Services, there are currently no parks or open space within the Specific Plan area. The nearest park to the Specific Plan area is the Sister Cities Park, located adjacent to the northwest corner of the Specific Plan area, and Orange Memorial Park, located approximately 0.6-mile northwest of the Specific Plan area. Per Chapter 8.67 of the City Municipal Code, the City has set a standard of three acres of improved parkland per 1,000 residents and 0.5- acres of improved parkland per 1,000 new employees. 3.15.2 Discussion a. As discussed in the 2040 General Plan EIR, the increases in residents and employees from the implementation of the General Plan would increase the use and demand for park facilities throughout the City. Per City Municipal Code Chapter 8.67, the City has set a standard of three acres of improved parkland per 1,000 residents and 0.5-acres of improved parkland per 1,000 new employees The Specific Plan is estimated to increase the City’s population by approximately 11,775 residents and employment by 23,366 employees to the Specific Plan area; thus, to meet the City standards, the Specific Plan would need to provide a total of approximately 47 acres of improved parkland (approximately 35.32 acres of improved parkland to meet the three acres per 1,000 residents standard and approximately 11.68 acres of improved parkland to meet the 0.5-acre per 1,000 employees standard). As discussed in Section 2.3 Project Description, the Specific Plan includes a total of 43.7 205 Lindenville Specific Plan 112 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 acres of parks and open space. These proposed parks and open space would help offset the demand on park land by future residents and employees in the Specific Plan area. For the remaining 3.3 acres of open space needed to meet the City’s parkland standards, future development under the proposed Specific Plan would be required to pay the park recreation impact fee, per City Municipal Code Chapter 8.67 to offset the recreation impacts. For these reasons buildout of the proposed Specific Plan would result in the same less than significant impact as identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR. b. The 2040 General Plan EIR concluded that buildout of the 2040 General Plan would include the construction of additional recreational facilities; however, the environmental effects of their construction would be reduced to a less than significant level. As discussed above, the proposed Specific Plan includes a total of 43.7 acres of parks and open space. While the approximate location of these parks are known, there are no known designs for these parks nor known funding at this time. Once the parks are designed, would require subsequent environmental review and be subject to the applicable 2040 General Plan EIR mitigation measures and regulatory framework discussed throughout this Addendum. For these reasons, the Specific Plan would result in the same less than significant impact to recreational facilities as disclosed in the 2040 General Plan EIR. 3.15.3 Conclusion The proposed project would not result in a new significant recreation impact or a substantial increase in the severity of the recreation impacts disclosed in the 2040 General Plan EIR. 206 Lindenville Specific Plan 113 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 3.16 TRANSPORTATION Environmental Issue Area A. Where Impact Was Analyzed in Prior Environmental Documents. B. Do Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? C. Any New Circumstances Involving New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? D. Any New Information of Substantial Importance Requiring New Analysis or Verification? E. Prior Environmental Documents Mitigations Implemented or Mitigations Address Impacts. Would the project: a. Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadways, bicycle lanes and pedestrian facilities? 2040 General Plan EIR pp. 3.14.41 to 3.14-50 No No No MM TRANS- 4 b. For a land use project, conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? 2040 General Plan EIR pp. 3.14.35 to 3.14.40 No No No MM TRANS- 1 c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible land uses (e.g., farm equipment)? 2040 General Plan EIR pp. 3.14.48 to 3.14.40 No No No MM TRANS-4 d. Result in inadequate emergency access? 2040 General Plan EIR pp. 3.14.50 to 3.14.52 No No No N/A The discussion in this section is based in part on a traffic memorandum prepared by Fehr & Peers Transportation Solutions in June 2023. The traffic memorandum is included in Appendix C. 3.16.1 Existing Setting The existing transportation setting, including regulatory framework, has not substantially changed since the certification of the 2040 General Plan EIR. Regional vehicular access to the Specific Plan area is provided by US 101, State Route 82 (El Camino Real), Interstate 280 (I-280), and Interstate 380 (I-380). Local vehicular access to the Specific Plan area is provided by South Spruce Avenue and South Linden Avenue. Bus service in the Specific Plan area is provided by the SamTrans, and includes SamTrans Route 141, which stops along South Spruce Avenue and provides access to the San Bruno BART station, and Route 292, which stops at the northeastern corner of the Specific Plan area and provides access to the South San Francisco Caltrain station. 207 Lindenville Specific Plan 114 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 The Centennial Way Trail, a Class I facility,49 passes through the western boundary of the Specific Plan area and provides pedestrian and bicycle access to the South San Francisco and San Bruno BART stations. Besides the Centennial Way Trail, bicycle facilities are limited to Class III bicycle facilities50 on South Spruce Avenue and South Linden Avenue. There are sidewalks along the roadways within the Specific Plan area disconnected by site access driveways. Based on the 2040 General Plan EIR, the existing VMT per service population is 27.42, VMT per resident is 10.28, and VMT per employee is 16.62. 3.16.2 Discussion a,c. As summarized in Table 2.2-1 in Section 2.2 Project Description, the Specific Plan would result in a net increase in residential and nonresidential development within the Specific Plan area, compared to existing, existing plus recently approved but not yet constructed projects, and a relatively small increase above what was evaluated in the 2040 General Plan EIR for 2040 General Plan buildout conditions, which would result in additional demand to the circulation system, including bicycle and pedestrian facilities, transit, and roadways. Bicycle and Pedestrian System The City adopted its Active South City: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan for the purpose of providing safer walking and biking environments and making active transportation an integral part of the City’s transportation system. In addition, the 2040 General Plan includes policies to improve bicycle and pedestrian network, including but not limited to, Policy MOB-1.2.1, which requires traffic calming treatments in all street projects to support lower design speeds, Policy MOB-2.1, which requires incorporation of complete street improvements in all roadway and development projects, and Policy MOB-3.2, which avoids the widening of roadways and prohibits changing traffic operations at the expense of multimodal safety. The Specific Plan proposes a network of pedestrian priority streets and bicycle priority streets within the Specific Plan area, as shown on Figure 2.2-7and Figure 2.2-8. These street networks would improve circulation and provide multi-modal facilities currently lacking within the Specific Plan area. In addition, Chapter 6.3 Complete Streets Guidance of the Specific Plan includes guidance for designing complete streets accommodating bicycle and pedestrian facilities. For these reasons, the Specific Plan would be consistent with applicable bicycle and pedestrian plans and policies. Transit System The 2040 General Plan includes policies to improve the city’s transit network and increase transit use. General Plan Policy MOB-2.1 requires incorporation of complete street improvements in all roadway and development projects. Policy MOB-3.2 prohibits changing traffic operations at the expense of transit reliability. Action MOB-2.1.4 requires capital improvements and development projects near regional transit stations or bus/shuttle routes to incorporate improvements to advance speed, reliability, and access. 49 Class I bicycle facility provides a completely separated right-of-way for the exclusive use of cyclists and pedestrians with cross-flow minimized. Typically, the most desirable for all ages and abilities. 50 Class III bicycle facility provides for shared use with motor vehicle traffic to help guide bicyclists between major destinations. Typically, not suitable for most bicyclists except on local residential streets. 208 Lindenville Specific Plan 115 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 The Specific Plan proposes a network of transit priority streets within the Specific Plan area, as shown on Figure 2.2-9. These streets would include bus and shuttle stops, high-quality shelters, and transit signal priority, allowing improved transit reliability and connections from the nearby BART and Caltrain stations to the Specific Plan area. For these reasons, the Specific Plan would be consistent with applicable transit policies. Roadway System and Safety The 2040 General Plan includes policies to address the roadway system and safety. Policy MOB-1.2 strives to reduce vehicle speeds throughout the City to reduce frequency and severity of collisions, Policy MOB-2.1 requires incorporation of complete streets improvements into all roadway and development projects. Policy MOB-3.2 avoids the widening of roadways and prohibits changing traffic operations at the expense of multimodal safety. Action MOB-3.2.2 requires the City to incorporate new street connections to better distribute vehicle trips across the city network. Buildout of the Specific Plan would result in a total of 11,775 residents and 23,366 employees within the Specific Plan area. The Specific Plan also proposes change to the existing roadway network within the Specific Plan area as shown on Figure 2.2-6 and summarized below: • South Spruce Avenue between El Camino Real and Railroad Avenue: Reduced from two to one lane in each direction, with a center turn lane and protected bike lanes. • South Canal Street between South Spruce Avenue and South Linden Avenue: Removal of South Canal Street and extension of Mayfair Avenue from South Spruce Avenue east to South Linden Avenue. • Street grid between South Spruce Avenue and South Linden Avenue: Introduction of new alleys for vehicular access to new parking and loading at the center of the district. • Myrtle Avenue at South Spruce Avenue: Extension of Myrtle Avenue southeast to South Maple Avenue and South Linden Avenue. • Noor Avenue at Huntington Avenue: Extension of Noor Avenue northeast to South Maple Avenue with connection to Centennial Way Trail. • Utah Avenue Extension: Modification of the Utah Avenue Extension project included in the 2040 General Plan to include southbound US-101 ramps. • San Mateo Avenue at Tanforan Avenue/Shaw Road: New signal at San Mateo Avenue/Tanforan Avenue/Shaw Road. As described in the 2040 General Plan EIR, the City requires that the modification of existing public facilities and the construction of new facilities comply with the applicable design standards contained in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and the California Highway Design Manual, which have been developed to minimize the potential for conflicts or collisions. The roadway improvements described above would be designed to comply with the California MUTCD and City’s design guidelines, and therefore, would not result in conflicts in the roadway system. The Specific Plan includes these improvements as depicted on Figure 2.2-6 and as described above, however, each improvement would undergo further design refinement and the City would conduct project-level environmental review prior to implementation to disclose, avoid where possible, and mitigate for any impacts that could result from construction and operation of the improvements. 209 Lindenville Specific Plan 116 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 A traffic analysis was completed to evaluate the additional traffic generated and roadway improvements described above as a result of the Specific Plan (see Appendix C). The analysis concluded that the Specific Plan would not substantially change the traffic conditions compared to what was identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR. As identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR, the 2040 General Plan buildout would exacerbate vehicle queues on off-ramps that already experience queues exceeding storage capacity and result in a significant impact to roadway safety. The 2040 General Plan EIR identified MM TRANS-4 as a mitigation measure to minimize queuing hazards, which the City would also implement as part of the Specific Plan. 2040 General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure MM TRANS-4: Freeway Offramp Queue Improvements To minimize queueing hazards, the City shall work with Caltrans to develop improvement measures for freeway off-ramps and adjacent intersections that help manage offramp queues. These measures may include geometric changes, changes to signal timing and phasing, and new connections as identified in Table 3.14-5. Such improvement measures shall not adversely affect pedestrian, bicycle, and transit conditions or otherwise undermine the City’s VMT mitigation efforts described in MM TRANS-1. MM TRANS-1 is also applicable here and should be implemented to minimize freeway offramp queues. The 2040 General Plan EIR concluded that even with the implementation of 2040 General Plan policies and actions and implementation of MMs TRANS-4 and TRANS-1, given the uncertainty around specific operational conditions and ability to mitigate such conditions in a constrained right- of-way, this impact remains significant and unavoidable. Since the proposed Specific Plan would result in similar queueing hazards as the 2040 General Plan, it would result in the same significant and unavoidable impact even with implementation of MM TRANS-4. b. As disclosed in the 2040 General Plan EIR, the 2040 General Plan would result in a significant VMT impact, because the VMT per service population (26.80) and work-based VMT per employee (13.40) would exceed the City’s adopted thresholds of being 15 percent below the 2019 nine-county averages for these metrics (23.26 and 12.07, respectively), and require mitigation measure MM TRANS-1 to reduce the VMT impacts. On the other hand, the 2040 General Plan VMT per resident (9.23) would be below the City’s adopted threshold of being 15 percent below the 2019 nine-county average of 11.88, and the roadway improvements proposed would be below the transportation project threshold of no net new VMT, and result in a less than significant VMT impact. 2040 General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure MM TRANS-1: Transportation Demand Management To reduce VMT, the City shall implement its Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Ordinance as part of the Zoning Code Amendments and parking requirements. The City shall also update its TDM Ordinance and parking requirements every five to ten years and establish an East of 101 Area Trip Cap, 210 Lindenville Specific Plan 117 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 to achieve the maximum feasible reductions in vehicle travel. The City shall achieve the performance standards outlined in the TDM Ordinance pursuant to Section 20.400.004 of the Zoning Ordinance. The City shall review and update its TDM Ordinance every five to ten years to limit Total VMT and Work-Based VMT by incentivizing use of transit and active transportation and disincentivizing auto use. The TDM Ordinance shall cover all development projects generating greater than 100 daily trips, with the most stringent requirements for office/R&D land uses that disproportionately account for the highest rates of VMT in the City. Development projects shall implement a combination of TDM programs (pursuant to Sections 20.400.003 and 20.400.004 of the Zoning Ordinance), services, and infrastructure improvements, including but not limited to: establishing trip reduction programs; subsidizing transit and active transportation use; coordinating carpooling and vanpooling; encouraging telecommuting and flexible work schedules; designing site plans to prioritize pedestrian, bicycle, and transit travel; funding first/last mile shuttle services; establishing site-specific trip caps; managing parking supply; and constructing transit and active transportation capital improvements. Developments shall be subject to annual reporting and monitoring. The City shall establish a fine structure for developments found to be out of compliance and apply any revenues from fines to infrastructure and services aimed at reducing VMT. The City shall establish an East of 101 Area Trip Cap to support the monitoring of vehicle trip activity and focus efforts to reduce VMT. The area-wide trip cap shall apply to the high intensity employment uses in the East of 101 Area. The City shall conduct annual traffic counts along the cordon area perimeter. Should the trip cap be reached, the City shall consider corrective actions such as: revising mode share targets for projects subject to the TDM Ordinance, identifying new funding measures for TDM services, implementing new vehicle user charges, creating new street connections, or slowing the pace of development approvals within the cordon zone. The City shall review and update its parking requirements every five to ten years to align with its TDM Ordinance and East of 101 Area Trip Cap. The City shall establish parking maximums for office/R&D uses to ensure that VMT reduction goals are incorporated into the design of development projects. The 2040 General Plan EIR concluded that even with implementation of MM TRAN-1, it would not reduce the per service population and per employee VMTs below the thresholds exceeded due to uncertainty in the cumulative effectiveness of the TDM ordinance, East of 101 Area Trip Cap, and parking requirement outlined in MM TRAN-1, as well as unknowns related to transit service levels, transportation technology, and travel behavior. A VMT analysis was completed for the Specific Plan to evaluate the project impact on the City’s VMT as a result of the proposed development growth, land use changes, and roadway improvements. The analysis modeled these changes and concluded that the VMT per service population, VMT per capita, and VMT per employee would be the same as what was identified in the 2040 General Plan 211 Lindenville Specific Plan 118 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 EIR because the proposed land use locations would be similar to what was planned in the 2040 General Plan, the additional employment generated would be located within half a mile of the San Bruno BART station, and the roadway improvements would improve connectivity and not induce VMT. Based on the discussion above, the Specific Plan, even with implementation of MM TRAN-1, would exceed the per service population and per employee VMT thresholds and result in the same significant and unavoidable VMT impact as what was identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR. d. Similar to the 2040 General Plan buildout, future development under the Specific Plan would alter the land use patterns and increase development growth, and therefore, increase travel demand on the transportation network that may influence existing emergency access. However, as described under checklist questions a, b, and c above, the Specific Plan also proposes roadway improvements that would improve the connectivity and traffic operations within the Specific Plan area without inducing VMT. These roadway improvements, which involve street extensions and new alleys, would also break up the existing block sizes, allowing more emergency access. In addition, future development under the Specific Plan would be subject to provisions of the California Fire Code pertaining to emergency access, and the City’s TDM ordinance as described in MM TRANS-1, which would reduce vehicle trips added to the roadway system. Furthermore, General Plan Action 1.6.5 requires the City to maintain and communicate evacuation route plans for businesses and residents. For these reasons, the Specific Plan would result in the same less than significant impact to emergency access as what was identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR. 3.16.3 Conclusion The proposed project would not result in a new significant transportation impact or a substantial increase in the severity of the transportation impacts disclosed in the 2040 General Plan EIR. 212 Lindenville Specific Plan 119 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 3.17 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES Environmental Issue Area A. Where Impact Was Analyzed in Prior Environmental Documents. B. Do Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? C. Any New Circumstances Involving New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? D. Any New Information of Substantial Importance Requiring New Analysis or Verification? E. Prior Environmental Documents Mitigations Implemented or Mitigations Address Impacts. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: a. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)? 2040 General Plan EIR pp. 3.4-37 to 3.4- 38 No No No N/A b. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. 2040 General Plan EIR pp. 3.4-38 No No No N/A 3.17.1 Existing Setting The existing tribal cultural resources setting, including regulatory framework, has not substantially changed since the certification of the 2040 General Plan EIR. A Sacred Lands File request was sent to the NAHC as part of the 2040 General Plan EIR and came back negative. However, a records search at the NWIC identified 15 known tribal cultural resources within the City. As discussed in Section 3.4.1, there are at least two known archaeological resources within the Specific Plan area, and the Specific Plan area could contain previously undiscovered archaeological resources and human remains, particularly along the Colma Creek corridor. Tribal consultation, in accordance with SB 18 and AB 52 was also completed as part of the 2040 General Plan EIR. No tribes responded to requests for consultation. 213 Lindenville Specific Plan 120 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 3.17.2 Discussion a, b. The 2040 General Plan EIR concluded that buildout of the 2040 General Plan would not impact tribal cultural resources through compliance with General Plan Policies, SB 18, and AB 52. Future development within the Specific Plan area could encounter buried tribal cultural resources during construction. However, future development projects would be required to comply with General Plan Policies ES-10.3, ES-10.4, and ES-10.5 regarding archaeological resources records review and mitigation measures during construction (see Section 3.5 Cultural Resources), and AB 52, when applicable. In addition, General Plan Policy ES-11.1 requires the City to identify, preserve, and protect tribal cultural resources, and Policy ES-11.3 requires the City to consult with local Native American tribes during the development review process.51 As concluded in the 2040 General Plan EIR, with implementation of General Plan Policies ES-10.3, ES-10.4, ES-10.5, ES-11.1, and ES-11.3, and compliance with AB 52, future development in the Specific Plan area would result in less than significant impacts to tribal cultural resources. 3.17.3 Conclusion The proposed project would not result in a new significant tribal cultural resources impact or a substantial increase in the severity of the tribal cultural resources impacts disclosed in the 2040 General Plan EIR. 51 Policy ES-11.1: Identification of tribal cultural resources. Encourage the identification, preservation, and protection of tribal cultural resources, traditional cultural landscapes, sacred sites, places, features, and objects, including historic or prehistoric ruins, burial grounds, cemeteries, and ceremonial sites in consultation or coordination with the appropriate Native America tribe(s), and shall ensure appropriate treatment of Native American and other human remains discovered during project construction. Policy ES-11.3: Conduct tribal consultation during development review. Consult with local Native American tribes to identify, evaluate, and appropriately address tribal cultural resources and tribal sacred sites through the development review process. 214 Lindenville Specific Plan 121 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 3.18 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Environmental Issue Area A. Where Impact Was Analyzed in Prior Environmental Documents. B. Do Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? C. Any New Circumstances Involving New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? D. Any New Information of Substantial Importance Requiring New Analysis or Verification? E. Prior Environmental Documents Mitigations Implemented or Mitigations Address Impacts. Would the project: a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? 2040 General Plan EIR pp. 3.15-28 to 3.15-30 No No No N/A b. Have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? 2040 General Plan EIR pp. 3.15-30 to 3.15-35 No No No N/A c. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it does not have adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? 2040 General Plan EIR pp. 3.15-35 to 3.15-38 No No No N/A d. Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? 2040 General Plan EIR pp. 3.15-38 to 3.15-40 No No No N/A e. Be noncompliant with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? 2040 General Plan EIR pp. 3.15-38 to 3.15-40 No No No N/A 215 Lindenville Specific Plan 122 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 3.18.1 Existing Setting The existing setting for utilities and service systems, including regulatory framework, has not substantially changed since the certification of the 2040 General Plan EIR. Water services in the Specific Plan area are provided by Cal Water. Wastewater services are provided by the City of South San Francisco Public Works Department and collected wastewater is sent to the South San Francisco/San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant (WQCP). The WQCP pumps wastewater to the Noth Bayside System Unit outfall and discharges to the San Francisco Bay. Solid waste collection and recycling services for residents and businesses in the City are provided by South San Francisco Scavenger Company and Blue Line Transfer, respectively. 3.18.2 Discussion The 2040 General Plan EIR concluded that the build-out of the 2040 General Plan would result in less than significant impacts with regard to utilities and service systems. a. The Specific Plan would not require the relocation or construction of new or expanded electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities that would result in significant environmental effects. The City’s Sewer Master Plan and Storm Drain Master Plan previously identified planned improvements within the Specific Plan area (see Table 2.2-8 and Table 2.2-10).52,53The Specific Plan proposes seven additional sewer main upgrades (see Table 2.2-9) and two additional storm drainage improvements within the Specific Plan area (see Section 2.2.6 Infrastructure). In addition, the Specific Plan proposes four water main upgrades. The water and sewer main upgrades would upsize existing pipes within the existing ROW, and the storm drain improvements would install bioretention features adjacent to the Navigable Slough and Colma Creek. Construction of these additional improvements could potentially result in significant environmental impacts; however, as discussed throughout this Addendum, compliance with existing General Plan policies, the City’s Municipal Code, and previously identified 2040 General Plan EIR mitigation measures would reduce environmental impacts from buildout of the Specific Plan (including the additional sewer, water, and storm drain improvements) to a less than significant level. This is the same impact as disclosed in the 2040 General Plan EIR. b. The 2040 General Plan EIR concluded that Cal Water would have sufficient water supplies to serve the buildout of the 2040 General Plan through the year 2045, under normal water years. During single or multiple drought years, water consumption reduction measures, consistent with Cal Water’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan and 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), would be implemented on all City customers to ensure sufficient water supplies. The 2040 General Plan would allow a buildout of 5,580 residential units and 9,799,668 square feet of non-residential development within the Lindenville Specific Plan area. Compared to the 2040 General Plan buildout, the proposed Specific Plan would increase the residential buildout by 1 dwelling unit and non-residential buildout by 308,932 square feet, which includes the retention of the 268,214 square feet of existing development 52 City of South San Francisco. City-Wide Sewer System Master Plan. July 2022. 53 City of South San Francisco. Storm Drain Master Plan. February 2016. 216 Lindenville Specific Plan 123 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 that the 2040 General Plan assumed would be redeveloped. While the additional net new retail, office/research and development, and residential development would be reallocated from the East of 101 area, and therefore, would not increase the 2040 General Plan buildout for the city, keeping the 268,215 square feet of existing development within Lindenville (assumed to be redeveloped under the 2040 General Plan) would increase the 2040 General Plan buildout by approximately 0.4 percent. 54 The proposed Specific Plan includes Policies I-3.1, I-3.2, I-3.3, and I-3.4, which prioritize the use of recycled water to further reduce water demand within the City.55 In addition, future development would be subject to General Plan policies ES-5.3, ES-5.8, ES-5.9, Policy CP-5.1, and Climate Action Plan Action BE 1.2, Action WW 1.1, Action WW 2.1, Action CL 1.1, Municipal Code Chapter 15.22, that would require developments to include water-efficient design and reduce water demand. Furthermore, each individual project would be required to demonstrate the availability of water to service the development, as required and applicable, in the form of will-serve letters or, for larger projects, i.e., ‘water demand projects’ pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15155, preparation of a Water Supply Assessment per SB 610. If additional facilities were to be constructed, separate environmental analysis would be required, based on the location and details of any proposed facility. The additional growth of the Specific Plan is within 0.4 percent of the planned growth for the 2040 General Plan, and the Specific Plan is fundamentally consistent with the growth assumptions in the 2040 General Plan, therefore, the Specific Plan’s water demand has been accounted for in the 2040 General Plan EIR and Cal Water’s 2020 UWMP, and the Specific Plan would not result in water demand substantially greater than evaluated in the 2040 General Plan EIR. The Specific Plan would result in the same less than significant impact as disclosed in the 2040 General Plan EIR. c. The 2040 General Plan EIR concluded that full buildout of the 2040 General Plan would not exceed the treatment capacity at the WQCP. As discussed under checklist question b, the additional growth of the Specific Plan is within 0.4 percent of the planned growth for the 2040 General Plan buildout, and so it is fundamentally consistent with the 2040 General Plan; thus, implementation of the Specific Plan would not prevent the WQCP from meeting wastewater treatment requirements and the Specific Plan would result in the same less than significant wastewater impact as disclosed in the 2040 General Plan EIR. d,e. The 2040 General Plan EIR concluded that buildout of the 2040 General Plan would not generate solid waste in excess of regulatory standards or in excess of local landfill capacity, or otherwise impair the attainment of waste management or reduction goals. As discussed under checklist question b, the additional growth of the proposed Specific Plan is within 0.4 percent of the planned growth for the 2040 General Plan buildout, and so, it is fundamentally consistent with the 2040 General Plan. In addition, future development under the Specific Plan would comply with 54 The 2040 General Plan allows for a buildout of 60,193,220 square feet of development. Source: City of South San Francisco. Draft Program Environmental Impact Report General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California. SCH#2021020064. June 24, 2022. Tables 2-5 and Table 2-7. 55 Policy I-3.1: Targeted utilization. Reduce water demand through targeted utilization of potable uses. Policy I-3.2: Expand recycled water infrastructure. Reuse “waste” water and expand recycled water infrastructure in the Lindenville Specific Plan area. Policy I-3.3: Water conservation and reuse. Prioritize water conservation and the use of recycled water for outdoor, non-drinkable uses, including in streets, open spaces, and landscaped areas. Policy I-3.4: Sustainable development practices. Encourage sustainable development practices for development projects to reduce the demands on the water supply and sanitary sewers systems, including use of recycled water indoors, installation of localized blackwater systems, regenerative and high efficiency landscape practices that reduce water and energy use, and increased building efficiency beyond City standards. 217 Lindenville Specific Plan 124 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 General Plan Policy CP-5.4, which requires 75 percent waste diversion for municipal construction and demolition project, Policy CP-6.1, which requires maintenance and regular updates of the City’s waste reduction plans and programs, and Policy CP-6.2, which provides education and technical assistance programs for compost and recycle.56 The Specific Plan would also comply with the California-mandated 50 percent waste diversion and CALGreen standards (including a construction waste recycling requirement and readily accessible areas for recycling). Additionally, as discussed in the 2040 General Plan EIR, there is capacity at the Corina Los Trancos and Newby Island Landfills to serve growth from the 2040 General Plan, which fundamentally includes the growth proposed by the Specific Plan. Future development under the proposed Specific Plan would be required to comply with the same regulations identified for future development in the 2040 General Plan, and therefore, would result in the same less than significant solid waste impact as disclosed in the 2040 General Plan EIR. 3.18.3 Conclusion The proposed project would not result in a new significant utilities and service systems impact or a substantial increase in the severity of the utilities and service systems impacts disclosed in the 2040 General Plan EIR. 56 Policy CP-5.4: Require 75 percent waste diversion for municipal construction and demolition projects. Require municipal construction projects to achieve 75 percent waste diversion from the landfill. Policy CP-6.1: Maintain and update Waste Reduction Plan. Maintain and regularly update the City’s waste reduction plans and programs to ensure consistency with California’s waste reduction goals. Policy CP-6.2: Educational outreach about waste diversion. Develop education and technical assistance programs to help all residents and businesses to compost and recycle. 218 Lindenville Specific Plan 125 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 3.19 WILDFIRE Environmental Issue Area A. Where Impact Was Analyzed in Prior Environmental Documents. B. Do Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? C. Any New Circumstances Involving New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts? D. Any New Information of Substantial Importance Requiring New Analysis or Verification? E. Prior Environmental Documents Mitigations Implemented or Mitigations Address Impacts. Would the project: a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 2040 General Plan EIR pp. 3.16-16 to 3.16-17 No No No N/A b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? 2040 General Plan EIR pp. 3.16-18 to 3.16-19 No No No N/A c. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? 2040 General Plan EIR pp. 3.16-19 to 3.16-20 No No No N/A d. Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? 2040 General Plan EIR pp. 3.16-20 to 3.16-21 No No No N/A 3.19.1 Existing Setting The existing wildfire setting, including regulatory framework, has not substantially changed since the certification of the 2040 General Plan EIR. 219 Lindenville Specific Plan 126 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 The Specific Plan area is located within an urban area of the city and is not located within a designated FHSZ or VHFHSZ in either an SRA or an LRA.57 The nearest fire hazard zone to the Specific Plan area is located at San Bruno Mountain, approximately 1.4 miles north. 3.19.2 Discussion The 2040 General Plan EIR concluded that buildout of the 2040 General Plan would have a less than significant wildfire impact through compliance with 2040 General Plan Policies and the City Municipal Code. a-d. As discussed above, the Specific Plan area is not located within a fire hazard zone and the nearest one is located 1.4 miles north at San Bruno Mountain. The land between San Bruno Mountain and the Specific Plan area is fully developed with urban uses; thus, the Specific Plan area would not be exposed to wildfire. 3.19.3 Conclusion The proposed project would not result in a new significant wildfire impact or a substantial increase in the severity of the wildfire impacts disclosed in the 2040 General Plan EIR. 57 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). “Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer”. Accessed June 28, 2023. http://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/. 220 Lindenville Specific Plan 127 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 SECTION 4.0 REFERENCES Association of Bay Area Governments. "Priority Development Area Program Overview.” Accessed August 18, 2023. https://abag.ca.gov/technical-assistance/priority-development-area- program-overview. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. “Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status.” Accessed August 16, 2023. https://www.baaqmd.gov/about-air-quality/research-and-data/air- quality-standards-and-attainment-status. Bureau of Transportation Statistics. “Average Fuel Efficiency of U.S. Light Duty Vehicles.” Accessed August 16, 2023. https://www.bts.gov/content/average-fuel-efficiency-us-light- duty-vehicles. California Department of Conservation. “California Important Farmland Time Series.” 2018. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciftimeseries/. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). “Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer.” Accessed June 28, 2023. http://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/. City of South San Francisco. City-Wide Sewer System Master Plan. July 2022. ---. Draft Program Environmental Impact Report General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California. SCH#2021020064. June 24, 2022. ---. “Police Divisions.” Accessed August 1, 2023. https://www.ssf.net/departments/police/divisions. ---. Storm Drain Master Plan. February 2016. Department of Toxic Substances and Control. “EnviroStor.” Accessed June 28, 2023. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/profile_report?global_id=60001636. Federal Emergency Management Agency. “FEMA Flood Map Service Center.” April 5, 2019. Accessed August 15, 2023. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=south%20san%20francisco%2C%20ca. Raimi + Associates. Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Forecast Memorandum. August 2023. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. “Web Soil Survey.” Accessed: February 4, 2021. https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx Gross, Billy. Principal Planner, City of South San Francisco. Personal Communication. August 25, 2023. Yurkovich, Eric. Principal, Raimi + Associates. Personal Communication. August 21, 2023. 221 Lindenville Specific Plan 128 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 222 Lindenville Specific Plan 129 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 SECTION 5.0 LEAD AGENCY AND CONSULTANTS 5.1 LEAD AGENCY City of South San Francisco Community and Economic Development Department Billy Gross, Principal Planner 5.2 CONSULTANTS David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. Environmental Consultants and Planners Akoni Danielsen, President & Principal Project Manager Amy Wang, Project Manager Tyler Rogers, Project Manager Ryan Osako, Graphic Artist Raimi + Associates Planning and Urban Design Consultants Eric Yurkovich, Principal Megan McNulty, Senior Planner and Designer Fehr & Peers Transportation Solutions Transportation Consultants Taylor McAdam, Senior Transportation Planner Brian Lin, Transportation Planner 223 Lindenville Specific Plan 130 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 SECTION 6.0 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ACM Asbestos-Containing Materials AIA Airport Influence Area Air Basin San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin ALUCP Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan AMO Arts and Makers Overlay AUO Active Ground Floor Use Overlay BPO Business and Professional Office BTP-H Business Technology Park-High BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District BART Bay Area Rapid Transit BMPs Best Management Practices BCDC Bay Conservation and Development Commission CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CALGreen California Green Building Standards Code CARB California Air Resources Board Cal Water California Water Service Company CBC California Building Code CCGO Colma Creek Greenbelt Overlay () CCR California Code of Regulations CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CERT Community Emergency Response Team CIPs Capital Improvement Projects CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level CNPS California Native Plant Society dBA A-weighted sound level DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control DU/AC Dwelling Units per Acre EOC San Mateo County Emergency Operations Center EOP Emergency Operations Plan EPA Environmental Protection Agency FAA Federal Aviation Administration 224 Lindenville Specific Plan 131 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 FAR Floor Area Ratio FAR Federal Aviation Regulations FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FHSZ Fire Hazard Severity Zone FTA Federal Transit Administration GHG Greenhouse Gas HIO Height Incentive Overlay HRA Health Risk Assessments kWh Kilowatt-hour LBP Lead Based Paint LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Lmax dBA maximum dBA LRA Local Responsibility Area LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MIH Mixed Industrial High MIM Mixed Industrial Medium MT Metric Tons MUTCD California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices NAHC Native American Heritage Commission NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NWIC Northwest Information Center OEHHA California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment OS Open Space PCBs Polychlorinated Biphenyls PCE Tetrachloroethylene PPV Peak particle velocity PQP Public (Zoning District) PR Parks and Recreation R&D Research and Development RDIP Remedial Design Implementation Plan RH-180 High Density Residential ROW Right-of-Way 225 Lindenville Specific Plan 132 Addendum City of South San Francisco September 2023 RPS Renewable Portfolio Standard RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SCH State Clearinghouse SamTrans San Mateo County Transit District SFFUSD South San Francisco Unified School District SFO San Francisco International Airport SRA State Responsibility Area SSFFD T3N South San Francisco Fire Department T3 Neighborhood T3ML T3 Makers Lindenville T4L T4 Lindenville T5L T5 Lindenville TACs Toxic Air Contaminants TCE Trichloroethylene TCRs Tribal Cultural Resources TDM Transportation Demand Management Title 24 California Building Standards Code US 101 U.S. Highway 101 USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service UWMP Urban Water Management Plan VHFHSZ Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds WQCP South San Francisco/San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant 226 GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY AND FORECAST MEMORANDUM Introduction This memorandum provides an overview of Lindenville’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by sector that are estimated to be emitted. The five emissions sectors that are included in this report are residential and nonresidential energy, transportation, solid waste, and water. Additionally, a GHG forecast was prepared based on the projected growth of the Lindenville area for the horizon year 2040. This report presents a detailed summary of the 2019 existing GHG emissions and forecasted growth and emissions for 2040. The City’s General Plan sets a vision for Lindenville that aims to preserve small businesses and legacy industrial uses while creating a vibrant and inclusive neighborhood with opportunities for new housing development, improved mobility options, new green spaces, and increased access to public services. The City developed and adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) along with the General Plan to help mitigate the climate impacts of continued growth. The CAP contains GHG reduction strategies related to energy use, the construction and operation of buildings, transportation, solid waste diversion, and water use, which can be applied to development in Lindenville. 2019 Lindenville GHG Inventory Lindenville’s total emissions were estimated to be 94,266 Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (MTCO2e) in 2019. Emissions from calendar year 2019 were inventoried to remain consistent with General Plan and the Lindenville Specific Plan baseline analyses. Table 1 provides the breakdown of 2019 GHG emissions in Lindenville by sector. Transportation emissions account for 59% of total emissions followed by nonresidential energy use, which account for 29% of emissions. In 2019 there was no housing in Lindenville and thus no emissions related to residential energy use. Solid Waste accounted for 12% of emissions and water use <1%. Figure 1 depicts the proportion of emissions by sector in 2019. 227 LINDENVILLE SPECIFIC PLAN Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Forecast / 2 Table 1: Total Lindenville Annual Emissions by Sector (2019) Sector Subsector Unit Activity Data Emissions (MTCO2e) Residential Energy Electricity kWh - - Natural Gas Therms - - Nonresidential Energy Electricity kWh 72,547,690 13,261 Natural Gas Therms 2,562,828 13,641 Transportation On-Road VMT 103,627,286 41,193 Off-Road - 14,660 Solid Waste Tons 25,152 11,512 Water AF 734 0.07 TOTAL 94,266 SOURCE: LINDENVILLE SPECIFIC PLAN INVENTORY AND FORECAST, 2023. Figure 1: Total Lindenville Annual Emissions by Sector (2019) SOURCE: LINDENVILLE SPECIFIC PLAN INVENTORY AND FORECAST, 2023 29% 59% 12% 0.0001% Nonresidential Energy Transportation Solid Waste Water 228 LINDENVILLE SPECIFIC PLAN Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Forecast / 3 INVENTORY AND FORECAST DATA SOURCES Data was collected from various sources to build the 2019 Lindenville inventory and 2040 forecast. Although for a sub-area, this inventory was developed in accordance with ICLEI’s Global Protocol for Community-Scale Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventories. Table 2 outlines the specific data sources used in this inventory. Table 2: Lindenville GHG Inventory and Forecast Data Sources Sector Data Data Source Residential Energy Energy use activity data PG&E Demographic data 2040 General Plan Growth Projections, Lindenville Specific Plan analysis Participation in Peninsula Clean Energy (PCE) PCE, 2022 CAP Emissions Factors PG&E, PCE Nonresidential Energy Energy use activity data PG&E Building square footages 2040 General Plan Growth Projections, Lindenville Specific Plan analysis Participation in PCE PCE, 2022 CAP Emissions Factors PG&E, PCE Transportation On-road VMT 2040 General Plan EIR VMT Analysis On-road emissions CARB EMFAC2021 Off-road emissions CARB EMFAC2021 EV adoption characteristics CEC Zero Emission Vehicle and Infrastructure Statistics Solid Waste Tonnage activity data South San Francisco Scavengers Waste Characterization CalRecycle Emissions Factor Equations 8.1 and 8.3 of the Global Protocol for Community-Scale GHG Emission Inventories Water Acre Feet activity data California Water Service 2020 Urban Water Management Plan South San Francisco District Water Energy Intensity Factor CAPCOA 2021 Table W-1.1 Emissions Factor PG&E To calculate GHG emissions, an emissions factor is applied to the activity data. Electricity suppliers provided CO2 emissions factor. In addition to carbon dioxide (CO2), small amounts of methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) are released in the electricity generation process. CH4 and N2O emissions factors are provided by the ICLEI Community Protocol. Variability of the emissions factors occur primarily due to fluctuations in suppliers’ energy portfolio each year. CO2 is the most commonly referenced GHG, however, numerous gases have greenhouse characteristics. CH4 and N2O are commonly accounted for in GHG inventories. These gases have a greater global warming potential; CH4 traps approximately 28 times as much heat as CO2 over a 100-year period and N2O traps approximately 265 times as much heat. To account for these differences, a factor is applied to the gasses emissions to calculate a CO2 equivalence. 229 LINDENVILLE SPECIFIC PLAN Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Forecast / 4 2040 Lindenville GHG Forecast DEMOGRAPHIC AND LAND USE PROJECTIONS The emissions forecast for the Lindenville area is based on the demographic and land use projections of the preferred land use alternative for the 2040 General Plan. This forecast assumes that the anticipated development is fully implemented by 2040. Tables 3 and 4 show the assumed demographic and land use changes in South San Francisco and Lindenville. Table 3: Demographic Changes Lindenville and South San Francisco 2019-2040 City of South San Francisco Lindenville 2019 2040 2019 2040 Population 67,232 107,203 Population - 13,218 Jobs 57,182 137,557 Jobs 9,527 23,366 Single Family Housing Units 13,451 15,138 Single Family Housing Units - - Multi-family Housing Units 7,977 23,821 Multi-family Housing Units - 5,581 SOURCE: CENSUS ACS, 5-YEAR ESTIMATES (FOR YEAR 2019); SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN 2040 GROWTH PROJECTIONS (FOR YEAR 2040) Table 4: Land Use Changes Lindenville and South San Francisco 2019-2040 City of South San Francisco Lindenville 2019 2040 2019 2040 Retail/Service SF 4,068,702 4,222,985 Retail/Service SF 723,600 838,759 Hotel SF - - Hotel SF 17,500 31,341 Hotel Keys 3,193 4,315 Hotel Keys 100 179 Office/R&D SF 12,008,617 47,438,654 Office/R&D SF 210,375 4,295,896 Industrial SF 15,483,142 12,063,567 Industrial SF 5,490,900 4,938,467 Other SF 127,200 275,376 Other SF - 4,137 Residential DU 21,428 38,959 Residential DU - 5,581 Open Space Acre Open Space Acre 11 44 TOTAL SF 31,687,661 64,000,582 TOTAL SF 6,442,375 10,108,600 SOURCE: CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO (FOR YEAR 2019); SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN 2040 GROWTH PROJECTIONS (FOR YEAR 2040) 230 LINDENVILLE SPECIFIC PLAN Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Forecast / 5 2040 EMISSIONS FORECAST The Lindenville 2040 emissions forecast includes emissions reductions resulting from State level policies and select mitigation measures from South San Francisco’s newly adopted General Plan 2040 and CAP. There are three major policies that the State has adopted to reduce community GHG emissions: 1. Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS): This law requires that electrical utilities provide an increased amount of electricity from eligible renewable sources. SB 100 requires that 33% of electricity sold by utilities in 2020 be renewable, 60% be renewable in 2030, and 100% be carbon-free in 2045. 2. Title 24: Title 24 is the set of regulations that specifies how new buildings must be constructed, including specifying minimum energy efficiency standards. These standards are updated triennially to be more stringent. California has set a goal for zero-net energy new construction by 2030. 3. Pavely Clean Car Standards: These standards require that vehicles sold in California meet minimum fuel efficiency requirements, and that fuel sold in the state emits less GHGs during production and use. Additionally, this forecast includes the following measures from the South San Francisco General Plan and CAP because they are already being implemented by the City: 1. All-electric residential new construction 2. Continued participation in PCE 3. Mobility improvements as discussed in the Mobility Chapter of the 2040 General Plan. Based on the results of the Lindenville forecast, emissions are expected to increase from 94,266 MTCO2e in 2019 to 157,396 MTCO2e in 2040. Table 5 shows the forecasted emissions in Lindenville for each sector in 2040. Similar to 2019, transportation generates the most emissions (75%), followed by nonresidential energy use (14%), and solid waste (11%). Figure 2 depicts the proportion of emissions by sector in 2019. Table 5: 2040 Lindenville Emissions Forecast by Sector Sector Subsector Unit Activity Data Emissions (MTCO2e) Residential Energy Electricity kWh 15,472,295 16 Natural Gas Therms - - Nonresidential Energy Electricity kWh 113,833,109 121 Natural Gas Therms 4,021,281 21,404 Transportation On-Road VMT 355,237,443 100,531 Off-Road - 17,260 Solid Waste Tons 39,465 18,063 Water AF 1,495 0.15 TOTAL 157,396 SOURCE: LINDENVILLE SPECIFIC PLAN INVENTORY AND FORECAST 231 LINDENVILLE SPECIFIC PLAN Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Forecast / 6 Figure 2: 2040 Lindenville Emissions Forecast by Sector SOURCE: LINDENVILLE SPECIFIC PLAN INVENTORY AND FORECAST However, assuming that all the measures in the CAP are implemented by 2040, emissions in Lindenville will be further reduced. The CAP-adjusted forecast estimates that the Lindenville sub-area will generate 78,808 MTCO2e in 2040, a reduction of 50% as compared to the non-adjusted forecast. This estimate aligns with the 63% reduction the CAP is expected to achieve across the city in 2040 and the above average growth of the Lindenville sub-area as compared to the City as a whole. The following table shows the CAP adjusted 2040 Lindenville emissions forecast by sector. Table 6: 2040 CAP Adjusted Lindenville Emissions Forecast by Sector Sector Subsector Emissions (MTCO2e) Residential Energy 16 Nonresidential Energy 2,743 Transportation On-road 43,503 Off-road 17,260 Solid Waste 15,286 Water 0.15 TOTAL 78,808 Table 7: 2040 Lindenville Emissions 2040 Forecast Compared to 2019 0.01% 14% 75% 11% 0.0001% Residential Energy Nonresidential Energy Transportation Solid Waste Water 232 LINDENVILLE SPECIFIC PLAN Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Forecast / 7 Sector Subsector 2019 Emissions (MTCO2e) 2040 CAP-Adjusted Emissions (MTCO2e) Change in Emissions (MTCO2e) Residential Energy - 16 16 Nonresidential Energy 26,902 2,743 -24,159 Transportation On-Road 41,193 43,503 2,310 Off-Road 14,660 17,260 2,600 Solid Waste 11,512 15,286 3,774 Water 0.07 0.15 0.08 TOTAL 94,266 78,808 -15,459 Key Findings • Lindenville GHG emissions are anticipated to increase by 67% from 94,266 MTCO2e in 2019 to 157,396 MTCO2e in 2040 but applying the reductions from implementing the SSF CAP, emissions are expected to decrease emissions 16% to 78,808 MTCO2e as compared 2019 and 50% as compared to the 2040 emissions forecast. • The CAP-adjusted forecast aligns with the emissions reductions estimated from the implementation of the 2040 General Plan and CAP. Forecasted emissions in Lindenville are expected to be reduced by 50% in 2040 as compared to 63% citywide in 2040. • GHG emissions from on-road transportation are the largest sector, accounting for 44% of Lindenville emissions (41,193 MTCO2e) in 2019 and 64% of emissions (100,531) in 2040. This 144% increase in emissions corresponds to the 243% increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in 2040. However, accounting for General Plan and CAP implementation, reduces the forecasted transportation emissions to 43,503 MTCO2e, only a 5.5% increase. • Despite the introduction of residential housing in Lindenville, the resulting emissions account for only 0.02% of total Lindenville CAP-adjusted emissions in 2040. These relatively nominal emissions are the result of all-electric residential new construction and the low carbon intensity of electricity due to the RPS and high level of participation in PCE, which provides carbon-free electricity. 233 345 California Street | Suite 450 | San Francisco, CA 94104 | (415) 348-0300 | Fax (415) 773-1790 www.fehrandpeers.com Memorandum Date: June 12, 2023 To: Billy Gross, Matt Ruble, Chris Espiritu, City of South San Francisco From: Brian Lin, Daniel Jacobson, and Taylor McAdam, Fehr & Peers Subject: Lindenville VMT, Vehicle LOS, and Traffic Sensitivity Analysis SF22-1220 This memo summarizes the vehicle miles traveled (VMT), vehicle level of service (LOS), and traffic sensitivity analysis completed for the Lindenville Specific Plan. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines were updated in 2020 per Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) to require the use of VMT to evaluate a project’s environmental effect on the transportation system. The passage of SB 743 eliminated automobile delay, LOS, and other similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion as a basis for determining a project’s significant impacts to the environment. However, lead agencies may still elect to utilize these measures for informational purposes or non-CEQA analysis. The City of South San Francisco requested an informational traffic study with both VMT and delay and congestion metrics for the Lindenville Specific Plan to help with local decision making. To supplement the LOS metric, the traffic sensitivity analysis compares travel times and volume-to- capacity (V/C) ratios of the different roadway configurations in each analysis scenario. The analysis input assumptions, methodology, and results are discussed in the sections below. 234 City of South San Francisco June 12, 2023 Page 2 of 16 Analysis Scenarios The following analysis scenarios were evaluated: • Existing – Using available pre-pandemic, 2019 traffic count data sources. • 2040 General Plan – Using 2040 General Plan Update volume forecasts and planned roadway improvements.1 • 2040 Lindenville Specific Plan – Using the 2040 General Plan Update with land use and transportation adjustments in Lindenville as described below. Lindenville Specific Plan Inputs The 2040 General Plan land uses and roadway network in the South San Francisco sub-area model, developed with the PTV Visum software platform, were adjusted to develop a Lindenville Specific Plan model. Lindenville Specific Plan Land Use Adjustments The Lindenville Specific Plan sought to keep total employment and population values closely aligned with the Lindenville district totals studied for the General Plan. Within the district, however, population and employment allotments moved around, as demonstrated in Table 1. Table 1: Lindenville Specific Plan Land Use Changes from General Plan C/CAG Zone Sub Area Zone Geography Residential Population Change from 2040 General Plan Employment Change from 2040 General Plan 1643 16431 Southwest Spruce +835 -8 1643 16435 Northwest Spruce +124 No change 1912 19121 Lowrie and western San Mateo Avenue -531 +28 1912 19123 North of Canal Street -639 +134 1912 19124 Southline zone No change +1,882 1912 19125 North of Victory, South of Canal +1,356 +99 1912 19127 Terminal Court zone -1,144 -1,883 TOTAL +2 +252 Source: Fehr & Peers, 2023. 1 The 2040 General Plan recommends construction of a bridge connecting I-380 and North Access Road to Haskins Way east of US-101 as well as a separate bridge that would connect Oyster Point with Sierra Point to the north. Given the uncertainty of these projects, the 2040 scenarios evaluated in this analysis do not include these as background assumptions. 235 City of South San Francisco June 12, 2023 Page 3 of 16 Lindenville Specific Plan Roadway Network Adjustments Transportation network and geometric adjustments were made for a variety of reasons including better alignment with the land use vision, adherence to mobility goals and policies, and improvements to traffic flow. These adjustments were tested within Visum to evaluate performance before being added into the Specific Plan network. The following adjustments are the most substantial adjustments made to the Visum model: South Spruce Avenue between El Camino Real and Railroad Avenue Reduced from two to one lane in each direction, with a center turn lane and protected bike lanes. South Canal Street between South Spruce Avenue and South Linden Avenue Removal of South Canal Street and extension of Mayfair Avenue from South Spruce Avenue east to South Linden Avenue. Street grid between South Spruce Avenue and South Linden Avenue Introduction of new alleys for vehicular access to new parking and loading at the center of the district. Myrtle Avenue at South Spruce Avenue Extension of Myrtle Avenue southeast to South Maple Avenue and South Linden Avenue. Noor Avenue at Huntington Avenue Extension of Noor Avenue northeast to South Maple Avenue with connection to Centennial Way Trail. Utah Avenue Extension Modification of the Utah Avenue Extension project included in the General Plan to include southbound US-101 ramps. San Mateo Avenue at Tanforan Avenue/Shaw Road New signal at San Mateo Avenue/Tanforan Avenue/Shaw Road. 236 City of South San Francisco June 12, 2023 Page 4 of 16 VMT Consistency Analysis The South San Francisco General Plan Update EIR transportation analysis found a significant impact for VMT. Under 2040 General Plan conditions both the VMT per service population and work-based VMT per employee exceeded the City’s adopted threshold of being 15% below the 2019 nine-county Bay Area average for these metrics. The gap between the estimated General Plan VMT per capita metrics and the thresholds was wide enough, that even with a robust Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program, the impact remained significant, and the Plan was adopted with overriding considerations. High VMT in South San Francisco generally stems from the extreme jobs-housing imbalance in the city and in San Mateo County more broadly. The East of 101 and Lindenville sub-areas are the most jobs-rich, housing-poor districts of the city and thus have the highest work-based VMT per capita values within the city. Even with the housing growth slated for these areas under the General Plan, they still remained higher than the city average and higher than the nine-county Bay Area averages for VMT per service population and work-based VMT per employee. Both districts and the city as a whole generate lower home-based VMT per resident than the regional average. A change in VMT between the General Plan and Lindenville Specific Plan could be the result of changes in land use and/or changes in the transportation network. As shown in the section above, the overall land use growth for Lindenville remained nearly consistent with the General Plan; the Specific Plan adds an additional 252 jobs and 2 residents above the growth programmed in the General Plan. The majority of the added jobs are located in the zone just north of the San Bruno city limit and within a half-mile of San Bruno BART. This proximity to a major regional train station will limit the VMT generated by those jobs. If they were evaluated as a standalone project, they would, in fact, be screened out of a VMT analysis given their proximity to a high-quality transit station. The Specific Plan moves General Plan jobs and residents around within Lindenville. These moves are not expected to change VMT given that all zones in the district had high work-based VMT and low home-based VMT under both 2019 existing conditions and 2040 General Plan conditions. For these reasons, the land use changes associated with the Specific Plan are not expected to result in a change in VMT or VMT per capita as compared to the 2040 General Plan. The Specific Plan vehicle network changes are described above. There are approximately 3,000 new linear square feet of roadway being added within Lindenville, but the function of these roadway extensions (Noor, Myrtle, Mayfair) is primarily permeability and internal connectivity within the district. The Myrtle Avenue and Mayfair Avenue extensions are not capacity enhancing roadway projects as these streets are not through streets to get in or out of Lindenville. The Noor Avenue extension will add an option for vehicles to access the district from El Camino Real, but the capacity gained on Noor Avenue is a replacement for capacity lost as part of the South Spruce Avenue lane reduction. None of these changes are anticipated to induce vehicle travel. The modification of the Utah Avenue extension project to include southbound US-101 ramps is expected to be a VMT-neutral modification. These ramps would replace the on- and off-ramps 237 City of South San Francisco June 12, 2023 Page 5 of 16 along Produce Avenue today and bring them closer to their vehicle trip origins and destinations in Lindenville. The gains in efficiency and possible increase in trips resulting from easier access to the southbound ramps would be offset, from a VMT perspective, by the miles saved by bringing the ramps closer to the heart of Lindenville. The convoluted path to the ramps today means that many Lindenville trips drive an even longer path to ramps further afield in Downtown or in San Bruno. Finally, the biggest Specific Plan changes to the Lindenville transportation network are the increased miles of designated bicycle facilities and improved sidewalks and crosswalks. These are consistent with policies in the General Plan and illustrated in a more tangible way in the Specific Plan. Any modest VMT increases that might result from the above land use and/or transportation network changes above, would certainly be offset by the modest VMT reductions expected from building a more multi-modal network in what is today a largely auto-oriented environment. For these reasons, the transportation network changes associated with the Specific Plan are not expected to result in a change in VMT or VMT per capita as compared to the 2040 General Plan. The total VMT and VMT per capita metrics resulting from the buildout of the Lindenville Specific Plan are therefore expected to be consistent with those calculated for buildout of the 2040 General Plan. 238 City of South San Francisco June 12, 2023 Page 6 of 16 Traffic LOS Analysis The analysis includes an evaluation of vehicle traffic conditions during typical weekday AM peak period (7:00 AM to 9:00 AM) and PM peak period (4:00 PM to 6:00 PM), when the surrounding transportation network is most congested. Study Intersections Intersections are generally the critical capacity-controlling elements of roadway networks. Therefore, the operations of critical intersections in the Specific Plan area are used as indicators of the adequacy of the vehicular circulation system. The following intersections (shown in Figure 1) were selected as most likely to be affected by the Lindenville Specific Plan: 1. South Spruce Avenue and North Canal Street 2. South Spruce Avenue and South Canal Street 3. South Spruce Avenue and Mayfair Avenue 4. South Linden Avenue and North Canal Street 5. South Linden Avenue and South Canal Street 6. San Mateo Avenue / Airport Boulevard / South Airport Boulevard / Produce Avenue 7. South Spruce Avenue and Victory Avenue 8. South Linden Avenue and Victory Avenue 9. South Linden Avenue and Dollar Avenue (and Southline in the future) 10. South Linden Avenue and San Mateo Avenue 11. San Mateo Avenue / Tanforan Avenue / Shaw Road 12. San Mateo Avenue and Utah (Future) 239 345 California Street | Suite 450 | San Francisco, CA 94104 | (415) 348-0300 | Fax (415) 773-1790 www.fehrandpeers.com Figure 1: LOS Study Intersections 240 City of South San Francisco June 12, 2023 Page 8 of 16 Methodology Synchro traffic analysis software was used for this study. The software uses the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition methodology to evaluate intersection operations and present summarized results in seconds of vehicle delay and level of service (LOS). LOS is a qualitative description of operations ranging from LOS A, when the roadway facility has excess capacity and vehicles experience little or no delay, to LOS F, where the volume of vehicles exceeds the capacity, resulting in long queues and excessive delays. Typically, LOS E represents “at-capacity” conditions. Results are reported for the peak AM hour and peak PM hour to represent the worst-case conditions of each intersection under the various analysis scenarios. For signalized intersections, LOS is based on the average delay experienced by all vehicles passing through the intersection. This methodology uses various intersection characteristics (such as traffic volumes, lane geometry, and signal phasing) to estimate the delay per vehicle. The delay per vehicle is a portion of the total delay attributed to the signal operations and includes initial deceleration, queue move up time, time stopped, and acceleration. For unsignalized intersections with All Way Stop Control (AWSC), LOS is based on the average delay experienced by all vehicles passing through the intersection. For unsignalized intersections with Two Way Stop Control (TWSC), LOS is based on the highest approach delay rather than the average delay of all vehicles passing through an intersection. Table 2 and Table 3 summarize the LOS designations for signalized and unsignalized intersections. Table 2: Signalized Intersection LOS Criteria LOS Average Control Delay (seconds/vehicle) Signalized A < 10.0 B > 10.0 to 20.0 C > 20.0 to 35.0 D > 35.0 to 55.0 E > 55.0 to 80.0 F > 80.0 Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition 241 City of South San Francisco June 12, 2023 Page 9 of 16 Table 3: Unsignalized Intersection LOS Criteria LOS Worst Approach Delay (seconds/vehicle) Unsignalized Intersections A < 10.0 B > 10.0 to 15.0 C > 15.0 to 25.0 D > 25.0 to 35.0 E > 35.0 to 50.0 F > 50.0 Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition There is no formal LOS threshold for intersections located within South San Francisco. Delay and LOS Results As shown in Table 4, Both LOS and delay from each scenario for the AM and PM peak hour are presented in Table 4 below: Table 4: Delay and LOS Results Intersection Intersection Control Peak Hour Existing 2040 General Plan Future with Specific Plan Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS 1. South Spruce Avenue / North Canal Street Signal AM PM 35.2 39.7 D D 72.1 >80 E F 64.4 >80 E F 2. South Spruce Avenue / South Canal Street Signal AM PM 3.0 9.8 A A 4.9 7.1 A A N/A 3. South Spruce Avenue / Mayfair Avenue Signal AM PM 20.3 56.1 C E 17.0 42.4 B D 17.9 64.1 B E 4. South Linden Avenue / North Canal Street Signal AM PM 9.0 5.2 A A 10.2 7.1 B A 12.2 11.3 B B 5. South Linden Avenue / South Canal Street TWSC AM PM 13.5 14.6 B (EB) B (EB) 36.7 >50 E (EB) F (EB) N/A 6. San Mateo Avenue / Airport Boulevard / South Airport Boulevard / Produce Avenue Signal AM PM 37.6 44.1 D D 48.9 >80 D F 49.2 73.3 D E 7. South Spruce Avenue / Victory Avenue Signal AM PM 9.6 9.6 A A 12.7 10.5 B B 15.3 16.6 B B 8. South Linden Avenue / Victory Avenue AWSC AM PM 10.3 11 B B 42 >50 E F >50 >50 F F 242 City of South San Francisco June 12, 2023 Page 10 of 16 Intersection Intersection Control Peak Hour Existing 2040 General Plan Future with Specific Plan Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS 9. South Linden Avenue / Dollar Avenue (Southline in future) Signal AM PM 25.2 24.4 C C 23.7 33.5 C C 35.0 44.7 C D 10. South Linden Avenue / San Mateo Avenue Signal AM PM 9.6 10.0 A A 13.4 23.6 B C 15.4 37.3 B D 11. San Mateo Avenue/ Tanforan Avenue / Shaw Road TWSC (Signal in Specific Plan) AM PM 20.5 20.8 C (EB) C (EB) >50 >50 F (EB) F (EB) 21.5 19.4 C B 12. San Mateo Avenue / Utah Avenue (Future) Signal AM PM N/A 19.0 16.3 B B 17.1 18.7 B B Source: Fehr & Peers, June 2023 General Notes - TWSC: Two-Way Stop Control. AWSC: All-Way Stop Control - Intersection of San Mateo and Utah only exist in 2040 conditions. S Spruce Avenue / South Canal Street and S Linden Avenue / South Canal Street only exist in existing conditions and 2040 General Plan conditions. - Detailed calculations for delay and LOS analysis are provided in Appendix A. Changes from Existing to 2040 South San Francisco General Plan A substantial increase in delay between existing conditions and 2040 General Plan conditions occurs at South Spruce Avenue / North Canal Street, South Linden Avenue / South Canal Street, South Linden Avenue / Victory Avenue, and San Mateo Avenue/Tanforan Avenue/Shaw Road in both the AM and PM peak hours. The intersections of South Linden Avenue / South Canal Street, South Linden Avenue / Victory Avenue, and San Mateo Avenue / Tanforan Avenue / Shaw Road have poor operations for one or two approaches due to being a stop-controlled intersection. San Mateo Avenue / Airport Boulevard / South Airport Boulevard / Produce Avenue intersection also experiences substantial delay and a worse LOS in the PM peak hour since the intersection is north of the US-101 SB On-Ramp and serves as the primary gateway out of Lindenville. Some intersections do improve in 2040 General Plan conditions compared to existing conditions. The intersection of South Spruce Avenue / Mayfair Avenue performs slightly better under 2040 General Plan Conditions because of signal timing optimization during both the AM and PM peak. With respect to the South Linden Avenue / Dollar Avenue intersection, the addition of Southline Avenue along with the incorporation of an overpass above the Caltrain tracks in the future General Plan leads to reduced delay in the AM peak hour. Changes from 2040 South San Francisco General Plan to 2040 Lindenville Specific Plan Signal timing at all signalized study intersections was optimized for demand and geometry changes between the 2040 General Plan and 2040 Lindenville Specific Plan model runs. The 243 City of South San Francisco June 12, 2023 Page 11 of 16 incorporation of the Specific Plan does not lead to many drastic changes in intersection vehicle delay or LOS in either the AM or PM peak hours. The intersection of South Linden Avenue / Victory Avenue still performs at a deficient level with high intersection delay due to AWSC control type at the intersection. This intersection may perform better if signalized in the future. The Specific Plan converts the intersection of San Mateo Avenue / Tanforan Avenue/ Shaw Road from a TWSC intersection to a signalized intersection which significantly improves the delay and LOS. Travel Time and Volume-to-Capacity Results Travel times in selected north-south and east-west corridors and volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios within the whole network were used to determine how the transportation network performed with Specific Plan conditions. The travel time study corridors are listed below: • North–South Corridors o San Mateo Avenue between Airport Boulevard and South Linden Avenue o South Spruce Avenue between Railroad Avenue and El Camino Real o South Linden Avenue between Railroad Avenue and San Mateo Avenue • East–West Corridors o Railroad Avenue between South Spruce Avenue and South Linden Avenue o North Canal Street between South Spruce Avenue and South Linden Avenue o Mayfair Avenue between South Spruce Avenue and South Linden Avenue Travel Time Results A comparison of the travel time results for 2040 General Plan and 2040 Lindenville Specific Plan are shown Table 5 for the AM peak hour and in Table 6 for the PM peak hour. Table 5: Travel Times – AM Peak Hour Roadway 2040 General Plan 2040 Lindenville Specific Plan Change between General Plan and Lindenville Specific Plan NB (EB) SB (WB) NB (EB) SB (WB) NB (EB) SB (WB) San Mateo Avenue 4:00 3:20 4:20 3:30 +0:20 +0:10 South Spruce Avenue 5:00 4:40 6:30 5:50 +1:30 +1:10 South Linden Avenue 3:40 4:30 4:00 4:50 +0:20 +0:20 Railroad Avenue 2:10 2:00 2:10 2:00 0:00 0:00 North Canal Street 1:30 1:20 1:30 1:30 0:00 +0:10 Mayfair Avenue N/A 1:40 1:40 N/A Source: Fehr & Peers, June 2023 Notes: Corridors are extended one link past end point to include intersection delay. Travel times are rounded to the nearest 10 seconds. SB: Southbound, NB: Northbound, EB: Eastbound, WB: Westbound 244 City of South San Francisco June 12, 2023 Page 12 of 16 Table 6: Travel Times – PM Peak Hour Roadway 2040 General Plan 2040 Lindenville Specific Plan Change between General Plan and Lindenville Specific Plan NB (EB) SB (WB) NB (EB) SB (WB) NB (EB) SB (WB) San Mateo Avenue 4:00 3:40 4:30 3:50 +0:30 +0:10 South Spruce Avenue 5:40 4:40 6:40 6:20 +1:00 +1:40 South Linden Avenue 4:20 4:20 5:10 4:30 +0:50 +0:10 Railroad Avenue 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:10 0:00 0:00 North Canal Street 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 0:00 0:00 Mayfair Avenue N/A 1:44 1:52 N/A Source: Fehr & Peers, June 2023 Notes: Corridors are extended one link past end point to include intersection delay. Travel times are rounded to the nearest 10 seconds. SB: Southbound, NB: Northbound, EB: Eastbound, WB: Westbound The primary increase in travel time occurs within the north-south study corridors of San Mateo Avenue, South Spruce Avenue, and South Linden Avenue. South Spruce Avenue experiences the highest increase in travel time under Specific Plan conditions with an increase of one to two minutes in both AM and PM peak hours. This is primarily due to the reduced capacity of South Spruce Avenue as well increased development along the street in Specific Plan conditions. Other corridors experience a slight increase in travel time of up to one minute due to proposed development with the Lindenville network. The east-west corridors have minimal changes in travel time compared to General Plan conditions. Volume-to-Capacity Ratio Analysis Results V/C ratio is a measure of how the vehicle volumes on a roadway compare to its capacity. V/C ratios are typically experienced as follows: • 0.6 and under is generally when the roadway is under capacity and in free flow. • Between 0.6 and 0.9 is when the roadway is approaching or at capacity. • 0.9 and greater means that the roadway is over capacity and congested. Figure 2 and Figure 3 display the V/C ratio along roadways in Lindenville during AM and PM peak hour with the Specific Plan. In both the AM and PM peaks, most roadways within Lindenville are not over capacity. In the AM peak hour, South Spruce Avenue southbound approaching the intersection of South Spruce Avenue and Huntington Avenue is at or over capacity, with a V/C ratio between 0.9 and 1.2. The PM peak hour experiences more congestion within the study network compared to the AM peak hour. Same as in the AM, there is high congestion for southbound traffic on South Spruce 245 City of South San Francisco June 12, 2023 Page 13 of 16 Avenue approaching not only the intersection with Huntington Avenue but also the intersection with El Camino Real. South Linden Avenue northbound traffic approaching the intersection with North Canal Street also has high congestion. San Mateo Avenue between South Linden Avenue and Airport Boulevard does not experience high levels of congestion under 2040 Specific Plan conditions. The V/C ratio generally remains under 0.6 in both directions. This indicates that re-striping San Mateo Avenue from one lane to two lanes per both the South San Francisco General Plan and the Lindenville Specific Plan may not be warranted due to shifted population growth and less than predicted demand along the corridor. 246 City of South San Francisco June 12, 2023 Page 14 of 16 Figure 2: Volume / Capacity Ratio Plot AM 247 City of South San Francisco June 12, 2023 Page 15 of 16 Figure 3: Volume / Capacity Ratio Plot PM 248 City of South San Francisco June 12, 2023 Page 16 of 16 Appendix A: LOS and Delay Calculations 249 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: S Spruce Ave & N Canal St 06/09/2023 Existing AM Synchro 11 Report Fehr and Peers Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 21 67 84 60 14 3 48 432 74 70 437 27 Future Volume (vph) 21 67 84 60 14 3 48 432 74 70 437 27 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.2 4.2 4.0 4.2 4.2 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.93 0.99 1.00 0.98 0.99 Flt Protected 0.99 0.96 0.95 1.00 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot) 1558 1608 1597 3105 3142 Flt Permitted 0.96 0.41 0.95 1.00 0.50 Satd. Flow (perm) 1501 688 1597 3105 1577 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 22 69 87 62 14 3 49 445 76 72 451 28 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 25 0 0 1 0 0 8 0 0 2 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 153 0 0 78 0 49 513 0 0 549 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 Heavy Vehicles (%) 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% Bus Blockages (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Prot NA Perm NA Protected Phases 3 3 5 2 4 8 6 Permitted Phases 3 3 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 21.2 21.2 6.7 110.4 59.6 Effective Green, g (s) 21.2 21.2 6.7 110.4 59.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.15 0.05 0.79 0.43 Clearance Time (s) 4.2 4.2 4.0 4.2 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 227 104 76 2448 671 v/s Ratio Prot c0.03 c0.17 v/s Ratio Perm 0.10 c0.11 c0.35 v/c Ratio 0.67 0.75 0.64 0.21 1.44dl Uniform Delay, d1 56.1 56.9 65.5 3.7 35.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.48 0.14 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 6.0 23.4 13.0 0.0 10.7 Delay (s) 62.1 80.3 109.9 0.5 46.1 Level of Service E F F A D Approach Delay (s) 62.1 80.3 9.9 46.1 Approach LOS E F A D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 35.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.64 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.4% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 dl Defacto Left Lane. Recode with 1 though lane as a left lane. c Critical Lane Group 250 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: S Spruce Ave & S Canal St 06/09/2023 Existing AM Synchro 11 Report Fehr and Peers Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 19 29 525 99 85 496 Future Volume (vph) 19 29 525 99 85 496 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.2 4.2 4.2 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.98 0.99 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.92 0.98 1.00 Flt Protected 0.98 1.00 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot) 1485 4450 3167 Flt Permitted 0.98 1.00 0.74 Satd. Flow (perm) 1485 4450 2360 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 20 30 541 102 88 511 RTOR Reduction (vph) 27 0 16 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 23 0 627 0 0 599 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 Heavy Vehicles (%) 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% Turn Type Prot NA Perm NA Protected Phases 8 2 4 3 6 Permitted Phases 3 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 13.4 88.6 85.0 Effective Green, g (s) 13.4 88.6 85.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.63 0.61 Clearance Time (s) 4.2 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 142 2816 1432 v/s Ratio Prot c0.02 c0.14 v/s Ratio Perm c0.25 v/c Ratio 0.16 0.22 0.42 Uniform Delay, d1 58.1 11.0 14.5 Progression Factor 1.00 0.07 0.05 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 0.0 0.0 Delay (s) 58.3 0.8 0.7 Level of Service E A A Approach Delay (s) 58.3 0.8 0.7 Approach LOS E A A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 3.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.37 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.7% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 251 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: S Spruce Ave & Mayfair Ave 06/09/2023 Existing AM Synchro 11 Report Fehr and Peers Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 59 109 41 565 500 15 Future Volume (vph) 59 109 41 565 500 15 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.2 4.0 4.2 4.2 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1478 1597 3195 3181 Flt Permitted 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1478 1597 3195 3181 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 61 112 42 582 515 15 RTOR Reduction (vph) 49 0 0 0 1 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 124 0 42 582 529 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 Heavy Vehicles (%) 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% Turn Type Prot Prot NA NA Protected Phases 4 5 2 3 6 8 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 18.3 6.7 70.3 98.4 Effective Green, g (s) 18.3 6.7 70.3 98.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.05 0.50 0.70 Clearance Time (s) 4.2 4.0 4.2 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 193 76 1604 2235 v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 c0.03 c0.18 c0.17 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.64 0.55 0.36 0.24 Uniform Delay, d1 57.8 65.2 21.2 7.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.07 Incremental Delay, d2 5.4 4.9 0.6 0.0 Delay (s) 63.2 70.0 21.9 0.5 Level of Service E E C A Approach Delay (s) 63.2 25.1 0.5 Approach LOS E C A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 20.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.39 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 40.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 252 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 4: S. Linden Ave & N Canal St 06/09/2023 Existing AM Synchro 11 Report Fehr and Peers Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 107 0 92 0 0 0 0 244 0 0 251 85 Future Volume (veh/h) 107 0 92 0 0 0 0 244 0 0 251 85 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1707 1707 1707 1707 1707 1707 1707 1707 1707 0 1707 1707 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 110 0 95 0 0 0 0 252 0 0 259 88 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, % 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 0 13 13 Cap, veh/h 213 16 116 0 313 0 0 2208 0 0 829 282 Arrive On Green 0.18 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.68 Sat Flow, veh/h 650 86 636 0 1707 0 0 3415 0 0 1217 414 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 205 0 0 0 0 0 0 252 0 0 0 347 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1372 0 0 0 1707 0 0 1622 0 0 0 1631 Q Serve(g_s), s 7.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.1 Prop In Lane 0.54 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 345 0 0 0 313 0 0 2208 0 0 0 1110 V/C Ratio(X) 0.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.31 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 810 0 0 0 726 0 0 2208 0 0 0 1110 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 23.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 23.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 LnGrp LOS C A A A A A A A A A A A Approach Vol, veh/h 205 0 252 347 Approach Delay, s/veh 23.6 0.0 3.4 4.5 Approach LOS C A A Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 44.0 14.8 44.0 14.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 40.0 31.0 40.0 25.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.1 10.4 3.6 0.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.6 0.8 1.2 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 9.0 HCM 6th LOS A 253 HCM 6th TWSC 5: S. Linden Ave & S Canal St 06/09/2023 Existing AM Synchro 11 Report Fehr and Peers Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.4 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 101 55 21 143 266 77 Future Vol, veh/h 101 55 21 143 266 77 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 97 97 97 97 97 97 Heavy Vehicles, % 13 13 13 13 13 13 Mvmt Flow 104 57 22 147 274 79 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 465 274 353 0 - 0 Stage 1 274 - - - - - Stage 2 191 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.53 6.33 4.23 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.53 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.53 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.617 3.417 2.317 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 536 739 1147 - - - Stage 1 747 - - - - - Stage 2 816 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 525 739 1147 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 525 - - - - - Stage 1 731 - - - - - Stage 2 816 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 13.5 1 0 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1147 - 585 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.019 - 0.275 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 8.2 0 13.5 - - HCM Lane LOS A A B - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 1.1 - - 254 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 6: Produce Ave./Airport Blvd. & San Mateo Ave./So. Airport Blvd.06/09/2023 Existing AM Synchro 11 Report Fehr and Peers Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 119 326 51 316 204 279 129 17 164 246 727 135 Future Volume (veh/h) 119 326 51 316 204 279 129 17 164 246 727 135 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1441 1441 1441 1618 1618 1618 1796 1796 1796 1811 1811 1811 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 123 336 0 326 210 0 133 18 0 254 749 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, % 31 31 31 19 19 19 7 7 7 6 6 6 Cap, veh/h 200 420 518 272 176 673 531 1415 Arrive On Green 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.00 0.31 0.41 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1372 2881 1221 3083 1618 1372 1711 3413 1522 1725 3441 1535 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 123 336 0 326 210 0 133 18 0 254 749 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1372 1441 1221 1541 1618 1372 1711 1706 1522 1725 1721 1535 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.8 11.8 0.0 10.9 13.4 0.0 7.9 0.4 0.0 12.5 17.2 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.8 11.8 0.0 10.9 13.4 0.0 7.9 0.4 0.0 12.5 17.2 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 200 420 518 272 176 673 531 1415 V/C Ratio(X) 0.61 0.80 0.63 0.77 0.76 0.03 0.48 0.53 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 289 606 611 321 293 809 531 1415 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.83 0.83 0.00 0.88 0.88 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.71 0.71 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 42.1 43.4 0.0 46.4 47.6 0.0 45.8 34.0 0.0 29.5 23.3 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.9 2.5 0.0 1.4 8.4 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.0 4.3 0.0 4.6 6.5 0.0 3.5 0.2 0.0 5.1 6.9 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 43.0 45.8 0.0 47.8 56.0 0.0 48.4 34.0 0.0 29.6 24.3 0.0 LnGrp LOS D D D E D C C C Approach Vol, veh/h 459 536 151 1003 Approach Delay, s/veh 45.1 51.0 46.7 25.6 Approach LOS D D D C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.8 48.1 19.9 37.3 25.6 22.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.9 4.6 4.9 * 4.9 4.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.0 26.0 22.1 19.1 * 25 20.8 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.9 19.2 13.8 14.5 2.4 15.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 3.0 1.2 0.2 0.0 1.4 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 37.6 HCM 6th LOS D Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Unsignalized Delay for [NBR, EBR, WBR, SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 255 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 7: Spruce Ave & Victory Ave 06/09/2023 Existing AM Synchro 11 Report Fehr and Peers Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 104 0 2 0 607 201 75 550 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 104 0 2 0 607 201 75 550 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1707 1707 1707 1707 1707 1707 1707 1707 1707 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 107 0 0 0 626 0 77 567 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, % 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 Cap, veh/h 176 0 2 2328 96 2633 0 Arrive On Green 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.72 0.00 0.06 0.81 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1626 0 0 1626 3316 0 1626 3316 0 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 107 0 0 0 626 0 77 567 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1626 0 0 1626 1615 0 1626 1615 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.7 0.0 4.7 3.9 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.7 0.0 4.7 3.9 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 176 0 2 2328 96 2633 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.80 0.22 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 496 0 138 2328 203 2633 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 42.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.8 0.0 46.5 2.1 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 5.6 0.2 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 0.8 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 43.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.1 0.0 52.1 2.3 0.0 LnGrp LOS D A A A D A A Approach Vol, veh/h 107 626 644 Approach Delay, s/veh 43.8 5.1 8.2 Approach LOS D A A Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s9.4 76.3 14.3 0.0 85.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 * 4.2 3.5 3.5 * 4.2 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s12.5 * 46 30.5 8.5 * 50 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s6.7 8.7 8.3 0.0 5.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 5.0 0.4 0.0 4.5 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 9.6 HCM 6th LOS A Notes * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Unsignalized Delay for [NBR, WBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 256 HCM 6th AWSC 8: S. Linden Ave & Victory Ave.06/09/2023 Existing AM Synchro 11 Report Fehr and Peers Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh10.3 Intersection LOS B Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 68 14 69 1 6 6 61 136 16 30 224 22 Future Vol, veh/h 68 14 69 1 6 6 61 136 16 30 224 22 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Heavy Vehicles, % 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 Mvmt Flow 70 14 71 1 6 6 63 140 16 31 231 23 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach RightNB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1 HCM Control Delay 9.7 8.5 10.1 10.8 HCM LOS A A B B Lane NBLn1 EBLn1WBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 29% 45% 8% 11% Vol Thru, % 64% 9% 46% 81% Vol Right, % 8% 46% 46% 8% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 213 151 13 276 LT Vol 61 68 1 30 Through Vol 136 14 6 224 RT Vol 16 69 6 22 Lane Flow Rate 220 156 13 285 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1 Degree of Util (X) 0.3 0.223 0.02 0.379 Departure Headway (Hd) 4.911 5.153 5.303 4.8 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 729 693 668 745 Service Time 2.966 3.214 3.387 2.852 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.302 0.225 0.019 0.383 HCM Control Delay 10.1 9.7 8.5 10.8 HCM Lane LOS B A A B HCM 95th-tile Q 1.3 0.9 0.1 1.8 257 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Dollar Ave & S. Linden Ave 06/09/2023 Existing AM Synchro 11 Report Fehr and Peers Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 0 160 89 64 140 0 118 0 126 0 0 0 Future Volume (vph) 0 160 89 64 140 0 118 0 126 0 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.95 1.00 0.93 Flt Protected 1.00 0.98 0.98 Satd. Flow (prot) 1571 1641 1496 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.98 0.95 Satd. Flow (perm) 1571 1641 1455 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.92 0.88 0.92 0.88 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 182 101 73 159 0 134 0 143 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 39 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 271 0 0 232 0 0 238 0 0 0 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 3 3 1 1 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 14% 14% 14% 14% 2% 14% 2% 14% 2% 2% 2% Turn Type NA Split NA Perm NA Protected Phases 2 2 6 13 6 13 4 9 8 Permitted Phases 4 9 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 17.6 17.8 23.7 Effective Green, g (s) 17.6 17.8 23.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.25 0.25 0.33 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 388 410 485 v/s Ratio Prot c0.17 c0.14 v/s Ratio Perm c0.16 v/c Ratio 0.70 0.57 0.49 Uniform Delay, d1 24.3 23.3 18.9 Progression Factor 1.00 0.97 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.4 1.1 0.3 Delay (s) 28.7 23.7 19.2 Level of Service C C B Approach Delay (s) 28.7 23.7 19.2 0.0 Approach LOS C C B A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 23.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.66 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 71.1 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 49.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 258 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 10: San Mateo Ave & S. Linden Ave 06/09/2023 Existing AM Synchro 11 Report Fehr and Peers Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 191 97 107 339 157 129 Future Volume (veh/h) 191 97 107 339 157 129 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1707 1707 1707 1707 1707 1707 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 197 51 110 0 162 133 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, % 13 13 13 13 13 13 Cap, veh/h 278 248 404 205 884 Arrive On Green 0.17 0.17 0.24 0.00 0.13 0.52 Sat Flow, veh/h 1626 1447 1707 1447 1626 1707 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 197 51 110 0 162 133 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1626 1447 1707 1447 1626 1707 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.9 0.8 1.4 0.0 2.5 1.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.9 0.8 1.4 0.0 2.5 1.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 278 248 404 205 884 V/C Ratio(X) 0.71 0.21 0.27 0.79 0.15 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 2084 1854 2387 2084 2387 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh10.1 9.2 8.0 0.0 10.9 3.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 2.6 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln0.8 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.8 0.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 11.3 9.3 8.1 0.0 13.5 3.3 LnGrp LOS B A A B A Approach Vol, veh/h 248 110 295 Approach Delay, s/veh 10.9 8.1 8.9 Approach LOS B A A Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 17.3 8.4 7.2 10.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 36.0 33.0 33.0 36.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.0 4.9 4.5 3.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.4 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 9.5 HCM 6th LOS A Notes Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 259 HCM 6th TWSC 11: San Mateo Ave & Tanforan Ave/Shaw Rd 06/09/2023 Existing AM Synchro 11 Report Fehr and Peers Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.8 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 0 1 3 0 24 21 417 33 96 205 19 Future Vol, veh/h 5 0 1 3 0 24 21 417 33 96 205 19 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - 50 - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 Heavy Vehicles, % 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 Mvmt Flow 5 0 1 3 0 25 22 430 34 99 211 20 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 923 927 221 911 920 447 231 0 0 464 0 0 Stage 1 419 419 - 491 491 - - - - - - - Stage 2 504 508 - 420 429 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.23 6.63 6.33 7.23 6.63 6.33 4.23 - - 4.23 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.23 5.63 - 6.23 5.63 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.23 5.63 - 6.23 5.63 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.617 4.117 3.417 3.617 4.117 3.417 2.317 - - 2.317 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 239 257 792 244 260 589 1275 - - 1042 - - Stage 1 591 572 - 539 530 - - - - - - - Stage 2 530 521 - 590 566 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 209 227 792 222 230 589 1275 - - 1042 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 209 227 - 222 230 - - - - - - - Stage 1 577 518 - 527 518 - - - - - - - Stage 2 496 509 - 533 512 - - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 20.5 12.7 0.4 2.6 HCM LOS C B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1275 - - 238 498 1042 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.017 - - 0.026 0.056 0.095 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.9 - - 20.5 12.7 8.8 - - HCM Lane LOS A - - C B A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0.1 0.2 0.3 - - 260 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12: Railroad Crossing & S. Linden Ave 06/09/2023 Existing AM Synchro 11 Report Fehr and Peers Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 0 286 0 0 204 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 Future Volume (vph) 0 286 0 0 204 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1863 1863 1863 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1863 1863 1863 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 311 0 0 222 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 311 0 0 222 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 Turn Type NA NA NA Protected Phases 2 4 6 8 2 4 6 8 9 9 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 61.3 61.3 1.8 Effective Green, g (s) 61.3 61.3 1.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.86 0.86 0.03 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1606 1606 47 v/s Ratio Prot c0.17 0.12 c0.01 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.19 0.14 0.23 Uniform Delay, d1 0.8 0.8 34.0 Progression Factor 0.40 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 0.0 2.6 Delay (s) 0.3 0.8 36.5 Level of Service A A D Approach Delay (s) 0.3 0.8 0.0 36.5 Approach LOS A A A D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 1.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.24 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 71.1 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 35.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 261 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: S Spruce Ave & N Canal St 06/09/2023 Existing PM Synchro 11 Report Fehr and Peers Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 25 6 29 73 56 50 77 467 58 35 381 20 Future Volume (vph) 25 6 29 73 56 50 77 467 58 35 381 20 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.2 4.2 4.0 4.2 4.2 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.94 0.96 1.00 0.98 0.99 Flt Protected 0.98 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1591 1630 1656 3242 3269 Flt Permitted 0.79 0.83 0.95 1.00 0.57 Satd. Flow (perm) 1281 1385 1656 3242 1858 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow (vph) 28 7 32 81 62 56 86 519 64 39 423 22 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 25 0 0 11 0 0 6 0 0 2 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 42 0 0 188 0 86 577 0 0 482 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 Heavy Vehicles (%) 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% Bus Blockages (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Prot NA Perm NA Protected Phases 3 3 5 2 4 8 6 Permitted Phases 3 3 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 25.2 25.2 7.0 106.4 51.0 Effective Green, g (s) 25.2 25.2 7.0 106.4 51.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.18 0.05 0.76 0.36 Clearance Time (s) 4.2 4.2 4.0 4.2 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 230 249 82 2463 676 v/s Ratio Prot c0.05 c0.18 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 c0.14 c0.26 v/c Ratio 0.18 0.76 1.05 0.23 0.71 Uniform Delay, d1 48.7 54.5 66.5 4.9 38.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.48 0.10 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 11.0 112.3 0.0 6.3 Delay (s) 48.8 65.5 210.7 0.5 44.5 Level of Service D E F A D Approach Delay (s) 48.8 65.5 27.5 44.5 Approach LOS D E C D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 39.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.61 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.8% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 262 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: S Spruce Ave & S Canal St 06/09/2023 Existing PM Synchro 11 Report Fehr and Peers Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 69 93 509 10 20 463 Future Volume (vph) 69 93 509 10 20 463 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.2 4.2 4.2 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.98 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.92 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.98 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1545 4741 3304 Flt Permitted 0.98 1.00 0.91 Satd. Flow (perm) 1545 4741 3022 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow (vph) 77 103 566 11 22 514 RTOR Reduction (vph) 35 0 1 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 145 0 576 0 0 536 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 Heavy Vehicles (%) 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% Turn Type Prot NA Perm NA Protected Phases 8 2 4 3 6 Permitted Phases 3 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 19.6 78.4 80.4 Effective Green, g (s) 19.6 78.4 80.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.56 0.57 Clearance Time (s) 4.2 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 216 2654 1735 v/s Ratio Prot c0.09 c0.12 v/s Ratio Perm c0.18 v/c Ratio 0.67 0.22 0.31 Uniform Delay, d1 57.1 15.4 15.4 Progression Factor 1.00 0.09 0.05 Incremental Delay, d2 6.3 0.0 0.0 Delay (s) 63.4 1.5 0.8 Level of Service E A A Approach Delay (s) 63.4 1.5 0.8 Approach LOS E A A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 9.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.36 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 46.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 263 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: S Spruce Ave & Mayfair Ave 06/09/2023 Existing PM Synchro 11 Report Fehr and Peers Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 16 48 123 503 505 27 Future Volume (vph) 16 48 123 503 505 27 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.2 4.0 4.2 4.2 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.90 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flt Protected 0.99 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1512 1656 3312 3287 Flt Permitted 0.99 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1512 1656 3312 3287 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow (vph) 18 53 137 559 561 30 RTOR Reduction (vph) 47 0 0 0 2 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 24 0 137 559 589 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 Heavy Vehicles (%) 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% Turn Type Prot Prot NA NA Protected Phases 4 5 2 3 6 8 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 16.4 7.0 62.0 100.0 Effective Green, g (s) 16.4 7.0 62.0 100.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.05 0.44 0.71 Clearance Time (s) 4.2 4.0 4.2 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 177 82 1466 2347 v/s Ratio Prot c0.02 c0.08 c0.17 c0.18 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.14 1.67 0.38 0.25 Uniform Delay, d1 55.4 66.5 26.1 7.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.06 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 349.1 0.8 0.0 Delay (s) 55.6 415.6 26.9 0.5 Level of Service E F C A Approach Delay (s) 55.6 103.4 0.5 Approach LOS E F A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 56.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.39 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 41.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 264 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 4: S. Linden Ave & N Canal St 06/09/2023 Existing PM Synchro 11 Report Fehr and Peers Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 93 0 11 0 0 0 70 356 0 0 213 101 Future Volume (veh/h) 93 0 11 0 0 0 70 356 0 0 213 101 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1767 1767 1767 1767 1767 1767 1767 1767 1767 0 1767 1767 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 103 0 12 0 0 0 78 396 0 0 237 112 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 9 9 Cap, veh/h 253 0 15 0 186 0 394 1901 0 0 844 399 Arrive On Green 0.11 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.75 Sat Flow, veh/h 1195 0 139 0 1767 0 409 2631 0 0 1133 535 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 115 0 0 0 0 0 238 236 0 0 0 349 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1335 0 0 0 1767 0 1433 1527 0 0 0 1668 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6 Prop In Lane 0.90 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.32 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 268 0 0 0 186 0 1157 1138 0 0 0 1244 V/C Ratio(X) 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.28 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 898 0 0 0 823 0 1157 1138 0 0 0 1244 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 23.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 23.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 LnGrp LOS C A A A A A A A A A A A Approach Vol, veh/h 115 0 474 349 Approach Delay, s/veh 23.9 0.0 2.4 2.8 Approach LOS C A A Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 44.0 9.7 44.0 9.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 40.0 31.0 40.0 25.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.6 6.5 4.5 0.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.6 0.4 2.2 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 5.2 HCM 6th LOS A 265 HCM 6th TWSC 5: S. Linden Ave & S Canal St 06/09/2023 Existing PM Synchro 11 Report Fehr and Peers Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.6 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 91 17 31 335 118 106 Future Vol, veh/h 91 17 31 335 118 106 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, % 9 9 9 9 9 9 Mvmt Flow 101 19 34 372 131 118 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 571 131 249 0 - 0 Stage 1 131 - - - - - Stage 2 440 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.49 6.29 4.19 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.49 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.49 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.581 3.381 2.281 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 471 900 1277 - - - Stage 1 878 - - - - - Stage 2 635 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 455 900 1277 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 455 - - - - - Stage 1 848 - - - - - Stage 2 635 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 14.6 0.7 0 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1277 - 493 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.027 - 0.243 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.9 0 14.6 - - HCM Lane LOS A A B - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0.9 - - 266 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 6: Produce Ave./Airport Blvd. & San Mateo Ave./So. Airport Blvd.06/09/2023 Existing PM Synchro 11 Report Fehr and Peers Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 270 28 261 464 263 584 97 21 79 62 993 78 Future Volume (veh/h) 270 28 261 464 263 584 97 21 79 62 993 78 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1441 1441 1441 1618 1618 1618 1796 1796 1796 1811 1811 1811 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 300 31 0 516 292 0 108 23 0 69 1103 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 31 31 31 19 19 19 7 7 7 6 6 6 Cap, veh/h 360 189 663 348 153 879 410 1423 Arrive On Green 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.22 0.22 0.00 0.09 0.26 0.00 0.24 0.41 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 2744 1441 1221 3083 1618 1372 1711 3413 1522 1725 3441 1535 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 300 31 0 516 292 0 108 23 0 69 1103 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1372 1441 1221 1541 1618 1372 1711 1706 1522 1725 1721 1535 Q Serve(g_s), s 12.8 2.3 0.0 18.9 20.7 0.0 7.4 0.6 0.0 3.8 33.2 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 12.8 2.3 0.0 18.9 20.7 0.0 7.4 0.6 0.0 3.8 33.2 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 360 189 663 348 153 879 410 1423 V/C Ratio(X) 0.83 0.16 0.78 0.84 0.71 0.03 0.17 0.77 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 505 265 817 429 171 879 410 1423 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.88 0.88 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 50.9 46.3 0.0 44.4 45.1 0.0 53.1 33.3 0.0 36.3 30.4 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 5.2 0.1 0.0 3.9 11.6 0.0 8.6 0.1 0.0 0.9 4.2 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.7 0.8 0.0 7.6 9.5 0.0 3.5 0.3 0.0 1.7 14.2 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 56.1 46.4 0.0 48.2 56.6 0.0 61.8 33.4 0.0 37.2 34.5 0.0 LnGrp LOS E D D E E C D C Approach Vol, veh/h 331 808 131 1172 Approach Delay, s/veh 55.2 51.3 56.8 34.7 Approach LOS E D E C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.7 54.5 20.3 33.4 35.8 30.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.9 4.6 4.9 * 4.9 4.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 12.0 36.0 22.1 17.1 * 31 31.8 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.4 35.2 14.8 5.8 2.6 22.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.6 0.6 0.1 0.0 3.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 44.1 HCM 6th LOS D Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Unsignalized Delay for [NBR, EBR, WBR, SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 267 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 7: Spruce Ave & Victory Ave 06/09/2023 Existing PM Synchro 11 Report Fehr and Peers Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 239 0 64 0 551 76 5 547 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 239 0 64 0 551 76 5 547 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1767 1767 1767 1767 1767 1767 1767 1767 1767 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 266 0 0 0 612 0 6 608 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Cap, veh/h 353 0 2 2086 11 2274 0 Arrive On Green 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.62 0.00 0.01 0.68 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1682 0 0 1682 3431 0 1682 3431 0 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 266 0 0 0 612 0 6 608 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1682 0 0 1682 1672 0 1682 1672 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 10.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.9 0.0 0.2 5.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.9 0.0 0.2 5.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 353 0 2 2086 11 2274 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.57 0.27 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 685 0 204 2086 204 2274 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 26.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.1 0.0 34.7 4.4 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 16.5 0.3 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.1 1.3 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 27.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.4 0.0 51.1 4.7 0.0 LnGrp LOS C A A A D A A Approach Vol, veh/h 266 612 614 Approach Delay, s/veh 27.2 6.4 5.1 Approach LOS C A A Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s3.9 47.9 18.2 0.0 51.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 * 4.2 3.5 3.5 * 4.2 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s8.5 * 22 28.5 8.5 * 22 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s2.2 7.9 12.4 0.0 7.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.6 1.0 0.0 3.6 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 9.6 HCM 6th LOS A Notes * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Unsignalized Delay for [NBR, WBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 268 HCM 6th AWSC 8: S. Linden Ave & Victory Ave.06/09/2023 Existing PM Synchro 11 Report Fehr and Peers Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 11 Intersection LOS B Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 36 7 57 17 24 31 79 244 4 6 124 59 Future Vol, veh/h 36 7 57 17 24 31 79 244 4 6 124 59 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Heavy Vehicles, % 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Mvmt Flow 40 8 63 19 27 34 88 271 4 7 138 66 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach RightNB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1 HCM Control Delay 9.4 9.2 12.5 9.8 HCM LOS A A B A Lane NBLn1 EBLn1WBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 24% 36% 24% 3% Vol Thru, % 75% 7% 33% 66% Vol Right, % 1% 57% 43% 31% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 327 100 72 189 LT Vol 79 36 17 6 Through Vol 244 7 24 124 RT Vol 4 57 31 59 Lane Flow Rate 363 111 80 210 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1 Degree of Util (X) 0.489 0.162 0.119 0.281 Departure Headway (Hd) 4.842 5.258 5.369 4.812 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 738 674 660 739 Service Time 2.907 3.35 3.466 2.885 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.492 0.165 0.121 0.284 HCM Control Delay 12.5 9.4 9.2 9.8 HCM Lane LOS B A A A HCM 95th-tile Q 2.7 0.6 0.4 1.2 269 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Dollar Ave & S. Linden Ave 06/09/2023 Existing PM Synchro 11 Report Fehr and Peers Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 0 195 57 108 155 0 119 0 54 0 0 0 Future Volume (vph) 0 195 57 108 155 0 119 0 54 0 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.97 1.00 0.96 Flt Protected 1.00 0.98 0.97 Satd. Flow (prot) 1606 1633 1531 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.98 0.79 Satd. Flow (perm) 1606 1633 1257 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.92 0.88 0.92 0.88 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 222 65 123 176 0 135 0 61 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 70 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 281 0 0 299 0 0 126 0 0 0 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 3 3 1 1 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 14% 14% 14% 14% 2% 14% 2% 14% 2% 2% 2% Turn Type NA Split NA custom NA Protected Phases 2 6 13 6 13 8 4 Permitted Phases 2 4 9 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 18.6 21.4 12.8 Effective Green, g (s) 18.6 21.4 12.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.26 0.30 0.18 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 423 494 227 v/s Ratio Prot c0.18 c0.18 v/s Ratio Perm c0.10 v/c Ratio 0.66 0.61 0.56 Uniform Delay, d1 23.2 21.0 26.3 Progression Factor 1.00 0.97 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.0 1.4 1.7 Delay (s) 26.3 21.7 28.0 Level of Service C C C Approach Delay (s) 26.3 21.7 28.0 0.0 Approach LOS C C C A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 25.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.64 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.6 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 270 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 10: San Mateo Ave & S. Linden Ave 06/09/2023 Existing PM Synchro 11 Report Fehr and Peers Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 276 132 131 244 129 120 Future Volume (veh/h) 276 132 131 244 129 120 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1767 1767 1767 1767 1767 1767 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 307 147 146 0 143 133 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 9 9 9 9 9 9 Cap, veh/h 428 381 380 182 820 Arrive On Green 0.25 0.25 0.21 0.00 0.11 0.46 Sat Flow, veh/h 1682 1497 1767 1497 1682 1767 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 307 147 146 0 143 133 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1682 1497 1767 1497 1682 1767 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.7 2.3 2.0 0.0 2.4 1.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.7 2.3 2.0 0.0 2.4 1.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 428 381 380 182 820 V/C Ratio(X) 0.72 0.39 0.38 0.78 0.16 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1953 1738 2237 1953 2237 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 9.7 8.8 9.6 0.0 12.3 4.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.8 0.2 0.2 0.0 2.8 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln1.2 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.8 0.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 10.5 9.0 9.8 0.0 15.1 4.5 LnGrp LOS B A A B A Approach Vol, veh/h 454 146 276 Approach Delay, s/veh 10.0 9.8 10.0 Approach LOS B A A Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 17.2 11.2 7.1 10.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 36.0 33.0 33.0 36.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.2 6.7 4.4 4.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.5 0.7 0.2 0.6 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 10.0 HCM 6th LOS A Notes Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 271 HCM 6th TWSC 11: San Mateo Ave & Tanforan Ave/Shaw Rd 06/09/2023 Existing PM Synchro 11 Report Fehr and Peers Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.8 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 29 0 7 18 0 64 6 282 6 47 344 5 Future Vol, veh/h 29 0 7 18 0 64 6 282 6 47 344 5 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - 50 - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, % 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Mvmt Flow 32 0 8 20 0 71 7 313 7 52 382 6 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 855 823 385 824 823 317 388 0 0 320 0 0 Stage 1 489 489 - 331 331 - - - - - - - Stage 2 366 334 - 493 492 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.19 6.59 6.29 7.19 6.59 6.29 4.19 - - 4.19 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.19 5.59 - 6.19 5.59 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.19 5.59 - 6.19 5.59 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.581 4.081 3.381 3.581 4.081 3.381 2.281 - - 2.281 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 271 301 648 284 301 708 1133 - - 1201 - - Stage 1 548 538 - 668 633 - - - - - - - Stage 2 639 631 - 545 536 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 234 286 648 270 286 708 1133 - - 1201 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 234 286 - 270 286 - - - - - - - Stage 1 544 515 - 663 628 - - - - - - - Stage 2 570 626 - 515 513 - - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 20.8 13.3 0.2 1 HCM LOS C B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1133 - - 267 522 1201 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.006 - - 0.15 0.175 0.043 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 8.2 - - 20.8 13.3 8.1 - - HCM Lane LOS A - - C B A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.5 0.6 0.1 - - 272 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12: Railroad Crossing & S. Linden Ave 06/09/2023 Existing PM Synchro 11 Report Fehr and Peers Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 0 249 0 0 263 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 Future Volume (vph) 0 249 0 0 263 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1863 1863 1863 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1863 1863 1863 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 271 0 0 286 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 271 0 0 286 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 Turn Type NA NA NA Protected Phases 2 4 6 8 2 4 6 8 9 9 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 60.8 60.8 1.8 Effective Green, g (s) 60.8 60.8 1.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.86 0.86 0.03 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1604 1604 47 v/s Ratio Prot 0.15 c0.15 c0.01 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.17 0.18 0.21 Uniform Delay, d1 0.8 0.8 33.7 Progression Factor 0.27 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 0.0 2.3 Delay (s) 0.2 0.8 36.0 Level of Service A A D Approach Delay (s) 0.2 0.8 0.0 36.0 Approach LOS A A A D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 1.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.22 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.6 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 33.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 273 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: S Spruce Ave & N Canal St 06/09/2023 Future with SSF General Plan Project AM Synchro 11 Report Fehr and Peers Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 37 106 103 47 60 13 34 424 45 101 558 45 Future Volume (vph) 37 106 103 47 60 13 34 424 45 101 558 45 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.2 4.2 4.0 4.2 4.2 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.94 0.99 1.00 0.99 0.99 Flt Protected 0.99 0.98 0.95 1.00 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot) 1572 1621 1597 3136 3132 Flt Permitted 0.93 0.57 0.95 1.00 0.50 Satd. Flow (perm) 1472 934 1597 3136 1586 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 38 109 106 48 62 13 35 437 46 104 575 46 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 19 0 0 3 0 0 6 0 0 3 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 234 0 0 120 0 35 477 0 0 722 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 Heavy Vehicles (%) 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% Bus Blockages (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Prot NA Perm NA Protected Phases 3 3 5 2 4 8 6 Permitted Phases 3 3 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 25.3 25.3 6.3 106.3 56.8 Effective Green, g (s) 25.3 25.3 6.3 106.3 56.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.18 0.04 0.76 0.41 Clearance Time (s) 4.2 4.2 4.0 4.2 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 266 168 71 2381 643 v/s Ratio Prot c0.02 c0.15 v/s Ratio Perm c0.16 0.13 c0.46 v/c Ratio 0.88 0.71 0.49 0.20 2.04dl Uniform Delay, d1 55.9 53.9 65.3 4.8 41.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.48 0.16 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 26.2 11.2 1.9 0.0 74.3 Delay (s) 82.1 65.2 98.5 0.8 115.9 Level of Service F E F A F Approach Delay (s) 82.1 65.2 7.4 115.9 Approach LOS F E A F Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 72.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.81 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.1% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 dl Defacto Left Lane. Recode with 1 though lane as a left lane. c Critical Lane Group 274 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: S Spruce Ave & S Canal St 06/09/2023 Future with SSF General Plan Project AM Synchro 11 Report Fehr and Peers Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 44 48 455 78 97 611 Future Volume (vph) 44 48 455 78 97 611 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.2 4.2 4.2 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.98 0.99 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.93 0.98 1.00 Flt Protected 0.98 1.00 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot) 1501 4461 3168 Flt Permitted 0.98 1.00 0.77 Satd. Flow (perm) 1501 4461 2442 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 45 49 469 80 100 630 RTOR Reduction (vph) 29 0 16 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 65 0 533 0 0 730 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 Heavy Vehicles (%) 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% Turn Type Prot NA Perm NA Protected Phases 8 2 4 3 6 Permitted Phases 3 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 15.2 82.7 86.3 Effective Green, g (s) 15.2 82.7 86.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.59 0.62 Clearance Time (s) 4.2 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 162 2635 1505 v/s Ratio Prot c0.04 c0.12 v/s Ratio Perm c0.30 v/c Ratio 0.40 0.20 0.49 Uniform Delay, d1 58.1 13.3 14.7 Progression Factor 1.00 0.08 0.05 Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 0.0 0.0 Delay (s) 58.7 1.1 0.8 Level of Service E A A Approach Delay (s) 58.7 1.1 0.8 Approach LOS E A A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 4.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.44 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.3% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 275 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: S Spruce Ave & Mayfair Ave 06/09/2023 Future with SSF General Plan Project AM Synchro 11 Report Fehr and Peers Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 36 110 31 497 608 47 Future Volume (vph) 36 110 31 497 608 47 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.2 4.0 4.2 4.2 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.90 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flt Protected 0.99 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1457 1597 3195 3161 Flt Permitted 0.99 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1457 1597 3195 3161 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 37 113 32 512 627 48 RTOR Reduction (vph) 84 0 0 0 3 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 66 0 32 512 672 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 Heavy Vehicles (%) 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% Turn Type Prot Prot NA NA Protected Phases 4 5 2 3 6 8 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 15.6 6.3 67.1 101.5 Effective Green, g (s) 15.6 6.3 67.1 101.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.04 0.48 0.72 Clearance Time (s) 4.2 4.0 4.2 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 162 71 1531 2291 v/s Ratio Prot c0.05 c0.02 c0.16 c0.21 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.41 0.45 0.33 0.29 Uniform Delay, d1 57.9 65.2 22.6 6.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.09 Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 1.7 0.6 0.0 Delay (s) 58.5 66.8 23.2 0.7 Level of Service E E C A Approach Delay (s) 58.5 25.8 0.7 Approach LOS E C A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 17.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.35 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 276 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 4: S. Linden Ave & N Canal St 06/09/2023 Future with SSF General Plan Project AM Synchro 11 Report Fehr and Peers Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 116 0 138 0 0 0 6 381 0 0 409 118 Future Volume (veh/h) 116 0 138 0 0 0 6 381 0 0 409 118 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1707 1707 1707 1707 1707 1707 1707 1707 1707 0 1707 1707 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 120 0 142 0 0 0 6 393 0 0 422 122 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, % 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 0 13 13 Cap, veh/h 209 18 169 0 385 0 67 2038 0 0 821 237 Arrive On Green 0.23 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.65 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.65 0.65 Sat Flow, veh/h 553 81 751 0 1707 0 12 3236 0 0 1272 368 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 262 0 0 0 0 0 214 185 0 0 0 544 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1385 0 0 0 1707 0 1694 1476 0 0 0 1639 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.9 Prop In Lane 0.46 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.22 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 397 0 0 0 385 0 1153 952 0 0 0 1058 V/C Ratio(X) 0.66 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.51 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 771 0 0 0 689 0 1153 952 0 0 0 1058 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 22.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 23.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.8 4.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.6 LnGrp LOS C A A A A A A A A A A A Approach Vol, veh/h 262 0 399 544 Approach Delay, s/veh 23.5 0.0 4.9 7.6 Approach LOS C A A Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 44.0 18.0 44.0 18.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 40.0 31.0 40.0 25.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 12.9 13.1 5.2 0.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.7 1.0 1.7 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 10.2 HCM 6th LOS B 277 HCM 6th TWSC 5: S. Linden Ave & S Canal St 06/09/2023 Future with SSF General Plan Project AM Synchro 11 Report Fehr and Peers Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 8.3 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 110 127 87 277 475 72 Future Vol, veh/h 110 127 87 277 475 72 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 97 97 97 97 97 97 Heavy Vehicles, % 13 13 13 13 13 13 Mvmt Flow 113 131 90 286 490 74 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 956 490 564 0 - 0 Stage 1 490 - - - - - Stage 2 466 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.53 6.33 4.23 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.53 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.53 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.617 3.417 2.317 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 273 557 955 - - - Stage 1 594 - - - - - Stage 2 609 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 242 557 955 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 242 - - - - - Stage 1 527 - - - - - Stage 2 609 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 36.7 2.2 0 HCM LOS E Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 955 - 347 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.094 - 0.704 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 9.2 0 36.7 - - HCM Lane LOS A A E - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 - 5.1 - - 278 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 6: Produce Ave./Airport Blvd. & San Mateo Ave./So. Airport Blvd.06/09/2023 Future with SSF General Plan Project AM Synchro 11 Report Fehr and Peers Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 218 610 134 349 342 332 1 91 1 353 918 388 Future Volume (veh/h) 218 610 134 349 342 332 1 91 1 353 918 388 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1441 1441 1441 1618 1618 1618 1796 1796 1796 1811 1811 1811 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 225 629 0 399 299 0 1 94 0 364 946 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, % 31 31 31 19 19 19 7 7 7 6 6 6 Cap, veh/h 324 681 611 321 5 578 371 1342 Arrive On Green 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.22 0.39 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1372 2881 1221 3083 1618 1372 1711 3413 1522 1725 3441 1535 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 225 629 0 399 299 0 1 94 0 364 946 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1372 1441 1221 1541 1618 1372 1711 1706 1522 1725 1721 1535 Q Serve(g_s), s 15.7 22.4 0.0 13.3 19.3 0.0 0.1 2.5 0.0 22.0 24.3 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 15.7 22.4 0.0 13.3 19.3 0.0 0.1 2.5 0.0 22.0 24.3 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 324 681 611 321 5 578 371 1342 V/C Ratio(X) 0.69 0.92 0.65 0.93 0.19 0.16 0.98 0.70 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 332 697 611 321 179 588 371 1342 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.84 0.84 0.00 0.88 0.88 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.71 0.71 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 36.6 39.2 0.0 45.5 48.4 0.0 52.2 37.3 0.0 41.0 26.9 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 4.2 15.2 0.0 2.2 30.5 0.0 6.6 0.0 0.0 34.1 2.2 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.6 9.2 0.0 5.7 11.1 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 12.6 10.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 40.8 54.4 0.0 47.7 78.9 0.0 58.8 37.3 0.0 75.1 29.2 0.0 LnGrp LOS D D D E E D E C Approach Vol, veh/h 854 698 95 1310 Approach Delay, s/veh 50.8 61.1 37.5 41.9 Approach LOS D E D D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 4.3 45.9 29.4 27.5 22.7 25.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.9 4.6 4.9 * 4.9 4.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.0 29.7 25.4 22.6 * 18 20.8 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.1 26.3 24.4 24.0 4.5 21.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.1 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 48.9 HCM 6th LOS D Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Unsignalized Delay for [NBR, EBR, WBR, SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 279 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 7: Spruce Ave & Victory Ave 06/09/2023 Future with SSF General Plan Project AM Synchro 11 Report Fehr and Peers Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 125 0 9 0 536 159 124 648 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 125 0 9 0 536 159 124 648 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1707 1707 1707 1707 1707 1707 1707 1707 1707 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 129 0 0 0 553 0 128 668 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, % 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 Cap, veh/h 198 0 2 2170 154 2590 0 Arrive On Green 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.09 0.80 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1626 0 0 1626 3316 0 1626 3316 0 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 129 0 0 0 553 0 128 668 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1626 0 0 1626 1615 0 1626 1615 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 7.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.8 0.0 7.7 5.2 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.8 0.0 7.7 5.2 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 198 0 2 2170 154 2590 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.83 0.26 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 496 0 138 2170 203 2590 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 41.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.5 0.0 44.5 2.5 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 15.1 0.2 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 3.7 1.2 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 43.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.8 0.0 59.5 2.7 0.0 LnGrp LOS D A A A E A A Approach Vol, veh/h 129 553 796 Approach Delay, s/veh 43.3 6.8 11.9 Approach LOS D A B Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s13.0 71.4 15.6 0.0 84.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 * 4.2 3.5 3.5 * 4.2 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s12.5 * 46 30.5 8.5 * 50 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s9.7 8.8 9.6 0.0 7.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.3 0.4 0.0 5.5 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 12.7 HCM 6th LOS B Notes * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Unsignalized Delay for [NBR, WBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 280 HCM 6th AWSC 8: S. Linden Ave & Victory Ave.06/09/2023 Future with SSF General Plan Project AM Synchro 11 Report Fehr and Peers Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 42 Intersection LOS E Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 91 12 154 23 22 29 53 247 20 43 489 68 Future Vol, veh/h 91 12 154 23 22 29 53 247 20 43 489 68 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Heavy Vehicles, % 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 Mvmt Flow 94 12 159 24 23 30 55 255 21 44 504 70 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach RightNB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1 HCM Control Delay 16.5 12.2 18.5 69.2 HCM LOS C B C F Lane NBLn1 EBLn1WBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 17% 35% 31% 7% Vol Thru, % 77% 5% 30% 81% Vol Right, % 6% 60% 39% 11% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 320 257 74 600 LT Vol 53 91 23 43 Through Vol 247 12 22 489 RT Vol 20 154 29 68 Lane Flow Rate 330 265 76 619 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1 Degree of Util (X) 0.587 0.495 0.159 1.031 Departure Headway (Hd) 6.58 6.921 7.752 5.999 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 551 525 465 612 Service Time 4.58 4.921 5.752 3.999 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.599 0.505 0.163 1.011 HCM Control Delay 18.5 16.5 12.2 69.2 HCM Lane LOS C C B F HCM 95th-tile Q 3.8 2.7 0.6 16.4 281 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 9: Dollar Ave & Southline & S. Linden Ave 06/09/2023 Future with SSF General Plan Project AM Synchro 11 Report Fehr and Peers Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 224 412 135 18 420 154 136 145 74 149 127 213 Future Volume (veh/h) 224 412 135 18 420 154 136 145 74 149 127 213 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1693 1870 1693 1870 1693 1693 1693 1693 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 231 425 139 19 433 36 140 149 76 154 109 220 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 14 2 14 2 14 14 14 14 2 Cap, veh/h 290 795 257 72 650 260 255 273 139 235 131 264 Arrive On Green 0.16 0.30 0.30 0.04 0.18 0.18 0.14 0.26 0.26 0.15 0.26 0.26 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 2639 855 1612 3554 1423 1781 1056 539 1612 501 1010 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 231 285 279 19 433 36 140 0 225 154 0 329 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1777 1717 1612 1777 1423 1781 0 1595 1612 0 1511 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.0 8.6 8.7 0.7 7.3 1.4 4.7 0.0 7.8 5.8 0.0 13.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.0 8.6 8.7 0.7 7.3 1.4 4.7 0.0 7.8 5.8 0.0 13.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.34 1.00 0.67 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 290 535 517 72 650 260 255 0 413 235 0 395 V/C Ratio(X) 0.80 0.53 0.54 0.26 0.67 0.14 0.55 0.00 0.55 0.65 0.00 0.83 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 861 1386 1339 251 1607 643 583 0 1094 628 0 1131 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh25.8 18.6 18.7 29.6 24.4 22.0 25.5 0.0 20.5 25.9 0.0 22.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 4.9 0.3 0.3 1.9 0.4 0.1 0.7 0.0 0.4 1.2 0.0 1.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln3.6 3.3 3.2 0.3 3.0 0.4 1.9 0.0 2.8 2.2 0.0 4.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 30.7 19.0 19.0 31.5 24.8 22.1 26.2 0.0 20.9 27.0 0.0 24.1 LnGrp LOS C B B C C C C A C C A C Approach Vol, veh/h 795 488 365 483 Approach Delay, s/veh 22.4 24.9 23.0 25.1 Approach LOS C C C C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s13.4 20.6 6.9 23.3 13.2 20.8 14.5 15.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s25.0 44.0 10.0 50.0 21.0 48.0 31.0 29.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s7.8 9.8 2.7 10.7 6.7 15.2 10.0 9.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 0.9 0.0 2.4 0.1 1.6 0.6 2.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 23.7 HCM 6th LOS C Notes User approved ignoring U-Turning movement. 282 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 10: San Mateo Ave & S. Linden Ave 06/09/2023 Future with SSF General Plan Project AM Synchro 11 Report Fehr and Peers Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 245 350 242 453 400 235 Future Volume (veh/h) 245 350 242 453 400 235 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1707 1707 1707 1707 1707 1707 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 253 33 249 0 412 242 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, % 13 13 13 13 13 13 Cap, veh/h 323 287 360 487 1037 Arrive On Green 0.20 0.20 0.21 0.00 0.30 0.61 Sat Flow, veh/h 1626 1447 1707 1447 1626 1707 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 253 33 249 0 412 242 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1626 1447 1707 1447 1626 1707 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.1 0.8 5.6 0.0 9.8 2.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.1 0.8 5.6 0.0 9.8 2.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 323 287 360 487 1037 V/C Ratio(X) 0.78 0.11 0.69 0.85 0.23 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1301 1158 1491 1301 1491 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh15.7 13.5 15.0 0.0 13.6 3.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.6 0.1 0.9 0.0 1.6 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln2.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 3.2 0.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 17.3 13.6 15.9 0.0 15.1 3.7 LnGrp LOS B B B B A Approach Vol, veh/h 286 249 654 Approach Delay, s/veh 16.8 15.9 10.9 Approach LOS B B B Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 29.0 12.2 16.3 12.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 36.0 33.0 33.0 36.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.7 8.1 11.8 7.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.0 0.4 0.7 1.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 13.4 HCM 6th LOS B Notes Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 283 HCM 6th TWSC 11: San Mateo Ave & Tanforan Ave/Shaw Rd 06/09/2023 Future with SSF General Plan Project AM Synchro 11 Report Fehr and Peers Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 13 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 71 0 15 5 0 87 12 537 31 208 245 27 Future Vol, veh/h 71 0 15 5 0 87 12 537 31 208 245 27 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - 50 - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 Heavy Vehicles, % 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 Mvmt Flow 73 0 15 5 0 90 12 554 32 214 253 28 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1334 1305 267 1297 1303 570 281 0 0 586 0 0 Stage 1 695 695 - 594 594 - - - - - - - Stage 2 639 610 - 703 709 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.23 6.63 6.33 7.23 6.63 6.33 4.23 - - 4.23 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.23 5.63 - 6.23 5.63 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.23 5.63 - 6.23 5.63 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.617 4.117 3.417 3.617 4.117 3.417 2.317 - - 2.317 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 124 152 746 132 153 501 1221 - - 937 - - Stage 1 415 427 - 473 476 - - - - - - - Stage 2 446 468 - 411 421 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 83 116 746 105 116 501 1221 - - 937 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 83 116 - 105 116 - - - - - - - Stage 1 409 330 - 466 469 - - - - - - - Stage 2 361 461 - 311 325 - - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 144.4 16.2 0.2 4.3 HCM LOS F C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1221 - - 98 416 937 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.01 - - 0.905 0.228 0.229 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 8 - - 144.4 16.2 10 - - HCM Lane LOS A - - F C A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 5.2 0.9 0.9 - - 284 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 12: San Mateo Ave & Utah Ave 06/09/2023 Future with SSF General Plan Project AM Synchro 11 Report Fehr and Peers Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 298 276 625 231 186 436 Future Volume (veh/h) 298 276 625 231 186 436 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 307 104 644 238 192 449 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 364 324 1259 465 214 2401 Arrive On Green 0.20 0.20 0.50 0.50 0.12 0.68 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1585 2634 938 1781 3647 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 307 104 450 432 192 449 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1585 1777 1701 1781 1777 Q Serve(g_s), s 11.0 3.7 11.4 11.4 7.1 3.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 11.0 3.7 11.4 11.4 7.1 3.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.55 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 364 324 880 843 214 2401 V/C Ratio(X) 0.84 0.32 0.51 0.51 0.90 0.19 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 722 643 880 843 214 2401 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 25.5 22.6 11.4 11.4 28.9 4.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.1 0.2 2.1 2.2 34.2 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.6 1.3 4.4 4.2 4.9 0.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 27.6 22.8 13.5 13.6 63.1 4.2 LnGrp LOS C C B B E A Approach Vol, veh/h 411 882 641 Approach Delay, s/veh 26.4 13.5 21.8 Approach LOS C B C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.0 37.0 49.0 17.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.0 33.0 45.0 27.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.1 13.4 5.1 13.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.8 2.1 0.6 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 19.0 HCM 6th LOS B 285 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: S Spruce Ave & N Canal St 06/09/2023 Future with SSF General Plan Project PM Synchro 11 Report Fehr and Peers Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 21 88 51 46 56 78 97 709 33 69 516 38 Future Volume (vph) 21 88 51 46 56 78 97 709 33 69 516 38 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.2 4.2 4.0 4.2 4.2 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.96 0.94 1.00 0.99 0.99 Flt Protected 0.99 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot) 1655 1599 1656 3283 3253 Flt Permitted 0.92 0.76 0.95 1.00 0.50 Satd. Flow (perm) 1532 1234 1656 3283 1633 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow (vph) 23 98 57 51 62 87 108 788 37 77 573 42 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 12 0 0 20 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 166 0 0 180 0 108 823 0 0 689 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 Heavy Vehicles (%) 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% Bus Blockages (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Prot NA Perm NA Protected Phases 3 3 5 2 4 8 6 Permitted Phases 3 3 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 26.5 26.5 7.0 105.1 42.6 Effective Green, g (s) 26.5 26.5 7.0 105.1 42.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.19 0.05 0.75 0.30 Clearance Time (s) 4.2 4.2 4.0 4.2 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 289 233 82 2464 496 v/s Ratio Prot c0.07 c0.25 v/s Ratio Perm 0.11 c0.15 c0.42 v/c Ratio 0.57 0.77 1.32 0.33 1.48dl Uniform Delay, d1 51.6 53.9 66.5 5.8 48.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.54 0.19 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.7 13.4 203.8 0.0 187.4 Delay (s) 53.3 67.3 306.0 1.1 236.1 Level of Service D E F A F Approach Delay (s) 53.3 67.3 36.4 236.1 Approach LOS D E D F Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 110.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service F HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.88 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.7% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 dl Defacto Left Lane. Recode with 1 though lane as a left lane. c Critical Lane Group 286 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: S Spruce Ave & S Canal St 06/09/2023 Future with SSF General Plan Project PM Synchro 11 Report Fehr and Peers Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 44 116 723 14 41 572 Future Volume (vph) 44 116 723 14 41 572 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.2 4.2 4.2 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.98 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.90 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.99 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1515 4741 3299 Flt Permitted 0.99 1.00 0.83 Satd. Flow (perm) 1515 4741 2731 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow (vph) 49 129 803 16 46 636 RTOR Reduction (vph) 70 0 1 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 108 0 818 0 0 682 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 Heavy Vehicles (%) 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% Turn Type Prot NA Perm NA Protected Phases 8 2 4 3 6 Permitted Phases 3 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 20.2 76.5 73.3 Effective Green, g (s) 20.2 76.5 73.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.55 0.52 Clearance Time (s) 4.2 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 218 2590 1429 v/s Ratio Prot c0.07 c0.17 v/s Ratio Perm c0.25 v/c Ratio 0.49 0.32 0.48 Uniform Delay, d1 55.2 17.4 21.2 Progression Factor 1.00 0.09 0.05 Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 0.0 0.0 Delay (s) 55.8 1.5 1.0 Level of Service E A A Approach Delay (s) 55.8 1.5 1.0 Approach LOS E A A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 7.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.46 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.8% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 287 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: S Spruce Ave & Mayfair Ave 06/09/2023 Future with SSF General Plan Project PM Synchro 11 Report Fehr and Peers Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 17 63 105 720 593 23 Future Volume (vph) 17 63 105 720 593 23 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.2 4.0 4.2 4.2 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.89 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flt Protected 0.99 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1504 1656 3312 3293 Flt Permitted 0.99 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1504 1656 3312 3293 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow (vph) 19 70 117 800 659 26 RTOR Reduction (vph) 59 0 0 0 2 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 30 0 117 800 683 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 Heavy Vehicles (%) 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% Turn Type Prot Prot NA NA Protected Phases 4 5 2 3 6 8 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 22.9 7.0 53.6 93.5 Effective Green, g (s) 22.9 7.0 53.6 93.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.05 0.38 0.67 Clearance Time (s) 4.2 4.0 4.2 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 246 82 1268 2199 v/s Ratio Prot c0.02 c0.07 c0.24 c0.21 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.12 1.43 0.63 0.31 Uniform Delay, d1 50.0 66.5 35.2 9.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.05 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 248.7 2.4 0.0 Delay (s) 50.1 315.2 37.5 0.5 Level of Service D F D A Approach Delay (s) 50.1 73.0 0.5 Approach LOS D E A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 42.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.47 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 42.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 288 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 4: S. Linden Ave & N Canal St 06/09/2023 Future with SSF General Plan Project PM Synchro 11 Report Fehr and Peers Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 120 0 37 0 0 0 127 569 0 0 347 116 Future Volume (veh/h) 120 0 37 0 0 0 127 569 0 0 347 116 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1767 1767 1767 1767 1767 1767 1767 1767 1767 0 1767 1767 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 133 0 41 0 0 0 141 632 0 0 386 129 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 9 9 Cap, veh/h 270 6 51 0 278 0 363 1596 0 0 889 297 Arrive On Green 0.16 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.70 0.70 0.00 0.00 0.70 0.70 Sat Flow, veh/h 1008 39 323 0 1767 0 392 2353 0 0 1266 423 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 174 0 0 0 0 0 360 413 0 0 0 515 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1370 0 0 0 1767 0 1138 1527 0 0 0 1689 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.8 6.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.2 6.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.4 Prop In Lane 0.76 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.25 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 327 0 0 0 278 0 887 1072 0 0 0 1186 V/C Ratio(X) 0.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.43 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 853 0 0 0 775 0 887 1072 0 0 0 1186 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 23.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 23.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.3 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.8 LnGrp LOS C A A A A A A A A A A A Approach Vol, veh/h 174 0 773 515 Approach Delay, s/veh 23.6 0.0 4.9 4.8 Approach LOS C A A Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 44.0 13.0 44.0 13.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 40.0 31.0 40.0 25.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.4 9.0 13.2 0.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.6 0.6 4.1 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 7.1 HCM 6th LOS A 289 HCM 6th TWSC 5: S. Linden Ave & S Canal St 06/09/2023 Future with SSF General Plan Project PM Synchro 11 Report Fehr and Peers Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 7.6 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 76 82 119 620 312 72 Future Vol, veh/h 76 82 119 620 312 72 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, % 9 9 9 9 9 9 Mvmt Flow 84 91 132 689 347 80 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1300 347 427 0 - 0 Stage 1 347 - - - - - Stage 2 953 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.49 6.29 4.19 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.49 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.49 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.581 3.381 2.281 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 172 680 1096 - - - Stage 1 700 - - - - - Stage 2 364 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 138 680 1096 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 138 - - - - - Stage 1 564 - - - - - Stage 2 364 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 55 1.4 0 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1096 - 235 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.121 - 0.747 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 8.7 0 55 - - HCM Lane LOS A A F - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.4 - 5.2 - - 290 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 6: Produce Ave./Airport Blvd. & San Mateo Ave./So. Airport Blvd.06/09/2023 Future with SSF General Plan Project PM Synchro 11 Report Fehr and Peers Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 357 198 935 566 645 922 1 167 1 260 1105 183 Future Volume (veh/h) 357 198 935 566 645 922 1 167 1 260 1105 183 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1441 1441 1441 1618 1618 1618 1796 1796 1796 1811 1811 1811 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 397 220 0 449 969 0 1 186 0 289 1228 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 31 31 31 19 19 19 7 7 7 6 6 6 Cap, veh/h 470 247 408 858 5 879 255 1410 Arrive On Green 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.26 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.15 0.41 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 2744 1441 1221 1541 3237 1372 1711 3413 1522 1725 3441 1535 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 397 220 0 449 969 0 1 186 0 289 1228 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1372 1441 1221 1541 1618 1372 1711 1706 1522 1725 1721 1535 Q Serve(g_s), s 16.8 17.9 0.0 31.8 31.8 0.0 0.1 5.1 0.0 17.7 39.3 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 16.8 17.9 0.0 31.8 31.8 0.0 0.1 5.1 0.0 17.7 39.3 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 470 247 408 858 5 879 255 1410 V/C Ratio(X) 0.84 0.89 1.10 1.13 0.19 0.21 1.13 0.87 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 505 265 408 858 171 879 255 1410 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.69 0.69 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 48.2 48.6 0.0 44.1 44.1 0.0 59.7 35.0 0.0 51.1 32.5 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 7.8 20.1 0.0 74.1 73.0 0.0 6.7 0.5 0.0 96.9 7.6 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 6.3 7.8 0.0 20.5 21.4 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 14.4 17.3 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 56.0 68.8 0.0 118.2 117.1 0.0 66.3 35.5 0.0 148.0 40.1 0.0 LnGrp LOS E E F F E D F D Approach Vol, veh/h 617 1418 187 1517 Approach Delay, s/veh 60.6 117.4 35.7 60.6 Approach LOS E F D E Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 4.4 54.1 25.2 22.6 35.8 36.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.9 4.6 4.9 * 4.9 4.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 12.0 36.0 22.1 17.1 * 31 31.8 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.1 41.3 19.9 19.7 7.1 33.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.7 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 80.9 HCM 6th LOS F Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Unsignalized Delay for [NBR, EBR, WBR, SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 291 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 7: Spruce Ave & Victory Ave 06/09/2023 Future with SSF General Plan Project PM Synchro 11 Report Fehr and Peers Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 271 0 111 0 730 138 14 640 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 271 0 111 0 730 138 14 640 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1767 1767 1767 1767 1767 1767 1767 1767 1767 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 301 0 0 0 811 0 16 711 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Cap, veh/h 386 0 2 1990 26 2208 0 Arrive On Green 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.00 0.02 0.66 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1682 0 0 1682 3431 0 1682 3431 0 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 301 0 0 0 811 0 16 711 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1682 0 0 1682 1672 0 1682 1672 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 11.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.1 0.0 0.7 6.4 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 11.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.1 0.0 0.7 6.4 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 386 0 2 1990 26 2208 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.78 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.62 0.32 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 685 0 204 1990 204 2208 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 25.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.6 0.0 34.3 5.1 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 8.8 0.4 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.3 1.8 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 26.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.2 0.0 43.1 5.5 0.0 LnGrp LOS C A A A D A A Approach Vol, veh/h 301 811 727 Approach Delay, s/veh 26.6 8.2 6.3 Approach LOS C A A Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s4.6 45.9 19.6 0.0 50.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 * 4.2 3.5 3.5 * 4.2 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s8.5 * 22 28.5 8.5 * 22 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s2.7 11.1 13.8 0.0 8.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.2 1.1 0.0 4.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 10.5 HCM 6th LOS B Notes * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Unsignalized Delay for [NBR, WBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 292 HCM 6th AWSC 8: S. Linden Ave & Victory Ave.06/09/2023 Future with SSF General Plan Project PM Synchro 11 Report Fehr and Peers Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh150.5 Intersection LOS F Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 99 24 82 12 37 60 180 562 32 36 265 112 Future Vol, veh/h 99 24 82 12 37 60 180 562 32 36 265 112 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Heavy Vehicles, % 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Mvmt Flow 110 27 91 13 41 67 200 624 36 40 294 124 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach RightNB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1 HCM Control Delay 18.5 14.9 266.9 33.7 HCM LOS C B F D Lane NBLn1 EBLn1WBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 23% 48% 11% 9% Vol Thru, % 73% 12% 34% 64% Vol Right, % 4% 40% 55% 27% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 774 205 109 413 LT Vol 180 99 12 36 Through Vol 562 24 37 265 RT Vol 32 82 60 112 Lane Flow Rate 860 228 121 459 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1 Degree of Util (X) 1.534 0.462 0.256 0.807 Departure Headway (Hd) 6.421 8.422 8.875 7.166 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 576 430 407 509 Service Time 4.421 6.422 6.875 5.166 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 1.493 0.53 0.297 0.902 HCM Control Delay 266.9 18.5 14.9 33.7 HCM Lane LOS F C B D HCM 95th-tile Q 44.6 2.4 1 7.7 293 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 9: Dollar Ave & Southline & S. Linden Ave 06/09/2023 Future with SSF General Plan Project PM Synchro 11 Report Fehr and Peers Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 257 405 133 48 555 193 161 243 39 218 139 238 Future Volume (veh/h) 257 405 133 48 555 193 161 243 39 218 139 238 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1693 1870 1693 1870 1693 1693 1693 1693 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 279 440 145 55 603 88 175 276 44 248 134 259 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.88 0.92 0.88 0.92 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 14 2 14 2 14 14 14 14 2 Cap, veh/h 327 844 276 136 789 316 211 333 53 284 150 291 Arrive On Green 0.18 0.32 0.32 0.08 0.22 0.22 0.12 0.23 0.23 0.18 0.29 0.29 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 2633 860 1612 3554 1425 1781 1424 227 1612 516 997 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 279 296 289 55 603 88 175 0 320 248 0 393 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1777 1716 1612 1777 1425 1781 0 1651 1612 0 1513 Q Serve(g_s), s 13.1 11.8 11.9 2.8 13.8 4.4 8.3 0.0 16.0 13.0 0.0 21.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 13.1 11.8 11.9 2.8 13.8 4.4 8.3 0.0 16.0 13.0 0.0 21.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.14 1.00 0.66 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 327 570 550 136 789 316 211 0 387 284 0 441 V/C Ratio(X) 0.85 0.52 0.53 0.40 0.76 0.28 0.83 0.00 0.83 0.87 0.00 0.89 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 699 1291 1247 186 1599 641 329 0 552 502 0 698 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh34.3 24.0 24.1 37.6 31.6 28.0 37.3 0.0 31.5 34.8 0.0 29.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 6.4 0.3 0.3 1.9 0.6 0.2 5.4 0.0 4.8 3.3 0.0 5.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln6.1 4.8 4.7 1.2 5.9 1.5 3.9 0.0 6.7 5.3 0.0 8.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 40.6 24.3 24.4 39.5 32.2 28.1 42.7 0.0 36.3 38.1 0.0 35.2 LnGrp LOS D C C D C C D A D D A D Approach Vol, veh/h 864 746 495 641 Approach Delay, s/veh 29.6 32.3 38.6 36.4 Approach LOS C C D D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s19.3 24.3 11.3 31.8 14.3 29.3 19.9 23.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s27.0 29.0 10.0 63.0 16.0 40.0 34.0 39.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s15.0 18.0 4.8 13.9 10.3 23.6 15.1 15.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 1.0 0.0 2.5 0.1 1.7 0.8 3.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 33.5 HCM 6th LOS C Notes User approved ignoring U-Turning movement. 294 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 10: San Mateo Ave & S. Linden Ave 06/09/2023 Future with SSF General Plan Project PM Synchro 11 Report Fehr and Peers Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 378 449 347 398 397 265 Future Volume (veh/h) 378 449 347 398 397 265 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1767 1767 1767 1767 1767 1767 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 420 146 386 0 441 294 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 9 9 9 9 9 9 Cap, veh/h 471 419 457 488 1070 Arrive On Green 0.28 0.28 0.26 0.00 0.29 0.61 Sat Flow, veh/h 1682 1497 1767 1497 1682 1767 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 420 146 386 0 441 294 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1682 1497 1767 1497 1682 1767 Q Serve(g_s), s 16.8 5.4 14.5 0.0 17.7 5.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 16.8 5.4 14.5 0.0 17.7 5.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 471 419 457 488 1070 V/C Ratio(X) 0.89 0.35 0.85 0.90 0.27 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 793 706 908 793 1070 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh24.2 20.1 24.6 0.0 23.9 6.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.9 0.2 1.7 0.0 5.6 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln6.7 0.0 6.0 0.0 7.4 1.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 28.1 20.3 26.3 0.0 29.6 6.6 LnGrp LOS C C C C A Approach Vol, veh/h 566 386 735 Approach Delay, s/veh 26.1 26.3 20.4 Approach LOS C C C Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 46.4 23.6 24.3 22.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 36.0 33.0 33.0 36.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.5 18.8 19.7 16.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.2 0.8 0.6 1.6 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 23.6 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 295 HCM 6th TWSC 11: San Mateo Ave & Tanforan Ave/Shaw Rd 06/09/2023 Future with SSF General Plan Project PM Synchro 11 Report Fehr and Peers Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 58.6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 107 0 23 1 0 171 23 467 6 102 474 67 Future Vol, veh/h 107 0 23 1 0 171 23 467 6 102 474 67 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - 50 - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, % 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Mvmt Flow 119 0 26 1 0 190 26 519 7 113 527 74 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1460 1368 564 1378 1402 523 601 0 0 526 0 0 Stage 1 790 790 - 575 575 - - - - - - - Stage 2 670 578 - 803 827 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.19 6.59 6.29 7.19 6.59 6.29 4.19 - - 4.19 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.19 5.59 - 6.19 5.59 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.19 5.59 - 6.19 5.59 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.581 4.081 3.381 3.581 4.081 3.381 2.281 - - 2.281 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 103 142 512 118 135 540 943 - - 1006 - - Stage 1 373 392 - 491 492 - - - - - - - Stage 2 435 490 - 367 376 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 59 121 512 99 115 540 943 - - 1006 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ~ 59 121 - 99 115 - - - - - - - Stage 1 358 348 - 472 473 - - - - - - - Stage 2 271 471 - 310 334 - - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s$ 619.8 15.7 0.4 1.4 HCM LOS F C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 943 - - 70 526 1006 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.027 - - 2.063 0.363 0.113 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 8.9 - -$ 619.8 15.7 9 - - HCM Lane LOS A - - F C A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 13.4 1.6 0.4 - - Notes ~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon 296 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 12: San Mateo Ave & Utah Ave 06/09/2023 Future with SSF General Plan Project PM Synchro 11 Report Fehr and Peers Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 333 425 808 199 82 554 Future Volume (veh/h) 333 425 808 199 82 554 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 362 271 878 216 89 602 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 422 375 1469 361 126 2303 Arrive On Green 0.24 0.24 0.52 0.52 0.07 0.65 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1585 2921 695 1781 3647 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 362 271 552 542 89 602 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1585 1777 1745 1781 1777 Q Serve(g_s), s 13.5 10.9 15.0 15.0 3.4 5.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 13.5 10.9 15.0 15.0 3.4 5.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.40 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 422 375 923 907 126 2303 V/C Ratio(X) 0.86 0.72 0.60 0.60 0.70 0.26 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 693 616 923 907 205 2303 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 25.4 24.4 11.6 11.6 31.5 5.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.0 1.0 2.8 2.9 2.7 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.7 4.0 5.8 5.7 1.5 1.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 28.4 25.4 14.5 14.5 34.2 5.5 LnGrp LOS C C B B C A Approach Vol, veh/h 633 1094 691 Approach Delay, s/veh 27.1 14.5 9.2 Approach LOS C B A Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.9 40.1 49.0 20.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.0 33.0 45.0 27.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.4 17.0 7.0 15.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.6 3.0 0.9 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 16.3 HCM 6th LOS B 297 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: S Spruce Ave & N Canal St 06/09/2023 Future with Lindenville Specific Plan Project AM Synchro 11 Report Fehr and Peers Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 37 61 140 99 71 25 29 357 114 117 483 34 Future Volume (vph) 37 61 140 99 71 25 29 357 114 117 483 34 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.2 4.2 4.0 4.2 4.2 4.2 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.92 0.98 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.99 Flt Protected 0.99 0.98 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1533 1603 1597 1606 1597 1660 Flt Permitted 0.93 0.55 0.95 1.00 0.10 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1432 897 1597 1606 168 1660 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 38 63 144 102 73 26 30 368 118 121 498 35 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 52 0 0 5 0 0 11 0 0 2 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 193 0 0 196 0 30 475 0 121 531 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 Heavy Vehicles (%) 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% Bus Blockages (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Prot NA Perm NA Protected Phases 3 3 5 2 4 6 Permitted Phases 3 3 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 22.6 22.6 3.2 69.0 40.0 40.0 Effective Green, g (s) 22.6 22.6 3.2 69.0 40.0 40.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.23 0.23 0.03 0.69 0.40 0.40 Clearance Time (s) 4.2 4.2 4.0 4.2 4.2 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 323 202 51 1108 67 664 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.30 0.32 v/s Ratio Perm 0.13 c0.22 c0.72 v/c Ratio 0.60 0.97 0.59 0.43 1.81 0.80 Uniform Delay, d1 34.6 38.3 47.8 6.8 30.0 26.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.45 0.33 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.0 53.3 9.7 0.1 415.3 9.7 Delay (s) 36.6 91.6 78.8 2.3 445.3 36.2 Level of Service D F E A F D Approach Delay (s) 36.6 91.6 6.8 111.9 Approach LOS D F A F Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 64.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.26 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 298 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: S Spruce Ave & Mayfair Ave 06/09/2023 Future with Lindenville Specific Plan Project AM Synchro 11 Report Fehr and Peers Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 59 28 96 10 24 58 33 383 0 170 531 21 Future Volume (vph) 59 28 96 10 24 58 33 383 0 170 531 21 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.2 4.2 4.0 4.2 4.2 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.93 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.98 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot) 1528 1695 1597 1681 1695 Flt Permitted 0.86 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.78 Satd. Flow (perm) 1341 1611 1597 1681 1335 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.92 0.97 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.97 0.97 0.92 0.92 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 61 30 99 11 26 63 34 395 0 185 547 22 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 41 0 0 35 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 149 0 0 65 0 34 395 0 0 753 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 Heavy Vehicles (%) 13% 2% 13% 2% 2% 2% 13% 13% 2% 2% 13% 13% Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Prot NA Perm NA Protected Phases 4 8! 5 2 3 6! Permitted Phases 4 8! 3 6! Actuated Green, G (s) 17.6 44.4 3.2 47.2 66.8 Effective Green, g (s) 17.6 44.4 3.2 47.2 66.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.44 0.03 0.47 0.67 Clearance Time (s) 4.2 4.2 4.0 4.2 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 236 715 51 793 891 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.23 v/s Ratio Perm c0.11 0.04 c0.56 v/c Ratio 0.63 0.09 0.67 0.50 0.85 Uniform Delay, d1 38.2 16.1 47.9 18.2 12.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.31 Incremental Delay, d2 4.0 0.0 22.6 2.2 4.5 Delay (s) 42.2 16.1 70.5 20.5 8.4 Level of Service D B E C A Approach Delay (s) 42.2 16.1 24.4 8.4 Approach LOS D B C A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 17.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.84 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 87.3% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 ! Phase conflict between lane groups. c Critical Lane Group 299 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 4: S. Linden Ave & N Canal St 06/09/2023 Future with Lindenville Specific Plan Project AM Synchro 11 Report Fehr and Peers Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 112 0 195 0 0 0 78 469 0 0 568 70 Future Volume (veh/h) 112 0 195 0 0 0 78 469 0 0 568 70 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1707 1707 1707 1707 1707 1707 1707 1707 1707 0 1707 1707 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 115 0 201 0 0 0 80 484 0 0 586 72 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, % 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 0 13 13 Cap, veh/h 194 21 227 0 436 0 209 1323 0 0 903 111 Arrive On Green 0.26 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.61 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.61 0.61 Sat Flow, veh/h 428 82 891 0 1707 0 210 2260 0 0 1490 183 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 316 0 0 0 0 0 264 300 0 0 0 658 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1401 0 0 0 1707 0 916 1476 0 0 0 1673 Q Serve(g_s), s 10.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 5.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 12.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.6 5.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.7 Prop In Lane 0.36 0.64 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.11 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 443 0 0 0 436 0 637 895 0 0 0 1014 V/C Ratio(X) 0.71 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.65 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 497 0 0 0 503 0 637 895 0 0 0 1014 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 20.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.4 5.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 23.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.4 6.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.6 LnGrp LOS C A A A A A A A A A A B Approach Vol, veh/h 316 0 564 658 Approach Delay, s/veh 23.8 0.0 7.5 10.6 Approach LOS C A B Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 39.0 18.7 39.0 18.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 35.0 17.0 35.0 17.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 16.7 14.5 19.6 0.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 3.2 0.3 2.5 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 12.2 HCM 6th LOS B 300 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 6: Produce Ave./Airport Blvd. & San Mateo Ave./So. Airport Blvd.06/09/2023 Future with Lindenville Specific Plan Project AM Synchro 11 Report Fehr and Peers Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 209 565 76 352 252 386 1 57 57 349 941 390 Future Volume (veh/h) 209 565 76 352 252 386 1 57 57 349 941 390 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1441 1441 1441 1618 1618 1618 1796 1796 1796 1811 1811 1811 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 215 582 0 363 260 0 1 59 0 360 970 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, % 31 31 31 19 19 19 7 7 7 6 6 6 Cap, veh/h 300 630 588 309 5 714 406 1542 Arrive On Green 0.22 0.22 0.00 0.19 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.24 0.45 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1372 2881 1221 3083 1618 1372 1711 3413 1522 1725 3441 1535 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 215 582 0 363 260 0 1 59 0 360 970 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1372 1441 1221 1541 1618 1372 1711 1706 1522 1725 1721 1535 Q Serve(g_s), s 18.9 25.7 0.0 14.0 20.1 0.0 0.1 1.8 0.0 26.2 28.2 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 18.9 25.7 0.0 14.0 20.1 0.0 0.1 1.8 0.0 26.2 28.2 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 300 630 588 309 5 714 406 1542 V/C Ratio(X) 0.72 0.92 0.62 0.84 0.19 0.08 0.89 0.63 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 312 656 792 416 145 714 406 1542 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.77 0.77 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh47.1 49.7 0.0 48.2 50.7 0.0 64.6 41.4 0.0 48.0 27.6 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 4.8 14.8 0.0 1.1 11.1 0.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 19.9 2.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln6.9 10.5 0.0 5.5 9.2 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 13.4 11.8 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 51.9 64.5 0.0 49.3 61.8 0.0 71.3 41.4 0.0 67.9 29.5 0.0 LnGrp LOS D E D E E D E C Approach Vol, veh/h 797 623 60 1330 Approach Delay, s/veh 61.1 54.5 41.9 39.9 Approach LOS E D D D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s4.4 63.2 33.0 35.5 32.1 29.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.9 4.6 4.9 * 4.9 4.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s11.0 37.9 29.6 29.7 * 19 33.4 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s2.1 30.2 27.7 28.2 3.8 22.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.2 0.7 0.2 0.1 2.7 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 49.2 HCM 6th LOS D Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Unsignalized Delay for [NBR, EBR, WBR, SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 301 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 7: Spruce Ave & Victory Ave 06/09/2023 Future with Lindenville Specific Plan Project AM Synchro 11 Report Fehr and Peers Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 179 0 12 0 430 147 123 607 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 179 0 12 0 430 147 123 607 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1707 1707 1707 1707 1707 1707 1707 1707 1707 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 185 0 0 0 443 0 127 626 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, % 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 Cap, veh/h 262 0 2 1022 156 1258 0 Arrive On Green 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.00 0.10 0.74 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1626 0 0 1626 1694 0 1626 1694 0 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 185 0 0 0 443 0 127 626 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1626 0 0 1626 1694 0 1626 1694 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.2 0.0 6.1 12.1 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.2 0.0 6.1 12.1 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 262 0 2 1022 156 1258 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.71 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.82 0.50 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 569 0 81 1022 173 1258 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 31.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.5 0.0 35.5 4.2 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 21.1 1.4 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.9 0.0 3.3 3.3 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 33.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.9 0.0 56.5 5.6 0.0 LnGrp LOS C A A A E A A Approach Vol, veh/h 185 443 753 Approach Delay, s/veh 33.1 9.9 14.2 Approach LOS C A B Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s11.2 52.5 16.4 0.0 63.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 * 4.2 3.5 3.5 * 4.2 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s8.5 * 32 28.0 4.0 * 37 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s8.1 13.2 10.6 0.0 14.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.7 0.6 0.0 4.5 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 15.3 HCM 6th LOS B Notes * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Unsignalized Delay for [NBR, WBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 302 HCM 6th AWSC 8: S. Linden Ave & Victory Ave.06/09/2023 Future with Lindenville Specific Plan Project AM Synchro 11 Report Fehr and Peers Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh82.1 Intersection LOS F Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 103 21 140 30 24 37 51 333 12 46 503 145 Future Vol, veh/h 103 21 140 30 24 37 51 333 12 46 503 145 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Heavy Vehicles, % 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 Mvmt Flow 106 22 144 31 25 38 53 343 12 47 519 149 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach RightNB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1 HCM Control Delay 19.2 13.8 28.4 145.6 HCM LOS C B D F Lane NBLn1 EBLn1WBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 13% 39% 33% 7% Vol Thru, % 84% 8% 26% 72% Vol Right, % 3% 53% 41% 21% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 396 264 91 694 LT Vol 51 103 30 46 Through Vol 333 21 24 503 RT Vol 12 140 37 145 Lane Flow Rate 408 272 94 715 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1 Degree of Util (X) 0.751 0.536 0.205 1.245 Departure Headway (Hd) 7.082 7.68 8.604 6.264 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 514 474 419 580 Service Time 5.082 5.68 6.604 4.335 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.794 0.574 0.224 1.233 HCM Control Delay 28.4 19.2 13.8 145.6 HCM Lane LOS D C B F HCM 95th-tile Q 6.4 3.1 0.8 27.2 303 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 9: Dollar Ave & Southline & S. Linden Ave 06/09/2023 Future with Lindenville Specific Plan Project AM Synchro 11 Report Fehr and Peers Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 241 369 142 27 425 185 153 146 87 202 216 215 Future Volume (veh/h) 241 369 142 27 425 185 153 146 87 202 216 215 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1693 1870 1693 1870 1693 1693 1693 1693 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 248 380 146 28 438 146 158 151 90 208 201 222 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 14 2 14 2 14 14 14 14 2 Cap, veh/h 257 669 254 97 645 258 244 298 177 232 225 249 Arrive On Green 0.14 0.27 0.27 0.06 0.18 0.18 0.14 0.30 0.30 0.14 0.31 0.31 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 2520 955 1612 3554 1422 1781 993 592 1612 735 812 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 248 266 260 28 438 146 158 0 241 208 0 423 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1777 1698 1612 1777 1422 1781 0 1585 1612 0 1546 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.6 9.0 9.2 1.2 8.0 6.5 5.8 0.0 8.7 8.8 0.0 18.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.6 9.0 9.2 1.2 8.0 6.5 5.8 0.0 8.7 8.8 0.0 18.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.56 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.37 1.00 0.52 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 257 472 451 97 645 258 244 0 475 232 0 474 V/C Ratio(X) 0.97 0.56 0.58 0.29 0.68 0.57 0.65 0.00 0.51 0.90 0.00 0.89 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 257 691 661 232 1383 553 257 0 617 232 0 602 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh29.5 22.0 22.1 31.2 26.5 25.9 28.3 0.0 20.1 29.2 0.0 23.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 46.7 0.4 0.4 1.6 0.5 0.7 3.8 0.0 0.3 32.0 0.0 11.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln7.3 3.6 3.5 0.5 3.3 2.2 2.6 0.0 3.1 5.4 0.0 7.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 76.2 22.4 22.5 32.8 27.0 26.6 32.2 0.0 20.4 61.1 0.0 34.5 LnGrp LOS E C C C C C C A C E A C Approach Vol, veh/h 774 612 399 631 Approach Delay, s/veh 39.7 27.2 25.1 43.3 Approach LOS D C C D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s14.0 24.8 8.2 22.4 13.5 25.3 14.0 16.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s10.0 27.0 10.0 27.0 10.0 27.0 10.0 27.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s10.8 10.7 3.2 11.2 7.8 20.1 11.6 10.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.8 0.0 1.9 0.0 1.2 0.0 2.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 35.0 HCM 6th LOS D Notes User approved ignoring U-Turning movement. 304 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 10: San Mateo Ave & S. Linden Ave 06/09/2023 Future with Lindenville Specific Plan Project AM Synchro 11 Report Fehr and Peers Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 260 369 267 441 404 254 Future Volume (veh/h) 260 369 267 441 404 254 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1707 1707 1707 1707 1707 1707 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 268 92 275 115 416 262 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, % 13 13 13 13 13 13 Cap, veh/h 338 301 371 312 481 1035 Arrive On Green 0.21 0.21 0.22 0.22 0.30 0.61 Sat Flow, veh/h 1626 1447 1707 1437 1626 1707 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 268 92 275 115 416 262 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1626 1447 1707 1437 1626 1707 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.7 2.3 6.5 2.9 10.4 3.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.7 2.3 6.5 2.9 10.4 3.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 338 301 371 312 481 1035 V/C Ratio(X) 0.79 0.31 0.74 0.37 0.86 0.25 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 567 504 595 501 680 1468 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh16.2 14.4 15.7 14.3 14.3 3.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.6 0.2 1.1 0.3 6.2 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln2.3 0.0 2.3 0.9 4.1 0.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 17.8 14.6 16.8 14.6 20.5 4.0 LnGrp LOS B B B B C A Approach Vol, veh/h 360 390 678 Approach Delay, s/veh 17.0 16.2 14.1 Approach LOS B B B Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 30.1 13.0 16.7 13.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 37.0 15.0 18.0 15.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.1 8.7 12.4 8.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.1 0.4 0.4 0.8 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 15.4 HCM 6th LOS B 305 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 11: San Mateo Ave & Tanforan Ave/Shaw Rd 06/09/2023 Future with Lindenville Specific Plan Project AM Synchro 11 Report Fehr and Peers Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 90 0 23 5 0 92 30 527 31 207 238 69 Future Volume (veh/h) 90 0 23 5 0 92 30 527 31 207 238 69 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 0.88 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1707 1707 1707 1707 1707 1707 1707 1707 1707 1707 1707 1707 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 93 0 24 5 0 95 31 543 32 213 245 71 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, % 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 Cap, veh/h 188 7 30 51 5 176 72 847 49 248 972 282 Arrive On Green 0.12 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.12 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.15 0.76 0.76 Sat Flow, veh/h 866 60 239 31 44 1420 45 1525 88 1626 1272 369 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 117 0 0 100 0 0 606 0 0 213 0 316 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1164 0 0 1495 0 0 1658 0 0 1626 0 1641 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.2 0.0 4.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.6 0.0 0.0 5.2 0.0 0.0 19.9 0.0 0.0 10.2 0.0 4.5 Prop In Lane 0.79 0.21 0.05 0.95 0.05 0.05 1.00 0.22 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 225 0 0 232 0 0 967 0 0 248 0 1253 V/C Ratio(X) 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.63 0.00 0.00 0.86 0.00 0.25 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 334 0 0 378 0 0 967 0 0 274 0 1253 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.86 0.00 0.86 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh33.9 0.0 0.0 33.0 0.0 0.0 12.3 0.0 0.0 33.1 0.0 2.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.9 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.0 19.0 0.0 0.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln2.3 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 7.6 0.0 0.0 5.3 0.0 1.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 35.8 0.0 0.0 34.2 0.0 0.0 15.4 0.0 0.0 52.1 0.0 3.2 LnGrp LOS D A A C A A B A A D A A Approach Vol, veh/h 117 100 606 529 Approach Delay, s/veh 35.8 34.2 15.4 22.9 Approach LOS D C B C Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 65.6 14.4 16.7 48.9 14.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 53.0 18.0 13.5 35.0 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.5 7.2 12.2 21.9 9.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.3 0.3 0.1 3.7 0.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 21.5 HCM 6th LOS C 306 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 12: San Mateo Ave & Utah Ave 06/09/2023 Future with Lindenville Specific Plan Project AM Synchro 11 Report Fehr and Peers Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 307 281 605 230 179 454 Future Volume (veh/h) 307 281 605 230 179 454 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 316 217 624 237 185 468 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 377 335 1131 429 230 2303 Arrive On Green 0.21 0.21 0.45 0.45 0.13 0.65 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1585 2613 956 1781 3647 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 316 217 440 421 185 468 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1585 1777 1698 1781 1777 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.7 7.1 10.4 10.4 5.8 3.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.7 7.1 10.4 10.4 5.8 3.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.56 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 377 335 798 762 230 2303 V/C Ratio(X) 0.84 0.65 0.55 0.55 0.80 0.20 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 468 417 798 762 281 2303 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh21.6 20.6 11.5 11.5 24.1 4.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 8.9 1.2 2.7 2.9 10.6 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln4.6 2.5 4.0 3.9 2.9 0.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 30.4 21.7 14.3 14.4 34.8 4.3 LnGrp LOS C C B B C A Approach Vol, veh/h 533 861 653 Approach Delay, s/veh 26.9 14.3 12.9 Approach LOS C B B Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s11.4 29.6 41.0 16.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s9.0 24.0 37.0 15.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s7.8 12.4 5.0 11.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.1 2.2 0.4 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 17.1 HCM 6th LOS B 307 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: S Spruce Ave & N Canal St 06/09/2023 Future with Lindenville Specific Plan Project PM Synchro 11 Report Fehr and Peers Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 27 88 41 102 70 29 129 528 149 57 496 26 Future Volume (vph) 27 88 41 102 70 29 129 528 149 57 496 26 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.2 4.2 4.0 4.2 4.2 4.2 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.96 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 Flt Protected 0.99 0.98 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1662 1655 1656 1669 1656 1726 Flt Permitted 0.91 0.59 0.95 1.00 0.09 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1518 996 1656 1669 157 1726 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow (vph) 30 98 46 113 78 32 143 587 166 63 551 29 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 9 0 0 4 0 0 7 0 0 1 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 165 0 0 219 0 143 746 0 63 579 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 Heavy Vehicles (%) 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% Bus Blockages (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Prot NA Perm NA Protected Phases 3 3 5 2 4 8 6 Permitted Phases 3 3 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 28.8 28.8 9.0 107.8 44.4 44.4 Effective Green, g (s) 28.8 28.8 9.0 107.8 44.4 44.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.20 0.06 0.74 0.31 0.31 Clearance Time (s) 4.2 4.2 4.0 4.2 4.2 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 301 197 102 1240 48 528 v/s Ratio Prot c0.09 c0.45 0.34 v/s Ratio Perm 0.11 c0.22 c0.40 v/c Ratio 0.55 1.11 1.40 0.60 1.31 1.10 Uniform Delay, d1 52.3 58.1 68.0 8.6 50.3 50.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.33 0.39 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.1 97.2 202.9 0.2 234.9 67.9 Delay (s) 53.4 155.3 293.3 3.6 285.2 118.2 Level of Service D F F A F F Approach Delay (s) 53.4 155.3 49.9 134.6 Approach LOS D F D F Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 90.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service F HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.06 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 145.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.5% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 308 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: S Spruce Ave & Mayfair Ave 06/09/2023 Future with Lindenville Specific Plan Project PM Synchro 11 Report Fehr and Peers Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 22 6 65 8 45 190 112 594 0 85 522 32 Future Volume (vph) 22 6 65 8 45 190 112 594 0 85 522 32 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.2 4.2 4.0 4.2 4.2 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.91 0.89 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flt Protected 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot) 1510 1663 1656 1743 1734 Flt Permitted 0.99 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.64 Satd. Flow (perm) 1510 1649 1656 1743 1109 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.92 0.90 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.90 0.90 0.92 0.92 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow (vph) 24 7 72 9 49 207 124 660 0 92 580 36 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 58 0 0 89 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 45 0 0 176 0 124 660 0 0 707 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 Heavy Vehicles (%) 9% 2% 9% 2% 2% 2% 9% 9% 2% 2% 9% 9% Turn Type Split NA Perm NA Prot NA Perm NA Protected Phases 4 4 8! 5 2 3 6 8! Permitted Phases 8! 3 6 8! Actuated Green, G (s) 22.0 20.0 9.0 57.4 97.4 Effective Green, g (s) 22.0 20.0 9.0 57.4 97.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.14 0.06 0.40 0.67 Clearance Time (s) 4.2 4.2 4.0 4.2 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 229 227 102 689 744 v/s Ratio Prot c0.03 c0.07 c0.38 v/s Ratio Perm 0.11 c0.64 v/c Ratio 0.20 0.78 1.22 0.96 0.95 Uniform Delay, d1 53.8 60.3 68.0 42.6 21.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.22 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 14.0 158.1 25.4 3.2 Delay (s) 53.9 74.3 226.1 68.0 29.6 Level of Service D E F E C Approach Delay (s) 53.9 74.3 93.0 29.6 Approach LOS D E F C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 64.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.88 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 145.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 93.1% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 ! Phase conflict between lane groups. c Critical Lane Group 309 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 4: S. Linden Ave & N Canal St 06/09/2023 Future with Lindenville Specific Plan Project PM Synchro 11 Report Fehr and Peers Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 99 0 119 0 0 0 205 660 0 0 527 54 Future Volume (veh/h) 99 0 119 0 0 0 205 660 0 0 527 54 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1767 1767 1767 1767 1767 1767 1767 1767 1767 0 1767 1767 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 110 0 132 0 0 0 228 733 0 0 586 60 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 9 9 Cap, veh/h 211 18 158 0 357 0 351 1236 0 0 1023 105 Arrive On Green 0.20 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.65 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.65 0.65 Sat Flow, veh/h 561 91 782 0 1767 0 380 1983 0 0 1576 161 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 242 0 0 0 0 0 406 555 0 0 0 646 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1434 0 0 0 1767 0 755 1527 0 0 0 1737 Q Serve(g_s), s 7.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.1 10.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 27.3 10.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.2 Prop In Lane 0.45 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.09 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 387 0 0 0 357 0 595 992 0 0 0 1128 V/C Ratio(X) 0.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.57 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 547 0 0 0 557 0 595 992 0 0 0 1128 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 20.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.5 5.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.2 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.4 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 21.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.8 7.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.4 LnGrp LOS C A A A A A B A A A A A Approach Vol, veh/h 242 0 961 646 Approach Delay, s/veh 21.2 0.0 11.4 7.4 Approach LOS C B A Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 39.0 14.9 39.0 14.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 35.0 17.0 35.0 17.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 13.2 10.7 29.3 0.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 3.2 0.5 2.7 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 11.3 HCM 6th LOS B 310 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 6: Produce Ave./Airport Blvd. & San Mateo Ave./So. Airport Blvd.06/09/2023 Future with Lindenville Specific Plan Project PM Synchro 11 Report Fehr and Peers Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 409 199 832 571 606 950 13 120 7 255 1120 130 Future Volume (veh/h) 409 199 832 571 606 950 13 120 7 255 1120 130 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1441 1441 1441 1618 1618 1618 1796 1796 1796 1811 1811 1811 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 454 221 0 436 951 0 14 133 0 283 1244 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 31 31 31 19 19 19 7 7 7 6 6 6 Cap, veh/h 518 272 446 937 55 594 382 1270 Arrive On Green 0.19 0.19 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.03 0.17 0.00 0.22 0.37 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 2744 1441 1221 1541 3237 1372 1711 3413 1522 1725 3441 1535 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 454 221 0 436 951 0 14 133 0 283 1244 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1372 1441 1221 1541 1618 1372 1711 1706 1522 1725 1721 1535 Q Serve(g_s), s 24.1 22.1 0.0 42.0 43.4 0.0 1.2 5.0 0.0 22.9 53.6 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 24.1 22.1 0.0 42.0 43.4 0.0 1.2 5.0 0.0 22.9 53.6 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 518 272 446 937 55 594 382 1270 V/C Ratio(X) 0.88 0.81 0.98 1.02 0.25 0.22 0.74 0.98 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 812 426 446 937 125 594 382 1270 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.56 0.56 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh59.2 58.3 0.0 52.8 53.3 0.0 70.8 53.2 0.0 54.4 46.8 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.5 1.8 0.0 36.7 33.3 0.0 0.9 0.9 0.0 12.2 20.9 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln8.6 8.2 0.0 20.9 22.1 0.0 0.5 2.2 0.0 11.2 26.3 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 61.7 60.1 0.0 89.5 86.6 0.0 71.7 54.1 0.0 66.6 67.6 0.0 LnGrp LOS E E F F E D E E Approach Vol, veh/h 675 1387 147 1527 Approach Delay, s/veh 61.2 87.5 55.8 67.4 Approach LOS E F E E Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s8.9 60.2 32.9 38.1 31.0 48.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.9 4.6 4.9 * 4.9 4.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s11.0 33.1 44.4 18.0 * 26 43.4 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s3.2 55.6 26.1 24.9 7.0 45.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.4 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 73.3 HCM 6th LOS E Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Unsignalized Delay for [NBR, EBR, WBR, SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 311 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 7: Spruce Ave & Victory Ave 06/09/2023 Future with Lindenville Specific Plan Project PM Synchro 11 Report Fehr and Peers Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 242 0 183 0 556 190 57 539 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 242 0 183 0 556 190 57 539 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1767 1767 1767 1767 1767 1767 1767 1767 1767 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 269 0 0 0 618 0 63 599 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Cap, veh/h 335 0 2 1103 79 1253 0 Arrive On Green 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.63 0.00 0.05 0.72 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1682 0 0 1682 1752 0 1682 1752 0 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 269 0 0 0 618 0 63 599 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1682 0 0 1682 1752 0 1682 1752 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 13.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.2 0.0 3.3 13.3 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 13.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.2 0.0 3.3 13.3 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 335 0 2 1103 79 1253 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.56 0.80 0.48 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 525 0 75 1103 88 1253 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 34.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.6 0.0 42.5 5.6 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 31.7 1.3 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.7 0.0 2.1 4.3 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 36.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.6 0.0 74.2 6.9 0.0 LnGrp LOS D A A B E A A Approach Vol, veh/h 269 618 662 Approach Delay, s/veh 36.5 11.6 13.3 Approach LOS D B B Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s7.7 60.8 21.4 0.0 68.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 * 4.2 3.5 3.5 * 4.2 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s4.7 * 46 28.1 4.0 * 47 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s5.3 20.2 15.7 0.0 15.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.6 0.9 0.0 4.5 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 16.6 HCM 6th LOS B Notes * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Unsignalized Delay for [NBR, WBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. 312 HCM 6th AWSC 8: S. Linden Ave & Victory Ave.06/09/2023 Future with Lindenville Specific Plan Project PM Synchro 11 Report Fehr and Peers Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh210.8 Intersection LOS F Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 134 31 82 19 21 79 162 621 40 44 317 173 Future Vol, veh/h 134 31 82 19 21 79 162 621 40 44 317 173 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Heavy Vehicles, % 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Mvmt Flow 149 34 91 21 23 88 180 690 44 49 352 192 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach RightNB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1 HCM Control Delay 25.4 17.7 364.8 102.1 HCM LOS D C F F Lane NBLn1 EBLn1WBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 20% 54% 16% 8% Vol Thru, % 75% 13% 18% 59% Vol Right, % 5% 33% 66% 32% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 823 247 119 534 LT Vol 162 134 19 44 Through Vol 621 31 21 317 RT Vol 40 82 79 173 Lane Flow Rate 914 274 132 593 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1 Degree of Util (X) 1.752 0.595 0.304 1.106 Departure Headway (Hd) 7.252 9.42510.279 7.961 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 512 387 352 463 Service Time 5.252 7.425 8.279 5.961 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 1.785 0.708 0.375 1.281 HCM Control Delay 364.8 25.4 17.7 102.1 HCM Lane LOS F D C F HCM 95th-tile Q 52.8 3.7 1.3 17 313 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 9: Dollar Ave & Southline & S. Linden Ave 06/09/2023 Future with Lindenville Specific Plan Project PM Synchro 11 Report Fehr and Peers Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 278 406 154 58 550 251 161 293 42 232 130 246 Future Volume (veh/h) 278 406 154 58 550 251 161 293 42 232 130 246 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1693 1870 1693 1870 1693 1693 1693 1693 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 302 441 167 66 598 244 175 333 48 264 124 267 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.88 0.92 0.88 0.92 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 14 2 14 2 14 14 14 14 2 Cap, veh/h 306 755 283 147 777 311 210 369 53 277 148 318 Arrive On Green 0.17 0.30 0.30 0.09 0.22 0.22 0.12 0.26 0.26 0.17 0.31 0.31 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 2528 949 1612 3554 1424 1781 1446 208 1612 478 1029 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 302 309 299 66 598 244 175 0 381 264 0 391 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1777 1700 1612 1777 1424 1781 0 1655 1612 0 1507 Q Serve(g_s), s 14.8 12.9 13.1 3.4 13.8 14.1 8.4 0.0 19.5 14.2 0.0 21.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 14.8 12.9 13.1 3.4 13.8 14.1 8.4 0.0 19.5 14.2 0.0 21.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.56 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.13 1.00 0.68 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 306 531 508 147 777 311 210 0 422 277 0 466 V/C Ratio(X) 0.99 0.58 0.59 0.45 0.77 0.78 0.83 0.00 0.90 0.95 0.00 0.84 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 306 650 622 184 1097 440 265 0 511 277 0 500 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh36.1 26.0 26.1 37.6 32.1 32.2 37.7 0.0 31.5 35.9 0.0 28.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 48.1 0.4 0.4 2.1 1.2 3.6 13.6 0.0 15.5 41.4 0.0 10.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln10.4 5.3 5.2 1.4 6.0 5.1 4.4 0.0 9.3 8.7 0.0 8.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 84.3 26.4 26.5 39.8 33.3 35.9 51.3 0.0 47.0 77.3 0.0 38.8 LnGrp LOS F C C D C D D A D E A D Approach Vol, veh/h 910 908 556 655 Approach Delay, s/veh 45.6 34.5 48.3 54.3 Approach LOS D C D D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s19.0 26.3 12.0 30.1 14.3 31.0 19.0 23.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s15.0 27.0 10.0 32.0 13.0 29.0 15.0 27.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s16.2 21.5 5.4 15.1 10.4 23.2 16.8 16.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.8 0.0 2.3 0.1 1.0 0.0 2.7 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 44.7 HCM 6th LOS D Notes User approved ignoring U-Turning movement. 314 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 10: San Mateo Ave & S. Linden Ave 06/09/2023 Future with Lindenville Specific Plan Project PM Synchro 11 Report Fehr and Peers Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 378 455 405 427 414 266 Future Volume (veh/h) 378 455 405 427 414 266 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1767 1767 1767 1767 1767 1767 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 420 139 450 138 460 296 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 9 9 9 9 9 9 Cap, veh/h 453 403 486 409 515 1114 Arrive On Green 0.27 0.27 0.28 0.28 0.31 0.63 Sat Flow, veh/h 1682 1497 1767 1489 1682 1767 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 420 139 450 138 460 296 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1682 1497 1767 1489 1682 1767 Q Serve(g_s), s 19.4 6.0 19.8 5.9 20.9 5.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 19.4 6.0 19.8 5.9 20.9 5.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 453 403 486 409 515 1114 V/C Ratio(X) 0.93 0.34 0.93 0.34 0.89 0.27 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 463 412 486 409 515 1114 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.89 0.89 0.66 0.66 0.87 0.87 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh28.5 23.5 28.2 23.2 26.5 6.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 22.3 0.2 19.4 1.5 15.6 0.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln10.3 5.4 10.7 2.2 10.3 2.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 50.8 23.7 47.6 24.6 42.1 7.1 LnGrp LOS D C D C D A Approach Vol, veh/h 559 588 756 Approach Delay, s/veh 44.0 42.2 28.4 Approach LOS D D C Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 54.5 25.5 28.5 26.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 50.0 22.0 24.0 22.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.9 21.4 22.9 21.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 37.3 HCM 6th LOS D 315 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 11: San Mateo Ave & Tanforan Ave/Shaw Rd 06/09/2023 Future with Lindenville Specific Plan Project PM Synchro 11 Report Fehr and Peers Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 141 0 57 1 0 172 30 520 6 103 451 90 Future Volume (veh/h) 141 0 57 1 0 172 30 520 6 103 451 90 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 0.88 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1767 1767 1767 1767 1767 1767 1767 1767 1767 1767 1767 1767 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 157 0 63 1 0 191 33 578 7 114 501 100 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Cap, veh/h 252 12 70 52 2 362 77 788 9 143 902 180 Arrive On Green 0.24 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.24 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.08 0.63 0.63 Sat Flow, veh/h 680 50 293 2 6 1506 47 1636 19 1682 1430 285 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 220 0 0 192 0 0 618 0 0 114 0 601 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1023 0 0 1514 0 0 1702 0 0 1682 0 1715 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.4 0.0 0.0 4.7 0.0 13.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 14.7 0.0 0.0 7.8 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 4.7 0.0 13.9 Prop In Lane 0.71 0.29 0.01 0.99 0.05 0.01 1.00 0.17 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 334 0 0 416 0 0 875 0 0 143 0 1082 V/C Ratio(X) 0.66 0.00 0.00 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.71 0.00 0.00 0.80 0.00 0.56 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 352 0 0 441 0 0 875 0 0 156 0 1082 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.70 0.00 0.70 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh25.8 0.0 0.0 23.2 0.0 0.0 14.5 0.0 0.0 31.5 0.0 7.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 4.8 0.0 0.0 17.1 0.0 1.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln3.7 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 8.2 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 4.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 30.0 0.0 0.0 24.0 0.0 0.0 19.3 0.0 0.0 48.5 0.0 8.8 LnGrp LOS C A A C A A B A A D A A Approach Vol, veh/h 220 192 618 715 Approach Delay, s/veh 30.0 24.0 19.3 15.1 Approach LOS C C B B Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 48.7 21.3 10.4 38.2 21.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 43.0 18.0 6.5 32.0 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 15.9 9.8 6.7 22.0 16.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 4.8 0.7 0.0 3.2 0.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 19.4 HCM 6th LOS B 316 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 12: San Mateo Ave & Utah Ave 06/09/2023 Future with Lindenville Specific Plan Project PM Synchro 11 Report Fehr and Peers Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 322 411 850 188 80 551 Future Volume (veh/h) 322 411 850 188 80 551 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 350 375 924 204 87 599 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 481 428 1282 283 139 2100 Arrive On Green 0.27 0.27 0.44 0.44 0.08 0.59 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1585 2988 638 1781 3647 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 350 375 567 561 87 599 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1585 1777 1755 1781 1777 Q Serve(g_s), s 10.3 13.0 15.0 15.1 2.7 4.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.3 13.0 15.0 15.1 2.7 4.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.36 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 481 428 787 778 139 2100 V/C Ratio(X) 0.73 0.88 0.72 0.72 0.62 0.29 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 557 496 787 778 186 2100 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh19.1 20.1 13.1 13.1 25.7 5.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.1 13.2 5.6 5.7 1.7 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln4.2 5.9 6.2 6.2 1.1 1.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 22.1 33.3 18.7 18.9 27.4 6.1 LnGrp LOS C C B B C A Approach Vol, veh/h 725 1128 686 Approach Delay, s/veh 27.9 18.8 8.8 Approach LOS C B A Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s8.5 29.5 38.0 19.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s6.0 24.0 34.0 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s4.7 17.1 6.8 15.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.0 2.9 0.5 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 18.7 HCM 6th LOS B 317 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:23-732 Agenda Date:9/7/2023 Version:1 Item #:2b. Resolution making findings and recommending that the City Council adopt the Lindenville Specific Plan and associated General Plan Amendments. WHEREAS,in 2022 the City Council of the City of South San Francisco adopted the 2040 General Plan Update,Climate Action Plan Update,Zoning Ordinance Update and certified the associated Environmental Impact Report; and WHEREAS,the 2040 General Plan Update reflects the community’s vision and 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; and WHEREAS,to ensure that new development 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; and WHEREAS,the City was awarded a Planned Development Area Planning Grant from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and a SB2 Grant from the State Office of Housing and Community Development in support of the preparation of the Lindenville Specific Plan preparation; and WHEREAS,in an effort to collaboratively create a blueprint for development in Lindenville,the City initiated a community input process that included public and community meetings,both in person and virtually,and analysis with city residents,business owners,commercial developers,interest groups and advocates to discuss community issues,vision,guiding principles,and to receive comments on the Draft Lindenville Specific Plan; and WHEREAS,all draft documents,meeting minutes and meeting videos were made available to the public through the project website, as well as information gathering through online surveys; and WHEREAS,the Lindenville Specific Plan builds on other recent planning efforts,including the 2040 General Plan,Climate Action Plan Update,Zoning Ordinance Update,and Active South City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan; and WHEREAS,the City has utilized the expertise of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee,Cultural Arts Commission,Design Review Board,Equity and Public Safety Commission,Parks and Recreation Commission,Planning Commission,Youth Commission and City Council for review and comments on the Lindenville Specific Plan; and WHEREAS,the City has prepared amendments to the 2040 General Plan to modify Chapter sections,including text, tables and figures to remain consistent with adoption of the Lindenville Specific Plan; and WHEREAS,the City has also prepared amendments to the City’s Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map, City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/1/2023Page 1 of 9 powered by Legistar™318 File #:23-732 Agenda Date:9/7/2023 Version:1 Item #:2b. considered under separate Resolution, to remain consistent with adoption of the Lindenville Specific Plan; and WHEREAS,cumulatively,the Lindenville Specific Plan,the General Plan amendments,the Zoning Map amendments and Zoning Ordinance amendments provide a policy and zoning framework for future development in the Lindenville Sub-Area; and WHEREAS,the draft Lindenville Specific Plan was published for public review and comment on June 29, 2023 and public comments have been received and incorporated into the final Lindenville Specific Plan; and WHEREAS,in October 2022 the City Council certified the Final Environmental Impact Report for the 2040 General Plan Update,Zoning Code Amendments and Climate Action Plan (“2040 General Plan EIR”)(State Clearinghouse No. 2021020064); and WHEREAS,the City Council also adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations which carefully considered each significant and unavoidable impact in the 2040 General Plan EIR and found that the significant environmental impacts are acceptable considering the social,economic,and environmental benefits of the project; and WHEREAS,the 2040 General Plan EIR was certified in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§21000,et seq.,“CEQA”)and CEQA Guidelines,which analyzed the potential environmental impacts of the Project; and WHEREAS,pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164,an addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR was prepared for the Lindenville Specific Plan (“LSP Addendum”)which evaluates whether preparation of a Subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration is required; and WHEREAS,the LSP Addendum concludes that in accordance with Public Resources Code §21166 and CEQA Guidelines §15162,the implementation of the Lindenville Specific Plan will not cause new significant impacts,will not trigger any new or more severe impacts than were studied in the previously certified 2040 General Plan EIR,that no substantial changes in the project or circumstances justifying major revisions to the previous EIR have occurred,that no new information of substantial importance has come to light since the 2040 General Plan EIR was certified that shows new or more severe significant impacts and there are no new, different or more feasible mitigation measures to mitigate impacts of the Lindenville Specific Plan; and WHEREAS,the City Council previously adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the General Plan EIR and a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the General Plan’s significant and unavoidable impacts, both of which remain in full force and effect for this Specific Plan; and WHEREAS,the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on September 7,2023 to consider the LSP Addendum and the Lindenville Specific Plan for a recommendation to the City Council regarding approval of the LSP Addendum and adoption of the Lindenville Specific Plan and its associated General Plan Amendments, Zoning Ordinance Amendments and Zoning Map Amendments; and WHEREAS,the Planning Commission has,by separate resolution,making findings pursuant to CEQA and recommending that the City Council make a determination that the Lindenville Specific Plan and its associated General Plan Amendments,Zoning Ordinance Amendments and Zoning Map Amendments are fully within the scope of environmental analysis in the 2040 General Plan Environmental Impact Report and that the Lindenville Specific Plan Addendum to the EIR is the appropriate environmental document for the Specific City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/1/2023Page 2 of 9 powered by Legistar™319 File #:23-732 Agenda Date:9/7/2023 Version:1 Item #:2b. Plan. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT FOUND,DETERMINED AND 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 2040 General Plan;the South San Francisco Municipal Code;the 2040 General Plan EIR and Statement of Overriding Considerations;the draft Lindenville Specific Plan,prepared by Raimi + Associates;the Lindenville Specific Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR;the draft General Plan Amendments;the draft Lindenville Specific Plan Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map amendments;all reports, minutes,and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission’s duly noticed September 7,2023 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. 2.The Exhibits attached to this Resolution,including the proposed Lindenville Specific Plan (Exhibit A) and the proposed Lindenville Specific Plan General Plan Amendments (Exhibit B)are each incorporated by reference and made a part of this Resolution, as if set forth fully herein. 3.The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco,315 Maple Avenue,South San Francisco,CA 94080, and in the custody of the Chief Planner. 4.By separate Resolution,the Planning Commission,exercising its independent judgement and analysis, has considered and found that the LSP Addendum,prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164, is the appropriate environmental document for approval of the Project. B.General Plan Amendment Findings 1.The proposed General Plan Amendments for the Lindenville Specific Plan will modify the Land Use, Sub-Areas,Mobility,Parks and Recreation,and Community Health and Environmental Justice elements to reflect adoption of the Lindenville Specific Plan.The amendments are intended as minor alterations and clarifications to the General Plan to reflect the revised sub-area boundaries,land use program, mobility network and other aspects of the Lindenville Specific Plan. 2.As required under State law,the South San Francisco General Plan,and the South San Francisco Municipal Code,in support of the General Plan Amendments,the proposed General Plan Amendments are otherwise consistent with the South San Francisco General Plan,do not obstruct or impede achievement of any General Plan policies,and further a number of important General Plan Goals and Policies set forth in the Land Use,Planning Sub-Areas,Parks and Recreation,Community Resilience, and Environmental and Cultural Stewardship Elements, including without limitation: City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/1/2023Page 3 of 9 powered by Legistar™320 File #:23-732 Agenda Date:9/7/2023 Version:1 Item #:2b. Land Use Element Land Use (LU)Goal 1:Create complete neighborhoods,where residents can access most of their everyday needs within a short walk, bike, or transit trip. LU Policy 1.2: Connectivity in complete neighborhoods. LU Policy 1.7: Create new Lindenville and East of 101 mixed use neighborhoods. LU Goal 3:A diverse range of housing options that create equitable opportunity for people of all ages, races/ethnicities,abilities,socio-economic status,genders,and family types to live in South San Francisco. LU Policy 3.3: Encourage diversity of housing types and sizes. LU Goal 4: High-quality residential neighborhoods. LU Policy 4.3:Promote complete neighborhoods by allowing some commercial uses in residential neighborhoods. LU Policy 4.4: Improve pedestrian and bicycle connectivity in residential neighborhoods. LU Policy 4.5: Neighborhood compatibility. LU Policy 4.11: Encourage neighborhood compatible uses. LU Goal 5:South San Francisco remains a hub of R&D employment,operations,and innovation and is home to the largest worldwide cluster of life science uses. LU Policy 5.3: Require campus open space. LU Goal 6: Opportunities for industrial uses to thrive in Lindenville and East of 101. LU Policy 6.1: Preserve industrial uses in areas designated Mixed Industrial High. LU Policy 6.2: Prohibit incompatible use encroachment. LU Policy 6.3: Encourage redevelopment of older or marginal industrial areas. LU Policy 6.5: Preserve production, distribution, service, and repair (PDR) businesses. LU Policy 6.8:Maintain industrial circulation in Lindenville and East of 101 while expanding active transportation and TDM. LU Goal 8:A network of attractive,pedestrian-oriented,human-scale and well-landscaped streets and civic spaces throughout the city for all ages and abilities. LU Policy 8.3: Improve pedestrian connections and sidewalks. City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/1/2023Page 4 of 9 powered by Legistar™321 File #:23-732 Agenda Date:9/7/2023 Version:1 Item #:2b. LU Policy 8.4: Require street trees. LU Policy 8.5: Provide plazas and gathering spaces. LU Policy 8.6: Sustainable design in the public realm. LU Policy 8.7: Improve the Colma Creek public realm. Sub-Areas Element Sub-Area (SA)Goal 14:Improved pedestrian,bicycle,and roadway connections between adjacent residential neighborhoods and El Camino Real. SA Policy 14.2: Improve Colma Creek connections from El Camino Real. SA Policy 14.4: Improve pedestrian and bicycle connections to the Centennial Way Trail. SA Goal 22:A new residential neighborhood centered along Colma Creek within a short walk of Downtown amenities and services that provides a range of housing types for different income levels and housing types. SA Policy 22.1: Introduce a mix of affordable and market rate housing in Lindenville. SA Policy 22.2:Encourage lot assembly to facilitate housing and mixed use development in Lindenville. SA Policy 22.4:Placemaking and infrastructure improvements in areas to be developed with residential uses. SA Policy 22.5: Require buffering of residential uses in Lindenville. SA Policy 22.6: Require small block sizes for new residential neighborhoods. SA Policy 22.7: Adequate public services in Lindenville. SA Goal 23:Living,working and shopping options are expanded in new mixed use neighborhoods in Lindenville. SA Policy 23.1: Create active mixed use corridor along South Spruce Avenue. SA Policy 23.2: Encourage active ground floor uses. SA Policy 23.3: Improve the South Spruce Avenue streetscape. SA Policy 23.4: Encourage South Spruce Avenue building continuity. SA Policy 23.5: Support retail and dining opportunities in Lindenville. SA Policy 23.6: Provide convenient connections to amenities and services. SA Goal 24:Colma Creek is transformed and new open spaces are created to provide opportunities for City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/1/2023Page 5 of 9 powered by Legistar™322 File #:23-732 Agenda Date:9/7/2023 Version:1 Item #:2b. SA Goal 24:Colma Creek is transformed and new open spaces are created to provide opportunities for social interaction, recreation, flood protection, and urban ecology. SA Policy 24.1: Transform Colma Creek into a walkable amenity. SA Policy 24.2: Create development standards for construction adjacent to Colma Creek. SA Policy 24.3: Promote high-quality building design. SA Goal 25:A core area of light industrial and service uses that provide jobs for South San Francisco residents are preserved. SA Policy 25.1: Minimize land use compatibility conflicts. SA Policy 25.3: Buffer residential neighborhoods from industrial uses. SA Policy 25.4: Preserve the existing “core” of industrial land uses. SA Goal 26: Industries, artists, institutions, and programs that spur the creative economy are supported. SA Policy 26.1: Create an arts and cultural district. SA Policy 26.2: Incentivize makers and artists. SA Policy 26.3: Encourage affordable art spaces. SA Policy 26.4: Encourage live/work industrial areas. SA Goal 27:There are safe,comfortable,and accessible pedestrian and bicycle facilities that connect people to Downtown, El Camino, and East of 101. SA Policy 27.1: Provide connections to and across Colma Creek. SA Policy 27.2: Incorporate street trees, lighting, and landscaping. SA Policy 27.3: Improve sidewalk conditions and amenities. SA Policy 27.4:Develop new roadway connections to better connect people to and within Lindenville. Abundant and Accessible Parks and Recreation Element Parks and Recreation (PR)Goal 1:South San Francisco equitably provides improved parkland, recreational facilities, and services for all residents. PR Policy 1.2: Strive to have all residents within a 10-minute walk access to parks. PR Policy 1.4: Ensure equitable distribution of park and recreation opportunities. PR Goal 2:The city has an expanded network of improved parkland to accommodate the physical and City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/1/2023Page 6 of 9 powered by Legistar™323 File #:23-732 Agenda Date:9/7/2023 Version:1 Item #:2b. social needs of users of all ages and abilities. PR Policy 2.1: Meet improved parkland standard. PR Policy 2.6: Plan for new parks in East of 101 and Lindenville. PR Goal 4:The City collaborates with a strong network of partners to improve and expand park and recreational opportunities across South San Francisco. PR Policy 4.7: Provide publicly accessible, private open space. PR Goal 6:The City provides convenient and safe trails and other pedestrian connections throughout the community. PR Policy 6.4: Provide sidewalk, trail, and transit links to parks. Community Resilience Element Community Resilience (CR)Goal 2:A resilient community that protects existing and future development and people from sea level rise and flooding. CR Policy 2.3: Use green infrastructure to reduce flooding. CR Goal 3: A transformed Colma Creek. CR Policy 3.1: Develop Colma Creek adaptation solutions. Environmental and Cultural Stewardship Element Environmental and Cultural Stewardship (ES)Goal 1:The City supports nature in South San Francisco to encourage healthy ecosystems,improve air and water quality,improve public health,and adapt to a changing climate. ES Policy 1.1: Develop a connected open space network. ES Goal 3: Colma Creek is an ecological corridor that supports community resilience and livability. ES Policy 3.1: Enhance Colma Creek as an ecological corridor. ES Policy 3.2: Co-locate park and open space patches along Colma Creek. ES Policy 3.3: Maintain development standards along Colma Creek to support habitat. ES Goal 7:The City increases stormwater infiltration and reduces the amount of pollutants entering the stormwater system. ES Policy 7.2: Integrate green infrastructure in City projects. The Lindenville Specific Plan,including the proposed General Plan Amendments,furthers these City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/1/2023Page 7 of 9 powered by Legistar™324 File #:23-732 Agenda Date:9/7/2023 Version:1 Item #:2b. policies and is therefore consistent with the City’s General Plan (as proposed for amendment). C.Lindenville Specific Plan Adoption Findings 1.The Lindenville Specific Plan,referenced as Exhibit A,implements and is consistent with the General Plan,as proposed for amendment,because the Plan will reinforce many of the General Plan policies related to the Lindenville Sub-Area,including Goals and Policies set forth in the Land Use,Planning Sub-Areas,Parks and Recreation,Community Resilience,and Environmental and Cultural Stewardship Elements.Furthermore,the Lindenville Specific Plan does not conflict with any specific plans and will remain consistent with the City’s overall vision for community development,economic vitality,and redevelopment in the Lindenville sub-area.None of the new vision goals,guiding principles,policies or new land use designations will conflict with or impede achievement of any of the goals,policies,or land use designations established in the General Plan. 2.The Lindenville Specific Plan will not be detrimental to the public interest,health,safety,convenience, or welfare of the City because the Lindenville Specific Plan would provide for sufficient development, land use,and performance standards related to new development or alteration.More specifically,the Lindenville Specific Plan includes guiding policies and design standards to address land use and urban design,mobility,open space and parks,and public infrastructure investment to remain consistent with the General Plan.Additionally,the Plan will further the public interest by focusing new commercial and residential development in the Lindenville Sub-Area,adjacent to transit service and on infill sites,as recommended in the General Plan’s land use element and sub-area element related Lindenville. 3.The Lindenville Specific Plan area,as evaluated in the 2040 General Plan EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2021020064),is physically suitable for the proposed land use designation(s),as the anticipated development pursuant to the Lindenville Specific Plan will create a mixed-use neighborhood, employment hub,and cultural center of South San Francisco with walkable,connected districts, including the South Spruce corridor,envisioned as lively destinations where people have easy access to retail,parks,and other community resources.The Plan will also preserve the City's industrial heritage while providing new opportunities for people to live in the district.A revitalized Colma Creek has the potential to become a community-serving linear park with restored ecology that benefits the health and wellbeing of people and wildlife. 4.Development of the Lindenville Specific Plan will be superior to development otherwise allowed under conventional zoning classifications because the Lindenville Specific Plan provides additional design guidelines and development standards to promote a mixed-use neighborhood that integrates with the existing and future new industrial uses.The Plan also provides standards to create a new open space and park network,including improvements to the Colma Creek corridor,and requires enhancements to circulation,streetscape and landscape improvements,pedestrian and bicycle access and utilities and infrastructure.The Lindenville Specific Plan allows for the transfer of development rights from properties in the Specific Plan Area to facilitate the construction of open space and climate resiliency. SECTION 2. RECOMMENDATION NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco hereby makes the findings contained in this Resolution and recommends that the South San Francisco City Council adopt the Lindenville Specific Plan (SP22-0002)attached as Exhibit A and the Lindenville Specific Plan General Plan Amendments (GPA23-0002) attached as Exhibit B. City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/1/2023Page 8 of 9 powered by Legistar™325 File #:23-732 Agenda Date:9/7/2023 Version:1 Item #:2b. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption. City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/1/2023Page 9 of 9 powered by Legistar™326 327 This page intentionally left blank. 328 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCOLINDENVILLE SPECIFIC PLAN Final Draft 329 City Council Flor Nicolas, Mayor Mark Nagales, Vice Mayor Mark Addiego, Councilmember James Coleman, Councilmember Eddie Flores, Councilmember Planning Commission Alex Tzang, Chair Norm Faria, Vice-Chair John Baker Michelle Evans Sarah Funes-Ozturk Aysha Pamukcu Sam Shihadeh City Staff Tony Rozzi, Economic & Community Development Deputy Director Billy Gross, Principal Planner Lisa Costa Sanders, Project Administrator Sharon Ranals, City Manager Christina Fernandez, Chief Sustainability Officer Nell Selander, Economic & Community Development Director Jess Magallanes, Fire Chief Valerie Sommer, Library Director Greg Mediati, Parks & Recreation Director Scott Campbell, Police Chief Eunejune Kim, Public Works Director Technical Working Group Dave Bockhaus Angela Duldulao Jason Hallare Ian Hardage Eli Kaplan Eunejune Kim Greg Mediati Ethan Mizzi Erin O’Brien Audrey Park Matthew Ruble Brian Schumacker Nell Selander Nicholas Talbot Susan Tam Millie Tolleson Mike Toscano Makena Wong Consultant Team RAIMI + ASSOCIATES SERA ARCHITECTS FEHR & PEERS SHERWOOD DESIGN ENGINEERS STRATEGIC ECONOMICS DAVID J POWERS & ASSOCIATES LOTUS WATER PLAN TO PLACE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv 330 CHAPTER 1 1 Introduction CHAPTER 2 15 Vision for Lindenville and How We Will Achieve It CHAPTER 3 27 Land Use and Housing CHAPTER 4 65 Development Standards CHAPTER 5 87 Parks and Open Space CHAPTER 6 127 Mobility CHAPTER 7 145 Infrastructure CHAPTER 8 163 Implementation GLOSSARY A-1TABLE OF CONTENTS iNTRODUCTiON v331 This page intentionally left blank. vi 332 INTRODUCTION 1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The regional setting and history of Lindenville help tell the story of the plan area today and set the stage for the future. 1.1 ABOUT LINDENVILLE 1.2 SPECIFIC PLAN DEVELOPMENT 1.3 PLAN OVERVIEW 1.4 PLAN STRUCTURE 333 2 CHAPTER 1 1.1 ABOUT LINDENVILLE Plan Area and Regional Location 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 2, Lindenville is bounded by U.S. Highway 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. Colma Creek runs through the northern portion of the Plan Area en route from San Bruno Mountain to the San Francisco Bay. Lindenville has historically served as the industrial heart of South San Francisco, supporting light industrial, manufacturing, and service and repair businesses, all of which contribute to the city’s legacy as “The Industrial City.” 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. Lindenville is west of the East of 101 neighborhood, which is home to a biotech and research & development (R&D) employment hub with over 200 biotech companies in its northern section and the other industrial hub of the city in its southern section. South Spruce Avenue and South Linden Avenue are the primary street corridors that connect Lindenville to Downtown and to the City of San Bruno to the south. Centennial Way Trail follows the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) path, connecting the South San Francisco and San Bruno Stations (both adjacent to the specific plan area) to create a pedestrian and bicyclist connection between the southwestern portion of Lindenville to the western neighborhoods of the city. Bus service is provided by San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans), connecting Lindenville to the rest of the city and County, and to the San Bruno and South San Francisco BART stations located outside of the Plan Area. The Caltrain commuter rail services further connect the city to the San Francisco Peninsula to the north and Santa Clara County to the south. In addition to US-101, Lindenville is in close proximity to California State Route 82 (SR- 82 or El Camino Real), Interstate 380 (I-380), and Interstate 280 (I-280). These multi-modal connections also extend to the San Francisco International Airport (SFO), which lies four miles south of the city and is accessible by driving and public transportation. South San Francisco’s regional context is shown in Figure 1. The South San Francisco 2040 General Plan identifies Lindenville as a sub-area of the city and includes policies and actions for the development of the sub-area. Figure 1: Lindenville Regional Context 334 INTRODUCTION 3 Figure 2: Lindenville Plan Area 335 4 CHAPTER 1 Historical Context 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 San Bruno Mountain until the late eighteenth century, when Spanish settlers moved into their land.1,2 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. 1 "History of South San Francisco,” City of South San Francisco, 2019, http://www.ssf.net/home/showdocument?id=128. 2 “The Ramaytush Ohlone,” The Association of Ramaytush Ohlone, 2021, https://www.ramaytush.org/ramaytush-ohlone.html. 3 The Making of ‘The Industrial City,’” Historical Society of South San Francisco, https://ssfhistory.org/city-history. 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 Lindenville, such as Morrill Ink and South City Lumber.3 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.4 These homes were constructed so cheaply and poorly that they were abandoned in 1957 and later demolished.5 These parcels were replaced with industrial uses in the 1960s, and no residential uses have been allowed or developed in Lindenville since. 4 “Lindenville,” City of South San Francisco, https://www.ssf.net/home/showpublisheddocument/5462/63646615 2034700000. 5 “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. 336 INTRODUCTION 5 Trends and Challenges The San Francisco Bay Area region has undergone significant change in the last few decades, with many cities like South San Francisco seeing shifting demands for industrial space, increased demand for affordable and transit-oriented housing, and recognizing the need to prepare for environmental challenges. Fluctuations in the Bay Area’s traditional industrial sector have resulted from a multitude of factors, such as a reduction in available industrial land, shifts in production processes, aging infrastructure, and the repurposing of industrial sites for other uses. South San Francisco’s economy is anchored by a thriving biotech community, and employment growth in the city has been primarily driven by jobs in biotechnology and logistics businesses, mostly located in the East of US-101 sub- area. Lindenville is primarily made up of industrial space, representing 40% of the citywide industrial inventory and 15% of all industrial space in San Mateo County. There is a strong demand for industrial space throughout San Mateo County, but businesses are competing for a shrinking supply of space as industrial properties are redeveloped for office, life science, and residential uses. Housing demand and population demographics have also shifted, as the extraordinary demand across the region for housing has been exacerbated by rising costs in new home construction, higher land prices, steep escalations in housing cost in the rental and buyers’ market alike, and population growth. South San Francisco has historically provided relatively affordable housing and a diverse mix of housing for its residents. Although housing costs in South San Francisco are lower than San Mateo County overall, apartment rents and home sales prices are rapidly increasing in the city and County. The City is considering a broad range of possible solutions to address the issues of housing production and affordability, in addition to identifying areas that are appropriate for future housing development. The General Plan identifies Lindenville as an opportunity area to introduce new residential uses that can help meet local and regional housing goals. Likewise, there is a regional push to locate higher- density housing near public transportation and in walkable, mixed use neighborhoods. These transit-orientated communities (TOCs) bring high-quality transit together with development, affordable housing, open space, and mobility choices. Development of housing in Lindenville is a great opportunity, but also presents significant challenges, including connectivity to existing and future mobility networks; resident access to open spaces, everyday needs, and public services; and land use compatibility with industrial uses. Climate change, including sea level rise and extreme heat are being felt in the Bay Area. Sea level rise and storm flooding through the Navigable Slough and Colma Creek are potential threats to all types of existing and future uses in these areas. The potential threats of rising tides and stormwater runoff are further exacerbated by the conditions of existing infrastructure and the large areas of impervious surfaces in this area. There are opportunities to plan for a resilient Lindenville. Implementing strategies such as stormwater infrastructure improvements, natural habitat restoration along Colma Creek, and an expanded urban tree canopy are key to mitigating the impacts of climate change and improving the area’s resilience to the variety of extreme and hazardous weather conditions expected to impact South San Francisco. 337 6 CHAPTER 1 1.2 SPECIFIC PLAN DEVELOPMENT The impetus behind the Lindenville Specific Plan began with the 2040 General Plan Update. The General Plan Update envisioned significant change in Lindenville, including introducing residential, mixed use, and high-density employment land uses in the Plan Area. As a part of the General Plan Update community engagement process, City staff heard the desire from the community to preserve small businesses and industrial uses but also to provide opportunities for arts and the creative economy to grow in South San Francisco. In 2022, the City received a grant from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission/Association of Bay Area Governments (MTC / ABAG) and the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to evaluate expanding the successful Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Priority Development Area (south of the existing downtown area) into Lindenville and provide opportunities for new housing development. This empowered the City of South San Francisco to embark on developing a Specific Plan for Lindenville following the adoption of the General Plan in late 2022. The Specific Plan will implement the vision of the General Plan by creating specific directives, strategies, and standards that aim to develop Lindenville into a resilient and walkable mixed use district. Planning Process The development of the Lindenville Specific Plan occurred in four stages that began in 2022. • Project Initiation. In this initial phase, the planning team analyzed the existing conditions of Lindenville to understand the key issues, opportunities, and emerging trends of the Plan Area. This phase included a series of community outreach events where the team shared background information and gathered feedback on community priorities related to Lindenville. • Land Use Alternatives. To compare distinct approaches for accommodating new residential and mixed uses while still supporting Lindenville’s current uses, different land use, mobility, open space, and urban design alternatives were prepared. Public feedback on the alternatives was gathered through workshops and a series of City Council, committee, and commission meetings, and this led to the development of a preferred land use plan in Winter 2023. • Development of Preferred Plan, Technical Analysis, and Policies. The technical analysis of the preferred plan covered a range of study areas, such as sea level rise, traffic, health, and economic impacts in Lindenville. Likewise, the goals, policies, and development standards in the Draft Specific Plan built off of the community input heard throughout the planning process and the technical analysis. • Plan Release and Adoption. The last phase of the planning process includes the release of the Public Review Draft of the Specific Plan for City Council, Planning Commission, and community review. The Plan will be presented at commission meetings and community workshops before the final plan goes before City Council for adoption. 338 INTRODUCTION 7 Community Engagement Throughout the Specific Plan process, the planning team conducted a variety of engagement activities that included public workshops, pop-up events, stakeholder interviews, and Council, committee, and commission meetings. In order to hear from community members, stakeholders, and businesses of different backgrounds, the planning team used a variety of engagement platforms throughout the planning process. Both in-person and virtual events and meetings were organized, and interactive surveys and features of the project website were used. Whenever possible, meetings and materials were available in a bilingual (Spanish/ English) format. PROJECT WEBSITE The ShapeSSF website houses the interactive and digital version of the recently adopted South San Francisco General Plan and was used to support the development of the Lindenville Specific Plan. Used throughout the engagement process, the project website connected community members to project updates, upcoming events, project documents and media, and online surveys. COMMUNITY WORKSHOPS AND POP-UPS Interactive workshops and events were held in-person and virtually, and they were planned around key phases of the planning process. In Fall 2022, the first virtual workshop provided a reintroduction of the vision for Lindenville developed through the General Plan Update, in addition to inviting participants to share their priorities and ideas for the area. In-person workshops were held in 2023 and provided opportunities for the public to respond to the land use alternatives and the public draft plan. Throughout the process, “pop-up” workshops were held at popular locations and well-attended events in Lindenville in order to meet with community members at convenient times and locations. Lindenville Specific Plan on ShapeSSF.com Pop-up at the South San Francisco Concert in the Park 339 8 CHAPTER 1 ONLINE SURVEYS Community surveys were conducted in most phases of the planning process, either as live polling questions in workshops or through the project website. The initial online survey (available on the website from September to October 2022 and in English and Spanish) gathered community feedback on the guiding priorities for the plan, where they desire change and improvement, and what type of changes they would like to see. The land use alternatives survey (available on the website from December 2022 to February 2023 and in English and Spanish) asked the public to review and provide feedback on three land use alternatives and the various “kit of parts” elements that make up each alternative. TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP The City formed a Technical Working Group (TWG) to receive high-level feedback on the Plan’s key topics. The Technical Working Group was made up of representatives from various City departments, other local agencies, such as San Mateo County Flood & Sea Level Rise Resiliency District (One Shoreline), San Francisco International Airport (SFO), Metropolitan Transportation Commission and Association of Bay Area Governments (MTC/ABAG), and SamTrans. The planning team met with the TWG six times to receive feedback on plan concepts related to land use, mobility, open space, utilities and infrastructure, and economic development. STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS AND OFFICE HOURS Meetings were held with various property owners, business leaders, developers, and community members to identify key issues, opportunities, and constraints in Lindenville. The listening sessions also inform the project direction and engagement strategies to strengthen relationships with stakeholders and community members. Listening sessions were held in July 2022, December 2022, and May 2023 with local stakeholders. In addition, City staff hosted open office hours in December 2022 to meet with community members and provide information about the project. BOARD AND COMMISSION MEETINGS The planning team attended City board and commission meetings to provide updates on the project and gather input. The planning team presented the Draft Land Use Alternatives and/or the Specific Plan Public Review Draft to the Parks and Recreation Commission, Cultural Arts Commission, Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, the Youth Commission, Commission on Racial and Social Equity, and the Colma Creek Citizens Advisory Committee. CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATES The planning team presented to City Council and Planning Commission and received direction on key phases of the project. The planning team presented the Draft Land Use Alternatives to Planning Commission and City Council, with City Council providing input as to their preferred land use direction. The Draft Preferred Plan and the Specific Plan Public Review Draft were also presented to City Council and Planning Commission. 340 INTRODUCTION 9 1.3 PLAN OVERVIEW Regulatory Compliance and Authority The Lindenville Specific Plan has been prepared in compliance with the South San Francisco General Plan, City ordinances, and regulations, and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Specific Plan guides land use and development decision-making processes for the area. The Specific Plan does not replace or augment building safety codes or other non-planning related codes. All applications for new construction, substantial modifications or improvements to existing buildings, and changes in land use shall be reviewed for conformance with this Specific Plan. This Specific Plan is further authorized through California Government Code Sections 65450 through 65457, which allows the City of South San Francisco to prepare a specific plan for the purpose of implementing the city-wide general plan within a defined area. An Addendum to the City of South San Francisco’s Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the updated General Plan and Zoning Code was prepared that includes updates based on the Lindenville Specific Plan. Existing and previously entitled developments may have their own approvals and requirements, which may supersede the requirements in this plan, unless additional approvals are required or entitlements have expired. Relationship to General Plan Lindenville was identified as a sub-area in the General Plan’s Sub-Areas Element, which details a vision, goals, and a range of policies and implementation actions related to housing, employment, connectivity, and open space for Lindenville (see Figure 3). The Lindenville Specific Plan will be the guiding document to help realize the General Plan's vision for the area as a mixed use neighborhood, employment hub, and cultural center of South San Francisco. The General Plan will be updated as a result of some of the changes proposed in this Specific Plan, so that all City plans are consistent with one another and work together to further City goals. Figure 3: General Plan Lindenville Sub-Area 341 10 CHAPTER 1 Relationship to Other City Plans SOUTHLINE SPECIFIC PLAN The Southline development in southern Lindenville is guided by the Southline Specific Plan, which sets standards and requirements for the development of office space, open space, and a new street connection within the Southline Plan Area. Though Southline is physically located within the Lindenville sub-area, the standards of the Lindenville Specific Plan will not apply to the Southline Specific Plan. CLIMATE ACTION PLAN The City’s Climate Action Plan, updated in 2022, contains strategies and actions to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045 by increasing waste diversion, reducing energy and water use, and increasing resiliency across multiple sectors. It also sets out to create a more sustainable community, to equitably mitigate and address the impacts of climate change, and to realize the co-benefits of climate mitigation actions. PUBLIC ART MASTER PLAN The City’s Public Art Master Plan (Master Plan) will guide the development of new cultural arts programming, the future of art in public places, and creation of an arts district in Lindenville. The Master Plan identifies a vision, goals, and recommendations for the City to enhance and support the artists working in, and the creative endeavors happening in, South San Francisco. The team provided feedback on the creative community’s needs from a future arts district in Lindenville such as: affordable live/workspaces for creative entrepreneurs; activated ground floors that allow exhibition venues, performance spaces, workshops, and classrooms; partnerships between the City, developers, and arts groups to encourage public art. Source: Lane Partners 342 INTRODUCTION 11 PARKS & RECREATION MASTER PLAN Adopted in 2015, the South San Francisco Parks & Recreation Master Plan has a long-term vision, goals & recommendations, and an implementation framework for improving and maintaining the City’s park system. The proposed park and open space network identifies a potential linear park in Lindenville, a rails-to- trails conversion spanning from South Maple Avenue to South Canal Street. The Parks and Open Space Chapter of the Specific Plan expands on the park typologies and recommendations presented in the Master Plan. URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN Adopted in 2020, the Urban Forest Master Plan guides the management, enhancement, and growth of South San Francisco’s urban forest and the community tree resource. The plan includes short-term actions and long-term goals that aim to recognize the best management practices that promote tree health and community safety, increase the health and resiliency of the urban forest, and expand the capacity of City departments that manage the urban forest. URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN The Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) for the South San Francisco District was published by the California Water Service in 2021. The UWMP is a foundational document and source of information about the City’s water supply and reliability, projected water demands, potential vulnerabilities, and demand management programs. RESILIENT SOUTH CITY Resilient South City is a community-based proposal to create more public green space and continuous public access along Colma Creek. It strives to reduce the impacts of flooding, mitigate against sea-level rise vulnerability, restore native flora and fauna, and create more amenities and healthy lifestyle opportunities by connecting a public corridor from Orange Memorial Park to a new public park at the shoreline. Lindenville is situated between these destinations, with interventions such as new shared trails, expanded marshland, and reconfigured streets proposed at Colma Creek intersections in Lindenville. COLMA CREEK RESTORATION & ADAPTATION PROJECT The Colma Creek Restoration & Adaptation Project builds on the Resilient South City visioning work by proposing engineering and design plans to reshape the banks of Colma Creek to restore and expand tidal marshes and habitats. Additionally, the restoration project will provide flood mitigation benefits and expanded recreational opportunities along the Lindenville portions of Colma Creek. The restoration concepts detailed in this project have been carried forth and expanded upon in the Parks and Open Space chapter of the Specific Plan. Source: Hassell Studio 343 12 CHAPTER 1 ACTIVE SOUTH CITY Active South City is an update to the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. The plan lays out project and program recommendations meant to increase the safety and comfort of people bicycling and walking in South San Francisco. Within Lindenville (see Figure 4), Active South City proposes the addition of dedicated bike lanes and a shared-use path to improve the connectivity of the neighborhood to Downtown and San Bruno BART. The plan’s goals, policies, and proposed improvements are carried forth in the Mobility chapter of the Specific Plan. Regional Plans and Policies PLAN BAY AREA 2050 Adopted in 2021, Plan Bay Area 2050 is a regional plan that aims to integrate sustainable land use, housing, and transportation strategies within the nine- counties of the San Francisco Bay Area. South San Francisco was identified as a Priority Development Area (PDA), defined as: places near public transit planned for new homes, jobs, and community amenities. Key benefits available to PDA areas are CEQA streamlining and access to a variety of federal, State, and regional funding sources. MTC TRANSIT-ORIENTED COMMUNITIES (TOC) MTC’s regional TOC Policy seeks to support transit investments by creating communities around transit stations and along transit corridors that not only support transit ridership, but that are places where Bay Area residents of all abilities, income levels, and racial and ethnic backgrounds can live, work and access services, such as education, childcare, and healthcare. The Policy applies to areas within one half-mile of the South San Francisco and San Bruno BART and Caltrain stations and consists of four elements: 1) minimum required densities; 2) housing policies; 3) parking management; and 4) transit station access and circulation. AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN SFO’s ALUCP was prepared by the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG), the airport land use commission for SFO, and adopted in 2012. State law requires airport land use commissions to prepare and adopt an ALUCP for each public use and military use within their jurisdiction. The SFO ALUCP provides standards, criteria, and policies on which the compatibility of proposed local agency land use policy actions are determined. It also establishes boundaries for SFO that define safety, airspace protection, and noise areas for policy implementation. Source: Active South City Plan Figure 4: Recommended Bikeways, Active South City Plan 344 INTRODUCTION 13 1.4 PLAN STRUCTURE The Lindenville Specific Plan is divided into the following chapters. CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION This Chapter provides an overview of Lindenville, its existing conditions, and the development of the Specific Plan. CHAPTER 2: VISION FOR LINDENVILLE AND HOW WE WILL ACHIEVE IT This Chapter lays out the Specific Plan’s framework and strategies to realize the General Plan’s Vision for Lindenville. CHAPTER 3: LAND USE AND HOUSING This Chapter defines the land use districts within Lindenville, in addition to the land use standards, the transfer of development rights, and the housing program. CHAPTER 4: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS This Chapter includes standards to regulate site and building design and development. It establishes block standards, site design and lot standards, height, massing, building frontage design, building placement, and other aspects of architecture. Standards are requirements that must be adhered to for all development. CHAPTER 5: PARKS AND OPEN SPACE The Parks and Open Space Chapter describes the goals, policies, standards, and guidelines to create an inclusive open space network in Lindenville that provides more recreational opportunities for residents, workers, and visitors while contributing to the area’s blue-green infrastructure system. CHAPTER 6: MOBILITY The Mobility Chapter establishes multimodal strategies and areawide policy to redesign Lindenville around a layered transportation network. The Chapter defines a complete streets typology and network, and contains standards for designing new streets, parking, and Transportation Demand Management strategies. CHAPTER 7: INFRASTRUCTURE The Infrastructure Chapter guides future investment in stormwater, water, sanitary sewer, and other infrastructure projects. CHAPTER 8: IMPLEMENTATION The Implementation Chapter includes capital improvement projects, funding and financing strategies, and a list of implementation actions to realize the Specific Plan vision. It assigns a timeline, responsible department, and funding source to each implementation action. 345 14 CHAPTER 1 This page intentionally left blank. 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 • • • • 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 4. 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 The purpose of the landscape design standards and guidelines is to create ecologically beneficial and resilient landscapes. Plant selection shall focus on native and climate- adapted species that require minimal water use and maintenance. Other factors that may influence plant selection include aesthetics, cultural significance, and habitat value. The standards and guidelines below apply to new construction and landscape renovations of both public and private developments. 2. be prioritized.. Invasive species 423 424 425 426 427 428 • • • • • 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 • • • • • • • 436 437 438 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 439 440 • • • • • • • • • • • • • 441 442 443 • • • • • • • • • s • • • • • • • • • • • 444 445 446 • • • • • • • • • • 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 482 483 • • • • • • 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 • • • • • • 496 497 498 499 • • • • • • • • • 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 • • • • • • • • • • 513 514 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 515 516 517 518 GLOSSARY 519 A-2 GLOSSARY # 100-year storm: A "100-year storm" is used to define a rainfall event that statistically has this same 1-percent chance of occurring. 500-year storm: A "500-year storm" is used to define a rainfall event that has a 0.2-percent chance (or 1 in 500 chance) of occurring in a given year A Active transportation: This is a non-motorized form of transportation, primarily made up of walking and bicycling. Adaptation: Adaptation is an adjustment in natural or human systems to a new or changing environment Adaptive reuse: The process of reusing and renovating an existing building for a use different from the original use it was built for. Affordability: Affordability refers to a household’s ability to pay for housing costs, where housing is commonly understood to be affordable if households are paying less than 30% of their income towards housing costs Albedo: A measure of a surface’s reflectivity of solar radiation, where a lower albedo reflects less light and absorbs more heat, and a higher albedo reflects more light and absorbs less heat. It is usually measured as a three-year aged solar reflectance (SR) value or as a solar reflectance index (SRI) value. Anti-displacement: Strategies to reduce and stop the number of low-income residents who are forced to move out of rental housing units or cannot move into certain neighborhoods due to economic or physical barriers. Aquifer: A saturated area below the water table that stores water underground. B Best Management Practices (BMP): Methods used to prevent or reduce non-point source pollution that may affect water quality. Biodiversity: The biological variety of life in an ecosystem. Bioswales: Channels designed to receive rainwater runoff and has vegetation to capture water and remove pollutants before releasing to a storm sewer. Bioswales can also be designed for water to infiltrate and recharge groundwater. Bird safe design: Design choices that minimize the adverse effects of new development & construction on native and migratory birds. 520 GLOSSARY A-3 C Carbon neutrality: The balance between carbon emissions and carbon absorption from the atmosphere. Climate change: Climate change refers to changes in the average and/or the variability of temperature, rainfall, and extreme weather that persist for an extended period. Commercial linkage fees: Fees charged by the City to the developers of new commercial properties and used to develop affordable housing. Community benefits: Programs or activities developers contribute to the City that furthers community goals and amenities, such as parks and public spaces, affordable housing, and other community-serving amenities. Community resilience: The ability of a group to prepare for, withstand, adapt, and recover from disruptions or harmful situations. Complete neighborhoods: Neighborhoods where residents can reach community amenities (e.g., grocery stores and retail), transit, public facilities (e.g., parks and community centers) and services (e.g., health care and affordable childcare) within a 20-minute walk. Complete streets: A transportation strategy where streets are designed and operated to be safe and accessible to all people. This involves infrastructure improvements to public transportation networks, sidewalks and trails, and bicycle networks, while also prioritizing historically disadvantaged communities. Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL): The average sound level in a 24-hour period derived from a variety of single-noise events, with weighting factors of 5 and 10 dBA applied to the evening (7 PM to 10 PM) and nighttime (10 PM to 7 AM) periods, respectively, to allow for the greater sensitivity to noise during these hours. Creative economy: "An economic sector that involves careers and activities at the intersection of arts, culture, and technology. The creative economy is made up of the businesses and individuals involved in producing cultural, artistic, and design goods and services, as well as supportive organizations that provide artistic venues, education, and funding." D Dark sky best practices: Outdoor lighting strategies that reduce light pollution by minimizing glare, light trespass, and skyglow into the night sky. Decarbonized buildings: New or existing buildings that reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions produced through the implementation of efficiency upgrades. This includes eliminating the use of fossil fuels within the building and can go as far as eliminating fossil fuels from the energy used to electrify the building. Decibel (dB): A unit used to express the relative intensity of a sound as it is heard by the human ear. The lowest volume a normal ear can detect under laboratory conditions is 0 dB, the threshold of human hearing. Since the decibel scale is logarithmic, 10 decibels are ten times more intense, and 20 decibels are a hundred times more intense, than 1 dB. Decibels A (dBA): The “A-weighted” scale for measuring sound in decibels, which weighs or reduces the effects of low and high frequencies in order to simulate human hearing. Every increase of 10 dBA doubles the perceived loudness even though the noise is actually ten times more intense. Deed-restricted affordable housing: Housing units that have a restriction in the building deed that limits the rent or purchase price of the unit and requires the unit to be occupied by low income households for a certain period of time. 521 A-4 GLOSSARY Density bonus incentive: This incentive-tool allows qualifying developers to increase their development in allowed dwelling units per acre, floor area ratio, or height, typically in exchange for community benefits in the form of funding or in- kind support. Development standards: Conditions for development that regulate site and building design and development, such as block standards, site design and lot standards, height, massing, building frontage design, building placement, and other aspects of architecture. Disadvantaged Communities: A disadvantaged community is defined as “a low-income area that is disproportionately affected by environmental pollution and other hazards that can lead to negative health effects, exposure, or environmental degradation.” Disaster: A natural, technological, or human-caused event that results in deaths, injuries, property damage/loss, and/ or destruction resulting in serious disruptions and that exceeds the ability of local authorities to cope without outside assistance. Displacement: Displacement is the process through which households and businesses are forced to leave their residence and/ or place of business in response to the economic and social pressures of gentrification. Distributed Energy Resources (DERs): These resources are small, modular energy generation and storage systems that provide electricity or energy and can be connected or independent from the larger electrical power grid. Distributional equity: Strategies to fairly distribute resources, benefits, and burdens. Prioritize resources for communities that experience the greatest inequities, disproportionate impacts, and have the greatest unmet needs. Dwelling units per acre (du/ac): The number of dwelling units allowed on one acre of land. Often used by cities to regulate allowed residential density. E Ecosystem: The collection of organisms and the natural elements with which they interact. Environmental Justice: Environmental justice is defined in California’s Government Code (Section 65040.12(e)) as “the fair treatment of people of all races, cultures, and incomes with respect to the development, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” Existing Building Electrification Plan: A strategy to electrify and eliminate natural gas use from existing buildings. 522 GLOSSARY A-5 F Façade articulation: A design technique used to show how various pieces of a building’s facade come together and are divided into different sections. First-last mile connections: The beginning or end of an individual’s trip made with public transportation that requires the individual to travel between their origin and first public transportation mode, and between the last public transportation mode and their final destination. The gap between public transit and the final destination can be bridged by private shuttles, walking, biking, or other methods. Floor Area Ratio (FAR): The development intensity of buildings can be measured through floor area ratio (FAR), which divides gross building area by lot area. A higher FAR indicates greater development intensity, or greater building height and/or lot coverage. Form-based zoning: A type of zoning code that establishes standards for the physical form of buildings instead of solely regulating land use and development through the separation of uses. Form- based codes can regulate the façade, form, and mass of buildings and their relation to each other and to the public realm. G Gentrification: Gentrification is the process of change that neighborhoods experience when they begin to attract new private and public investments. Graywater: The water generated from buildings that is not contaminated (e.g., sinks, dishwashers). Graywater systems This system collects domestic, uncontaminated wastewater and reuses it for irrigation or toilet flushing. Sources of graywater include sinks, showers, washing machines, and dishwashers. Green Stormwater Infrastructure (GSI): This type of infrastructure uses permeable surfaces, vegetation, stormwater harvest systems, and landscaping to capture and filter urban stormwater runoff before it infiltrates into the ground or is released to the sewer system or surface water sources. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions: These are gases within the atmosphere that accelerate the warming of the Earth and are released from human activities that burn fossil fuels or from historic carbon sinks, such as melting permafrost. H Hazard: It is something that is potentially dangerous or harmful. Hazard mitigation Any action taken to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk to human life and property from hazards Health in All Policies: “Health in All Policies (HiAP) is a collaborative approach to improving the health of all people by incorporating health, equity, and sustainability considerations into decision-making across sectors and policy areas.” HiAP recognizes that health is influenced by many factors beyond healthcare and, in many cases, beyond the scope of traditional public health activities. Healthy Communities: Healthy communities are places that foster positive health outcomes for all who live, work, and play in them. Good nutrition, physical activity, and access to healthcare all influence health. However, health is also influenced by many other factors, including access to economic opportunities, safe and sanitary housing, high-quality education, and low exposure to pollution. 523 A-6 GLOSSARY I Impact Fee: A fee charged to a developer by the City according to the proposed development project, typically by number of units, square footage or acreage. The fee is often used for City services and infrastructure development such as schools, roads, police and fire services, and parks. Impervious: An impervious surface does not allow for the infiltration of liquids. Impervious materials include concrete, brick, and stone. Inclusionary housing: Policies that require developers to include affordable housing in new developments. Infill: A pattern of construction that builds on unused or underutilized parcels within an area that has preexisting development. Invasive plants: These plants are non-native to the ecosystem being examined, can spread quickly, and are likely to cause harm to the ecosystem's native plant species. L LEED: Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) green building rating system is used to evaluate the sustainable design strategies of new construction and retrofitted projects. Low Impact Development (LID): A stormwater management practice that uses design strategies to store, detain, filter, and infiltrate a site’s stormwater. Strategies can include the installation of cisterns, rain gardens, permeable pavements, and more. M Maximum Residential Density: Maximum density (dwelling units per acres and FAR) for new residential development without the State Density Bonus. Minimum Residential Density: Minimum density (dwelling units per acres and FAR) for new residential development. Mixed use: Mixed use is used to describe both an area with varying uses adjacent to one another (horizontal mixed use) and a parcel that has a diversity of uses (vertical mixed use). Mobility: The movement from one place to another through one or more modes of transportation. Mobility hubs: Places where different travel networks (including walking, biking, transit, and shared mobility) meet and provide convenient connections to destinations. Multimodal: Having different types of travel options within a transportation network. 524 GLOSSARY A-7 N Native plants: These plants have adapted to their ecosystem or region over hundreds of years and have a symbiotic relationship with other native wildlife. Naturally-Occurring Affordable Housing (NOAH): Existing residential units that have maintained affordable costs for middle to lower income households. Noise contour: A line connecting points of equal noise level as measured on the same scale. Noise levels greater than the 60 Ldn contour (measured in dBA) require noise attenuation in residential development. P Passive solar shading: Exterior window shading that is designed to mitigate sunlight before entering a building. This design method uses sunshades and vertical fins to reduce the amount of heat and light entering through a window at certain times during the year. Potable water: Drinking water that is safe to drink or use in the preparation of food. R Reach code: A local building energy code that sets targets beyond the state requirements for energy use or energy efficiency. Regional Housing Need Allocations (RHNA): A projection of the total amount of housing units needed over time to accommodate households at different income levels within a city, county, or region. Research and Development (R&D): Innovative activities that work towards the development of new - and improvement of existing - products, processes, and services. Resilience: Resilience is the ability of an individual, a community, an organization, or a natural system to prepare for disruptions, to adapt to changing conditions, withstand and rapidly recover from shocks and stresses, and to adapt and grow from a disruptive experience. Risk: The potential for an adverse outcome assessed as a function of hazards/threats, assets and their vulnerabilities, and consequences. S Safety countermeasures: Actions meant to prevent collisions and injuries on transportation networks. Sea level rise: The increase in the level of the ocean due to the effects of global warming, such as the melting of glaciers and ice sheets. Sensitive receptors: Locations where occupants are more sensitive to noise such as residential areas, hospitals, convalescent homes and facilities, and schools. 525 A-8 GLOSSARY T The Cortese List: The Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites (Cortese) List is a planning document used by the State, local agencies, and developers to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act requirements in providing information about the location of hazardous materials release sites. Total FAR Maximum: Maximum density for a parcel inclusive of office and R+D floor area, commercial and retail areas, residential floor area, and TDR floor area from sending parcels. Transfer of development rights (TDR): A program through which developers can purchase the development rights, such as allowed square footage, of specific parcels, “sending parcels,” and transfer the rights to a “receiving parcel.” TDR programs can establish guidelines for the type of land uses and buildings that can be developed with the transferred development rights, such as preserving open space or developing public facilities on sending parcels. Transportation Demand Management (TDM): Strategies and policies implemented to reduce the amount of traffic and improve the efficiency and use of transportation services and options. U Understory planting: A landscaping technique where vegetation that is small and shade tolerant is placed under the canopies of taller trees. Universal design: Deisgn techniques that make buildings and spaces accessible to people of all ages and abilities. Urban ecology: The study of humans in cities, of wildlife & nature in cities, and the relationship between humans & wildlife in an urban context. Urban forest: The collection of trees and vegetation within a city, town, or suburb. V Vulnerability: A qualitative or quantitative expression of the level to which an entity is susceptible to harm when it experiences a hazard. W Walkability: The ability of a built environment - including sidewalks, spaces between buildings, and crosswalks - to encourage pedestrian use and connectivity. Watershed: An area of land that channels rainfall and snowmelt through stream and rivers into a larger body of water or waterway. Wayfinding signage/stations: Individual or centralized signage designed to help people navigate a space by providing relevant information on nearby destinations, transit systems, and more. Z Zero lot line: A property where the building touches or ends very near the property lot boundary. 526 Exhibit B – General Plan Amendments General Plan Amendments to incorporate the Lindenville Specific Plan. Chapter 2: Our Story 1. Modify the Sub-Areas diagram (Figure 3: Sphere of Influence and Sub-Areas on page 20 of the General Plan) to reflect the Sub-Area boundary shown in the Lindenville Specific Plan (Figure 2: Lindenville Plan Area on page 3 of the Lindenville Specific Plan). Chapter 5: Land Use and Community Design 2. Modify the General Plan Land Use diagram (Figure 6: General Plan Land Use on page 62 of the General Plan) for consistency with districts and proposed roadways shown in the Lindenville Specific Plan (Figure 11: Land Use Districts on page 40 of the Lindenville Specific Plan). 3. Modify the General Plan Land Use Designations (Table 6: General Plan Land Use Designations on page 65 of the General Plan) to remove the Industrial Transition Zone. Chapter 6: Sub-Areas 4. Modify the Sub-Areas diagram (Figure 7: Sphere of Influence and Sub-Areas on page 92 of the General Plan) to reflect the Sub-Area boundary shown in the Lindenville Specific Plan (Figure 2: Lindenville Plan Area on page 3 of the Lindenville Specific Plan). 5. Modify the Downtown Sub-Area diagram (page 94 of the General Plan) to reflect the Sub-Area boundary shown in the Lindenville Specific Plan (Figure 2: Lindenville Plan Area on page 3 of the Lindenville Specific Plan). 6. Modify the Lindenville Sub-Area diagram (page 100 of the General Plan) to reflect the Sub-Area boundary and proposed roadways shown in the Lindenville Specific Plan (Figure 2: Lindenville Plan Area on page 3 of the Lindenville Specific Plan). 7. Add text at the bottom of page 100 to read: a. “The Lindenville Specific Plan contains specific directives, strategies, and standards to implement the General Plan’s vision for Lindenville.” 8. Modify the Orange Park Sub-Area diagram (page 104 of the General Plan) to reflect the Sub-Area boundary shown in the Lindenville Specific Plan (Figure 2: Lindenville Plan Area on page 3 of the Lindenville Specific Plan). 9. Modify Policy SA-22.3 to read: a. "Encourage parcel assemblage of the Park ‘N Fly site (160 Produce Avenue) and the Golden Gate Produce Terminal site (131 Terminal Court) and encourage 527 developers to create a master plan for mixed use development on the combined parcels. " 10. Add new policy to read: a. "Policy SA-22.8: Implement the Lindenville Specific Plan. Implement the Lindenville Specific Plan and update as necessary.“ 11. Modify Policy SA-26.3 to read: a. "Actively encourage affordable arts spaces through use classifications in the zoning code and streamlined permitting in the Industrial Transition Zone." 12. Add text on page 126, before the sentence: “Other goals related to Lindenville in other Elements include the following:” to read: a. See the Lindenville Specific Plan for more goals and policies related to Lindenville. Chapter 9: Mobility and Access 13. Modify text in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Networks section on page 185 of the General Plan to reflect the bicycle and pedestrian network in the Lindenville Specific Plan (Figure 27: Pedestrian Priority Streets on page 127 and Figure 28: Bicycle Priority Streets on page 128 of the Lindenville Specific Plan) to read: a. "As South San Francisco adds residents and jobs, more trips will need to occur via walking and biking to keep the city moving. For the area of the city outside of Lindenville, The Active South City Plan presents the City’s roadmap for bicycle and pedestrian network rollout in the near-, medium-, and long-term, with an emphasis on creating comfortable, connected facilities that address key barriers throughout the city, such as US-101, I-280, and El Camino Real. The plan identifies changes to how infrastructure and programmatic elements can grow walking and bicycling in the city. The Lindenville Specific Plan provides guidance for enhancing bicycle and pedestrian networks within the Lindenville Sub-Area. Recommendations from the Active South City Plan and the Lindenville Specific Plan should be implemented alongside the street concepts described above and scheduled using the priority network introduced in the Keys Issues and Opportunities section. Reworking the street network to accommodate multiple modes will require further analysis in some places, and tradeoffs where right-of- way is limited. Where conflicts arise, decision makers should refer back to the Mobility Element Key Outcomes." 14. Modify the Proposed Roadway Network diagram (Figure 14: Proposed Roadway Network on page 182 of the General Plan) to reflect the roadway network shown in the Lindenville Specific Plan (Figure 30: Auto Priority Streets on page 130 of the Lindenville Specific Plan). 528 15. Modify the Proposed New Streets and Major Transportation Investments Table (Table 6: Proposed New Streets and Major Transportation Investments on page 189 of the General Plan) to read: a. Row 4: Extension from South Airport Boulevard to San Mateo Avenue with connection to Produce Avenue with new US-101 ramps to be added in a second phase of work. b. Insert new #8: #8, High, South Spruce Avenue, Road Diet between El Camino Real and Railroad Avenue with protected bicycle lanes and widened sidewalks, 2 lanes + center turn lane +bike lanes, 30 mph, Supports corridor redevelopment and complete streets goals, $30M c. Replace text in row 14: Medium, South Canal Street/Mayfair Avenue, Close South Canal Street as part of Colma Creek widening project and replace with an extension of Mayfair Avenue from South Spruce Avenue to South Linden Avenue, 2 lanes, 20 MPH, Neighborhood, Improves internal connectivity in Lindenville, $15M d. Replace text in Row 15: Medium High, 2-4 lanes + bike lanes in places, 25 MPH e. Replace text in Row 16: Medium High f. Replace text in Row 19: Extension from South Spruce Avenue to South Maple Linden Avenue g. Reorder table from “High” to “Low” in the City Involvement column. Chapter 10: Abundant and Accessible Parks and Recreation 16. Modify text in the Planned and Proposed Parks section on page 222 of the General Plan to reflect the parks and open space network in the Lindenville Specific Plan (Figure 23: Parks and Open Space Framework on page 93 of the Lindenville Specific Plan) to read: a. "New linear parks: Provide trail connections to parks and other trails throughout the city, encouraging active mobility, recreation, and gathering. These include the Railroad Avenue Linear Park (from US 101 to East Grand Avenue), Lindenville Linear Park (from Tanforan Avenue to South Maple Avenue), Randolph Avenue Linear Park (from Airport Boulevard to Hillside Boulevard), and more connections to Centennial Way. See the Lindenville Specific Plan for more information about proposed linear parks in Lindenville. A transformed Colma Creek: Co-locate new park and open space features along a new Colma Creek trail to create opportunities for active recreation, social gathering, green infrastructure, and patches for natural habitat. See the Lindenville Specific Plan for more information about Colma Creek transformation. 529 New parks in East of 101 and Lindenville: Support new residential neighborhoods. See the Lindenville Specific Plan for more information about proposed parks in Lindenville.” 17. Modify the Existing and Potential Park Sites diagram (Figure 31: Existing and Potential Park Sites on page 223 of the General Plan) to reflect the proposed parks shown in the Lindenville Specific Plan (Figure 23: Parks and Open Space Framework on page 93 of the Lindenville Specific Plan). 18. Modify Policy PR-2.6 to read: a. Plan for new parks in East of 101 and Lindenville. Ensure new residential mixed-use neighborhoods in East of 101 and Lindenville plan for a well- connected network of parks and open space. See the Lindenville Specific Plan for more information about proposed parks in Lindenville. Chapter 12: Community Health and Environmental Justice 19. Modify the Disadvantaged Communities diagram (Figure 37: Disadvantaged Communities on page 258 of the General Plan) to reflect the Sub-Area boundary shown in the Lindenville Specific Plan (Figure 2: Lindenville Plan Area on page 3 of the Lindenville Specific Plan). 530 Figures 3 and 7: Sphere of Influence and Sub-Areas 531 Figure 6: General Plan Land Use 532 Downtown Sub-Area Diagram 533 Lindenville Sub-Area Diagram 534 Orange Park Sub-Area Diagram 535 Figure 14: Proposed Roadway Network 536 Figure 31: Existing and Potential Park Sites 537 Figure 37: Disadvantaged Communities 538 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:23-733 Agenda Date:9/7/2023 Version:1 Item #:2c. Resolution making findings and recommending that the City Council introduce an Ordinance adding Chapter 20.150 (“Lindenville Specific Plan District”),Chapter 20.160 (“Height Incentive Overlay District”),Chapter 20.190 (“Colma Creek Greenbelt Overlay District”),Chapter 20.200 (“Arts and Makers Overlay District”) Chapter 20.210 (“Active Ground Floor Use Overlay District”),make other related amendments to Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, and amending the South San Francisco Zoning Map. WHEREAS,in 2022 the City Council of the City of South San Francisco adopted the 2040 General Plan Update,Climate Action Plan Update,Zoning Ordinance Update and certified the associated Environmental Impact Report; and WHEREAS,the 2040 General Plan Update reflects the community’s vision and 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; and WHEREAS,to ensure that new development 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; and WHEREAS,the City was awarded a Planned Development Area Planning Grant from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and a SB2 Grant from the State Office of Housing and Community Development in support of the preparation of the Lindenville Specific Plan preparation; and WHEREAS,in an effort to collaboratively create a blueprint for development in Lindenville,the City initiated a community input process that included public and community meetings,both in person and virtually,and analysis with city residents,business owners,commercial developers,interest groups and advocates to discuss community issues,vision,guiding principles,and to receive comments on the Draft Lindenville Specific Plan; and WHEREAS,all draft documents,meeting minutes and meeting videos were made available to the public through the project website, as well as information gathering through online surveys; and WHEREAS,the Lindenville Specific Plan builds on other recent planning efforts,including the 2040 General Plan,Climate Action Plan Update,Zoning Ordinance Update,and Active South City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan; and WHEREAS,the City has utilized the expertise of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee,Cultural Arts Commission,Design Review Board,Equity and Public Safety Commission,Parks and Recreation Commission,Planning Commission,Youth Commission and City Council for review and comments on the Lindenville Specific Plan; and WHEREAS,the City has prepared amendments to the City’s Zoning Map (“Rezone”)and Zoning Ordinance (“Ordinance”),including adding a new Chapter 20.150 (“Lindenville Specific Plan District”),Chapter 20.160 (“Height Incentive Overlay District”),Chapter 20.190 (“Colma Creek Greenbelt Overlay District”),ChapterCity of South San Francisco Printed on 9/1/2023Page 1 of 20 powered by Legistar™539 File #:23-733 Agenda Date:9/7/2023 Version:1 Item #:2c. (“Height Incentive Overlay District”),Chapter 20.190 (“Colma Creek Greenbelt Overlay District”),Chapter 20.200 (“Arts and Makers Overlay District”),and Chapter 20.210 (“Active Ground Floor Use Overlay District”)to adopt the Lindenville Specific Plan and associated overlay districts,and modifying sections of the existing Ordinance,including text,tables and figures,to remain consistent with and implement the policies of the Lindenville Specific Plan; and WHEREAS,the City has also prepared amendments to the City’s General Plan,considered under separate Resolution,to modify Chapter sections,including text,tables and figures to remain consistent with adoption of the Lindenville Specific Plan; and WHEREAS,cumulatively,the Lindenville Specific Plan,the General Plan amendments,the Zoning Map amendments and Zoning Ordinance amendments provide a policy and zoning framework for future development in the Lindenville Sub-Area; and WHEREAS,in October 2022 the City Council certified the Final Environmental Impact Report for the 2040 General Plan Update,Zoning Code Amendments and Climate Action Plan (“2040 General Plan EIR”)(State Clearinghouse No. 2021020064); and WHEREAS,the City Council also adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations which carefully considered each significant and unavoidable impact in the 2040 General Plan EIR and found that the significant environmental impacts are acceptable considering the social, economic, and environmental benefits; and WHEREAS,the 2040 General Plan EIR was certified in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§21000,et seq.,“CEQA”)and CEQA Guidelines,which analyzed the potential environmental impacts of the Project; and WHEREAS,pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164,an addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR was prepared for the Lindenville Specific Plan (“LSP Addendum”)which evaluates whether preparation of a Subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration is required; and WHEREAS,the LSP Addendum concludes that in accordance with Public Resources Code §21166 and CEQA Guidelines §15162,the implementation of the Lindenville Specific Plan will not cause new significant impacts,will not trigger any new or more severe impacts than were studied in the previously certified 2040 General Plan EIR,that no substantial changes in the project or circumstances justifying major revisions to the previous EIR have occurred,that no new information of substantial importance has come to light since the 2040 General Plan EIR was certified that shows new or more severe significant impacts and there are no new, different or more feasible mitigation measures to mitigate impacts of the Lindenville Specific Plan; and WHEREAS,the City Council previously adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project and a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the 2040 General Plan’s significant and unavoidable impacts, both of which remain in full force and effect; and WHEREAS,the Planning Commission conducted a duly notice public hearing on September 7,2023 to consider a recommendation to the City Council regarding adoption of the Lindenville Specific Plan and its associated General Plan Amendments, Zoning Ordinance Amendments and Zoning Map Amendments. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT FOUND,DETERMINED AND 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.; City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/1/2023Page 2 of 20 powered by Legistar™540 File #:23-733 Agenda Date:9/7/2023 Version:1 Item #:2c. Code §21000,et seq.(“CEQA”)and the CEQA Guidelines,14 California Code of Regulations §15000,et seq.; the South San Francisco 2040 General Plan;the South San Francisco Municipal Code;the 2040 General Plan EIR and Statement of Overriding Considerations;the draft Lindenville Specific Plan,prepared by Raimi + Associates;the Lindenville Specific Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR;the draft General Plan Amendments;the draft Lindenville Specific Plan Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map amendments;all reports, minutes,and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission’s duly noticed September 7,2023 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. 2.The Exhibits attached to this Resolution,including the Zoning Text Amendment Ordinance (Exhibit A and its Attachments 1 and 2),which includes the Zoning Text Amendment and the Zoning Map Amendment,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 the Chief Planner. 4.By separate Resolution,the Planning Commission,exercising its independent judgement and analysis, has found that the LSP Addendum,prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164,is the appropriate environmental document for approval of the Project. B.Zoning Ordinance and Map Amendment Findings 1.The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Map amendments are consistent with the 2040 General Plan,as amended per the General Plan Amendment by separate Planning Commission Resolution,because the Zoning Ordinance and Map amendments will reinforce the General Plan policies for the Lindenville Sub-Area related to land use,mobility,open space,community resilience,and environmental and cultural stewardship.Further,the Zoning Ordinance and Map amendments do not conflict with any specific plans and will implement the city’s overall vision for redevelopment within the Lindenville Sub -Area.None of the new or revised definitions,tables,figures and land uses will conflict with or impede achievement of any of the goals,policies,or land use designations established in the General Plan as proposed for amendment. 2.The Zoning Ordinance Update meets all of the requirements as contained in Planning and Zoning Law (Government Code sections 65800-65912). 3.The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Map Amendments,including the Lindenville Specific Plan Zoning District and associated changes,is not detrimental to the use of land in any adjacent zone because the Zoning Ordinance and Map Amendments would provide for sufficient development,land use,and performance standards related to new development or alteration. SECTION 2. RECOMMENDATION City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/1/2023Page 3 of 20 powered by Legistar™541 File #:23-733 Agenda Date:9/7/2023 Version:1 Item #:2c. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco hereby recommends that the City Council make the findings contained in this Resolution and take the following actions: A.Add new Chapter 20.150 (“Lindenville Specific Plan”), Chapter 20.160 (“Height Incentive Overlay District”), Chapter 20.190 (“Colma Creek Greenbelt Overlay District”), Chapter 20.200 (“Arts and Makers Overlay District”) and Chapter 20.210 (“Active Ground Floor Use Overlay District”), as contained in Exhibit A and its attachments, attached hereto. B.Revise Chapter 20.020 Zoning Districts, Zoning Map, and Boundaries as follows (with deletions in strikethrough and additions in double underline): 1.Update Table 20.020.001(A) Base Zoning Districts as indicated below to reflect the new zoning districts established by the Lindenville Specific Plan. Table 20.020.001(A): Base Zoning Districts Base Zoning District Group Base Zoning District - Abbreviation Base Zoning District - Full Name Form-Based Zoning Districts T3N T3 Neighborhood T3C T3 Corridor T3ML T3 Makers Lindenville T4C T4 Corridor T4M T4 Maker T4L T4 Lindenville T5C T5 Corridor T5L T5 Lindenville T6UC T6 Urban Core 2.Update Table 20.020.001(B) Specific Plans and Master Plans as indicated below to reflect the new Lindenville Specific Plan District and to reference the previously adopted Southline Campus Specific Plan District. Table 20.020.001(B): Specific Plans and Master Plans Specific Plan or Master Plan Name Lindenville Specific Plan District Oyster Point Specific Plan District Genentech Master Plan District Southline Campus Specific Plan District 3.Update Table 20.020.001(C) Overlay Zoning Districts as indicated below to reflect the new overlay zoning districts established by the Lindenville Specific Plan. City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/1/2023Page 4 of 20 powered by Legistar™542 File #:23-733 Agenda Date:9/7/2023 Version:1 Item #:2c. Table 20.020.001(C): Overlay Zoning Districts Overlay Zoning District Abbreviation Overlay Zoning District Full Name AM Arts and Makers Overlay AGFU Active Ground Floor Use Overlay CCG Colma Creek Greenbelt Overlay ES Special Environmental Studies Overlay HI Height Incentive Overlay SLR Sea Level Rise/Floodplain Overlay C.Revise Chapter 20.040 Rules of Measurement as follows (with deletions in strikethrough and additions in double underline): 1.Revise Section 20.040.009 Determining Floor Area Ratio as follows: A.Excluded from Floor Area in Calculating FAR. 1.Basements. Usable basements and cellars, the ceiling of which does not extend more than four feet above finished grade. 2.Parking for Residential. Parking areas located entirely below finished grade or entirely beneath the finished floor of habitable space where the vertical distance between the finished floor of habitable space and finished grade is four feet or less.Above grade parking in the T3ML, T4L, and T5L zoning districts are excluded from floor area in calculating FAR. 3.Parking for Nonresidential. Building area devoted to structured or covered parking for nonresidential project. 4.Ground Floor Nonresidential Uses in Select Areas. Active ground floor uses in a new mixed-use or nonresidential development east of 101 and in the T3ML, T4L, T5L,T4C, T4M, and T5C zoning districts. Nonresidential must be active and open to the general public to qualify for this exemption. Uses include, but are not limited to, child care facilities, personal services, retail, full service or limited restaurants, and similar active uses. D.Revise Chapter 20.100 Nonresidential Districts as follows (with deletions in strikethrough and additions in double underline). 1.Revise Table 20.100.002 Use Regulations - Non-Residential Zoning Districts as indicated below to reflect new arts-related use classifications. Table 20.100.002: Use Regulations - Non-Residential Zoning Districts Use ClassificationCC BPO BTP-M & GMP BTP-H & OPSP MIM MIH Additional Regulations “P” = Permitted; “M” = Minor Use Permit; “C” = Conditional Use Permit; “―” = Use Not Allowed Commercial Uses Adult Oriented Business―――C3 C3 See Chapter 20.350, Adult Oriented Business Animal Care, Sales, and Services Kennel ―M ――M M Pet Day Care ―M ――P P Pet Store P ―――――See Chapter 20.350, Animal Care, Sales, and Services Veterinary ServicesP M M M P P See Chapter 20.350, Animal Care, Sales, and Services Arts and Makers UsesP P P P P P Artist’s StudiosP ―P P P P Industrial/R&D Uses Warehousing, Storage, and Distribution Chemical, Mineral, and Explosives Storage ――――C C See Chapter 20.300, Airport Land Use PlanConsistency Freight/Truck Terminals and Warehouses ――――C C See Chapter 20.350, Freight/Truck Terminals and Warehouses andParcel Hubs Indoor Warehousing and Storage―P P P P Outdoor Storage――――P P See Chapter 20.350, Outdoor Storage Outdoor Storage - Arts――――P P Parcel Hub ――――C C See Chapter 20.350, Freight/Truck Terminals and Warehouses and Parcel Hubs Personal Storage――――C C See Chapter 20.350, Personal Storage Wholesaling and Distribution――――P P City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/1/2023Page 5 of 20 powered by Legistar™543 File #:23-733 Agenda Date:9/7/2023 Version:1 Item #:2c. Table 20.100.002: Use Regulations - Non-Residential Zoning Districts Use ClassificationCC BPO BTP-M & GMP BTP-H & OPSP MIM MIH Additional Regulations “P” = Permitted; “M” = Minor Use Permit; “C” = Conditional Use Permit; “―” = Use Not Allowed Commercial Uses Adult Oriented Business―――C3 C3 See Chapter 20.350, Adult OrientedBusiness Animal Care, Sales, and Services Kennel ―M ――M M Pet Day Care ―M ――P P Pet Store P ―――――See Chapter 20.350, Animal Care, Sales, and Services Veterinary ServicesP M M M P P See Chapter 20.350, Animal Care, Sales, and Services Arts and Makers UsesP P P P P P Artist’s StudiosP ―P P P P Industrial/R&D Uses Warehousing, Storage, and Distribution Chemical, Mineral, and Explosives Storage ――――C C See Chapter 20.300, Airport Land Use Plan Consistency Freight/Truck Terminals and Warehouses ――――C C See Chapter 20.350, Freight/Truck Terminals and Warehouses and Parcel Hubs Indoor Warehousing and Storage―P P P P Outdoor Storage――――P P See Chapter 20.350, Outdoor Storage Outdoor Storage - Arts――――P P Parcel Hub ――――C C See Chapter 20.350,Freight/Truck Terminals and Warehouses and Parcel Hubs Personal Storage――――C C See Chapter 20.350, Personal Storage Wholesaling and Distribution――――P P E.Revise Chapter 20.135 Form-Based Zoning Districts as follows (with deletions in strikethrough and additions in double underline): 1.Renumber Section 20.135.020 Transect Zoning Districts as indicated below to reflect the changes to the form-based zoning districts established by the Lindenville Specific Plan. Add new subsections 20.135.020.F T3 Makers Lindenville (T3ML), 20.135.020.G T4 Lindenville (T4L) and 20.135.020.H T5 Lindenville (T5L) as contained in Exhibit A its attachments, attached hereto. 20.135.020.A: Purpose and Intent 20.135.020.B: Applicability 20.135.020.C: General Standards City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/1/2023Page 6 of 20 powered by Legistar™544 File #:23-733 Agenda Date:9/7/2023 Version:1 Item #:2c. 20.135.020.D: T3 Neighborhood District (T3N) 20.135.020.E: T3 Corridor District (T3C) 20.135.020.F: T4 Corridor District (T4C) 20.135.020.G: T4 Maker District (T4M) 20.135.020.F: T3M Lindenville (T3ML) 20.135.020.G: T4 Lindenville (T4L) 20.135.020.H: T5 Lindenville (T5L) 20.135.020.HI: T5 Corridor District (T5C) 20.135.020.IJ: T6 Urban Core District (T6UC) 2.Revise Section 20.135.030 Building Types as indicated below to reflect the new zoning districts established by the Lindenville Specific Plan. 20.135.030.E.2. Triplex/Fourplex - Zones Allowed T3N, T3C,T4C 20.135.030.F.2. Rowhouse - Zones Allowed T3C,T3ML,T4C,T4L 20.135.030.G.2. Live/Work - Zones Allowed T3ML, T4M,T4L, T5L, T5C 20.135.030.H.2. Multiplex - Zones Allowed T3ML, T4C,T4L, T5L, T5C, T6UC 20.135.030.I.2. Flex Low-Rise - Zones Allowed T3N, T3C,T3ML,T4C, T4M,T4L, T5L, T5C 20.135.030.J.2. Flex Mid-Rise - Zones Allowed T3ML,T4C, T4M,T4L, T5L, T5C, T6UC 20.135.030.K.2. Flex High-Rise - Zones Allowed T5L, T5C, T6UC 3.Revise Section 20.135.050 Public Open Space Types as indicated below to reflect the new zoning districts established by the Lindenville Specific Plan. 20.135.050.D.2. Town Square - Zones Allowed T3ML, T4L, T5L, T5C, T6UC 20.135.050.E.2. Plaza - Zones Allowed T3C,T3ML,T4C, T4M,T4L, T5L, T5C, T6UC 20.135.050.F.2. Paseo - Zones Allowed T3N, T3C,T3ML,T4C, T4M,T4L, T5L, T5C, T6UC 20.135.050.G.2. Pocket Park - Zones Allowed City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/1/2023Page 7 of 20 powered by Legistar™545 File #:23-733 Agenda Date:9/7/2023 Version:1 Item #:2c. T3N, T3C,T3ML,T4C, T4M,T4L, T5L, T5C, T6UC 20.135.050.H.2. Greenway - Zones Allowed T3N, T3C,T3ML,T4C, T4M,T4L, T5L, T5C, T6UC 4.Revise Table 20.135.060.B.1 Uses in the Transect Zoning Districts as indicated below to reflect the new zoning districts established by the Lindenville Specific Plan and which land uses are allowed within the new zoning districts. Use Classification Zoning District Addi tion al Regu latio ns T3N T3C T3ML T4C T4M T4L T5L T5C T6C Residential Uses Dwelling, Single-Unit In T5C, see Chapt er 20.300 , Airpor t Land Use Consis tency Attached M M -P1 ----- Dwelling, Multiple-Unit Duplex P1 P1 -P1 ----- Multifamily-Unit P P P P2 P3 P P P2,3 P3 Senior Citizen Residential P P P P2 P3 P P P2,3 P3 Domestic Violence Shelter P4 P4 P4 P2,4 M P4 M M2 M See Chapter 20.350, Domestic Violence Shelter Group Residential P ---C -C C2 C See Chapter 20.350, Group Residential Live-Work M P P P P P P P2 P See Chapter 20.350, Live-Work Units Residential Care Facilities Residential Care Facility, General -C C C C C C C2 C Residential Care Facility, Limited -C C P C C C C2 C Residential Care Facility, Senior M P P P P P P P2 P Single Room Occupancy ---P -P --- Public and Semi-Public Uses College and Trade School, Public, or Private M P P P P P M M M Community Assembly Community Assembly, Small M P P P P P P M M See Chapter 20.350, Community Assembly, Small and Large. In T5C, see Chapter 20.300, Airport Land Use Consistency Community Assembly, Large -C C C C C C C C Community Garden P P P P P P P P P Cultural Institution C C P P C P C C C Day Care Center P P P P M P P M M See Chapter 20.350, Day Care Centers. In T5C and T6UC, see Chapter 20.300, Airport Land Use Consistency Elderly and Long-Term Care C C2 C C2 C C C C C In T5C and T6UC, see Chapter 20.300, Airport Land Use Consistency Government Office P P P P P P P P P Hospital and Clinics Hospital -C --C -C C C In T5C and T6UC, see Chapter 20.300, Airport Land Use Consistency Clinic M5 M5 M M5 M M M M M Parks and Recreation Facilities, Public P P P P P P P P P Public Safety Facilities C C C C P P P P P Schools, Public or Private C C C M M M M M M Social Service Facilities M M M M P P P P P Commercial Uses Animal Care, Sales, and Services Kennel ----M M M M M See Chapter 20.350, Animal Care, Sales, and Services Pet Day Care M M M -P P M M M Pet Store P P P P P P P P P Veterinary Clinic M M M P M P M M M Artist’s Studio P P P P P P P P P Arts and Makers Uses --P ------ Automobile/Vehicle Sales and Services Automobile/Vehicle Sales and Leasing ----C ----See Chapter 20.350, Automobile/Vehicle Sales and Leasing Automobile/Vehicle Service and Repair, Major -C -C P6 C C C C See Chapter 20.350, Automobile/Vehicle Service Automobile/ Vehicle Service and and Repair, Major and Minor Automobile/Vehicle Service and Repair, Minor C M -M P6 M M M M Automobile/Vehicle Washing -M -M M6 M M M M See Chapter 20.350, Automobile/Vehicle Washing and Service Stations Service Station C C --C ----See Chapter 20.350, Automobile/Vehicle Washing and Service Stations Towing and Impound ----C ---- Banks and Financial Institutions --------- Other Financial Services Bank and Credit Unions P P P P7 P P P P P Pawnbroker ----C --C C See Chapter 20.350, Other Financial Services Alternative Loan Business -C C C C C C C C See Chapter 20.350, Other Financial Services Building Materials Sales and Services ----C C C -- Business Services P P P P8 P P P P P Commercial Cannabis Uses ----C ---- Cannabis Delivery-Only Operations ----C ----See Chapter 20.410, Regulation of Cannabis Activities Cannabis Distribution ----C ---- Cannabis Indoor Cultivation ----C ---- Cannabis Manufacturing ----C ---- Cannabis Testing ----C ---- Commercial Entertainment and Recreation Indoor Entertainment C C C C C9 C C C C Indoor Sports and Recreation C C C C C9 C C C C Eating and Drinking Establishments Bar/Night Club/Lounge C C C C C C C C C Coffee Shop/Café P P P P P P P P P See Chapter 20.350, Outdoor Seating Restaurant, Full Service P P P P P P P P P See Chapter 20.350, Outdoor Seating Restaurant, Limited Service P P P P P P P P P See Chapter 20.350, Outdoor Seating Food and Beverage Retail Sales Convenience Market P P P P P P P P P See Chapter 20.350, Convenience Market Grocery Store P P P M P P P P P Supermarket -C C C C P P P P Funeral Parlor and Mortuary C C C C C C C C C Lodging Bed and Breakfast M M M M M M M M M See Chapter 20.350, Bed and Breakfast Lodging. In T5C, see Chapter 20.300, Airport Land Use Consistency Hotel and Motel C C C M -C C C M See Chapter 20.350, Hotels and Motels. In T5C, see Chapter 20.300, Airport Land Use Consistency Short Term Vacation Rental P P P P C P P C P P See Chapter 20.350, Short-Term Vacation Rentals Maintenance and Repair Services M P P P P P P P P Maker’s Space M M P M P P P P M Massage Business M M M M M M M M M See Chapter 20.350, Massage Businesses Nursery and Garden Center M M M M M M M M M Offices Business and Professional P P M P8 P P P P P Medical and Dental P P -P P P P P P Walk-In Clientele P P -P P P P P P Parking Services Public Parking P P P P P P P P P Personal Services General Personal Services P P P P P P P P P See Chapter 20.350, Personal Services Instructional Services P P P P P P P P P Tattoo or Body Modification Parlor P P P P P P P P P See Chapter 20.350, Tattoo or Body Modification Parlor Retail Sales General Sales P P P P P P P P P Firearm Sales ----C ---- Off-Price Merchandise C C C C C C C C C Second Hand Store C C C C C C C C C Outdoor Market C C C C C C C C C See Chapter 20.350, Outdoor Market Shopping Center Community Shopping Center ---P -C C C C Neighborhood Shopping Center C C C C C C C C C Regional Shopping Center ----C -C C C Industrial/R&D Uses Clean Technology M M M -P M M -M Construction and Material Yard --C -M ---- Contractor Shop --P -M M M -- Food Preparation --P -P M M -- Handicraft/Custom Manufacturing M M P M P M M M P Industry, General ----P ---- Industry, Limited --C -P C C -- Recycling Facility Collection Facility M M -M M M M M M See Chapter 20.350, Recycling Facilities Intermediate Processing Facility ----M ---- Warehousing, Storage, and Distribution Chemical, Mineral, and Explosives Storage ----C ---- Freight/Truck Terminals and Warehouses ----C ---- Indoor Warehousing and Storage ----P ---- Outdoor Storage ----P ----See Chapter 20.350, Outdoor Storage Outdoor Storage - Arts --C ------See Chapter 20.350, Outdoor Storage Personal Storage ----C ----See Chapter 20.350, Personal Storage Transportation, Communication and Utilities Communication Facilities Antenna and Transmission Towers See Chapter 20.370, Antennas and Wireless Communications Facilities and Chapter 20.375, Small Cell Wireless Communications Facilities Facilities Within Buildings M M -M P M P P P Fleet-Based Services ----C ---- Transportation Passenger Terminals ----C -C C C Utilities, Major ---C C -C C C In T6UC, see Chapter 20.300, Airport Land Use Consistency Utilities, Minor C C -P P P P P P Accessory Uses (See Section 20.350.004 for Additional Regulations) Accessory Dwelling Unit P P P P P P P P P See Chapter 20.350, Accessory Dwelling Units Family Day Care Small P P -P P P P P P See Chapter 20.350, Family Day Care Homes Large P P -P P P P P P See Chapter 20.350, Family Day Care Homes Home Occupations P P -P P P P P P Mobile Vendor Services -P --P P P P P Temporary Uses Temporary Use See Chapter 20.340, Temporary Uses Notes: 1. Limited to sites with a maximum gross site area of 4,000 square feet. 2. Residential use types not permitted on the ground floor along El Camino Real, except on the east side of El Camino Real between First Street and West Orange Drive subject to approval of the permit indicated. 3. Permitted on upper floors only; MUP required if located on the ground floor. MUP may only be approved if the Review Authority first finds that, based on information in the record, it is infeasible to locate an active pedestrian-oriented use on the ground floor. 4. Limited to facilities serving a maximum of 10 clients and may not be located within 300 feet of any other domestic violence shelter, based on information in the record, it is infeasible to locate an active pedestrian-oriented use on the ground floor. 5. Clinic uses may not occupy the ground floor, except along Grand Avenue, west of Maple Avenue, which are subject to the approval of a CUP. 6. Must be located a minimum of 500 feet from any residential zoning district. 7. Permitted on upper floors only. 8. Customer service offices are permitted on the ground level, and other offices are permitted on the second floor or when conducted as an accessory use with a permitted use on the site, occupying no more than 25 percent of the floor area. Additional office space may be allowed with a CUP, upon finding that such use will not conflict with adjacent street level retail uses. City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/1/2023Page 8 of 20 powered by Legistar™546 File #:23-733 Agenda Date:9/7/2023 Version:1 Item #:2c. Use Classification Zoning District AdditionalRegulationsT3NT3CT3MLT4CT4MT4LT5LT5CT6CResidential UsesDwelling, Single-Unit In T5C,seeChapter20.300,Airport LandUseConsistencyAttachedMM-P1 -----Dwelling, Multiple-UnitDuplex P1 P1 -P1 -----Multifamily-Unit P P P P2 P3 P P P2,3 P3Senior Citizen Residential P P P P2 P3 P P P2,3 P3Domestic Violence Shelter P4 P4 P4 P2,4 M P4 M M2 M See Chapter 20.350,Domestic ViolenceShelterGroup Residential P ---C -C C2 C See Chapter 20.350,Group ResidentialLive-Work M P P P P P P P2 P See Chapter 20.350,Live-Work UnitsResidential Care FacilitiesResidential Care Facility,General -C C C C C C C2 C Residential Care Facility, Limited -C C P C C C C2 C Residential Care Facility, Senior M P P P P P P P2 P Single Room Occupancy ---P -P --- Public and Semi-Public Uses College and Trade School, Public, or Private M P P P P P M M M Community Assembly Community Assembly, Small M P P P P P P M M See Chapter 20.350, Community Assembly, Small and Large. In T5C, see Chapter 20.300, Airport Land Use Consistency Community Assembly, Large -C C C C C C C C Community Garden P P P P P P P P P Cultural Institution C C P P C P C C C Day Care Center P P P P M P P M M See Chapter 20.350, Day Care Centers. In T5C and T6UC, see Chapter 20.300, Airport Land Use Consistency Elderly and Long-Term Care C C2 C C2 C C C C C In T5C and T6UC, see Chapter 20.300, Airport Land Use Consistency Government Office P P P P P P P P P Hospital and Clinics Hospital -C --C -C C C In T5C and T6UC, see Chapter 20.300, Airport Land Use Consistency Clinic M5 M5 M M5 M M M M M Parks and Recreation Facilities, Public P P P P P P P P P Public Safety Facilities C C C C P P P P P Schools, Public or Private C C C M M M M M M Social Service Facilities M M M M P P P P P Commercial Uses Animal Care, Sales, and Services Kennel ----M M M M M See Chapter 20.350, Animal Care, Sales, and Services Pet Day Care M M M -P P M M M Pet Store P P P P P P P P P Veterinary Clinic M M M P M P M M M Artist’s Studio P P P P P P P P P Arts and Makers Uses --P ------ Automobile/Vehicle Sales and Services Automobile/Vehicle Sales and Leasing ----C ----See Chapter 20.350, Automobile/Vehicle Sales and Leasing Automobile/Vehicle Service and Repair, Major -C -C P6 C C C C See Chapter 20.350, Automobile/Vehicle Service Automobile/ Vehicle Service and and Repair, Major and Minor Automobile/Vehicle Service and Repair, Minor C M -M P6 M M M M Automobile/Vehicle Washing -M -M M6 M M M M See Chapter 20.350, Automobile/Vehicle Washing and Service Stations Service Station C C --C ----See Chapter 20.350, Automobile/Vehicle Washing and Service Stations Towing and Impound ----C ---- Banks and Financial Institutions --------- Other Financial Services Bank and Credit Unions P P P P7 P P P P P Pawnbroker ----C --C C See Chapter 20.350, Other Financial Services Alternative Loan Business -C C C C C C C C See Chapter 20.350, Other Financial Services Building Materials Sales and Services ----C C C -- Business Services P P P P8 P P P P P Commercial Cannabis Uses ----C ---- Cannabis Delivery-Only Operations ----C ----See Chapter 20.410, Regulation of Cannabis Activities Cannabis Distribution ----C ---- Cannabis Indoor Cultivation ----C ---- Cannabis Manufacturing ----C ---- Cannabis Testing ----C ---- Commercial Entertainment and Recreation Indoor Entertainment C C C C C9 C C C C Indoor Sports and Recreation C C C C C9 C C C C Eating and Drinking Establishments Bar/Night Club/Lounge C C C C C C C C C Coffee Shop/Café P P P P P P P P P See Chapter 20.350, Outdoor Seating Restaurant, Full Service P P P P P P P P P See Chapter 20.350, Outdoor Seating Restaurant, Limited Service P P P P P P P P P See Chapter 20.350, Outdoor Seating Food and Beverage Retail Sales Convenience Market P P P P P P P P P See Chapter 20.350, Convenience Market Grocery Store P P P M P P P P P Supermarket -C C C C P P P P Funeral Parlor and Mortuary C C C C C C C C C Lodging Bed and Breakfast M M M M M M M M M See Chapter 20.350, Bed and Breakfast Lodging. In T5C, see Chapter 20.300, Airport Land Use Consistency Hotel and Motel C C C M -C C C M See Chapter 20.350, Hotels and Motels. In T5C, see Chapter 20.300, Airport Land Use Consistency Short Term Vacation Rental P P P P C P P C P P See Chapter 20.350, Short-Term Vacation Rentals Maintenance and Repair Services M P P P P P P P P Maker’s Space M M P M P P P P M Massage Business M M M M M M M M M See Chapter 20.350, Massage Businesses Nursery and Garden Center M M M M M M M M M Offices Business and Professional P P M P8 P P P P P Medical and Dental P P -P P P P P P Walk-In Clientele P P -P P P P P P Parking Services Public Parking P P P P P P P P P Personal Services General Personal Services P P P P P P P P P See Chapter 20.350, Personal Services Instructional Services P P P P P P P P P Tattoo or Body Modification Parlor P P P P P P P P P See Chapter 20.350, Tattoo or Body Modification Parlor Retail Sales General Sales P P P P P P P P P Firearm Sales ----C ---- Off-Price Merchandise C C C C C C C C C Second Hand Store C C C C C C C C C Outdoor Market C C C C C C C C C See Chapter 20.350, Outdoor Market Shopping Center Community Shopping Center ---P -C C C C Neighborhood Shopping Center C C C C C C C C C Regional Shopping Center ----C -C C C Industrial/R&D Uses Clean Technology M M M -P M M -M Construction and Material Yard --C -M ---- Contractor Shop --P -M M M -- Food Preparation --P -P M M -- Handicraft/Custom Manufacturing M M P M P M M M P Industry, General ----P ---- Industry, Limited --C -P C C -- Recycling Facility Collection Facility M M -M M M M M M See Chapter 20.350, Recycling Facilities Intermediate Processing Facility ----M ---- Warehousing, Storage, and Distribution Chemical, Mineral, and Explosives Storage ----C ---- Freight/Truck Terminals and Warehouses ----C ---- Indoor Warehousing and Storage ----P ---- Outdoor Storage ----P ----See Chapter 20.350, Outdoor Storage Outdoor Storage - Arts --C ------See Chapter 20.350, Outdoor Storage Personal Storage ----C ----See Chapter 20.350, Personal Storage Transportation, Communication and Utilities Communication Facilities Antenna and Transmission Towers See Chapter 20.370, Antennas and Wireless Communications Facilities and Chapter 20.375, Small Cell Wireless Communications Facilities Facilities Within Buildings M M -M P M P P P Fleet-Based Services ----C ---- Transportation Passenger Terminals ----C -C C C Utilities, Major ---C C -C C C In T6UC, see Chapter 20.300, Airport Land Use Consistency Utilities, Minor C C -P P P P P P Accessory Uses (See Section 20.350.004 for Additional Regulations) Accessory Dwelling Unit P P P P P P P P P See Chapter 20.350, Accessory Dwelling Units Family Day Care Small P P -P P P P P P See Chapter 20.350, Family Day Care Homes Large P P -P P P P P P See Chapter 20.350, Family Day Care Homes Home Occupations P P -P P P P P P Mobile Vendor Services -P --P P P P P Temporary Uses Temporary Use See Chapter 20.340, Temporary Uses Notes: 1. Limited to sites with a maximum gross site area of 4,000 square feet. 2. Residential use types not permitted on the ground floor along El Camino Real, except on the east side of El Camino Real between First Street and West Orange Drive subject to approval of the permit indicated. 3. Permitted on upper floors only; MUP required if located on the ground floor. MUP may only be approved if the Review Authority first finds that, based on information in the record, it is infeasible to locate an active pedestrian-oriented use on the ground floor. 4. Limited to facilities serving a maximum of 10 clients and may not be located within 300 feet of any other domestic violence shelter, based on information in the record, it is infeasible to locate an active pedestrian-oriented use on the ground floor. 5. Clinic uses may not occupy the ground floor, except along Grand Avenue, west of Maple Avenue, which are subject to the approval of a CUP. 6. Must be located a minimum of 500 feet from any residential zoning district. 7. Permitted on upper floors only. 8. Customer service offices are permitted on the ground level, and other offices are permitted on the second floor or when conducted as an accessory use with a permitted use on the site, occupying no more than 25 percent of the floor area. Additional office space may be allowed with a CUP, upon finding that such use will not conflict with adjacent street level retail uses. City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/1/2023Page 9 of 20 powered by Legistar™547 File #:23-733 Agenda Date:9/7/2023 Version:1 Item #:2c. Use Classification Zoning District AdditionalRegulationsT3NT3CT3MLT4CT4MT4LT5LT5CT6CResidential UsesDwelling, Single-Unit In T5C,seeChapter20.300,Airport LandUseConsistencyAttachedMM-P1 -----Dwelling, Multiple-UnitDuplex P1 P1 -P1 -----Multifamily-Unit P P P P2 P3 P P P2,3 P3Senior Citizen Residential P P P P2 P3 P P P2,3 P3Domestic Violence Shelter P4 P4 P4 P2,4 M P4 M M2 M See Chapter 20.350,Domestic ViolenceShelterGroup Residential P ---C -C C2 C See Chapter 20.350,Group ResidentialLive-Work M P P P P P P P2 P See Chapter 20.350,Live-Work UnitsResidential Care FacilitiesResidential Care Facility,General -C C C C C C C2 CResidential Care Facility,Limited -C C P C C C C2 CResidential Care Facility,Senior M P P P P P P P2 PSingle Room Occupancy ---P -P ---Public and Semi-Public UsesCollege and Trade School,Public, or Private M P P P P P M M MCommunity AssemblyCommunity Assembly, Small M P P P P P P M M See Chapter 20.350,Community Assembly,Small and Large. InT5C, see Chapter20.300, Airport LandUse ConsistencyCommunity Assembly, Large -C C C C C C C CCommunity Garden P P P P P P P P PCultural Institution C C P P C P C C CDay Care Center P P P P M P P M M See Chapter 20.350,Day Care Centers. InT5C and T6UC, seeChapter 20.300,Airport Land UseConsistencyElderly and Long-Term Care C C2 C C2 C C C C C In T5C and T6UC, seeChapter 20.300,Airport Land UseConsistencyGovernment Office P P P P P P P P PHospital and ClinicsHospital -C --C -C C C In T5C and T6UC, seeChapter 20.300,Airport Land UseConsistencyClinicM5M5MM5MMMMMParks and RecreationFacilities, Public P P P P P P P P PPublic Safety Facilities C C C C P P P P PSchools, Public or Private C C C M M M M M MSocial Service Facilities M M M M P P P P PCommercial UsesAnimal Care, Sales, and ServicesKennel ----M M M M M See Chapter 20.350,Animal Care, Sales,and ServicesPet Day Care M M M -P P M M M Pet Store P P P P P P P P P Veterinary Clinic M M M P M P M M M Artist’s Studio P P P P P P P P P Arts and Makers Uses --P ------ Automobile/Vehicle Sales and Services Automobile/Vehicle Sales and Leasing ----C ----See Chapter 20.350, Automobile/Vehicle Sales and Leasing Automobile/Vehicle Service and Repair, Major -C -C P6 C C C C See Chapter 20.350, Automobile/Vehicle Service Automobile/ Vehicle Service and and Repair, Major and Minor Automobile/Vehicle Service and Repair, Minor C M -M P6 M M M M Automobile/Vehicle Washing -M -M M6 M M M M See Chapter 20.350, Automobile/Vehicle Washing and Service Stations Service Station C C --C ----See Chapter 20.350, Automobile/Vehicle Washing and Service Stations Towing and Impound ----C ---- Banks and Financial Institutions --------- Other Financial Services Bank and Credit Unions P P P P7 P P P P P Pawnbroker ----C --C C See Chapter 20.350, Other Financial Services Alternative Loan Business -C C C C C C C C See Chapter 20.350, Other Financial Services Building Materials Sales and Services ----C C C -- Business Services P P P P8 P P P P P Commercial Cannabis Uses ----C ---- Cannabis Delivery-Only Operations ----C ----See Chapter 20.410, Regulation of Cannabis Activities Cannabis Distribution ----C ---- Cannabis Indoor Cultivation ----C ---- Cannabis Manufacturing ----C ---- Cannabis Testing ----C ---- Commercial Entertainment and Recreation Indoor Entertainment C C C C C9 C C C C Indoor Sports and Recreation C C C C C9 C C C C Eating and Drinking Establishments Bar/Night Club/Lounge C C C C C C C C C Coffee Shop/Café P P P P P P P P P See Chapter 20.350, Outdoor Seating Restaurant, Full Service P P P P P P P P P See Chapter 20.350, Outdoor Seating Restaurant, Limited Service P P P P P P P P P See Chapter 20.350, Outdoor Seating Food and Beverage Retail Sales Convenience Market P P P P P P P P P See Chapter 20.350, Convenience Market Grocery Store P P P M P P P P P Supermarket -C C C C P P P P Funeral Parlor and Mortuary C C C C C C C C C Lodging Bed and Breakfast M M M M M M M M M See Chapter 20.350, Bed and Breakfast Lodging. In T5C, see Chapter 20.300, Airport Land Use Consistency Hotel and Motel C C C M -C C C M See Chapter 20.350, Hotels and Motels. In T5C, see Chapter 20.300, Airport Land Use Consistency Short Term Vacation Rental P P P P C P P C P P See Chapter 20.350, Short-Term Vacation Rentals Maintenance and Repair Services M P P P P P P P P Maker’s Space M M P M P P P P M Massage Business M M M M M M M M M See Chapter 20.350, Massage Businesses Nursery and Garden Center M M M M M M M M M Offices Business and Professional P P M P8 P P P P P Medical and Dental P P -P P P P P P Walk-In Clientele P P -P P P P P P Parking Services Public Parking P P P P P P P P P Personal Services General Personal Services P P P P P P P P P See Chapter 20.350, Personal Services Instructional Services P P P P P P P P P Tattoo or Body Modification Parlor P P P P P P P P P See Chapter 20.350, Tattoo or Body Modification Parlor Retail Sales General Sales P P P P P P P P P Firearm Sales ----C ---- Off-Price Merchandise C C C C C C C C C Second Hand Store C C C C C C C C C Outdoor Market C C C C C C C C C See Chapter 20.350, Outdoor Market Shopping Center Community Shopping Center ---P -C C C C Neighborhood Shopping Center C C C C C C C C C Regional Shopping Center ----C -C C C Industrial/R&D Uses Clean Technology M M M -P M M -M Construction and Material Yard --C -M ---- Contractor Shop --P -M M M -- Food Preparation --P -P M M -- Handicraft/Custom Manufacturing M M P M P M M M P Industry, General ----P ---- Industry, Limited --C -P C C -- Recycling Facility Collection Facility M M -M M M M M M See Chapter 20.350, Recycling Facilities Intermediate Processing Facility ----M ---- Warehousing, Storage, and Distribution Chemical, Mineral, and Explosives Storage ----C ---- Freight/Truck Terminals and Warehouses ----C ---- Indoor Warehousing and Storage ----P ---- Outdoor Storage ----P ----See Chapter 20.350, Outdoor Storage Outdoor Storage - Arts --C ------See Chapter 20.350, Outdoor Storage Personal Storage ----C ----See Chapter 20.350, Personal Storage Transportation, Communication and Utilities Communication Facilities Antenna and Transmission Towers See Chapter 20.370, Antennas and Wireless Communications Facilities and Chapter 20.375, Small Cell Wireless Communications Facilities Facilities Within Buildings M M -M P M P P P Fleet-Based Services ----C ---- Transportation Passenger Terminals ----C -C C C Utilities, Major ---C C -C C C In T6UC, see Chapter 20.300, Airport Land Use Consistency Utilities, Minor C C -P P P P P P Accessory Uses (See Section 20.350.004 for Additional Regulations) Accessory Dwelling Unit P P P P P P P P P See Chapter 20.350, Accessory Dwelling Units Family Day Care Small P P -P P P P P P See Chapter 20.350, Family Day Care Homes Large P P -P P P P P P See Chapter 20.350, Family Day Care Homes Home Occupations P P -P P P P P P Mobile Vendor Services -P --P P P P P Temporary Uses Temporary Use See Chapter 20.340, Temporary Uses Notes: 1. Limited to sites with a maximum gross site area of 4,000 square feet. 2. Residential use types not permitted on the ground floor along El Camino Real, except on the east side of El Camino Real between First Street and West Orange Drive subject to approval of the permit indicated. 3. Permitted on upper floors only; MUP required if located on the ground floor. MUP may only be approved if the Review Authority first finds that, based on information in the record, it is infeasible to locate an active pedestrian-oriented use on the ground floor. 4. Limited to facilities serving a maximum of 10 clients and may not be located within 300 feet of any other domestic violence shelter, based on information in the record, it is infeasible to locate an active pedestrian-oriented use on the ground floor. 5. Clinic uses may not occupy the ground floor, except along Grand Avenue, west of Maple Avenue, which are subject to the approval of a CUP. 6. Must be located a minimum of 500 feet from any residential zoning district. 7. Permitted on upper floors only. 8. Customer service offices are permitted on the ground level, and other offices are permitted on the second floor or when conducted as an accessory use with a permitted use on the site, occupying no more than 25 percent of the floor area. Additional office space may be allowed with a CUP, upon finding that such use will not conflict with adjacent street level retail uses. City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/1/2023Page 10 of 20 powered by Legistar™548 File #:23-733 Agenda Date:9/7/2023 Version:1 Item #:2c. Use Classification Zoning District AdditionalRegulationsT3NT3CT3MLT4CT4MT4LT5LT5CT6CResidential UsesDwelling, Single-Unit In T5C,seeChapter20.300,Airport LandUseConsistencyAttachedMM-P1 -----Dwelling, Multiple-UnitDuplex P1 P1 -P1 -----Multifamily-Unit P P P P2 P3 P P P2,3 P3Senior Citizen Residential P P P P2 P3 P P P2,3 P3Domestic Violence Shelter P4 P4 P4 P2,4 M P4 M M2 M See Chapter 20.350,Domestic ViolenceShelterGroup Residential P ---C -C C2 C See Chapter 20.350,Group ResidentialLive-Work M P P P P P P P2 P See Chapter 20.350,Live-Work UnitsResidential Care FacilitiesResidential Care Facility,General -C C C C C C C2 CResidential Care Facility,Limited -C C P C C C C2 CResidential Care Facility,Senior M P P P P P P P2 PSingle Room Occupancy ---P -P ---Public and Semi-Public UsesCollege and Trade School,Public, or Private M P P P P P M M MCommunity AssemblyCommunity Assembly, Small M P P P P P P M M See Chapter 20.350,Community Assembly,Small and Large. InT5C, see Chapter20.300, Airport LandUse ConsistencyCommunity Assembly, Large -C C C C C C C CCommunity Garden P P P P P P P P PCultural Institution C C P P C P C C CDay Care Center P P P P M P P M M See Chapter 20.350,Day Care Centers. InT5C and T6UC, seeChapter 20.300,Airport Land UseConsistencyElderly and Long-Term Care C C2 C C2 C C C C C In T5C and T6UC, seeChapter 20.300,Airport Land UseConsistencyGovernment Office P P P P P P P P PHospital and ClinicsHospital -C --C -C C C In T5C and T6UC, seeChapter 20.300,Airport Land UseConsistencyClinicM5M5MM5MMMMMParks and RecreationFacilities, Public P P P P P P P P PPublic Safety Facilities C C C C P P P P PSchools, Public or Private C C C M M M M M MSocial Service Facilities M M M M P P P P PCommercial UsesAnimal Care, Sales, and ServicesKennel ----M M M M M See Chapter 20.350,Animal Care, Sales,and ServicesPet Day Care M M M -P P M M MPet Store P P P P P P P P PVeterinary Clinic M M M P M P M M MArtist’s Studio P P P P P P P P PArts and Makers Uses --P ------Automobile/Vehicle Sales and ServicesAutomobile/Vehicle Sales andLeasing ----C ----See Chapter 20.350,Automobile/VehicleSales and LeasingAutomobile/Vehicle Serviceand Repair, Major -C -C P6 C C C C See Chapter 20.350,Automobile/VehicleService Automobile/Vehicle Service andand Repair, Major andMinorAutomobile/Vehicle Serviceand Repair, Minor C M -M P6 M M M MAutomobile/Vehicle Washing -M -M M6 M M M M See Chapter 20.350,Automobile/VehicleWashing and ServiceStationsService Station C C --C ----See Chapter 20.350,Automobile/VehicleWashing and ServiceStationsTowing and Impound ----C ----Banks and FinancialInstitutions ---------Other Financial ServicesBank and Credit Unions P P P P7 P P P P PPawnbroker----C --C C See Chapter 20.350,Other FinancialServicesAlternative Loan Business -C C C C C C C C See Chapter 20.350,Other FinancialServicesBuilding Materials Sales andServices ----C C C --Business Services P P P P8 P P P P PCommercial Cannabis Uses ----C ----Cannabis Delivery-OnlyOperations ----C ----See Chapter 20.410,Regulation ofCannabis ActivitiesCannabis Distribution ----C ----Cannabis Indoor Cultivation ----C ----Cannabis Manufacturing ----C ----Cannabis Testing ----C ----Commercial Entertainment and Recreation Indoor Entertainment C C C C C9 C C C C Indoor Sports and Recreation C C C C C9 C C C C Eating and Drinking Establishments Bar/Night Club/Lounge C C C C C C C C C Coffee Shop/Café P P P P P P P P P See Chapter 20.350, Outdoor Seating Restaurant, Full Service P P P P P P P P P See Chapter 20.350, Outdoor Seating Restaurant, Limited Service P P P P P P P P P See Chapter 20.350, Outdoor Seating Food and Beverage Retail Sales Convenience Market P P P P P P P P P See Chapter 20.350, Convenience Market Grocery Store P P P M P P P P P Supermarket -C C C C P P P P Funeral Parlor and Mortuary C C C C C C C C C Lodging Bed and Breakfast M M M M M M M M M See Chapter 20.350, Bed and Breakfast Lodging. In T5C, see Chapter 20.300, Airport Land Use Consistency Hotel and Motel C C C M -C C C M See Chapter 20.350, Hotels and Motels. In T5C, see Chapter 20.300, Airport Land Use Consistency Short Term Vacation Rental P P P P C P P C P P See Chapter 20.350, Short-Term Vacation Rentals Maintenance and Repair Services M P P P P P P P P Maker’s Space M M P M P P P P M Massage Business M M M M M M M M M See Chapter 20.350, Massage Businesses Nursery and Garden Center M M M M M M M M M Offices Business and Professional P P M P8 P P P P P Medical and Dental P P -P P P P P P Walk-In Clientele P P -P P P P P P Parking Services Public Parking P P P P P P P P P Personal Services General Personal Services P P P P P P P P P See Chapter 20.350, Personal Services Instructional Services P P P P P P P P P Tattoo or Body Modification Parlor P P P P P P P P P See Chapter 20.350, Tattoo or Body Modification Parlor Retail Sales General Sales P P P P P P P P P Firearm Sales ----C ---- Off-Price Merchandise C C C C C C C C C Second Hand Store C C C C C C C C C Outdoor Market C C C C C C C C C See Chapter 20.350, Outdoor Market Shopping Center Community Shopping Center ---P -C C C C Neighborhood Shopping Center C C C C C C C C C Regional Shopping Center ----C -C C C Industrial/R&D Uses Clean Technology M M M -P M M -M Construction and Material Yard --C -M ---- Contractor Shop --P -M M M -- Food Preparation --P -P M M -- Handicraft/Custom Manufacturing M M P M P M M M P Industry, General ----P ---- Industry, Limited --C -P C C -- Recycling Facility Collection Facility M M -M M M M M M See Chapter 20.350, Recycling Facilities Intermediate Processing Facility ----M ---- Warehousing, Storage, and Distribution Chemical, Mineral, and Explosives Storage ----C ---- Freight/Truck Terminals and Warehouses ----C ---- Indoor Warehousing and Storage ----P ---- Outdoor Storage ----P ----See Chapter 20.350, Outdoor Storage Outdoor Storage - Arts --C ------See Chapter 20.350, Outdoor Storage Personal Storage ----C ----See Chapter 20.350, Personal Storage Transportation, Communication and Utilities Communication Facilities Antenna and Transmission Towers See Chapter 20.370, Antennas and Wireless Communications Facilities and Chapter 20.375, Small Cell Wireless Communications Facilities Facilities Within Buildings M M -M P M P P P Fleet-Based Services ----C ---- Transportation Passenger Terminals ----C -C C C Utilities, Major ---C C -C C C In T6UC, see Chapter 20.300, Airport Land Use Consistency Utilities, Minor C C -P P P P P P Accessory Uses (See Section 20.350.004 for Additional Regulations) Accessory Dwelling Unit P P P P P P P P P See Chapter 20.350, Accessory Dwelling Units Family Day Care Small P P -P P P P P P See Chapter 20.350, Family Day Care Homes Large P P -P P P P P P See Chapter 20.350, Family Day Care Homes Home Occupations P P -P P P P P P Mobile Vendor Services -P --P P P P P Temporary Uses Temporary Use See Chapter 20.340, Temporary Uses Notes: 1. Limited to sites with a maximum gross site area of 4,000 square feet. 2. Residential use types not permitted on the ground floor along El Camino Real, except on the east side of El Camino Real between First Street and West Orange Drive subject to approval of the permit indicated. 3. Permitted on upper floors only; MUP required if located on the ground floor. MUP may only be approved if the Review Authority first finds that, based on information in the record, it is infeasible to locate an active pedestrian-oriented use on the ground floor. 4. Limited to facilities serving a maximum of 10 clients and may not be located within 300 feet of any other domestic violence shelter, based on information in the record, it is infeasible to locate an active pedestrian-oriented use on the ground floor. 5. Clinic uses may not occupy the ground floor, except along Grand Avenue, west of Maple Avenue, which are subject to the approval of a CUP. 6. Must be located a minimum of 500 feet from any residential zoning district. 7. Permitted on upper floors only. 8. Customer service offices are permitted on the ground level, and other offices are permitted on the second floor or when conducted as an accessory use with a permitted use on the site, occupying no more than 25 percent of the floor area. Additional office space may be allowed with a CUP, upon finding that such use will not conflict with adjacent street level retail uses. City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/1/2023Page 11 of 20 powered by Legistar™549 File #:23-733 Agenda Date:9/7/2023 Version:1 Item #:2c. Use Classification Zoning District AdditionalRegulationsT3NT3CT3MLT4CT4MT4LT5LT5CT6CResidential UsesDwelling, Single-Unit In T5C,seeChapter20.300,Airport LandUseConsistencyAttachedMM-P1 -----Dwelling, Multiple-UnitDuplex P1 P1 -P1 -----Multifamily-Unit P P P P2 P3 P P P2,3 P3Senior Citizen Residential P P P P2 P3 P P P2,3 P3Domestic Violence Shelter P4 P4 P4 P2,4 M P4 M M2 M See Chapter 20.350,Domestic ViolenceShelterGroup Residential P ---C -C C2 C See Chapter 20.350,Group ResidentialLive-Work M P P P P P P P2 P See Chapter 20.350,Live-Work UnitsResidential Care FacilitiesResidential Care Facility,General -C C C C C C C2 CResidential Care Facility,Limited -C C P C C C C2 CResidential Care Facility,Senior M P P P P P P P2 PSingle Room Occupancy ---P -P ---Public and Semi-Public UsesCollege and Trade School,Public, or Private M P P P P P M M MCommunity AssemblyCommunity Assembly, Small M P P P P P P M M See Chapter 20.350,Community Assembly,Small and Large. InT5C, see Chapter20.300, Airport LandUse ConsistencyCommunity Assembly, Large -C C C C C C C CCommunity Garden P P P P P P P P PCultural Institution C C P P C P C C CDay Care Center P P P P M P P M M See Chapter 20.350,Day Care Centers. InT5C and T6UC, seeChapter 20.300,Airport Land UseConsistencyElderly and Long-Term Care C C2 C C2 C C C C C In T5C and T6UC, seeChapter 20.300,Airport Land UseConsistencyGovernment Office P P P P P P P P PHospital and ClinicsHospital -C --C -C C C In T5C and T6UC, seeChapter 20.300,Airport Land UseConsistencyClinicM5M5MM5MMMMMParks and RecreationFacilities, Public P P P P P P P P PPublic Safety Facilities C C C C P P P P PSchools, Public or Private C C C M M M M M MSocial Service Facilities M M M M P P P P PCommercial UsesAnimal Care, Sales, and ServicesKennel ----M M M M M See Chapter 20.350,Animal Care, Sales,and ServicesPet Day Care M M M -P P M M MPet Store P P P P P P P P PVeterinary Clinic M M M P M P M M MArtist’s Studio P P P P P P P P PArts and Makers Uses --P ------Automobile/Vehicle Sales and ServicesAutomobile/Vehicle Sales andLeasing ----C ----See Chapter 20.350,Automobile/VehicleSales and LeasingAutomobile/Vehicle Serviceand Repair, Major -C -C P6 C C C C See Chapter 20.350,Automobile/VehicleService Automobile/Vehicle Service andand Repair, Major andMinorAutomobile/Vehicle Serviceand Repair, Minor C M -M P6 M M M MAutomobile/Vehicle Washing -M -M M6 M M M M See Chapter 20.350,Automobile/VehicleWashing and ServiceStationsService Station C C --C ----See Chapter 20.350,Automobile/VehicleWashing and ServiceStationsTowing and Impound ----C ----Banks and FinancialInstitutions ---------Other Financial ServicesBank and Credit Unions P P P P7 P P P P PPawnbroker----C --C C See Chapter 20.350,Other FinancialServicesAlternative Loan Business -C C C C C C C C See Chapter 20.350,Other FinancialServicesBuilding Materials Sales andServices ----C C C --Business Services P P P P8 P P P P PCommercial Cannabis Uses ----C ----Cannabis Delivery-OnlyOperations ----C ----See Chapter 20.410,Regulation ofCannabis ActivitiesCannabis Distribution ----C ----Cannabis Indoor Cultivation ----C ----Cannabis Manufacturing ----C ----Cannabis Testing ----C ----Commercial Entertainment and RecreationIndoor Entertainment C C C C C9 C C C CIndoor Sports and Recreation C C C C C9 C C C CEating and Drinking EstablishmentsBar/Night Club/Lounge C C C C C C C C CCoffee Shop/Café P P P P P P P P P See Chapter 20.350,Outdoor SeatingRestaurant, Full Service P P P P P P P P P See Chapter 20.350,Outdoor SeatingRestaurant, Limited Service P P P P P P P P P See Chapter 20.350,Outdoor SeatingFood and Beverage Retail SalesConvenience Market P P P P P P P P P See Chapter 20.350,Convenience MarketGrocery Store P P P M P P P P PSupermarket-C C C C P P P PFuneral Parlor and Mortuary C C C C C C C C CLodgingBed and Breakfast M M M M M M M M M See Chapter 20.350,Bed and BreakfastLodging. In T5C, seeChapter 20.300,Airport Land UseConsistencyHotel and Motel C C C M -C C C M See Chapter 20.350,Hotels and Motels. InT5C, see Chapter20.300, Airport LandUse ConsistencyShort Term Vacation Rental P P P P C P P C P P See Chapter 20.350,Short-Term VacationRentalsMaintenance and RepairServices M P P P P P P P PMaker’s Space M M P M P P P P MMassage Business M M M M M M M M M See Chapter 20.350,Massage BusinessesNursery and Garden Center M M M M M M M M MOfficesBusiness and Professional P P M P8 P P P P PMedical and Dental P P -P P P P P PWalk-In Clientele P P -P P P P P PParking ServicesPublic Parking P P P P P P P P PPersonal ServicesGeneral Personal Services P P P P P P P P P See Chapter 20.350,Personal Services Instructional Services P P P P P P P P P Tattoo or Body Modification Parlor P P P P P P P P P See Chapter 20.350, Tattoo or Body Modification Parlor Retail Sales General Sales P P P P P P P P P Firearm Sales ----C ---- Off-Price Merchandise C C C C C C C C C Second Hand Store C C C C C C C C C Outdoor Market C C C C C C C C C See Chapter 20.350, Outdoor Market Shopping Center Community Shopping Center ---P -C C C C Neighborhood Shopping Center C C C C C C C C C Regional Shopping Center ----C -C C C Industrial/R&D Uses Clean Technology M M M -P M M -M Construction and Material Yard --C -M ---- Contractor Shop --P -M M M -- Food Preparation --P -P M M -- Handicraft/Custom Manufacturing M M P M P M M M P Industry, General ----P ---- Industry, Limited --C -P C C -- Recycling Facility Collection Facility M M -M M M M M M See Chapter 20.350, Recycling Facilities Intermediate Processing Facility ----M ---- Warehousing, Storage, and Distribution Chemical, Mineral, and Explosives Storage ----C ---- Freight/Truck Terminals and Warehouses ----C ---- Indoor Warehousing and Storage ----P ---- Outdoor Storage ----P ----See Chapter 20.350, Outdoor Storage Outdoor Storage - Arts --C ------See Chapter 20.350, Outdoor Storage Personal Storage ----C ----See Chapter 20.350, Personal Storage Transportation, Communication and Utilities Communication Facilities Antenna and Transmission Towers See Chapter 20.370, Antennas and Wireless Communications Facilities and Chapter 20.375, Small Cell Wireless Communications Facilities Facilities Within Buildings M M -M P M P P P Fleet-Based Services ----C ---- Transportation Passenger Terminals ----C -C C C Utilities, Major ---C C -C C C In T6UC, see Chapter 20.300, Airport Land Use Consistency Utilities, Minor C C -P P P P P P Accessory Uses (See Section 20.350.004 for Additional Regulations) Accessory Dwelling Unit P P P P P P P P P See Chapter 20.350, Accessory Dwelling Units Family Day Care Small P P -P P P P P P See Chapter 20.350, Family Day Care Homes Large P P -P P P P P P See Chapter 20.350, Family Day Care Homes Home Occupations P P -P P P P P P Mobile Vendor Services -P --P P P P P Temporary Uses Temporary Use See Chapter 20.340, Temporary Uses Notes: 1. Limited to sites with a maximum gross site area of 4,000 square feet. 2. Residential use types not permitted on the ground floor along El Camino Real, except on the east side of El Camino Real between First Street and West Orange Drive subject to approval of the permit indicated. 3. Permitted on upper floors only; MUP required if located on the ground floor. MUP may only be approved if the Review Authority first finds that, based on information in the record, it is infeasible to locate an active pedestrian-oriented use on the ground floor. 4. Limited to facilities serving a maximum of 10 clients and may not be located within 300 feet of any other domestic violence shelter, based on information in the record, it is infeasible to locate an active pedestrian-oriented use on the ground floor. 5. Clinic uses may not occupy the ground floor, except along Grand Avenue, west of Maple Avenue, which are subject to the approval of a CUP. 6. Must be located a minimum of 500 feet from any residential zoning district. 7. Permitted on upper floors only. 8. Customer service offices are permitted on the ground level, and other offices are permitted on the second floor or when conducted as an accessory use with a permitted use on the site, occupying no more than 25 percent of the floor area. Additional office space may be allowed with a CUP, upon finding that such use will not conflict with adjacent street level retail uses. City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/1/2023Page 12 of 20 powered by Legistar™550 File #:23-733 Agenda Date:9/7/2023 Version:1 Item #:2c. Use Classification Zoning District AdditionalRegulationsT3NT3CT3MLT4CT4MT4LT5LT5CT6CResidential UsesDwelling, Single-Unit In T5C,seeChapter20.300,Airport LandUseConsistencyAttachedMM-P1 -----Dwelling, Multiple-UnitDuplex P1 P1 -P1 -----Multifamily-Unit P P P P2 P3 P P P2,3 P3Senior Citizen Residential P P P P2 P3 P P P2,3 P3Domestic Violence Shelter P4 P4 P4 P2,4 M P4 M M2 M See Chapter 20.350,Domestic ViolenceShelterGroup Residential P ---C -C C2 C See Chapter 20.350,Group ResidentialLive-Work M P P P P P P P2 P See Chapter 20.350,Live-Work UnitsResidential Care FacilitiesResidential Care Facility,General -C C C C C C C2 CResidential Care Facility,Limited -C C P C C C C2 CResidential Care Facility,Senior M P P P P P P P2 PSingle Room Occupancy ---P -P ---Public and Semi-Public UsesCollege and Trade School,Public, or Private M P P P P P M M MCommunity AssemblyCommunity Assembly, Small M P P P P P P M M See Chapter 20.350,Community Assembly,Small and Large. InT5C, see Chapter20.300, Airport LandUse ConsistencyCommunity Assembly, Large -C C C C C C C CCommunity Garden P P P P P P P P PCultural Institution C C P P C P C C CDay Care Center P P P P M P P M M See Chapter 20.350,Day Care Centers. InT5C and T6UC, seeChapter 20.300,Airport Land UseConsistencyElderly and Long-Term Care C C2 C C2 C C C C C In T5C and T6UC, seeChapter 20.300,Airport Land UseConsistencyGovernment Office P P P P P P P P PHospital and ClinicsHospital -C --C -C C C In T5C and T6UC, seeChapter 20.300,Airport Land UseConsistencyClinicM5M5MM5MMMMMParks and RecreationFacilities, Public P P P P P P P P PPublic Safety Facilities C C C C P P P P PSchools, Public or Private C C C M M M M M MSocial Service Facilities M M M M P P P P PCommercial UsesAnimal Care, Sales, and ServicesKennel ----M M M M M See Chapter 20.350,Animal Care, Sales,and ServicesPet Day Care M M M -P P M M MPet Store P P P P P P P P PVeterinary Clinic M M M P M P M M MArtist’s Studio P P P P P P P P PArts and Makers Uses --P ------Automobile/Vehicle Sales and ServicesAutomobile/Vehicle Sales andLeasing ----C ----See Chapter 20.350,Automobile/VehicleSales and LeasingAutomobile/Vehicle Serviceand Repair, Major -C -C P6 C C C C See Chapter 20.350,Automobile/VehicleService Automobile/Vehicle Service andand Repair, Major andMinorAutomobile/Vehicle Serviceand Repair, Minor C M -M P6 M M M MAutomobile/Vehicle Washing -M -M M6 M M M M See Chapter 20.350,Automobile/VehicleWashing and ServiceStationsService Station C C --C ----See Chapter 20.350,Automobile/VehicleWashing and ServiceStationsTowing and Impound ----C ----Banks and FinancialInstitutions ---------Other Financial ServicesBank and Credit Unions P P P P7 P P P P PPawnbroker----C --C C See Chapter 20.350,Other FinancialServicesAlternative Loan Business -C C C C C C C C See Chapter 20.350,Other FinancialServicesBuilding Materials Sales andServices ----C C C --Business Services P P P P8 P P P P PCommercial Cannabis Uses ----C ----Cannabis Delivery-OnlyOperations ----C ----See Chapter 20.410,Regulation ofCannabis ActivitiesCannabis Distribution ----C ----Cannabis Indoor Cultivation ----C ----Cannabis Manufacturing ----C ----Cannabis Testing ----C ----Commercial Entertainment and RecreationIndoor Entertainment C C C C C9 C C C CIndoor Sports and Recreation C C C C C9 C C C CEating and Drinking EstablishmentsBar/Night Club/Lounge C C C C C C C C CCoffee Shop/Café P P P P P P P P P See Chapter 20.350,Outdoor SeatingRestaurant, Full Service P P P P P P P P P See Chapter 20.350,Outdoor SeatingRestaurant, Limited Service P P P P P P P P P See Chapter 20.350,Outdoor SeatingFood and Beverage Retail SalesConvenience Market P P P P P P P P P See Chapter 20.350,Convenience MarketGrocery Store P P P M P P P P PSupermarket-C C C C P P P PFuneral Parlor and Mortuary C C C C C C C C CLodgingBed and Breakfast M M M M M M M M M See Chapter 20.350,Bed and BreakfastLodging. In T5C, seeChapter 20.300,Airport Land UseConsistencyHotel and Motel C C C M -C C C M See Chapter 20.350,Hotels and Motels. InT5C, see Chapter20.300, Airport LandUse ConsistencyShort Term Vacation Rental P P P P C P P C P P See Chapter 20.350,Short-Term VacationRentalsMaintenance and RepairServices M P P P P P P P PMaker’s Space M M P M P P P P MMassage Business M M M M M M M M M See Chapter 20.350,Massage BusinessesNursery and Garden Center M M M M M M M M MOfficesBusiness and Professional P P M P8 P P P P PMedical and Dental P P -P P P P P PWalk-In Clientele P P -P P P P P PParking ServicesPublic Parking P P P P P P P P PPersonal ServicesGeneral Personal Services P P P P P P P P P See Chapter 20.350,Personal ServicesInstructional Services P P P P P P P P PTattoo or Body ModificationParlor P P P P P P P P P See Chapter 20.350,Tattoo or BodyModification ParlorRetail SalesGeneral Sales P P P P P P P P PFirearm Sales ----C ----Off-Price Merchandise C C C C C C C C CSecond Hand Store C C C C C C C C COutdoor Market C C C C C C C C C See Chapter 20.350,Outdoor MarketShopping CenterCommunity Shopping Center ---P -C C C CNeighborhood ShoppingCenter C C C C C C C C CRegional Shopping Center ----C -C C CIndustrial/R&D UsesClean Technology M M M -P M M -MConstruction and MaterialYard --C -M ----Contractor Shop --P -M M M --Food Preparation --P -P M M --Handicraft/CustomManufacturing M M P M P M M M PIndustry, General ----P ----Industry, Limited --C -P C C --Recycling FacilityCollection Facility M M -M M M M M M See Chapter 20.350,Recycling FacilitiesIntermediate ProcessingFacility ----M ----Warehousing, Storage, and DistributionChemical, Mineral, andExplosives Storage ----C ----Freight/Truck Terminals andWarehouses ----C ----Indoor Warehousing andStorage ----P ----Outdoor Storage ----P ----See Chapter 20.350,Outdoor StorageOutdoor Storage - Arts --C ------See Chapter 20.350, Outdoor Storage Personal Storage ----C ----See Chapter 20.350, Personal Storage Transportation, Communication and Utilities Communication Facilities Antenna and Transmission Towers See Chapter 20.370, Antennas and Wireless Communications Facilities and Chapter 20.375, Small Cell Wireless Communications Facilities Facilities Within Buildings M M -M P M P P P Fleet-Based Services ----C ---- Transportation Passenger Terminals ----C -C C C Utilities, Major ---C C -C C C In T6UC, see Chapter 20.300, Airport Land Use Consistency Utilities, Minor C C -P P P P P P Accessory Uses (See Section 20.350.004 for Additional Regulations) Accessory Dwelling Unit P P P P P P P P P See Chapter 20.350, Accessory Dwelling Units Family Day Care Small P P -P P P P P P See Chapter 20.350, Family Day Care Homes Large P P -P P P P P P See Chapter 20.350, Family Day Care Homes Home Occupations P P -P P P P P P Mobile Vendor Services -P --P P P P P Temporary Uses Temporary Use See Chapter 20.340, Temporary Uses Notes: 1. Limited to sites with a maximum gross site area of 4,000 square feet. 2. Residential use types not permitted on the ground floor along El Camino Real, except on the east side of El Camino Real between First Street and West Orange Drive subject to approval of the permit indicated. 3. Permitted on upper floors only; MUP required if located on the ground floor. MUP may only be approved if the Review Authority first finds that, based on information in the record, it is infeasible to locate an active pedestrian-oriented use on the ground floor. 4. Limited to facilities serving a maximum of 10 clients and may not be located within 300 feet of any other domestic violence shelter, based on information in the record, it is infeasible to locate an active pedestrian-oriented use on the ground floor. 5. Clinic uses may not occupy the ground floor, except along Grand Avenue, west of Maple Avenue, which are subject to the approval of a CUP. 6. Must be located a minimum of 500 feet from any residential zoning district. 7. Permitted on upper floors only. 8. Customer service offices are permitted on the ground level, and other offices are permitted on the second floor or when conducted as an accessory use with a permitted use on the site, occupying no more than 25 percent of the floor area. Additional office space may be allowed with a CUP, upon finding that such use will not conflict with adjacent street level retail uses. F.Revise Chapter 20.320 Nonconforming Uses, Structures, and Lots as follows (with deletions in strikethrough and additions in double underline). 1.Revise Section 20.320.005 Changes and Substitutions of Nonconforming Uses as indicated below to streamline the process to allow substitutions of nonconforming uses. 20.320.005 Changes and Substitutions of Nonconforming Uses No lawful nonconforming use shall be changed to a different use type or subclassification without the approval of a Use Permit unless the new use is permitted by right. This requirement shall not apply to a change of ownership, tenancy, or management where the new use is of the same use type and use classification, if applicable, as the previous use, as defined in Chapter 20.620 (“Use Classifications”), and the use is not expanded or intensified. For the purposes of this section, intensification includes an increase in the number of vehicle trips generated by a use, parking demand, number of employees on a City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/1/2023Page 13 of 20 powered by Legistar™551 File #:23-733 Agenda Date:9/7/2023 Version:1 Item #:2c. site, hours of operation, and other similar characteristics as determined by the Chief Planner. A.Change from Nonconforming to Permitted Use. Any nonconforming use may be changed to a use that is allowed by right in the district in which it is located and complies with all applicable standards for such use. B.Absence of Permit. Any use that is nonconforming solely by reason of the absence of a Use Permit may be changed to a conforming use by obtaining a Minor Use Permit pursuant to the requirements in Chapter 20.490 (“Use Permits”). C.Substitutions. The Chief Planner may allow substitution of a nonconforming use with another nonconforming use, subject to approval of a Minor Use Permit Substitution of Nonconforming Use in accordance with the provisions of this section.In addition to any other findings required by this Ordinance, approval of a Minor Use Permit under this section shall be based on findings that: 1.Application. An application requesting a substitution of a nonconforming use shall be filed with the Planning Division and will be referred to the Chief Planner for review and consideration. 2.Required Findings. In addition to any other findings required by this Ordinance,Aa decision to grant a substitution of nonconforming use shall be based on the following findings: 1a.The existing nonconforming use was legally established; 2b.The proposed new use would not be detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare; 3c.The proposed new use would not preclude or interfere with implementation of the General Plan or any applicable adopted specific, area, or community plan; 4d.The proposed new use will not depress the value of nearby properties or create conditions that would impede their redevelopment or use in compliance with the General Plan; 5e.The proposed new use will be no less compatible with the purposes of the district and surrounding uses that comply with the requirements of this Ordinance than the nonconforming use it replaces; 6f.The proposed new use will not result in an average daily trip increase based on a Parking Management and Monitoring Study and the unique operational characteristics; 7g.The proposed new use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the surrounding area or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements of adjacent properties, the surrounding area, or the neighborhood because of noise, odors, dust, glare, vibrations, or other effects; and 8h.The proposed new use will comply with all applicable standards of the district and Citywide standards, there are special circumstances peculiar to the property and its relation to surrounding uses or to the district itself that would justify modification to applicable standards, or the impacts of the new use will be mitigated. D.Plan Consistency. The Planning Commission or the Chief Planner may find that the continuation, expansion, or substitution of a nonconforming employment use is consistent with the City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/1/2023Page 14 of 20 powered by Legistar™552 File #:23-733 Agenda Date:9/7/2023 Version:1 Item #:2c. General Plan if the Use Permit or Substitution of Nonconforming Use is subject to a condition that limits the term of such use or any other restriction deemed necessary to ensure that approval of the Use Permit or Substitution of Nonconforming Use would not interfere with, impede, or preclude eventual implementation of the Plan. This determination shall be based on information in the record including, but not limited to, financial analysis and market studies. E.Conditions of Approval. In approving a Substitution of Nonconforming Use, the decision- maker may impose any conditions deemed necessary to: 1.Ensure that the proposal conforms in all significant respects with the General Plan and with any other applicable plans or policies adopted by the City Council; 2.Achieve the general purposes of this Ordinance or the specific purposes of the zoning district in which the project is located; 3.Achieve the findings for a substitution of nonconforming use granted; or 4.Mitigate any potentially significant impacts identified as a result of review conducted in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. G.Revise Chapter 20.350 Standards and Requirements for Specific Uses and Activities as follows (with deletions in strikethrough and additions in double underline). 1.Revise Table 20.350.032: Outdoor Storage Regulations by District and Location as indicated below to reflect the allowance of outdoor storage for Arts uses within the Lindenville Specific Plan Area. Table 20.350.030 Outdoor Storage Regulations by District and Location Base Districts Permissibility of Open Storage Residential Districts Not permitted. (All storage must be within an enclosed building.) Non-residential Districts Outdoor Storage permitted as an accessory use outside of required yards, parking and circulation areas, and required landscaped areas subject to the standards of this section. Downtown Residential Districts and Downtown / Caltrain Station Area Districts Outdoor Storage permitted as an accessory use outside of required yards, parking and circulation areas, and required landscaped areas with Minor Use Permit approval and subject to the standards of this section. Lindenville Specific Plan Districts Permitted in T3ML district as an accessory use outside of required yards, parking and circulation areas, and required landscaped areas subject to the standards of this section. H.Revise Chapter 20.395 Community Benefits Program as follows (with deletions in strikethrough and additions in double underline). 1.Revise Section 20.395.004 Community Benefits Priorities as indicated below to reflect the community benefits priorities within the Lindenville Specific Plan Area. This section establishes the City’s community benefit priorities. Community benefit fees collected in City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/1/2023Page 15 of 20 powered by Legistar™553 File #:23-733 Agenda Date:9/7/2023 Version:1 Item #:2c. accordance with Section 20.395.003 (“Review and Approval”) may fund one or more of the benefits described below. Should an applicant provide a community benefit proposed as a part of a Development Agreement, the benefit must be consistent with the City’s priorities as established in this section. A.Community Benefit Priorities - General A1.Public Spaces. Public spaces beyond the requirements of the base zoning district and applicable design standards as identified in Chapter 20.310 (“Site and Building Design Standards”) may qualify as a community benefit. 1a.Qualifying spaces may include active or passive parks, plazas, community gardens, rooftop gardens, or other publicly accessible open spaces. 2b.Spaces should include amenities that support its intended use. Such amenities may include landscaping beyond the requirements of Chapter 20.300 (“Lot and Development Standards”), furniture, special paving, special lighting, public restrooms, water fountains, public art beyond the requirements of Chapter 8.76 (“Public Art Requirement”), or other public amenities that enhance the comfort and usability of the space. 3c.Spaces should be accessible and open during business hours. Where spaces are not visible from the public right-of-way, signage should be provided to clearly indicate that the space is available for public use. B2.Enhanced Connectivity. Provision of enhanced connectivity beyond the requirements of the base zoning district standards and applicable design standards as identified in Chapter 20.310 (“Site and Building Design Standards”) may qualify as a community benefit. 1a.Enhancements include new through streets, bicycle/pedestrian paths, or other connections to existing trails. Priorities for new connectivity are identified in the General Plan’s Mobility Element or applicable Specific Plan and shall be completed to the specifications of the General Plan and Engineering/Public Works. 2b.Signage and appropriate public access to all new connections shall be provided to clearly indicate that the roadway or path is available for public use. 3c.Connectivity improvements required as part of a CEQA mitigation shall not be considered a community benefit. 4d.A public access easement shall be recorded against the property that ensures public access to the portion of the project which qualifies it for the FAR Bonus. 5e.A property owner or applicant who completes and develops an existing rail spur that is or will be abandoned as a publicly accessible open space connection consistent with the General Plan’s Mobility Element or applicable Specific Plan qualifies for the FAR Bonus. The open space connection shall be completed to the specifications of the General Plan and Engineering/Public Works and shall either be dedicated to the City or a public access easement shall be recorded against the owner of the rail spur. City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/1/2023Page 16 of 20 powered by Legistar™554 File #:23-733 Agenda Date:9/7/2023 Version:1 Item #:2c. C3.Public and Social Services. On-site provision of non-profit social services and/or public facilities may qualify as a community benefit. 1a.Qualifying uses include senior center, childcare facility, public safety facilities, community meeting rooms, after-school center, or other non-profit organization. 2b.Qualifying spaces should be a minimum of 1,400 square feet in area including any outdoor space required of the use. Where approval is conditioned upon the provision of a specific use, the permit shall include a covenant that the use may not be terminated or otherwise altered without the approval of the Chief Planner. D4.Support for Local Businesses. Support for local businesses may qualify as a community benefit. This may include: 1a.Tenant space for local small businesses in need of relocation. 2b.Building frontage devoted to active walk-in uses such as retail, restaurant, or café. 3c.Participation in a local hire program. 4d.Façade improvements or enhancement. Where approval is conditioned upon the provision of a specific use, the permit shall include a covenant that the use may not be terminated or otherwise altered without the approval of the Chief Planner. E5.On-Site or Off-Site Affordable Housing. Development of on-site or off-site affordable housing (very low, low, and moderate-income units) that is consistent with the standards set forth in Section 20.380.006 (“Affordable Housing Standards”) may qualify as a community benefit. The applicant may develop the units or otherwise cause them to be constructed, such as through a partnership with a reputable affordable housing developer or non-profit organization. F6.District Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Measures. TDM measures beyond those required in accordance with Chapter 20.400 (“Transportation Demand Management”) and beyond applicable requirements of a Transportation Management Association (TMA) may qualify as a community benefit. G7.District Sea Level Rise Mitigation Measures. Contributions to or construction of district-wide sea level rise mitigation measures may qualify as a community benefit. Measures may include construction of levees or sea walls; creek restoration and improvements; construction of detention basins; landscaping efforts aimed at supporting creating biodiversity and improving resilience in impacted areas. B.Community Benefit Priorities - Lindenville Specific Plan District 1.Open Space. New dedicated or publicly-accessible open space beyond standards in the Specific City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/1/2023Page 17 of 20 powered by Legistar™555 File #:23-733 Agenda Date:9/7/2023 Version:1 Item #:2c. Plan and City parkland dedication requirements. Where open space types are identified in the Lindenville Specific Plan Parks and Open Space Framework, the development project shall contribute the open space onsite and in designated locations as part of its community benefits contribution. 2.Affordable Housing. Development of affordable housing units on- or off-site within Lindenville, in excess of the amount required under existing City and Specific Plan regulations. 3.Transportation, Infrastructure, and Utility Improvements. Off-site transportation, infrastructure, and utility improvements in excess of required contributions that address the fair share of impacts needed to serve the development. This includes blue-green infrastructure and sea level rise improvements. 4.Small Business Retention. Supporting or subsidizing small, local businesses in excess of the amount required under existing City and Specific Plan regulations. 5.Other. Other benefits proposed by applicants that further the vision for Lindenville. I.Revise Chapter 20.440 Planning Agency as follows (with deletions in strikethrough and additions in double underline). 1.Revise Section 20.440.005 Chief Planner as indicated below to reflect the revised Substitution of Nonconforming Use process created in Section 20.320.005. The powers and duties of the Chief Planner under this Ordinance include the following. In the absence of the Chief Planner, the Director of Economic and Community Development may assume the Chief Planner’s responsibilities and authority and/or delegate the same to a City Planner. N.Appoint a member of the Planning Division staff to serve as Zoning Administrator with responsibilities detailed in Section 20.440.006 <https://library.qcode.us/lib/south_san_francisco_ca/pub/municipal_code/lookup/20.440.006> (“Zoning Administrator”). O.Approve, conditionally approve, modify or deny Substitution of Nonconforming Uses pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 20.350 (“Nonconforming Uses, Structures, and Lots”). P.Other duties and powers as may be assigned by the City Council or established by legislation. 2.Revise Table 20.440.009: Review Authority as indicated below to reflect the Substitution of Nonconforming Use process created in Section 20.320.005 as being considered a Type Two: Discretionary Quasi-Judicial Action subject to Chief Planner approval. Table 20.440.009 Review Authority Application orAction Type Found inChapter Advisory Body Decision Maker Appeal Body Type Two: Discretionary Quasi-Judicial Actions Substitution of Nonconforming Use 20.320 N/A Chief Planner Planning Commission Waiver from Dimensional Standards 20.510 N/A Chief Planner Planning Commission Permit Modifications 20.440 Chief Planner Chief Planner or Planning Commission Planning Commission or CityCouncil Parking District Parking Exceptions 20.330 N/A Planning CommissionCity Council City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/1/2023Page 18 of 20 powered by Legistar™556 File #:23-733 Agenda Date:9/7/2023 Version:1 Item #:2c. Table 20.440.009 Review Authority Application or Action Type Found in Chapter Advisory Body Decision Maker Appeal Body Type Two: Discretionary Quasi-Judicial Actions Substitution of Nonconforming Use 20.320 N/A Chief Planner Planning Commission Waiver from DimensionalStandards 20.510 N/A Chief Planner Planning Commission Permit Modifications 20.440 Chief Planner Chief Planner or Planning Commission Planning Commission or City Council Parking District Parking Exceptions 20.330 N/A Planning CommissionCity Council J.Revise Chapter 20.450 Common Procedures as follows (with deletions in strikethrough and additions in double underline). 1.Revise Table 20.450.005: Hearing Scheduling Responsibility and Notice Requirements as indicated below to reflect the Substitution of Nonconforming Use process created in Section 20.320.005. Table 20.450.005 Hearing Scheduling Responsibilities and Notice Requirements Application or Action Type Scheduling Responsibility Required Notice Type Two: Discretionary Quasi-Judicial Actions Substitution of Nonconforming Use N/A N/A Waiver from Dimensional Standards N/A N/A Parking District Parking Exceptions Chief Planner A, B, and C K.Revise Chapter 20.620 Use Classifications as follows (with deletions in strikethrough and additions in double underline). 1.Revise Section 20.620.004 Commercial Use Classifications as indicated below to reflect a new use classification related to the arts. Arts and Makers Uses.Uses intended for the creation, manufacturing, performance, exhibition, sale, or assemblage of art and goods by artists and makers. This classification may include the following uses; live-work residential, studios (arts, dance, music, etc.); arts exhibition space; maker’s space; breweries or distilleries; artisan shops; media production; clean technology; food preparation; handicraft/custom manufacturing; manufacturing finished parts or products primarily from previously prepared materials; printing; engraving and publishing; furniture and related product manufacturing; college and trade school, public or private; cultural assembly; community garden; cultural institution; or similar uses. Artist’s Studio. Work space for an artist or artisan including individuals practicing one of the fine arts or performing arts, or skilled in an applied art or craft, with incidental retail sales of items produced on- site. Artist’s studios do not produce significant odors, fumes, noise, particulate matter emissions, or other disturbances (see Maker’s Space). City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/1/2023Page 19 of 20 powered by Legistar™557 File #:23-733 Agenda Date:9/7/2023 Version:1 Item #:2c. 2.Revise Section 20.620.005 Industrial/R&D Use Classifications as indicated below to create a new sub-classification under “Warehousing, Storage, and Distribution” that is related to outdoor storage for arts-related uses. Warehousing, Storage, and Distribution. Storage and distribution facilities without sales to the public on site or direct public access except for public storage in small individual space exclusively and directly accessible to a specific tenant. This classification includes mini-warehouses. Outdoor Storage. The keeping, in an unroofed area, of any goods, junk, material, merchandise, or vehicles in the same place for more than 72 hours, except for the keeping of building materials required for construction work on the premises pursuant to a valid and current building permit issued by the City. Outdoor Storage - Arts. The keeping, in an unroofed area, of any goods, material, equipment, or merchandise commonly associated with the creation, manufacturing, sale, and assemblage of art and goods by artists and makers in the same place for more than 72 hours, except for the keeping of building materials required for construction work on the premises pursuant to a valid and current building permit issued by the City. L.Adopt the South San Francisco Zoning Map Update (RZ23-0002), as contained in Exhibit A and its attachments, attached hereto. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption. City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/1/2023Page 20 of 20 powered by Legistar™558 ..Title Ordinance adding Chapter 20.150 (“Lindenville Specific Plan District”), Chapter 20.160 (“Height Incentive Overlay District”), Chapter 20.190 (“Colma Creek Greenbelt Overlay District”), Chapter 20.200 (“Arts and Makers Overlay District”) Chapter 20.210 (“Active Ground Floor Use Overlay District”), making other related amendments to Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, and amending the South San Francisco Zoning Map. ..body WHEREAS, in 2022 the City Council of the City of South San Francisco adopted the 2040 General Plan Update, Climate Action Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Update and certified the associated Environmental Impact Report; and WHEREAS, the 2040 General Plan Update reflects the community’s vision and 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; and WHEREAS, to ensure that new development 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; and WHEREAS, the City was awarded a Planned Development Area Planning Grant from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and a SB2 Grant from the State Office of Housing and Community Development in support of the preparation of the Lindenville Specific Plan preparation; and WHEREAS, in an effort to collaboratively create a blueprint for development in Lindenville, the City initiated a community input process that included public and community meetings, both in person and virtually, and analysis with city residents, business owners, commercial developers, interest groups and advocates to discuss community issues, vision, guiding principles, and to receive comments on the Draft Lindenville Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, all draft documents, meeting minutes and meeting videos were made available to the public through the project website, as well as information gathering through online surveys; and WHEREAS, the Lindenville Specific Plan builds on other recent planning efforts, including the 2040 General Plan, Climate Action Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Update, and Active South City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan; and WHEREAS, the City has utilized the expertise of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, Cultural Arts Commission, Design Review Board, Equity and Public Safety Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, Planning Commission, Youth Commission and City Council for review and comments on the Lindenville Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, the City has prepared amendments to the City’s Zoning Map (“Rezone”) and Zoning Ordinance (“Ordinance”), including adding a new Chapter 20.150 (“Lindenville Specific Plan District”), Chapter 20.160 (“Height Incentive Overlay District”), Chapter 20.190 (“Colma Creek Greenbelt Overlay District”), Chapter 20.200 (“Arts and Makers Overlay District”), and Chapter 559 20.210 (“Active Ground Floor Use Overlay District”) to adopt the Lindenville Specific Plan and associated overlay districts, and modifying sections of the existing Ordinance, including text, tables and figures, to remain consistent with and implement the policies of the Lindenville Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, the City has also prepared amendments to the City’s General Plan, considered under separate Resolution, to modify Chapter sections, including text, tables and figures to remain consistent with adoption of the Lindenville Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, cumulatively, the Lindenville Specific Plan, the General Plan amendments, the Zoning Map amendments and Zoning Ordinance amendments provide a policy and zoning framework for future development in the Lindenville Sub-Area; and WHEREAS, in October 2022 the City Council certified the Final Environmental Impact Report for the 2040 General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments and Climate Action Plan (“2040 General Plan EIR”) (State Clearinghouse No. 2021020064); and WHEREAS, the City Council also adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations which carefully considered each significant and unavoidable impact in the 2040 General Plan EIR and found that the significant environmental impacts are acceptable considering the social, economic, and environmental benefits; and WHEREAS, the 2040 General Plan EIR was certified in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq., “CEQA”) and CEQA Guidelines, which analyzed the potential environmental impacts of the Project; and WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, an addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR was prepared for the Lindenville Specific Plan (“LSP Addendum”) which evaluates whether preparation of a Subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration is required; and WHEREAS, the LSP Addendum concludes that in accordance with Public Resources Code § 21166 and CEQA Guidelines § 15162, the implementation of the Lindenville Specific Plan will not cause new significant impacts, will not trigger any new or more severe impacts than were studied in the previously certified 2040 General Plan EIR, that no substantial changes in the project or circumstances justifying major revisions to the previous EIR have occurred, that no new information of substantial importance has come to light since the 2040 General Plan EIR was certified that shows new or more severe significant impacts and there are no new, different or more feasible mitigation measures to mitigate impacts of the Lindenville Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council previously adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project and a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the project’s significant and unavoidable impacts, both of which remain in full force and effect; and WHEREAS, the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission reviewed the proposed legislative enactments associated with the Lindenville Specific Plan on August 24, 2023 and found them consistent with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan; and 560 WHEREAS, on September 7, 2023 the City of South San Francisco Planning Commission conducted a duly notice public hearing and, based on the record presented before it and pursuant to CEQA, recommended that the City Council: make findings and determine that the Lindenville Specific Plan and its associated General Plan Amendments, Zoning Ordinance Amendments and Zoning Map Amendments are fully within the scope of environmental analysis in the 2040 General Plan EIR and that the Lindenville Specific Plan Addendum to the EIR is the appropriate environmental document for the Project; and adopt the Lindenville Specific Plan and its associated General Plan Amendments, Zoning Ordinance Amendments and Zoning Map Amendments; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a duly notice public hearing on September 27, 2023 to consider adoption of the Lindenville Specific Plan Zoning Ordinance and Map Amendments, and take public testimony, at which time interested parties had the opportunity to be heard, to review the proposed updates and the Lindenville Specific Plan Addendum, and to receive public comments; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FOUND, DETERMINED AND 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 2040 General Plan; the South San Francisco Municipal Code; the 2040 General Plan EIR and Statement of Overriding Considerations; the draft Lindenville Specific Plan, prepared by Raimi + Associates; the Lindenville Specific Plan Addendum to the 2040 General Plan EIR; the draft General Plan Amendments; the draft Lindenville Specific Plan Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map amendments; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission’s duly noticed September 7, 2023 meeting; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the City Council’s duly noticed September 27, 2023 hearing; and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e) and §21082.2), the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby finds as follows: SECTION 1. FINDINGS A. General Findings 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution. 2. The Exhibits attached to this Resolution, including the Zoning Text Amendment Ordinance (Exhibit A) and the Zoning Map Amendment (Exhibit B), are each incorporated by reference and made a part of this Resolution, as if set forth fully herein. 3. By separate resolution on September 27, 2023, pursuant to a duly noticed public hearing and based on its independent judgement and analysis, the City Council made and adopted CEQA findings and determined that the LSP Addendum, prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164, is the appropriate environmental document for approval of the Project. 4. 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 the Chief Planner. 561 B. Zoning Ordinance and Map Amendment Findings 1. The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Map amendments are consistent with the 2040 General Plan, as amended per the General Plan Amendment per separate Planning Commission Resolution, because the Zoning Ordinance and Map amendments will reinforce the General Plan policies for the Lindenville Sub-Area related to land use, mobility, open space, community resilience, and environmental and cultural stewardship. Further, the Zoning Ordinance and Map amendments do not conflict with any specific plans and will implement the city’s overall vision for redevelopment within the Lindenville Sub-Area. None of the new or revised definitions, tables, figures and land uses will conflict with or impede achievement of any of the goals, policies, or land use designations established in the General Plan as proposed for amendment. 2. The Zoning Ordinance Update meets all of the requirements as contained in Planning and Zoning Law (Government Code sections 65800-65912). 3. The proposed Zoning Ordinance and Map Amendments, including the Lindenville Specific Plan Zoning District and associated changes, is not detrimental to the use of land in any adjacent zone because the Zoning Ordinance and Map Amendments would provide for sufficient development, land use, and performance standards related to new development or alteration. SECTION 2. AMENDMENTS Based on the foregoing findings and the entirety of the record before it, the South San Francisco City Council hereby takes the following actions: A. Add new Chapter 20.150 (“Lindenville Specific Plan”), Chapter 20.160 (“Height Incentive Overlay District”), Chapter 20.190 (“Colma Creek Greenbelt Overlay District”), Chapter 20.200 (“Arts and Makers Overlay District”) and Chapter 20.210 (“Active Ground Floor Use Overlay District”), as contained in Exhibit A, attached hereto. B. Revise Chapter 20.020 Zoning Districts, Zoning Map, and Boundaries as follows (with deletions in strikethrough and additions in double underline): 1. Update Table 20.020.001(A) Base Zoning Districts as indicated below to reflect the new zoning districts established by the Lindenville Specific Plan. Table 20.020.001(A): Base Zoning Districts Base Zoning District Group Base Zoning District – Abbreviation Base Zoning District – Full Name Form-Based Zoning Districts T3N T3 Neighborhood T3C T3 Corridor T3ML T3 Makers Lindenville 562 T4C T4 Corridor T4M T4 Maker T4L T4 Lindenville T5C T5 Corridor T5L T5 Lindenville T6UC T6 Urban Core 2. Update Table 20.020.001(B) Specific Plans and Master Plans as indicated below to reflect the new Lindenville Specific Plan District and to reference the previously adopted Southline Campus Specific Plan District. Table 20.020.001(B): Specific Plans and Master Plans Specific Plan or Master Plan Name Lindenville Specific Plan District Oyster Point Specific Plan District Genentech Master Plan District Southline Campus Specific Plan District 3. Update Table 20.020.001(C) Overlay Zoning Districts as indicated below to reflect the new overlay zoning districts established by the Lindenville Specific Plan. Table 20.020.001(C): Overlay Zoning Districts Overlay Zoning District Abbreviation Overlay Zoning District Full Name AM Arts and Makers Overlay AGFU Active Ground Floor Use Overlay CCG Colma Creek Greenbelt Overlay ES Special Environmental Studies Overlay HI Height Incentive Overlay SLR Sea Level Rise/Floodplain Overlay C. Revise Chapter 20.040 Rules of Measurement as follows (with deletions in strikethrough and additions in double underline): 1. Revise Section 20.040.009 Determining Floor Area Ratio as follows: 563 A. Excluded from Floor Area in Calculating FAR. 1. Basements. Usable basements and cellars, the ceiling of which does not extend more than four feet above finished grade. 2. Parking for Residential. Parking areas located entirely below finished grade or entirely beneath the finished floor of habitable space where the vertical distance between the finished floor of habitable space and finished grade is four feet or less. Above grade parking in the T3ML, T4L, and T5L zoning districts are excluded from floor area in calculating FAR. 3. Parking for Nonresidential. Building area devoted to structured or covered parking for nonresidential project. 4. Ground Floor Nonresidential Uses in Select Areas. Active ground floor uses in a new mixed-use or nonresidential development east of 101 and in the T3ML, T4L, T5L, T4C, T4M, and T5C zoning districts. Nonresidential must be active and open to the general public to qualify for this exemption. Uses include, but are not limited to, child care facilities, personal services, retail, full service or limited restaurants, and similar active uses. D. Revise Chapter 20.100 Nonresidential Districts as follows (with deletions in strikethrough and additions in double underline): 1. Revise Table 20.100.002 Use Regulations – Non-Residential Zoning Districts as indicated below to reflect new arts-related use classifications. Table 20.100.002: Use Regulations – Non-Residential Zoning Districts Use Classification CC BPO BTP-M & GMP BTP-H & OPSP MIM MIH Additional Regulations “P” = Permitted; “M” = Minor Use Permit; “C” = Conditional Use Permit; “―” = Use Not Allowed Commercial Uses Adult Oriented Business ― ― ― C3 C3 See Chapter 20.350, Adult Oriented Business Animal Care, Sales, and Services Kennel ― M ― ― M M Pet Day Care ― M ― ― P P Pet Store P ― ― ― ― ― See Chapter 20.350, Animal Care, Sales, and Services Veterinary Services P M M M P P See Chapter 20.350, Animal Care, Sales, and Services 564 Table 20.100.002: Use Regulations – Non-Residential Zoning Districts Use Classification CC BPO BTP-M & GMP BTP-H & OPSP MIM MIH Additional Regulations “P” = Permitted; “M” = Minor Use Permit; “C” = Conditional Use Permit; “―” = Use Not Allowed Arts and Makers Uses P P P P P P Artist’s Studios P ― P P P P Industrial/R&D Uses Warehousing, Storage, and Distribution Chemical, Mineral, and Explosives Storage ― ― ― ― C C See Chapter 20.300, Airport Land Use Plan Consistency Freight/Truck Terminals and Warehouses ― ― ― ― C C See Chapter 20.350, Freight/Truck Terminals and Warehouses and Parcel Hubs Indoor Warehousing and Storage ― P P P P Outdoor Storage ― ― ― ― P P See Chapter 20.350, Outdoor Storage Outdoor Storage - Arts ― ― ― ― P P Parcel Hub ― ― ― ― C C See Chapter 20.350, Freight/Truck Terminals and Warehouses and Parcel Hubs Personal Storage ― ― ― ― C C See Chapter 20.350, Personal Storage Wholesaling and Distribution ― ― ― ― P P E. Revise Chapter 20.135 Form-Based Zoning Districts as follows (with deletions in strikethrough and additions in double underline): 1. Renumber Section 20.135.020 Transect Zoning Districts as indicated below to reflect the changes to the form-based zoning districts established by the Lindenville Specific Plan. Add new subsections 20.135.020.F T3 Makers Lindenville (T3ML), 20.135.020.G T4 Lindenville (T4L) and 20.135.020.H T5 Lindenville (T5L) as contained in Exhibit A, attached hereto. 20.135.020.A: Purpose and Intent 20.135.020.B: Applicability 20.135.020.C: General Standards 565 20.135.020.D: T3 Neighborhood District (T3N) 20.135.020.E: T3 Corridor District (T3C) 20.135.020.F: T4 Corridor District (T4C) 20.135.020.G: T4 Maker District (T4M) 20.135.020.F: T3M Lindenville (T3ML) 20.135.020.G: T4 Lindenville (T4L) 20.135.020.H: T5 Lindenville (T5L) 20.135.020.HI: T5 Corridor District (T5C) 20.135.020.IJ: T6 Urban Core District (T6UC) 2. Revise Section 20.135.030 Building Types as indicated below to reflect the new zoning districts established by the Lindenville Specific Plan. 20.135.030.E.2. Triplex/Fourplex – Zones Allowed T3N, T3C, T4C 20.135.030.F.2. Rowhouse – Zones Allowed T3C, T3ML, T4C, T4L 20.135.030.G.2. Live/Work – Zones Allowed T3ML, T4M, T4L, T5L, T5C 20.135.030.H.2. Multiplex – Zones Allowed T3ML, T4C, T4L, T5L, T5C, T6UC 20.135.030.I.2. Flex Low-Rise – Zones Allowed T3N, T3C, T3ML, T4C, T4M, T4L, T5L, T5C 20.135.030.J.2. Flex Mid-Rise – Zones Allowed T3ML, T4C, T4M, T4L, T5L, T5C, T6UC 20.135.030.K.2. Flex High-Rise - Zones Allowed T5L, T5C, T6UC 3. Revise Section 20.135.050 Public Open Space Types as indicated below to reflect the new zoning districts established by the Lindenville Specific Plan. 20.135.050.D.2. Town Square – Zones Allowed T3ML, T4L, T5L, T5C, T6UC 20.135.050.E.2. Plaza – Zones Allowed T3C, T3ML, T4C, T4M, T4L, T5L, T5C, T6UC 20.135.050.F.2. Paseo – Zones Allowed T3N, T3C, T3ML, T4C, T4M, T4L, T5L, T5C, T6UC 566 20.135.050.G.2. Pocket Park – Zones Allowed T3N, T3C, T3ML, T4C, T4M, T4L, T5L, T5C, T6UC 20.135.050.H.2. Greenway - Zones Allowed T3N, T3C, T3ML, T4C, T4M, T4L, T5L, T5C, T6UC 4. Revise Table 20.135.060.B.1 Uses in the Transect Zoning Districts as indicated below to reflect the new zoning districts established by the Lindenville Specific Plan and which land uses are allowed within the new zoning districts. Use Classification Zoning District Additional Regulations T3N T3C T3ML T4C T4M T4L T5L T5C T6C Residential Uses Dwelling, Single-Unit In T5C, see Chapter 20.300, Airport Land Use Consistency Attached M M — P1 — — — — — Dwelling, Multiple-Unit Duplex P1 P1 — P1 — — — — — Multifamily-Unit P P P P2 P3 P P P2,3 P3 Senior Citizen Residential P P P P2 P3 P P P2,3 P3 Domestic Violence Shelter P4 P4 P4 P2,4 M P4 M M2 M See Chapter 20.350, Domestic Violence Shelter Group Residential P — — — C — C C2 C See Chapter 20.350, Group Residential Live-Work M P P P P P P P2 P See Chapter 20.350, Live-Work Units Residential Care Facilities Residential Care Facility, General — C C C C C C C2 C Residential Care Facility, Limited — C C P C C C C2 C Residential Care Facility, Senior M P P P P P P P2 P Single Room Occupancy — — — P — P — — — Public and Semi-Public Uses College and Trade School, Public, or Private MP P P P P P M M M Community Assembly Community Assembly, Small MP P P P P P P M M See Chapter 20.350, Community Assembly, 567 Community Assembly, Large —C C C C C C C C C Small and Large. In T5C, see Chapter 20.300, Airport Land Use Consistency Community Garden P P P P P P P P P Cultural Institution C C P P C P C C C Day Care Center P P P P M P P M M See Chapter 20.350, Day Care Centers. In T5C and T6UC, see Chapter 20.300, Airport Land Use Consistency Elderly and Long- Term Care C C2 C C2 C C C C C In T5C and T6UC, see Chapter 20.300, Airport Land Use Consistency Government Office P P P P P P P P P Hospital and Clinics Hospital — C — — C — C C C In T5C and T6UC, see Chapter 20.300, Airport Land Use Consistency Clinic M5 M5 M M5 M M M M M Parks and Recreation Facilities, Public P P P P P P P P P Public Safety Facilities C C C C P P P P P Schools, Public or Private C C C M M M M M M Social Service Facilities M M M M P P P P P Commercial Uses Animal Care, Sales, and Services Kennel — — — — M M M M M See Chapter 20.350, Animal Care, Sales, and Services Pet Day Care M M M — P P M M M Pet Store P P P P P P P P P Veterinary Clinic M M M P M P M M M Artist’s Studio P P P P P P P P P Arts and Makers Uses P — P — — P P — — Automobile/Vehicle Sales and Services Automobile/Vehicle Sales and Leasing — — — — C — — — — See Chapter 20.350, Automobile/Vehicle Sales and Leasing Automobile/Vehicle Service and Repair, Major — C — C P6 C C C C See Chapter 20.350, Automobile/Vehicle Service Automobile/ 568 Automobile/Vehicle Service and Repair, Minor CM M — M P6 M M M M Vehicle Service and and Repair, Major and Minor Automobile/Vehicle Washing — M — M M6 M M M M See Chapter 20.350, Automobile/Vehicle Washing and Service Stations Service Station C— C — — C — — — — See Chapter 20.350, Automobile/Vehicle Washing and Service Stations Towing and Impound — — — — C — — — — Banks and Financial Institutions Other Financial Services Bank and Credit Unions P P P P7 P P P P P Pawnbroker — — — — C — — C C See Chapter 20.350, Other Financial Services Alternative Loan Business — C C C C C C C C See Chapter 20.350, Other Financial Services Building Materials Sales and Services — — — — C C C — — Business Services P P P P8 P P P P P Commercial Cannabis Uses — — — — C — — — — Cannabis Delivery- Only Operations — — — — C — — — — See Chapter 20.410, Regulation of Cannabis Activities Cannabis Distribution — — — — C — — — — Cannabis Indoor Cultivation — — — — C — — — — Cannabis Manufacturing — — — — C — — — — Cannabis Testing — — — — C — — — — Commercial Entertainment and Recreation Indoor Entertainment C C C C C9 C C C C Indoor Sports and Recreation C C C C C9 C C C C Eating and Drinking Establishments Bar/Night Club/Lounge C C C C C C C C C Coffee Shop/Café P P P P P P P P P See Chapter 20.350, Outdoor Seating Restaurant, Full Service P P P P P P P P P See Chapter 20.350, Outdoor Seating 569 Restaurant, Limited Service P P P P P P P P P See Chapter 20.350, Outdoor Seating Food and Beverage Retail Sales Convenience Market P P P P P P P P P See Chapter 20.350, Convenience Market Grocery Store P P P M P P P P P Supermarket — C C C C P P P P Funeral Parlor and Mortuary C C C C C C C C C Lodging Bed and Breakfast M M M M M M M M M See Chapter 20.350, Bed and Breakfast Lodging. In T5C, see Chapter 20.300, Airport Land Use Consistency Hotel and Motel C C C M — C C C M See Chapter 20.350, Hotels and Motels. In T5C, see Chapter 20.300, Airport Land Use Consistency Short Term Vacation Rental P P P P C P P C P P See Chapter 20.350, Short-Term Vacation Rentals Maintenance and Repair Services M P P P P P P P P Maker’s Space M M P M P P P P M Massage Business M M M M M M M M M See Chapter 20.350, Massage Businesses Nursery and Garden Center M M M M M M M M M Offices Business and Professional P P M P8 P P P P P Medical and Dental P P — P P P P P P Walk-In Clientele P P — P P P P P P Parking Services Public Parking P P P P P P P P P Personal Services General Personal Services P P P P P P P P P See Chapter 20.350, Personal Services Instructional Services P P P P P P P P P Tattoo or Body Modification Parlor P P P P P P P P P See Chapter 20.350, Tattoo or Body Modification Parlor Retail Sales 570 General Sales P P P P P P P P P Firearm Sales — — — — C — — — — Off-Price Merchandise C C C C C C C C C Second Hand Store C C C C C C C C C Outdoor Market C C C C C C C C C See Chapter 20.350, Outdoor Market Shopping Center Community Shopping Center — — — P — C C C C Neighborhood Shopping Center C C C C C C C C C Regional Shopping Center — — — — C — C C C Industrial/R&D Uses Clean Technology M M M — P M M — M Construction and Material Yard — — C — M — — — — Contractor Shop — — P — M M M — — Food Preparation — — P — P M M — — Handicraft/Custom Manufacturing M M P M P M M M P Industry, General — — — — P — — — — Industry, Limited —C — C — P C C — — Recycling Facility Collection Facility M M — M M M M M M See Chapter 20.350, Recycling Facilities Intermediate Processing Facility — — — — M — — — — Warehousing, Storage, and Distribution Chemical, Mineral, and Explosives Storage — — — — C — — — — Freight/Truck Terminals and Warehouses — — — — C — — — — Indoor Warehousing and Storage — — — — P — — — — Outdoor Storage — — — — P — — — — See Chapter 20.350, Outdoor Storage Outdoor Storage - Arts C — C — — — — — — See Chapter 20.350, Outdoor Storage Personal Storage — — — — C — — — — See Chapter 20.350, Personal Storage 571 Transportation, Communication and Utilities Communication Facilities Antenna and Transmission Towers See Chapter 20.370, Antennas and Wireless Communications Facilities and Chapter 20.375, Small Cell Wireless Communications Facilities Facilities Within Buildings M M — M P M P P P Fleet-Based Services — — — — C — — — — Transportation Passenger Terminals — — — — C — C C C Utilities, Major — — — C C — C C C In T6UC, see Chapter 20.300, Airport Land Use Consistency Utilities, Minor C C — P P P P P P Accessory Uses (See Section 20.350.004 for Additional Regulations) Accessory Dwelling Unit P P P P P P P P P See Chapter 20.350, Accessory Dwelling Units Family Day Care Small P P — P P P P P P See Chapter 20.350, Family Day Care Homes Large P P — P P P P P P See Chapter 20.350, Family Day Care Homes Home Occupations P P — P P P P P P Mobile Vendor Services — P — — P P P P P Temporary Uses Temporary Use See Chapter 20.340, Temporary Uses Notes: 1. Limited to sites with a maximum gross site area of 4,000 square feet. 2. Residential use types not permitted on the ground floor along El Camino Real, except on the east side of El Camino Real between First Street and West Orange Drive subject to approval of the permit indicated. 3. Permitted on upper floors only; MUP required if located on the ground floor. MUP may only be approved if the Review Authority first finds that, based on information in the record, it is infeasible to locate an active pedestrian-oriented use on the ground floor. 4. Limited to facilities serving a maximum of 10 clients and may not be located within 300 feet of any other domestic violence shelter.based on information in the record, it is infeasible to locate an active pedestrian-oriented use on the ground floor. 5. Clinic uses may not occupy the ground floor, except along Grand Avenue, west of Maple Avenue, which are subject to the approval of a CUP. 6. Must be located a minimum of 500 feet from any residential zoning district. 7. Permitted on upper floors only. 8. Customer service offices are permitted on the ground level, and other offices are permitted on the second floor or when conducted as an accessory use with a permitted use on the site, occupying no more than 25 percent of the floor area. Additional office space may be allowed with a CUP, upon finding that such use will not conflict with adjacent street level retail uses. 9. Must be associated with a hotel or retail use when located within 1,000 feet of San Francisco International Airport. 572 F. Revise Chapter 20.320 Nonconforming Uses, Structures, and Lots as follows (with deletions in strikethrough and additions in double underline). 1. Revise Section 20.320.005 Changes and Substitutions of Nonconforming Uses as indicated below to streamline the process to allow substitutions of nonconforming uses. 20.320.005 Changes and Substitutions of Nonconforming Uses No lawful nonconforming use shall be changed to a different use type or subclassification without the approval of a Use Permit unless the new use is permitted by right. This requirement shall not apply to a change of ownership, tenancy, or management where the new use is of the same use type and use classification, if applicable, as the previous use, as defined in Chapter 20.620 (“Use Classifications”), and the use is not expanded or intensified. For the purposes of this section, intensification includes an increase in the number of vehicle trips generated by a use, parking demand, number of employees on a site, hours of operation, and other similar characteristics as determined by the Chief Planner. A. Change from Nonconforming to Permitted Use. Any nonconforming use may be changed to a use that is allowed by right in the district in which it is located and complies with all applicable standards for such use. B. Absence of Permit. Any use that is nonconforming solely by reason of the absence of a Use Permit may be changed to a conforming use by obtaining a Minor Use Permit pursuant to the requirements in Chapter 20.490 (“Use Permits”). C. Substitutions. The Chief Planner may allow substitution of a nonconforming use with another nonconforming use, subject to approval of a Minor Use Permit Substitution of Nonconforming Use in accordance with the provisions of this section. In addition to any other findings required by this Ordinance, approval of a Minor Use Permit under this section shall be based on findings that: 1. Application. An application requesting a substitution of a nonconforming use shall be filed with the Planning Division and will be referred to the Chief Planner for review and consideration. 2. Required Findings. In addition to any other findings required by this Ordinance, Aa decision to grant a substitution of nonconforming use shall be based on the following findings: 1a. The existing nonconforming use was legally established; 2b. The proposed new use would not be detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare; 3c. The proposed new use would not preclude or interfere with implementation of the General Plan or any applicable adopted specific, area, or community plan; 573 4d. The proposed new use will not depress the value of nearby properties or create conditions that would impede their redevelopment or use in compliance with the General Plan; 5e. The proposed new use will be no less compatible with the purposes of the district and surrounding uses that comply with the requirements of this Ordinance than the nonconforming use it replaces; 6f. The proposed new use will not result in an average daily trip increase based on a Parking Management and Monitoring Study and the unique operational characteristics; 7g. The proposed new use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the surrounding area or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements of adjacent properties, the surrounding area, or the neighborhood because of noise, odors, dust, glare, vibrations, or other effects; and 8h. The proposed new use will comply with all applicable standards of the district and Citywide standards, there are special circumstances peculiar to the property and its relation to surrounding uses or to the district itself that would justify modification to applicable standards, or the impacts of the new use will be mitigated. D. Plan Consistency. The Planning Commission or the Chief Planner may find that the continuation, expansion, or substitution of a nonconforming employment use is consistent with the General Plan if the Use Permit or Substitution of Nonconforming Use is subject to a condition that limits the term of such use or any other restriction deemed necessary to ensure that approval of the Use Permit or Substitution of Nonconforming Use would not interfere with, impede, or preclude eventual implementation of the Plan. This determination shall be based on information in the record including, but not limited to, financial analysis and market studies. E. Conditions of Approval. In approving a Substitution of Nonconforming Use, the decision-maker may impose any conditions deemed necessary to: 1. Ensure that the proposal conforms in all significant respects with the General Plan and with any other applicable plans or policies adopted by the City Council; 2. Achieve the general purposes of this Ordinance or the specific purposes of the zoning district in which the project is located; 3. Achieve the findings for a substitution of nonconforming use granted; or 4. Mitigate any potentially significant impacts identified as a result of review conducted in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. G. Revise Chapter 20.350 Standards and Requirements for Specific Uses and Activities as follows (with deletions in strikethrough and additions in double underline). 574 1. Revise Table 20.350.032: Outdoor Storage Regulations by District and Location as indicated below to reflect the allowance of outdoor storage for Arts uses within the Lindenville Specific Plan Area. Table 20.350.030 Outdoor Storage Regulations by District and Location Base Districts Permissibility of Open Storage Residential Districts Not permitted. (All storage must be within an enclosed building.) Non-residential Districts Outdoor Storage permitted as an accessory use outside of required yards, parking and circulation areas, and required landscaped areas subject to the standards of this section. Downtown Residential Districts and Downtown / Caltrain Station Area Districts Outdoor Storage permitted as an accessory use outside of required yards, parking and circulation areas, and required landscaped areas with Minor Use Permit approval and subject to the standards of this section. Lindenville Specific Plan Districts Permitted in T3ML district as an accessory use outside of required yards, parking and circulation areas, and required landscaped areas subject to the standards of this section. H. Revise Chapter 20.395 Community Benefits Program as follows (with deletions in strikethrough and additions in double underline). 1. Revise Section 20.395.004 Community Benefits Priorities as indicated below to reflect the community benefits priorities within the Lindenville Specific Plan Area. This section establishes the City’s community benefit priorities. Community benefit fees collected in accordance with Section 20.395.003 (“Review and Approval”) may fund one or more of the benefits described below. Should an applicant provide a community benefit proposed as a part of a Development Agreement, the benefit must be consistent with the City’s priorities as established in this section. A. Community Benefit Priorities - General A1. Public Spaces. Public spaces beyond the requirements of the base zoning district and applicable design standards as identified in Chapter 20.310 (“Site and Building Design Standards”) may qualify as a community benefit. 1a. Qualifying spaces may include active or passive parks, plazas, community gardens, rooftop gardens, or other publicly accessible open spaces. 2b. Spaces should include amenities that support its intended use. Such amenities may include landscaping beyond the requirements of Chapter 20.300 (“Lot and Development Standards”), furniture, special paving, special lighting, public restrooms, water fountains, public art beyond the requirements of Chapter 8.76 (“Public Art Requirement”), or other public amenities that enhance the comfort and usability of the space. 575 3c. Spaces should be accessible and open during business hours. Where spaces are not visible from the public right-of-way, signage should be provided to clearly indicate that the space is available for public use. B2. Enhanced Connectivity. Provision of enhanced connectivity beyond the requirements of the base zoning district standards and applicable design standards as identified in Chapter 20.310 (“Site and Building Design Standards”) may qualify as a community benefit. 1a. Enhancements include new through streets, bicycle/pedestrian paths, or other connections to existing trails. Priorities for new connectivity are identified in the General Plan’s Mobility Element or applicable Specific Plan and shall be completed to the specifications of the General Plan and Engineering/Public Works. 2b. Signage and appropriate public access to all new connections shall be provided to clearly indicate that the roadway or path is available for public use. 3c. Connectivity improvements required as part of a CEQA mitigation shall not be considered a community benefit. 4d. A public access easement shall be recorded against the property that ensures public access to the portion of the project which qualifies it for the FAR Bonus. 5e. A property owner or applicant who completes and develops an existing rail spur that is or will be abandoned as a publicly accessible open space connection consistent with the General Plan’s Mobility Element or applicable Specific Plan qualifies for the FAR Bonus. The open space connection shall be completed to the specifications of the General Plan and Engineering/Public Works and shall either be dedicated to the City or a public access easement shall be recorded against the owner of the rail spur. C3. Public and Social Services. On-site provision of non-profit social services and/or public facilities may qualify as a community benefit. 1a. Qualifying uses include senior center, childcare facility, public safety facilities, community meeting rooms, after-school center, or other non-profit organization. 2b. Qualifying spaces should be a minimum of 1,400 square feet in area including any outdoor space required of the use. Where approval is conditioned upon the provision of a specific use, the permit shall include a covenant that the use may not be terminated or otherwise altered without the approval of the Chief Planner. D4. Support for Local Businesses. Support for local businesses may qualify as a community benefit. This may include: 576 1a. Tenant space for local small businesses in need of relocation. 2b. Building frontage devoted to active walk-in uses such as retail, restaurant, or café. 3c. Participation in a local hire program. 4d. Façade improvements or enhancement. Where approval is conditioned upon the provision of a specific use, the permit shall include a covenant that the use may not be terminated or otherwise altered without the approval of the Chief Planner. E5. On-Site or Off-Site Affordable Housing. Development of on-site or off-site affordable housing (very low, low, and moderate-income units) that is consistent with the standards set forth in Section 20.380.006 (“Affordable Housing Standards”) may qualify as a community benefit. The applicant may develop the units or otherwise cause them to be constructed, such as through a partnership with a reputable affordable housing developer or non-profit organization. F6. District Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Measures. TDM measures beyond those required in accordance with Chapter 20.400 (“Transportation Demand Management”) and beyond applicable requirements of a Transportation Management Association (TMA) may qualify as a community benefit. G7. District Sea Level Rise Mitigation Measures. Contributions to or construction of district-wide sea level rise mitigation measures may qualify as a community benefit. Measures may include construction of levees or sea walls; creek restoration and improvements; construction of detention basins; landscaping efforts aimed at supporting creating biodiversity and improving resilience in impacted areas. B. Community Benefit Priorities – Lindenville Specific Plan District 1. Open Space. New dedicated or publicly-accessible open space beyond standards in the Specific Plan and City parkland dedication requirements. Where open space types are identified in the Lindenville Specific Plan Parks and Open Space Framework, the development project shall contribute the open space onsite and in designated locations as part of its community benefits contribution. 2. Affordable Housing. Development of affordable housing units on- or off-site within Lindenville, in excess of the amount required under existing City and Specific Plan regulations. 3. Transportation, Infrastructure, and Utility Improvements. Off-site transportation, infrastructure, and utility improvements in excess of required contributions that address the fair share of impacts needed to serve the development. This includes blue- green infrastructure and sea level rise improvements. 577 4. Small Business Retention. Supporting or subsidizing small, local businesses in excess of the amount required under existing City and Specific Plan regulations. 5. Other. Other benefits proposed by applicants that further the vision for Lindenville. I. Revise Chapter 20.440 Planning Agency as follows (with deletions in strikethrough and additions in double underline). 1. Revise Section 20.440.005 Chief Planner as indicated below to reflect the revised Substitution of Nonconforming Use process created in Section 20.320.005. The powers and duties of the Chief Planner under this Ordinance include the following. In the absence of the Chief Planner, the Director of Economic and Community Development may assume the Chief Planner’s responsibilities and authority and/or delegate the same to a City Planner. N. Appoint a member of the Planning Division staff to serve as Zoning Administrator with responsibilities detailed in Section 20.440.006 (“Zoning Administrator”). O. Approve, conditionally approve, modify or deny Substitution of Nonconforming Uses pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 20.350 (“Nonconforming Uses, Structures, and Lots”). P. Other duties and powers as may be assigned by the City Council or established by legislation. 2. Revise Table 20.440.009: Review Authority as indicated below to reflect the Substitution of Nonconforming Use process created in Section 20.320.005 as being considered a Type Two: Discretionary Quasi-Judicial Action subject to Chief Planner approval. Table 20.440.009 Review Authority Application or Action Type Found in Chapter Advisory Body Decision Maker Appeal Body Type Two: Discretionary Quasi-Judicial Actions Substitution of Nonconforming Use 20.320 N/A Chief Planner Planning Commission Waiver from Dimensional Standards 20.510 N/A Chief Planner Planning Commission Permit Modifications 20.440 Chief Planner Chief Planner or Planning Commission Planning Commission or City Council 578 Table 20.440.009 Review Authority Application or Action Type Found in Chapter Advisory Body Decision Maker Appeal Body Parking District Parking Exceptions 20.330 N/A Planning Commission City Council J. Revise Chapter 20.450 Common Procedures as follows (with deletions in strikethrough and additions in double underline). 1. Revise Table 20.450.005: Hearing Scheduling Responsibility and Notice Requirements as indicated below to reflect the Substitution of Nonconforming Use process created in Section 20.320.005. Table 20.450.005 Hearing Scheduling Responsibilities and Notice Requirements Application or Action Type Scheduling Responsibility Required Notice Type Two: Discretionary Quasi-Judicial Actions Substitution of Nonconforming Use N/A N/A Waiver from Dimensional Standards N/A N/A Parking District Parking Exceptions Chief Planner A, B, and C K. Revise Chapter 20.620 Use Classifications as follows (with deletions in strikethrough and additions in double underline). 1. Revise Section 20.620.004 Commercial Use Classifications as indicated below to reflect a new use classification related to the arts. Arts and Makers Uses. Uses intended for the creation, manufacturing, performance, exhibition, sale, or assemblage of art and goods by artists and makers. This classification may include the following uses; live-work residential, studios (arts, dance, music, etc.); arts exhibition space; maker’s space; breweries or distilleries; artisan shops; media production; clean technology; food preparation; handicraft/custom manufacturing; manufacturing finished parts or products primarily from previously prepared materials; printing; engraving and publishing; furniture and related product manufacturing; college and trade school, public or private; cultural assembly; community garden; cultural institution; or similar uses. Artist’s Studio. Work space for an artist or artisan including individuals practicing one of the fine arts or performing arts, or skilled in an applied art or craft, with incidental retail sales of items produced on-site. Artist’s studios do not produce significant odors, 579 fumes, noise, particulate matter emissions, or other disturbances (see Maker’s Space). 2. Revise Section 20.620.005 Industrial/R&D Use Classifications as indicated below to create a new sub-classification under “Warehousing, Storage, and Distribution” that is related to outdoor storage for arts-related uses. Warehousing, Storage, and Distribution. Storage and distribution facilities without sales to the public on site or direct public access except for public storage in small individual space exclusively and directly accessible to a specific tenant. This classification includes mini-warehouses. Outdoor Storage. The keeping, in an unroofed area, of any goods, junk, material, merchandise, or vehicles in the same place for more than 72 hours, except for the keeping of building materials required for construction work on the premises pursuant to a valid and current building permit issued by the City. Outdoor Storage – Arts. The keeping, in an unroofed area, of any goods, material, equipment, or merchandise commonly associated with the creation, manufacturing, sale, and assemblage of art and goods by artists and makers in the same place for more than 72 hours, except for the keeping of building materials required for construction work on the premises pursuant to a valid and current building permit issued by the City. L. Adopt the South San Francisco Zoning Map Update (RZ23-0002), as contained in Exhibit B, attached hereto. SECTION 3. SEVERABILITY If any provision of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid or unconstitutional, the remainder of this Ordinance, including the application of such part or provision to other persons or circumstances, shall not be affected thereby and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, provisions of this Ordinance are severable. The City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase hereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be held unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable. SECTION 4. PUBLICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE Pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 36933, a summary of this Ordinance shall be prepared by the City Attorney. At least five (5) days prior to the Council meeting at which this Ordinance is scheduled to be adopted, the City Clerk shall (1) publish the Summary, and (2) post in the City Clerk’s Office a certified copy of this Ordinance. Within fifteen (15) days after the adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall (1) publish the summary, and (2) post in the City Clerk’s Office a certified copy of the full text of this Ordinance along with the names of those City Council members voting for and against this Ordinance or otherwise voting. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after its adoption. 580 * * * * * 581 Exhibit A: Zoning Ordinance Amendment Part 1 – New Zoning Chapters DIVISION IV: OVERLAYS AND PLAN DISTRICTS 20.150 LINDENVILLE SPECIFIC PLAN DISTRICT Sections: 20.150.001: Purpose 20.150.002: Applicability 20.150.003: Zoning Districts and Overlay Zones 20.150.004: Land Uses 20.150.005: Density and Intensity 20.150.006: Transfer of Development Rights 20.150.007: Development Standards 20.150.008: Design Standards for Form-Based Zoning Districts in Lindenville Specific Plan 20.150.009: Circulation and Parking 20.150.010: Infrastructure and Utilities 20.150.001 Purpose. This chapter establishes the Lindenville Specific Plan district (and associated zoning districts) and provides for coordinated planning and design principles within this district. A. The Lindenville Specific Plan districts are established to implement the Lindenville Specific Plan, which is incorporated herein by reference. The Lindenville Specific Plan is a comprehensive, long-term planning document for the Lindenville Specific Plan area. It includes land use districts and programs; design and development standards; open space standards, and guidelines; complete street standards; and infrastructure and utility enhancement; among other components. B. Consistent with the vision established in the General Plan, the Lindenville Specific Plan implements the goals and policies through the following cross-cutting strategies: 1. Establish areas to create character, distinction, and visual interest within Lindenville. 2. Create a vibrant and inclusive mixed use neighborhood where people can easily reach destinations within a short walk or bike ride. 3. Promote a variety of housing types with distinct height and density standards to support a diverse range of families and households. 4. Maintain and strengthen Lindenville as a diverse economic engine that supports economic prosperity for all. 5. Design a multimodal, safe, and connected transportation network that advances sustainability and livability goals. 6. Promote arts and cultural uses. 582 7. Adapt to a changing climate by requiring resilient design and upgrades in areas impacted by storms and sea level rise. 8. Create new publicly accessible open spaces that encourage active and passive recreation to accommodate the physical and social needs of all users. 9. Protect residents and employees from air pollution, noise, and industrial pollutants present in the soil. 20.150.002 Applicability A. The regulations contained in this chapter shall apply in the Lindenville Specific Plan district, in conjunction with the standards, guidelines, and plans contained in the Lindenville Specific Plan document. B. The standards, guidelines, and plans contained in this chapter and in the Lindenville Specific Plan document do not apply to areas within the Southline Campus Specific Plan District, see Chapter 20.290 (“Southline Campus Specific Plan District”). C. Whenever this chapter or the Lindenville Specific Plan document does not provide specific standards and/or procedures for the review, approval, and/or administration of development projects within the Lindenville Specific Plan district or for appeals concerning approvals or administration of development projects, the provisions of the South San Francisco Municipal Code shall apply. D. In the event of inconsistencies or conflict between the Lindenville Specific Plan and this chapter or any other provision of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, the provisions of the Lindenville Specific Plan take precedence, control and govern in the Lindenville Specific Plan Area. E. The owner or occupant of land or buildings used for any purpose in the Lindenville Specific Plan district shall provide the facilities as required by and which conform with the regulations set forth in this chapter; provided however, that buildings, structures, or uses lawfully constructed or established prior to the effective date of this chapter that do not comply with the provisions hereof shall be deemed legally nonconforming in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 20.320. 20.150.003 Zoning Districts and Overlay Zones A. Zoning Districts. The Lindenville Specific Plan establishes the following zoning districts. See Chapter 20.135.020 (“Transect Zones”) for standards for zones. 1. T3 Makers Lindenville (T3ML). The T3ML form-based zoning district is a low- and medium-intensity mixed-use district that supports arts and makers, residential, and industrial uses along the South Linden Avenue corridor. 2. T4 Lindenville (T4L). The T4L form-based zoning district establishes a mixed-use urban area. The district supports medium- to high-intensity mixed-use development. 3. T5 Lindenville (T5L). The T5L form-based zoning district supports a comfortable and walkable high-intensity urban core. B. Overlay Zones. The Lindenville Specific Plan establishes the following overlay zones. See Chapter 20, Division IV (“Overlays and Plan Districts”) for standards for zones. 583 1. Height Incentive Overlay (HI). The Height Incentive Overlay District is intended to incentivize higher levels of green building performance, affordable housing, and the provision of additional open space in excess of the amount required under existing City and Specific Plan regulations and fees in exchange for increased building heights. 2. Colma Creek Greenbelt Overlay (CCG). The Colma Creek Greenbelt Overlay District is intended to encourage transfer of development away from parcels fronting Colma Creek to implement the vision of the Colma Creek Greenbelt. 3. Arts and Makers Overlay (A&M). The Arts and Makers Overlay District is intended to promote arts and cultural uses along South Linden Avenue through development incentives. 4. Active Ground Floor Use Overlay (AGFU). The Active Ground Floor Use Overlay District requires active ground floor uses along portions of South Spruce Avenue. 20.150.004 Land Uses A. Conventional Zoning Districts. For conventional zoning districts in the Lindenville Specific Plan District, uses are regulated by Table 20.100.002: Use Regulations – Nonresidential Zoning Districts. B. Form-Based Zoning Districts. For Form-Based Zoning Districts in the Lindenville Specific Plan, uses are regulated by Table 20.135.006: Uses. C. Arts and Makers Uses. For parcels within the A&M Overlay in the Lindenville Specific Plan, uses are regulated by Table 20.200.003. D. Active Ground Floor Uses. For parcels within the AGFU Overlay in the Lindenville Specific Plan, uses are regulated by Table 20.210.003. E. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Consistency. All development shall adhere to land use compatibility requirements established in Zoning Code Chapter 20.300.03 (“Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Consistency”), related to consistency with the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport (ALUCP). 1. ALUCP Safety Zone Compatibility. Development projects in Safety Zones 2, 3, and 4 shall adhere to the land use restrictions as defined by the ALUCP. 2. ALUCP Noise Interior Compatibility. Future developments exposed to conditionally acceptable and generally unacceptable aircraft noise levels, as defined by the ALUCP or the South San Francisco General Plan, whichever is more restrictive, shall complete a detailed noise analysis that includes the required noise reduction measures and noise insulation features included in the design to ensure compatibility with appropriate noise standards. 3. ALUCP Noise Exterior Compatibility. Exterior noise requirements shall adhere to Zoning Code Chapter 20.300.03 (“Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Consistency”) and Noise Performance Standards in the City’s General Plan, with the following exceptions: a. For new multi-family residential projects and for the residential component of mixed- use development, use a standard of 60 dB CNEL in usable outdoor activity areas. Use noise attenuation techniques such as shielding by buildings and structures for common outdoor use areas. Outdoor uses shall be designed for passive recreational use. 584 b. For new parks and open spaces, use a standard of 60 dB CNEL. Parks and open spaces shall be designed for passive recreational use. 20.150.005 Density and Intensity A. Density and Floor Area Ratio. Residential Density and Nonresidential Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is regulated by Table 20.150.005: Density and Intensity. Table 20.150.005: Density and Intensity District Minimum Residential Density (DU/AC) Maximum Residential Density (DU/AC)1 Base Nonresidential Floor Area Ratio Maximum Nonresidential Floor Area Ratio with Community Benefits2 Total Floor Area Ratio (Residential and Nonresidential)3 RM-22 15 or existing density, whichever is greater 22 NA NA NA RH-180 80 or existing density, whichever is greater 180 NA NA NA T3ML 20 60 0.5 minimum for non-residential; 1.0 maximum NA 1.0 min; 2.5 max T4L 80 120 0.5 maximum for non-residential uses NA 1.25 min; 3.5 max T5L 80 140 0.5 maximum for non-residential uses NA 1.5 min; 3.75 max BPO NA NA 1 2.5 2.5 BTP-H NA NA 0.5 2.0 for Clean Technology, Office, and R&D 2.0 MIM NA NA 0.4 1.0 for all permitted uses except Office and R&D 1.0 MIH NA NA 0.4 2.0 for all permitted uses 2.0 585 except Office and R&D PQP NA NA NA NA NA 1 See Chapter 20.390 (“Bonus Residential Density”) for additional density based on the California State Density Bonus program. 2 See Chapter 20.395 (“Community Benefits Program”) for additional FAR based on the Community Benefits Program. 3 Ground floor nonresidential uses may be exempt from the maximum FAR, see Chapter 20.040.009 (“Determining Floor Area Ratio”). Ground floor nonresidential uses would count towards the minimum FAR. B. Nonresidential Development. Floor area ratio (FAR) is used to regulate nonresidential developments and/or the non-residential component of a mixed-use development. 1. In Zoning Districts that allow residential uses, minimum residential density must be achieved before nonresidential uses are permitted. 2. The Base Nonresidential FAR is used as the base FAR for office, R&D, and industrial development. 3. Additional FAR may be awarded, up to the Maximum Floor Area Ratio with Community Benefits, for developments that meet the following requirements: a. Provide community benefits as established in Zoning Code Chapter 20.395 (“Community Benefits Program”). b. Contribute the open space onsite and in designated locations in the Parks and Open Space Framework Plan in the LSP as part of its community benefits contribution. C. Residential Development. Residential and mixed-use residential development is allowed in the RM-22, RH-180, T3ML, T4L, and T5L zoning districts. 1. All new residential development in the RM-22, RH-180, T3ML, T4L, and T5L zoning districts shall build to at least the minimum density or existing density, whichever is greater. 2. See Chapter 20.380 (“Inclusionary Housing Requirements”) and Chapter 20.390 (“Bonus Residential Density”) for inclusionary housing requirements and density bonus allowed. D. Height. Allowed maximum height is regulated by Figure 20.150.005 or the maximum height limits permissible under Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations and the ALUCP Critical Aeronautical Surfaces requirements. For avoidance of doubt, the lower of the two heights identified by the ALUCP and the FAA shall be the controlling maximum height. 1. Height Incentive Overlay. The Lindenville Specific Plan establishes a Height Incentive Overlay. See Chapter 20.160 (“Height Incentive Overlay”) for more details. 2. Height Measurement. Building height measurement procedures are defined in Chapter 20.040.005 (“Measuring Height”). 586 3. ALUCP Consistency. For airspace protection evaluation requirements based on the San Francisco International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, see Chapter 20.300.003 ("Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Consistency"). Figure 20.150.005 Maximum Building Height E. Additional Standards and Requirements. Additional standards, requirements, and details for all development, Base and Bonus FAR for non-residential development, and residential development are set forth in the Lindenville Specific Plan Sections 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5. 587 20.150.006 Transfer of Development Rights A. Transfer of Development Rights (TDR). The Lindenville Specific Plan allows transfer of development rights to incentivize the Specific Plan priorities related to open space, blue-green infrastructure, Colma Creek naturalization, affordable housing, and public facilities. Maximum Floor Area Ratio with Community Benefits may not be exceeded through the transfer of development rights from one parcel to another parcel within Lindenville. The details, requirements, and process for obtaining additional TDR square footage are set forth in the Lindenville Specific Plan Section 3.4. 1. The Lindenville Specific Plan establishes four TDR programs. a. Colma Creek Greenbelt b. Parks and open spaces c. Affordable housing d. Public facilities 2. All the nonresidential floor area or residential units on a sending parcel may be transferred in its entirety, to a single receiving parcel, or in separate increments to several receiving parcels. Receiving parcels may receive floor area or units from multiple sending parcels. Individual receiving parcels may not exceed the Maximum Floor Area Ratio with Community Benefits as set forth in Table 20.150.005: Density and Intensity. 20.150.007 Development Standards A. Conventional Residential Districts. For conventional residential zoning districts, see Chapter 20.070 (“Residential Zoning Districts”) for development standards. B. Conventional Nonresidential Districts. For conventional nonresidential zoning districts, see Chapter 20.100 (“Nonresidential Districts”) for development standards. C. Form-Based Zones. For form-based zoning districts, see Chapter 20.135 (“Form-Based Zoning Districts”) for standards for zones. 20.150.008 Design Standards for Form-Based Zoning Districts in Lindenville Specific Plan A. Design Standards for Form-Based Zones. The Lindenville Specific Plan established design standards which regulate various aspects of building design for the T3ML, T4L, and T5L zones. The following details and requirements for the building design are set forth in the Lindenville Specific Plan: 1. Building Massing and Façade Composition 2. Unique Building Entry 3. Ground Floor Residential Units 4. Transition to RL Zoning District 5. Transitions to MIM and MIH-Zoned Properties 6. Parking 7. Architectural Details 588 8. Residential Unit Design 9. General Development Standards B. Exemptions. Development projects in the T3ML, T4L, and T5L zones are exempt from 20.310.004 Multi-Family Residential and Mixed Use Design standards. C. Conflicts. If a general development standard conflicts with the Lindenville Specific Plan district design and development standards, the standards in Lindenville Specific Plan prevail. 20.150.09 Circulation and Parking A. Street Location. The street system within Lindenville Specific Plan shall be located, generally, as shown in Lindenvile Specific Plan Chapter 6: Mobility. Precise alignments shall be established during the process for review and filing of maps in conformance with the standards established in this Chapter, and otherwise as established in the Subdivision Ordinance (Title 19 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code) B. Street Standards. The streets within the Lindenville Specific Plan shall conform to the design standards set forth in the Specific Plan, and, as applicable, Chapter 19.20 (“Street Design”) of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. C. Utilities. All new streets shall be designed and constructed per City standards to include storm, sewer, water, and dry utilities. 20.150.010 Infrastructure and Utilities A. Infrastructure and Utilities Location. The location and extent of proposed infrastructure and utility improvements in the Lindenville Specific Plan will be as generally described and depicted in the Specific Plan, Chapter 7: Infrastructure. 589 20.160 HEIGHT INCENTIVE (HI) OVERLAY DISTRICT Sections: 20.160.001: Purpose 20.160.002: Applicability 20.160.003: Requirements for Height Incentive Overlay District 20.160.004: Development Incentives 20.160.005: Additional Development Standards 20.160.001 Purpose. The Height Incentive Overlay District is intended to incentivize higher levels of green building performance, affordable housing, and the provision of additional open space in excess of the amount required under existing City and Specific Plan regulations and fees in exchange for increased building heights. 20.160.002 Applicability. The Height Incentive Overlay District can be combined with the zoning districts illustrated in Figure 20.160.002. In the event of a conflict between any of the regulations specified in the Height Incentive Overlay District and any underlying base district, the provisions of the Height Incentive Overlay District shall prevail. Figure 20.160.002 Height Incentive Overlay District 590 20.160.003 Requirements for Height Incentive Overlay District. The following standards must be implemented to receive the height incentive. A. GreenPoint Checklist. Achieve a minimum of 120 points on the GreenPoint Rated checklist or equivalent; B. Submetering. Submeter or use other appropriate technology that can track individual energy use, for each residential unit; C. Whole Building Life Cycle Assessment. Conduct a whole-building life-cycle assessment per the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Building Life-Cycle Impact Reduction Credit; D. Affordable housing. Provide an additional 5% affordable housing beyond requirements in Chapter 20.380 (“Inclusionary Housing Requirements”). E. Open Space. Provide at least 20% of the project site as publicly assessable open space. F. Additional Standards and Requirements. Additional details on the requirements for the HI Overlay are set forth in the LSP Section 3.5. 20.160.004 Development Incentives. If the requirements of Chapter 20.160.003 are met, development projects may receive the following incentives. A. Building Height. Within the overlay, the maximum primary building height is allowed up to the maximum height allowances based on the San Francisco International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and FAA regulations. Height limits shall not exceed FAA regulations and the ALUCP Critical Aeronautical Surfaces requirements. See Chapter 20.300.002 ("Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Consistency") for height allowances and airspace protection evaluation requirements based on the ALUCP. B. Density Bonus. Within the overlay, the development project maximum density allowed is 180 du/ac. C. Flex High-Rise. Within the overlay, the Flex High-Rise building type is allowed, see Chapter 20.135.030 (“Building Types”). 20.160.005 Additional Development Standards. Additional development standards apply to all portions of a building greater than 90 feet in height as illustrated in Figure 20.160.004. A. Building Spacing. The portion of a building greater than 90 feet in height shall be located a minimum of 60 feet from all other buildings greater than 90 feet in height regardless of whether the adjacent building is on the same parcel or different parcel. Where two adjacent parcels are under different ownership, portions of a building greater than 90 feet in height shall be located a minimum 30 feet from adjoining property line. Residential building facades greater than 100 feet in length shall be located a minimum of 120 feet from all other buildings facades greater than 100 feet in length and greater than 90 feet in height. B. Building Dimensions. For residential buildings the portion of the building above 90 feet in height shall not have a continuous façade building dimension that exceeds 160 feet in length. C. Reduction in Mass. Building floor plates greater than 90 feet in height shall not exceed 16,000 square feet. 591 Figure 20.160.005 High-Rise Building Spacing and Massing Reduction 592 20.190 COLMA CREEK GREENBELT (CCG) OVERLAY DISTRICT Sections: 20.190.001: Purpose 20.190.002: Applicability 20.190.003: Development Standards 20.190.004: Transfer of Development Rights 20.190.001 Purpose. The Colma Creek Greenbelt Overlay District is intended to encourage transfer of development away from parcels fronting Colma Creek to implement the vision of the Colma Creek Greenbelt in the Lindenville Specific Plan. The specific purposes of the Colma Creek Greenbelt are to: A. Limit the potential impact of flooding on Lindenville development so as to minimize damage to and destruction of life and property. B. Adapt to a changing climate by requiring resilient design and upgrades in areas impacted by storms and sea level rise. C. Create new publicly accessible open spaces that encourage active and passive recreation. D. Create a new active mobility corridor to support improved connectivity. E. Enhance South San Francisco waterways as ecological corridors, restoring creek ecologies and creating transitional habitat zones to build resilience and ecosystem services. 20.190.002 Applicability. The Colma Creek Greenbelt Overlay District can be combined with the zoning districts illustrated in Figure 20.190.002. In the event of a conflict between the regulations specified in the Colma Creek Greenbelt Overlay District and any underlying base district, the provisions of the Colma Creek Greenbelt Overlay District shall prevail. Figure 20.190.002 Colma Creek Greenbelt Overlay District 593 20.190.003 Development Standards. The development standards within the Colma Creek Greenbelt shall conform to open space setbacks from the existing Colma Creek right-of-way to allow for future implementation of combined flood management and ecological enhancement. A. Southern Creek Edge: West of South Spruce Avenue. Measured from the existing Colma Creek right-of-way, the southern edge of the Colma Creek Greenbelt shall setback a minimum of 50 feet. B. Southern Creek Edge: Between South Spruce Avenue and South Linden Avenue. Measured from the existing Colma Creek right-of-way, the southern edge of the Colma Creek Greenbelt shall setback a minimum of 140 feet. The setback width of this segment of the Colma Creek Greenbelt includes an approximate 56 foot Creek enhancement (blue-green infrastructure) and an 84 foot active mobility linear Greenway. This segment of the Colma Creek Greenbelt must be coordinated with the relocation of South Canal Steet. C. Southern Creek Edge: East of South Linden Avenue. Measured from the existing Colma Creek right-of-way, the southern edge of the Colma Creek Greenbelt shall setback at least 140 feet. The setback width of this segment of the Colma Creek Greenbelt includes an approximate 56 foot Creek enhancement (blue-green infrastructure) and an 84 foot active mobility linear Greenway. D. Northern Creek Edge: East of South Linden Avenue. Measured from the existing Colma Creek right-of-way, the northern edge of the Colma Creek Greenbelt shall setback a minimum of 94 feet. The total setback is a 94 foot expanded Creek (blue-green infrastructure) and should be coordinated with any larger projects in the Colma Creek Watershed. E. Additional Standards and Requirements. Additional standards, requirements, and details for all development and open space are set forth in the Lindenville Specific Plan. 20.190.04 Transfer of Development Rights. The Lindenville Specific Plan allows transfer of development rights to incentivize the Specific Plan priorities related to the Colma Creek Greenbelt. See Chapter 20.150.006 (“Transfer of Development Rights”) for incentives and requirements. 594 20.200 ARTS AND MAKERS (A&M) OVERLAY DISTRICT Sections: 20.200.001: Purpose 20.200.002: Applicability 20.200.003: Uses 20.200.004: Development Incentives 20.200.005: Performance Standards 20.200.001 Purpose. The Arts and Makers Overlay District is intended to promote arts and cultural uses along South Linden Avenue in the Lindenville Specific Plan through development incentives. The specific purposes of the Arts and Makers Overlay District are to: A. Facilitate the retention and creation of new creative uses in the South Linden Avenue Corridor. B. Mix of land uses to promote pedestrian activity, thriving businesses, and creativity. C. Serve as a transitional area between the existing, traditional industrial spaces in Lindenville and the new, mixed use residential uses. 20.200.002 Applicability. The Arts and Makers Overlay District can be combined with the zoning districts illustrated in Figure 20.200.002. In the event of a conflict between the regulations specified in the Arts and Makers Overlay District and any underlying base district , the provisions of the Arts and Makers Overlay District shall prevail. In addition, the City Engineer or Chief Planner may apply the incentives to properties outside the Arts and Makers Overlay District, which meet the intended purpose as stated in 20.200.001 (“Purpose”). Figure 20.200.002 Arts & Makers Overlay District 595 20.200.003 Uses. Arts and Makers ground floor uses are required in the Arts and Makers Overlay District. A. Ground Floor Area. At least 50 percent of ground floor building area of parcels in the Arts and Makers Overlay District must be devoted to arts and makers uses listed in Table 20.200.003. B. Arts and Makers Uses. For parcels within the Arts and Makers Overlay District in the Lindenville Specific Plan, uses in Table 20.200.003 may fulfill the Arts and Makers ground floor use requirement. These uses are permitted in addition to uses allowed in underlying MIH and T3ML zones. Table 20.200.003: Arts and Makers Overlay Zone Uses Use Category Permitted Uses Residential Live-work Commercial Studios (arts, dance, music etc.); arts exhibition space; maker’s space; breweries and distilleries; artisan shops; media production; or similar use. Industrial Clean technology; food preparation; handicraft/custom manufacturing; manufacturing finished parts or products primarily from previously prepared materials; printing, engraving and publishing; furniture and related product manufacturing; or similar use. 20.200.004 Development Incentives. Projects that comply with the standards for arts and makers uses are eligible for the following project incentives. A. Converted Buildings 1. New parking spaces shall not be required for any converted use within the building. 2. A loading zone shall not be required if the existing building does not have an existing loading zone. 3. Additional landscape or outdoor open space standard shall not be required for any converted use in the building. B. New Buildings. There are no minimum parking requirements for development projects in the Arts and Makers Overlay District. C. Adaptive Use Changes. If the use of the existing building is considered nonconforming in the Arts and Makers Overlay District as established prior to adoption of the Specific Plan, the use may be changed ministerially if it complies with Table 20.200.003. Those buildings may be eligible for development incentives for arts and makers uses. D. On-Site Sales of Goods. Showrooms and ancillary sales of arts and makers goods produced on-site are permitted. 20.200.005 Performance Standards. Commercial and industrial uses in the Arts and Makers Overlay District should not produce excessive odor, fumes, dust, light, glare, noise, or other similar impacts extending beyond the property line where the impacts are produced. Refer to Zoning Code Chapter 20.300.010 (“Performance Standards”) for more information. 596 20.210 ACTIVE GROUND FLOOR USE (AGFU) OVERLAY DISTRICT Sections: 20.210.001: Purpose 20.210.002: Applicability 20.210.003: Uses 20.210.004: Development Standards 20.210.001 Purpose. The Active Ground Floor Use (AGFU) Overlay District requires active ground floor uses along portions of South Spruce Avenue in the Lindenville Specific Plan. The specific purposes of the Active Ground Floor Use Overlay District are to: A. Create a place that represents a unique, attractive destination for residents and visitors. B. Enable residents and employees to meet their daily needs within a short walk or bike ride. C. Maintain a diverse mix of uses in Lindenville to support the local economy. D. Enhance the Lindenvilles's character through the promotion of high-quality design. 20.210.002 Applicability. The Active Ground Floor Use Overlay District can be combined with the zoning districts illustrated in Figure 20.210.002. In the event of a conflict between the regulations specified in the Active Ground Floor Use Overlay District and any underlying base district, , the provisions of the Active Ground Floor Use Overlay District shall prevail. Figure 20.210.002 Active Ground Floor Use Overlay District 597 20.210.003 Uses. Active ground floor uses are required in the Active Ground Floor Use Overlay District and provided in Table 20.200.003. Only uses allowed or conditionally allowed in underlying zoning districts are allowed in areas requiring active ground floor uses. Table 20.210.003: Arts and Makers Overlay Zone Uses Use Category Permitted Uses Public and Semi-Public Cultural institution; day care center; clinics; social service facilities Commercial Animal care, sales, and services; artist’s studios; arts exhibition space; banks and financial institutions; eating and drinking establishments; food and beverage sales; nursery and garden centers; personal services; retail sales 20.210.004 Development Standards. The development standards for the underlying base zoning district shall apply, in addition to the following standards. A. Ground Floor Building Area. At least 50 percent of ground floor building frontage along South Spruce Avenue shown in Figure 20.210.002 must be devoted to active ground floor uses allowed in Table 20.210.003. B. Ground Floor Depth. Retail and commercial shopfronts shall have a minimum depth of 25 feet. C. Floor-to-Floor Height. Active ground floor uses shall have a minimum floor-to-floor height of 15 feet and minimum 12 feet clear floor-to-ceiling dimension. D. Building Frontage Types. The following frontage types are required on the ground floor facing South Spruce Avenue for buildings: arcades, forecourts; shopfronts; and terraces, or similar. See Chapter 20.135.040 (“Frontage Types”) for standards for all building frontages types allowable within the form-based, or transect, zoning districts. 598 Part 2 – New Form-Based Districts DIVISION III: FORM-BASED DISTRICT REGULATIONS 20.135 FORM-BASED ZONING DISTRICTS New Transect Zoning Districts 20.135.020.F: T3 Makers Lindenville (T3ML) 20.135.020.G: T4 Lindenville (T4L) 20.135.020.H: T5 Lindenville (T5L) 599 South San Francisco Zoning Code | Division III, Page 11 20.135.020.F: T3 Makers Lindenville (T3ML) 1. Description The T3ML zoning district is a low- and medium-intensity mixed use district that supports arts and makers, residential, and industrial uses along the South Linden Avenue corridor. This district supports flex low-rise buildings with diverse frontages that engage private development with the public realm and require ground floor arts and makers uses. 4. Building Height Residential Mixed Use: 65 ft max. Other: 40 ft max. 3. Building Placement Build-to Area Front as measured from back-of-sidewalk 0 ft min. along Linden Avenue, 10 ft min. along all other frontages; 15 ft max. Publicly Accessible Open Space (Parks, Linear Open Space, etc.) 0 ft min.; 20 ft max. Ground floor residential units: 5 ft min. Greenways, Pathways and Trails 0 ft with no habitable encroachments Building Placement in Front or Open Space Build-to Area Primary building must extend across a min. 30% of the width of the build- to area. Street side 10 ft min.; 15 ft max. Building Placement in Street Side Build-to Area Primary building must extend across a min. 40% of the width of the build-to area. Primary Building Setbacks Interior side 0 ft min. Residential: 15 ft min. Rear 0 ft min. Residential: 15 ft min. Lot Coverage 80% max. as measured as the building area above any parking podium 2. Density and Floor Area Ratio Residential Density (du/ac)1 20 min, 60 max. FAR2 Total: 1.0 min.; 2.5 max. Nonresidential: 0.5 min., 1.0 max. 5. Parking Setback Front 25 ft min.Surface parking shall not be located between the primary building façade and the street. Surface parking area shall have a maximum width of 65 feet for parcels with parcel width greater than 120 feet, maximum width of 40 feet width for parcels with parcel width greater than 80 feet, for parcels with a parcel width less than 80 feet, all surface parking shall occur behind primary building. Street Side 5 ft min. Interior Side 0 ft min. Rear 0 ft min. Curb Cut Access 24 ft max. width; max. 2 per street frontage 7. Additional Standards Any new commercial or multi-unit buildings or structural alterations or additions to commercial or multi-unit buildings involving more than 25% of the gross floor area shall provide public improvements between the building and the curb in accordance with the standards of the Public Works Department. 6. Allowed Building Types Live/work See Sec. 20.135.030.G Multiplex See Sec. 20.135.030.H Flex Low-Rise See Sec. 20.135.030.I Flex Mid-Rise See Sec. 20.135.030.J 8. Notes 1See Chapter 20.390 (“Bonus Residential Density”) for additional density based on the California State Density Bonus program. 2Ground floor nonresidential uses may be exempt from the maximum FAR, see Chapter 20.040.009 (“Determining Floor Area Ratio”). Ground floor nonresidential uses count towards the minimum FAR. A B D C H I G F E J K E F B C Max. Min. C A Max.Min. A I J G H K D 600 Division III, Page 12 | South San Francisco Zoning Code 20.135.020.G: T4 Lindenville (T4L) 7. Additional Standards Any new commercial or multi-unit buildings or structural alterationsor additions to commercial or multi-unit buildings involving more than 25% of the gross floor area shall provide public improvementsbetween the building and the curb in accordance with the standards of the Public Works Department. 4. Building Height 65 ft max. 3. Building Placement Build-to Area Front as measured from back-of- sidewalk 15 ft min. along Spruce Avenue and Railroad Avenue, 10 ft min. along all other frontages; 20 ft max. Publicly Accessible Open Space (Parks, Linear Open Space, etc.) 0 ft min.; 20 ft max. Ground floor residential units: 5 ft min. Greenways, Pathways and Trails 5 ft with no habitable encroachments Building Placement in Front Build-to Area Primary building must extend across a min. 60% of the width of the build-to area Street side 0 ft min., 10 ft max. Building Placement in Street Side Build-to Area Primary building must extend across a min. 30% of the width of the build-to area. Primary Building Setbacks3 Interior side 0 ft min. Residential: 15 ft. min Rear 0 ft min. Residential: 15 ft. min Lot Coverage 70% max., as measured as the building area above any parking podium 6. Allowed Building Types Live/Work See Sec. 20.135.030.G Rowhouse See Sec. 20.135.030.F Multiplex See Sec. 20.135.030.H Flex Low-Rise See Sec. 20.135.030.I Flex Mid-Rise See Sec. 20.135.030.J 2. Density and Floor Area Ratio Residential Density (du/ac.)1 80 min, 120 max. FAR2 Total: 1.25 min.; 3.5 max.Nonresidential: 0.5 max. 5. Parking Setback Front Shall be screened by habitable uses with a minimum depth of 20 feet Street Side 8 ft min. Interior Side 0 ft min. Rear 5 ft min. Curb Cut Access 20 ft max. width; max. 1 per streetfrontage or 2 per frontage if curb-but width is less than 10 feet. 1. Intent The T4L form-based zoning district establishes a mixed use urban area. The district supports medium- to high-intensity mixed use development, with buildings that transition in scale to surrounding residential neighborhoods. Diverse frontages provide a relationship between private development and the public realm and a consistent frontage along the key rights-of-way. Minimum residential densities apply. 8. Notes 1See Chapter 20.390 (“Bonus Residential Density”) for additional density based on the California State Density Bonus program. 2Ground floor nonresidential uses may be exempt from the maximum FAR, see Chapter 20.040.009 (“Determining Floor Area Ratio”). Ground floor nonresidential uses count towards the minimum FAR. 3For transition standards adjacent to RL Districts, see Chapter 20.220.010 ("Development Standards"). A B D C H I G F E J K E F B C Max. Min. C A Max.Min. A D I J G H K 601 South San Francisco Zoning Code | Division III, Page 13 20.135.020.H T5 Lindenville (T5L) 4. Building Height 85 ft max.2 3. Building Placement Build-to Area Front as measured from back-of-sidewalk 15 ft min. along Spruce Avenue and Railroad Avenue, 10 ft min. along all other frontages; 20 ft max. Publicly Accessible Open Space (Parks, Linear Open Space, etc.) 0 ft min.; 20 ft max.Ground floor residential units: 5 ft min. Greenways, Pathways and Trails 5 ft with no habitable encroachments Building Placement in Front Build-to Area Primary building must extend across a min. 60% of the width of the build-to area Street side 0 ft min.; 10 ft max. Building Placement in Street Side Build-to Area Primary building must extend across a min. 50% of the width of the build-to area. Primary Building Setbacks Interior side 0 ft min. Residential: 15 ft. min Rear 0 ft min.; 10 ft min. adjacent to any non-transect zoning district Residential: 15 ft min. Lot Coverage 70% max. 6. Allowed Building Types Live/work See Sec. 20.135.030.G Multiplex See Sec. 20.135.030.H Flex Low-Rise See Sec. 20.135.030.I Flex Mid-Rise See Sec. 20.135.030.J Flex High-Rise4 See Sec. 20.135.030.K 2. Density and Floor Area Ratio Residential Density (du/ac.)1 80 min., 140 max.3 FAR2 Total: 1.5 min.; 3.75 max.3 Nonresidential: 0.5 max. 5. Parking Setback Front Shall be screened by habitable uses with a minimum depth of 20 feet Street Side 8 ft min. Interior Side 0 ft min. Rear 5 ft min. Curb Cut Access 20 ft max. width; max. 1 street frontages up to 300 feet, max. 2 for street frontages exceeding 300 feet 7. Additional Standards Any new commercial or multi-unit buildings or structural alterations or additions to commercial or multi-unit buildings involving more than 25% of the gross floor area shall provide public improvements between the building and the curb in accordance with the standards of the Public Works Department. 1. Intent The T5L zoning district supports a comfortable and walkable high-intensity urban core. As large sites transition into walkable blocks, the district supports vertical mixed use development with buildings facing the city’s corridors as well as internal street networks and publicly accessible open spaces. Diverse frontages provide space for active ground floor uses and shape the relationship between private development and the expanded public realm. Minimum residential densities apply. 8. Notes 1See Chapter 20.390 (“Bonus Residential Density”) for additional density based on the California State Density Bonus program. 2Ground floor nonresidential uses may be exempt from the maximum FAR, see Chapter 20.040.009 (“Determining Floor Area Ratio”). Ground floor nonresidential uses count towards the minimum FAR. 3 For Height Incentive Overlay standards, see Chapter 20.160 ("Height Incentive (HI) Overlay"). 4 The Flex High-Rise type is only allowed for development projects that meet the requirements of the Height Incentive Overlay, see Chapter 20.160 ("Height Incentive (HI) Overlay") E F B C Max. Min. C A Max.Min. A D I J G H K A B D C H I G F E J K 602 Low Density Residential (RL) Medium Density Residential (RM) High Density Residential (RH) Downtown Residential-Low (DRL) Downtown Residential-Medium (DRM) Downtown Residential-High (DRH) Downtown Residential Core (DRC) Linden Neighborhood Center (LNC) Grand Avenue Core (GAC) Downtown Transit Core (DTC) Community Commercial (CC) East Transit Core (ETC) Business and Professional Office (BPO) Business Technology Park-Medium (BTP-M) Business Technology Park-High (BTP-H) Mixed Industrial Medium (MIM) Mixed Industrial High (MIH) Public/Quasi-Public (PQP) School (S) Parks and Recreation (PR) Open Space (OS) Oyster Point Specific Plan District (OPSPD) Genentech Master Plan District (GMPD) Southline Campus Specific Plan District (S-C) T3 Neighborhood (T3N) T3 Corridor (T3C) T3 Makers Lindenville (T3ML) T4 Lindenville (T4L) T5 Corridor (T5C) T5 Lindenville (T5L) T6 Urban Core (T6UC) Planned Development (PD) City of South San Francisco Planning Division Zoning Code Update City of South San Francisco Zoning District Map 0 0.25 0.5Miles BRISBANE SAN BRUNO MOUNTAINCOUNTY PARK DALY CITY SAN BRUNO PACIFICA SAN FRANCISCOBAYJUNI P ER O SE R RA B LV D H IC KE Y BLV D EL CAMINO REAL W ESTBOROUGH BL V D E L CA MI N O R E A L SPRUCE AVE GRAND AVE LINDEN AVE MAPLE AVE S AI RPORT B L V DC A LL A N BLV D SISTER CITIES BLVD W E STBOROUGH BLVD G ATEWAY BLVD OYSTER POINT BLVD F O R B E S B L V D E GRAND AVE N CANAL ST ORANGE AVE AIRPORT B L V D GRAND AVE H IL L S I DE BLV D HILLSIDE BLVD CHESTNUT AVE J U NIPERO SERR A B LV D GE LLERT BLVDAIR P O RT B LVD S CANAL ST PR PR PR PR PR PR PR PR PR PR OS OS OS OS OS OS OS PQP S S S S S S PQP PQP PD OS PQP PQP T5L T6UC T6UC T5C T4L T5C T5C T3N T3C T4L T3C T3C T3C T3C MIH MIH MIH OPSPD GMPD BTP-H BTP-H BTP-H BTP-H BTP-H BTP-H BTP-H BTP-H BPO S-C CC CC CC CC BTP-M MIM MIM MIM CC MIM MIM T3ML CC DRC GAC DTC LNC ETC ETC DRM DRM DRH DRH DRL RM-22 RM-22 RM-22 RM-22 RM-22 RM-22 RM-22 RM-22 RL-8 RL-2.2 RL-8 RL-8 RL-8 RL-8 RL-8 RL-8 RL-8 RL-8 RL-8 RL-8 RL-8 RL-8 RH-37.5 RH-50 RM-22 RH-180 RH-180RH-37.5 RL-8 RL-8 RL-8 RL-8 RH-37.5RH-37.5 RH-37.5 RH-37.5 RH-37.5 RH-37.5 RH-37.5 RH-37.5 RH-180 RH-180 603 I completed the survey. The plan has too many restrictions on warehouse, distribution, R&D and industrial uses in the mixed use districts. These uses should be allow to continue as permitted uses by right without the requirement for a minor use permit or any other approvals. Many of the properties in this area are small warehouse condo units owned by individuals as investments or owner/users. The restrictions on industrial uses makes it onerous on these small individual owners to continue to use their buildings for the intended use. Since they are multi-tenant buildings there is no path to development and they will remain warehouses. This area should allow for historical uses to continue to be permitted, but also allow for new multi-family residential development. Making it a true mixed use district Thanks. Karl R Hansen | Lic#01351383 Cell 415 706 6734 karl.hansen@cbre.com Cory David While a man of many talents, please allow this humble servant, absent humility, to share his unique ability at prognostication. I predict that the Lindenville Plan will move forward just as it was dictated to the Planning Commissioners by those moneyed interests with a financial stake in the project. Early mention of the possibility of high-rise buildings will be a reality for all those existing residents who will be forced to live in the shadows. Talk of just what industry might dominate the area will be reflected in a bidding war that finds the biotech/life science industries outbidding all other businesses into oblivion. One of you sheepishly touched on the subject. Your narrow sighted belief in the premature demise of the horseless carriage will find developers' parking requirements pared back below even their agreed minimum, if not waived altogether. Not to worry, any needed parking can be facilitated by taxpayer built and maintained street parking, maybe in front of those very residences that find themselves living in the shadows cast by the new buildings. Could the shadows hide the cars? We can hope. This new tourist destination, not my observation, yours, will be a utopia of cycling and walking even though the Mayor, with the Vice Mayor's permission, announced that South San Francisco will be populated by a majority of residents over the age of 65 by the year 2040. I guess if they can't walk or bike, screw 'em. Substitute abysmal public transportation, don't get me started. If the infirmed need not apply, let's just let them die. And, let's go back to the folly that visitors to SFO might make Lindenville a "must see" destination. Did I miss something? Are the canal renovations going to replicate the Grand Canal in Venice or just the sewage that they both share? Now, we need to address the future of displaced businesses in Lindenville. In an early meeting, one of you proclaimed that you couldn't let it look like all the existing businesses in Lindenville would be displaced. The operative word here is "look" as all you were concerned with were the negative optics and the narrative on display when these businesses were forced out. You confirmed that in subsequent meetings addressing the re- location of these businesses elsewhere, including outside our city limits with the caveat, if possible. Such loyalty you've shown our existing business community. So, I have to wonder why these projects move forward. I know there are claims of countless benefits and amenities for the residents but I'm guessing there is no guarantee any of it gets done. Will developers be forced to post a bond before you let them aim the bulldozers at the existing Lindenville? I'm guessing not. The amenities might be relegated to those pretty illustrated pictures on power point. So there you have it, my prediction of what Lindenville will be going forward. Actually, in truth, I lied, they weren't predictions they were observations as everyone of you showed your hands in Planning Commission Meetings sprinkled with an ample amount of strategic "crocodile tears." Yes, people do watch this "multi-act play" and most of us can figure out the ending. I have yet to discover what residents asked for this re-imagined Lindenville but you moved on it with a mandate bestowed on you with a handful of residents, a few paper cups and some scraps of paper. We've seen this act before and the end results are never pretty but they seldom are when mercenaries invade your home. Rubber stamp those plans with permanent ink because someone just might be taking an interest in what goes on in our little monarchy. Thanks for all the fun, Cory A. David.