HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-02-28 e-packet@7:00Wednesday, February 28, 2018
7:00 PM
City of South San Francisco
P.O. Box 711
South San Francisco, CA
Municipal Services Building, Council Chambers
33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, CA
City Council
Regular Meeting Agenda
1
February 28, 2018City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
PEOPLE OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
You are invited to offer your suggestions. In order that you may know our method of conducting Council
business, we proceed as follows:
The regular meetings of the City Council are held on the second and fourth Wednesday of each month at 7:00
p.m. in the Municipal Services Building, Council Chambers, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California.
The City Clerk will read successively the items of business appearing on the Agenda. As she completes reading
an item, it will be ready for Council action.
LIZA NORMANDY, Mayor
KARYL MATSUMOTO, Mayor Pro Tempore
RICHARD A. GARBARINO, Councilman
MARK ADDIEGO, Councilman
PRADEEP GUPTA, Councilman
FRANK RISSO, City Treasurer
KRISTA MARTINELLI, City Clerk
MIKE FUTRELL, City Manager
JASON ROSENBERG, City Attorney
PLEASE SILENCE CELL PHONES AND PAGERS
HEARING ASSISTANCE EQUIPMENT AVAILABLE FOR USE BY THE HEARING IMPAIRED AT
CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS
In accordance with California Government Code Section 54957.5, any writing or document that is a public
record, relates to an open session agenda item, and is distributed less than 72 hours prior to a regular
meeting will be made available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office located at City Hall. If,
however, the document or writing is not distributed until the regular meeting to which it relates, then the
document or writing will be made available to the public at the location of the meeting, as listed on this
agenda. The address of City Hall is 400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California 94080.
Page 2 City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/18/2024
2
February 28, 2018City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
AGENDA REVIEW
ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM STAFF
PRESENTATIONS
2018 City of South San Francisco Career & Resource Fair. (Mich Mercado, HR
Manager)
1.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
For those wishing to address the City Council on any Agenda or non-agendized item,
please complete a Speaker Card located at the entrance to the Council Chamber’s and
submit it to the City Clerk. Please be sure to indicate the Agenda Item # you wish to
address or the topic of your public comment. California law prevents the City Council
from taking action on any item not on the Agenda (except in emergency
circumstances). Your question or problem may be referred to staff for investigation
and/or action where appropriate or the matter may be placed on a future Agenda for
more comprehensive action or a report. When your name is called, please come to the
podium, state your name and address (optional) for the Minutes. COMMENTS ARE
LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES PER SPEAKER. Thank you for your
cooperation.
COUNCIL COMMENTS/REQUESTS
PUBLIC HEARING
Report regarding consideration of applications for a Use Permit, Design Review,
Transportation Demand Management Plan, and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map to
construct a new six-story mixed-use building with a total of 172 residential units and
approximately 10,900 square feet of retail at 988 El Camino Real and associated
California Environmental Quality Analysis. (Adena Friedman, Senior Planner)
2.
Page 3 City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/18/2024
3
February 28, 2018City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
Resolution making findings and a determination that the 988 El Camino Real
mixed-use project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant
to California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines sections 15332 and 15183, and per
Public Resources Code section 21155.4, and that the Project is within the scope of the
El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan pursuant to California Environmental
Quality Act Guidelines section 15168.
2a.
Resolution making findings and approving the entitlements request (UP17-0013,
DR17-0049, TDM17-0006, and PM17-0004) to construct a new six-story mixed-use
building with a total of 172 residential units and approximately 10,900 square feet of
retail at 988 El Camino Real.
2b.
Report regarding a proposed Zoning Text Amendment to the South San Francisco
Municipal Code Chapter 20.280 (“Downtown Station Area Specific Plan District”) to
increase the Maximum Density with Incentives in the Downtown Transit Core (DTC)
Sub-District, associated General Plan amendment, Downtown Station Area Specific
Plan amendment, and Addendum to the previously certified Downtown Station Area
Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (Adena Friedman, Senior Planner)
3.
Resolution making findings and a determination that the Zoning Text Amendment to
amend the Maximum Density with Incentives in the Downtown Transit Core
Sub-District of the Downtown Station Area Plan and associated General Plan and
Downtown Station Area Specific Plan amendments are fully within the scope of
environmental analysis as described in the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan 2015
Environmental Impact Report and that the 2018 Addendum is the appropriate
environmental document for the project
3a.
Resolution adopting a General Plan Amendment and Downtown Station Area Specific
Plan Amendment to increase the density in the Downtown Transit Core of the
Downtown Station Area Specific Plan
3b.
Ordinance amending the South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance, related to the
Downtown Station Area Specific Plan District, in accordance with South San
Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 20.550 ("Amendments to Zoning Ordinance and
Map")
3c.
Report regarding an amendment to the City’s Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) Annual Action Plan for Fiscal Year 2017-2018 to re-allocate $180,000 from
the Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program to Public Improvement projects. (Maria
Wada, Community Development Coordinator)
4.
Page 4 City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/18/2024
4
February 28, 2018City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
A resolution approving an amendment to the City’s Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) Annual Action Plan for Fiscal Year 2017-2018 to re-allocate $180,000
from the Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program to Public Improvement projects.
4a.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Motion to approve the Minutes from the meetings of January 24, 2018 and February
14, 2018.
5.
Motion confirming payment registers for February 28, 2018. (Richard Lee, Director of
Finance)
6.
ITEMS FROM COUNCIL – COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
Page 5 City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/18/2024
5
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:18-128 Agenda Date:2/28/2018
Version:1 Item #:1.
2018 City of South San Francisco Career & Resource Fair.(Mich Mercado, HR Manager)
City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/18/2024Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™6
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:18-102 Agenda Date:2/28/2018
Version:1 Item #:2.
Report regarding consideration of applications for a Use Permit, Design Review, Transportation Demand
Management Plan, and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map to construct a new six-story mixed-use building with a
total of 172 residential units and approximately 10,900 square feet of retail at 988 El Camino Real and
associated California Environmental Quality Analysis.(Adena Friedman, Senior Planner)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council take the following actions:
1. Adopt a resolution making findings and a determination that the Project is exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines sections 15332 and 15183,
per Public Resources Code section 21155.4; and that the project is within the scope of the El
Camino Real/Chestnut Area Plan pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15168; and
2. Adopt a resolution making findings and approving the entitlements request for Project P17-0060
including Use Permit (UP17-0013), Design Review (DR17-0049), Transportation Demand
Management Plan (TDM17-0006), and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map (PM17-0004), subject to the
draft Conditions of Approval.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SummerHill Apartment Communities is proposing a mixed-use, multi-family residential project at 988 El
Camino Real, which is currently the site of South City Carwash. This project is within the El Camino
Real/Chestnut (ECR/C) Avenue Area Plan, and is the first multi-family residential project proposed in the plan
area, since adoption in 2011. The project includes 172 residential units, and ground-floor retail uses. The
project is designed as a transit-oriented development, and provides pedestrian, bicycle, and open space
amenities. The project architecture and site plan are intended to activate the street level along both El Camino
Real and Chestnut Avenues. The applicant is requesting density and floor area ratio increases, and is proposing
a range of amenities per the ECR/C incentive program.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Site Overview
The 988 El Camino Real project site consists of four separate parcels totaling 1.67 acres at the northeast corner
of the intersection of El Camino Real and Chestnut Avenue. This project site is within the ECR/C Avenue Area
Plan, and is the current location of South City Carwash, which is a full-service carwash facility. The carwash is
housed in a one-story building, and is surrounded by parking and queueing areas, and a material and storage
area, and has vehicular entrances from Chestnut Avenue and El Camino Real. The site also includes a vacant
City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/18/2024Page 1 of 16
powered by Legistar™7
File #:18-102 Agenda Date:2/28/2018
Version:1 Item #:2.
area in the northwest corner that contained a gas station, which was removed in 2007.
The property is surrounded by Centennial Way Trail to the east, a vacant lot which is the future site of the City
of South San Francisco’s Civic Center project to the north, El Camino Real to the west, and Burger King fast
food restaurant immediately adjacent to the south. The site is located less than one mile from the South San
Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) station and is served by several San Mateo County Transit District
(“SamTrans”) bus routes which connect to the BART station. Centennial Way has a Class I bike lane, providing
a connection to the BART station.
One of the major constraints of this site is the location of a Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) gas line easement,
running along the eastern edge of the site (detailed in the project plan set, Entitlements Resolution, Exhibit A).
The easement includes a 50-foot setback which prohibits construction, to ensure access to and security of the
gas line. While the easement presents a development constraint, the applicant has utilized that space to provide
open space amenities and a landscaped area. PG&E has reviewed the proposed project, and has determined that
the design is consistent with the terms of the easement, and has provided a Developer Review Letter outlining
safety requirements (included as Attachment 1 in this staff report).
In addition, the City holds the Mission Road Public Utilities Easement (herein referred to as the “easement”) on
the property. The applicant has submitted a vacation of easement request to the City’s Engineering Division.
The Engineering Division has indicated that vacating the easement will not eliminate the ability of the City, nor
private utility companies, from providing services to existing and future uses and the City will complete the
required vacation proceedings when the property ownership transfers to the applicant. Vacating the easement
will allow for development of a high-quality mixed-use development within the ECR/C plan area, and is
consistent with the City’s goals and General Plan direction for this area, since it will allow for high-density
residential development with community benefits and amenities.
Project Description
The applicant, SummerHill Apartment Communities, is seeking entitlements to develop the first residential
mixed-use development in the ECR/C plan area, consisting of 172 for-rent residential units and approximately
10,900 square feet (“sq. ft.”) of retail, with five residential stories, ground-floor retail, residential amenity
spaces, and commercial parking, and two levels of subterranean residential parking (for a total building area of
178,315 gross sq. ft. and a building height of approximately 80 ft.).
The residential component includes 20 studio apartments, 119 one-bedroom units, and 33 two-bedroom units.
The proposed site plan, architectural details, and landscaping plan are all detailed in the project plan set
(Entitlements Resolution, Exhibit A). The project includes 35 commercial parking spaces, 224 residential
parking spaces (including eight visitor spaces and four future resident spaces), and 130 bicycle parking spaces.
In addition to the residential units, the project proposal includes the following amenities and elements:
·Two street-facing retail spaces consisting of 4,960 sq. ft. and 5,400 sq. ft.
·10,100 sq. ft. of podium deck open space
City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/18/2024Page 2 of 16
powered by Legistar™8
File #:18-102 Agenda Date:2/28/2018
Version:1 Item #:2.
·Ground-floor public open space and fitness amenities, connecting to Centennial Way Trail
·Ground-floor public plaza, at the corner of El Camino Real and Chestnut Avenue
·Public seating and dining areas wrapping around the western side of the building
·Residential amenities including a fitness room, club room, cyber café, lobby lounge, dog park,
and a bike storage and repair area.
The project includes two vehicular access points: a primary two-way driveway access from El Camino Real for
retail and residential parking, and a secondary one-way entry from Chestnut Avenue. The project will replace
and widen the sidewalks along the project frontages on El Camino Real and Chestnut Avenues. The streetscape
along the El Camino Real frontage will extend the City’s Grand Boulevard Improvement plans. Additional
pedestrian and public realm improvements include new street trees along El Camino Real and Chestnut Avenue,
landscaping improvements, undergrounding and re-routing of utilities, new street and pedestrian lighting, trash
receptacles, public bicycle racks and benches.
Building Architecture
The 988 El Camino Real project’s architectural design reflects a contemporary design that highlights a
combination of materials and elements reflective of South San Francisco’s industrial past, and adds character to
the urban corridor. The street walls along El Camino Real and Chestnut Ave are comprised of a two- to three-
story brick façade with recessed storefront glazing at the ground level and residential sun decks open to the sky
on the upper levels. This brick façade is designed to resemble a traditional commercial storefront in terms of
scale, materials, and detailing, with taller massing stepped back on the upper floors. The brick street walls are
tied back to the primary structure with steel beams and adorned with metal anchor plates, giving the impression
of a historic façade that has been preserved with a more contemporary structure erected behind.
A 45-degree storefront is at the ground level of El Camino Real and Chestnut Avenue, promoting visibility and
pedestrian movement around the corner plaza. A public seating and dining area at the northeast corner of the
building helps to activate the space and create a connection to Centennial Way Trail. Along the east building
elevation, a landscaped public open space area provides an active frontage and connection to Centennial Way,
with two pedestrian connections from the building to the trail, short-term bicycle parking, an outdoor fitness
park, and public seating areas.
Landscaping and Open Space
The project provides two podium courtyards, available to all residents. The north courtyard includes an oversize
spa, a fire pit, and seating areas. The south courtyard contains flexible seating areas, an additional fire pit,
barbecue facilities, and recreation facilities such as ping-pong tables and other outdoor games. Many of the
units contain balconies or sundecks, for additional private open space. The project also contains a private dog
park for residents.
In addition to private open space areas, the 988 El Camino Real project offers multiple public open space
opportunities, which serve as amenities for project residents, employees, visitors, as well as neighbors from
surrounding areas. The project includes a plaza with artistic seating areas at the corner of El Camino Real and
Chestnut (approximately 1,300 sq. ft.), and public seating and dining areas wrapping the northwest corner ofCity of South San Francisco Printed on 3/18/2024Page 3 of 16
powered by Legistar™9
File #:18-102 Agenda Date:2/28/2018
Version:1 Item #:2.
Chestnut (approximately 1,300 sq. ft.), and public seating and dining areas wrapping the northwest corner of
the building. The project also focuses on creating a connection to Centennial Way Trail. The landscape plan
(Sheet L2.0 in the project plan set, Entitlements Resolution, Exhibit A) details the Centennial Way Trail
connections, which are two spurs connecting the building to the trail.
Additionally, the project is proposing a fitness park with exercise equipment, stretching areas, benches, and
bicycle parking. The fitness park would be open to the public, and is envisioned as an exercise location for
people walking, jogging, or cycling on Centennial Way Trail, as well as for residents. The applicant is also
proposing an expanded version of the fitness park, which would extend up to Centennial Way Trail (discussed
further in the “Off-Site Improvements” section of this staff report). The expanded fitness park would be
constructed within the BART right-of-way, and would require a construction permit from BART. The applicant
is currently working with BART and City staff on the planning and permitting process for the expanded fitness
park.
The applicant is proposing London Plane street trees in tree wells along El Camino Real, and landscaping along
the building frontage. Brisbane Box street trees in tree wells are proposed on Chestnut Avenue and a
combination of Crepe Myrtle and Coast Live Oak trees are included in the landscaping on the eastern side of
the building. Metal green-screens/vine trellises will be installed along the building edge at ground level on the
eastern elevation, to buffer the ground-floor parking and soften the pedestrian interface.
Parking and Circulation
The project includes one level of at-grade garage parking, two levels of subterranean parking, and a small area
of surface parking (11 spaces) at the southeast corner of the building. There are 35 retail parking spaces
available, all located within the at-grade parking garage level, as well as eight visitor spaces, and four spaces
for future residents. There are 212 secure resident parking spaces, all located within the subterranean parking
levels. The residential parking levels will be accessed with a card or key fob, to separate them from the retail
spaces, and help ensure security. All secure residential parking spaces will be assigned to specific units. The
retail loading area is provided towards the northeast corner of the building, and there is an additional loading
area for residential deliveries and move-in/move-out accessed from El Camino Real, at the southern end of the
building. The applicant has been working closely with South San Francisco Scavenger to design the interior
trash removal area, and has received a will-serve letter. Garbage removal and recycling pick-up service will be
provided from El Camino Real, with dumpster staging within the southern loading area.
There are two parking garage entrances. The primary entrance and exit is from the project driveway on El
Camino Real, at the southern end of the building. The secondary entrance is a one-way driveway located on
Chestnut Avenue. The project will incorporate site signage directing residents and visitors to the parking
entrances and to the appropriate locations for retail and visitor parking.
Pedestrian access is provided throughout the project, to help create public access to retail uses and to the public
open spaces areas. Since the project is designed to be transparent and permeable, there are internal controlled
access points for residents and visitors, to maintain building security.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/18/2024Page 4 of 16
powered by Legistar™10
File #:18-102 Agenda Date:2/28/2018
Version:1 Item #:2.
The project also includes two bike rooms for residents (a total of 90 spaces), as well as 40 publicly accessible
spaces in bike racks, located on El Camino Real and on the eastern side of the building, proximate to the
Centennial Way Trail and the fitness park.
Hexagon Transportation Consultants provided a site traffic analysis of the site; the City’s Planning and
Engineering Divisions peer-reviewed the report. The analysis contained the following recommendations
regarding traffic and circulation, which are included as draft Conditions of Approval in the associated
resolution:
·Since the peak commute direction on northbound El Camino Real occurs during the PM peak hour,
residential move-in and move-out operations should be restricted to outside of the PM peak traffic
hours.
·The project should implement a Travel Demand Management (TDM) Program to implement strategies
(such as providing building residents and retail employees with annual transit passes, providing
expanded bike parking facilities on-site, providing on-site car sharing facilities, and a TDM coordinator
to educate new residents on TDM program) to encourage residents to use transit and reduce single-
occupancy vehicle trips.
·Implement a pedestrian warning system at the project driveway on El Camino Real, to alert pedestrians
when a vehicle is exiting the garage driveway.
·Work with the City to modify the signal timing to optimize the cycle length at the intersection of El
Camino Real / Chestnut Avenue.
Entitlements Request
The project is seeking the following entitlements:
·Conditional Use Permit for:
o Multi-family residential development
o Density increase from 80 dwelling units/acre (“du/ac”) to 103 du/ac per incentive program
o Floor area ratio (“FAR”) increase from 2.0 FAR to 2.5 FAR per incentive program
o Exception approval for a commercial depth of less than 65 feet to allow for efficient site layout
and site configuration
o Exception approval to allow surface parking within 40 feet of BART right-of-way
·TDM Program
·Design Review
·A Vesting Tentative Parcel Map to merge the parcels into a single parcel
·Approval of Environmental Consistency Analysis (“ECA”)
ZONING CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan
In July 2011, the City Council adopted the ECR/C Area Plan, and amendments to the City’s Zoning Ordinance,
City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/18/2024Page 5 of 16
powered by Legistar™11
File #:18-102 Agenda Date:2/28/2018
Version:1 Item #:2.
In July 2011, the City Council adopted the ECR/C Area Plan, and amendments to the City’s Zoning Ordinance,
adding Chapter 20.270 (“El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan District”) to implement the policies and
goals in the ECR/C Area Plan. The ECR/C Plan envisions the area as a new walkable, distinctive, mixed-use
district. The General Plan amendments created separate land use designations consistent with the ECR/C Area
Plan. More recently, in December 2017, the City Council approved Zoning Text Amendments, General Plan
Amendments, ECR/C Area Plan Amendments related to the Community Civic Center Campus. This update also
included minor modifications to enhance development flexibility in the ECR/C plan area, and ensure General
Plan and Zoning Ordinance consistency.
The 988 El Camino Real project site is within the El Camino Real/Chestnut Mixed Use, High Density (“ECR/C
-MXH”) sub-district, which is intended to support mixed-use development at high intensities.This sub-district
requires active, public-oriented uses on the ground floor along streets, sidewalks, and bike and pedestrian
pathways.
The ECR/C Area Plan includes the following guiding principles:
1. Create a vital center for South San Francisco, with a variety of commercial, office, residential, and civic
uses.
2. Create a commercial district that acts as a citywide and regional destination, yet provides adequate
neighborhood-serving establishments for residents.
3. Provide high-intensity development, capitalizing on the area’s proximity to BART and location at the
geographic center of the city.
4. Maximize active frontages along key streets and open space connections in the Planning Area.
5. Develop the area with an overall character and urban design scheme that promotes livability and
sustainability.
6. Establish an open space plan that serves as a framework. This includes continuous green space along
Centennial Way as well as along the BART right-of-way.
7. Create a distinct, well-defined public realm with enhanced streetscape improvements, public plazas,
open spaces, and pedestrian connections.
8. Provide enhanced linkages within the Planning Area. Pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular connections
should be established through new development to maximize the accessibility of open space,
commercial amenities, and transit.
9. Create efficient parking solutions that optimize sharing of resources between various uses.
The proposed project at 988 El Camino Real will provide a high-density mixed-use and residential
development that fulfills the guiding principles of the ECR/C Area Plan. The project will revitalize an
underutilized property; provide active street frontages and open space amenities; focus on pedestrian and
bicycle linkages; and establish a high-quality design precedent in the ECR/C plan area. The applicant is also
providing transportation improvements within the ECR/C plan area, designed to enhance roadway connectivity
and the pedestrian environment, through a contribution to future construction of the Oak Avenue extension
(identified as an improvement in the ECR/C Area Plan), and improving the crosswalks at the El Camino Real
City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/18/2024Page 6 of 16
powered by Legistar™12
File #:18-102 Agenda Date:2/28/2018
Version:1 Item #:2.
and Chestnut intersection. These contributions will benefit both the plan area, and the proposed project.
Density, Height, and Floor Area Ratio
The ECR/C-MXH zoning district includes maximum base development standards, as well as increases to these
standards with an incentive program, subject to Conditional Use Permit approval by the City Council:
·Density: 80 du/ac base or 110 du/ac with incentives
·Building height: 80 ft. base or 120 ft. with incentives
·FAR: 2.0 FAR base or 3.0 FAR with incentives
The 988 ECR project proposes a residential density of 103 du/ac and a 2.5 FAR, both of which would require
the approval of the incentives program. The proposed building height is 80 ft., which is consistent with the base
height, and would not require additional discretionary approval.
Section 20.270.004 of the SSFMC provides a tiered system for the review and approval of increased density
and FAR:
1. 0.5 FAR, up to 30 units per acre and/or 20 ft. of height for the incorporation of Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) measures specified in Chapter 20.400, Transportation Demand Management, or as
deemed appropriate by the Chief Planner for residential projects.
2. 0.5 FAR, up to 30 units per acre and/or 20 ft. of height for the following, subject to Planning
Commission approval:
a. High quality, innovative design and product type, and maximum provisions for pedestrian and
bicycle use.
b. Provision of off-site improvements. This may include off-site amenities and/or infrastructure
(other than standards requirements and improvements), such as funding for public safety
facilities, libraries, senior centers, community meeting rooms, child care or recreation, or new or
enhanced public spaces.
c. Green building measures over and above the applicable green building compliance threshold
required pursuant to Title 15 (“Building and Construction”) of the South San Francisco
Municipal Code (“SSFMC”).
Since this project is proposing both increased FAR and density, it must meet the requirements of both (1) and
(2) outlined above. SummerHill Apartment Communities has submitted a project support statement
(Entitlements Resolution, Exhibit B) describing the benefits package that is proposed to support the request for
density and FAR increases. SummerHill has also submitted a letter to the City Council, outlining project
features and benefits (Attachment 6).
Following is a brief summary of the benefits package:
·TDM plan to meet the requirements of the City’s TDM Ordinance (Entitlements Resolution, Exhibit D,
and discussed further in this staff report in the TDM section, below) includes a variety of programmatic
and design measures intended to reduce vehicle trips and encourage transit use for residents. The draft
TDM plan is designed to achieve a 28 percent peak hour trip reduction.
·Project design and site planning that encourage pedestrian and bicycle movement throughout the site,City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/18/2024Page 7 of 16
powered by Legistar™13
File #:18-102 Agenda Date:2/28/2018
Version:1 Item #:2.
·Project design and site planning that encourage pedestrian and bicycle movement throughout the site,
including direct connections to Centennial Way Trail and improvements to the sidewalks on El Camino
Real and Chestnut Avenue. The project also includes more than twice the amount of bicycle parking
than is required by the SSFMC, to encourage cycling.
·Provision of off-site improvements, including a publicly accessible fitness park adjacent to Centennial
Way Trail, and a proposed intersection enhancement at Chestnut Avenue and Antoinette Way (both
detailed in the project support statement). The intersection improvement would complete the
intersection, create a direct pedestrian connection to the future Civic Center Campus, and complete a
missing link in the Centennial Way Trail.
·A comprehensive green building plan that includes measures above requirements in the Building Code.
The applicant has submitted a GreenPoint scorecard indicating project Green Building practices that
exceed current code requirements (Entitlements Resolution, Exhibit E). A draft condition of approval is
included to require on-site verification of the green building elements by a GreenPoint rater, at
appropriate points during construction. In addition to the green building measures, the project is
proposing 16 electric vehicle (EV) charging stalls, two electric bicycle parking stalls, and purple pipe
for landscaping irrigation, in the event recycled water becomes available at the site.
Staff has reviewed the proposed benefits package, and believes that they are sufficient to recommend approval
of the proposed FAR and density increases.
Additional Development Standards
The ECR/C-MXH zoning district also includes a variety of general development standards and supplemental
regulations that apply to the proposed project. The project conformance checklist (Entitlements Resolution,
Exhibit F) verifies project compliance. The applicant is seeking several exceptions from the ECR/C
development standards, discussed in detail below.
Commercial Frontage Exception
SSFMC Section 20.270.005(C) (“ECR/C Area Plan Supplemental Regulations, Depth of Required Commercial
Frontage”) requires a minimum average depth of the required commercial frontage of 65 feet for parcels less
than 100 feet in depth. The Chief Planner may approve a reduced minimum average depth of 55 feet for parcels
less than 100 feet in depth, to allow for efficient layout and site configuration. The applicant is proposing a
minimum commercial depth of 56 feet and 8 inches. Staff has reviewed the site plan, and has determined that
given the depth, irregular size, and site constraints, this is an appropriate commercial depth and will help to
provide active commercial street frontages on both El Camino Real and Chestnut Avenue.
Limitations on Location of Parking
SSFMC Section 20.270.005(I)(2) (“ECR/C Area Plan Supplemental Regulations, Limitations on Location of
Parking”) states that above-ground parking may not be located within 40 feet of a street facing property line or
BART right-of-way. The applicant is proposing parking less than 40 feet from the BART right-of-way, which is
located directly adjacent to the 988 El Camino Real site, and contains the Centennial Way Trail. As illustrated
on the project site plan, 11 commercial and visitor parking spaces are proposed approximately 30 feet from the
property line adjacent to the BART right-of-way. This parking area is designed as surface parking since it is
City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/18/2024Page 8 of 16
powered by Legistar™14
File #:18-102 Agenda Date:2/28/2018
Version:1 Item #:2.
property line adjacent to the BART right-of-way. This parking area is designed as surface parking since it is
within the 50 foot PG&E easement, which does not permit structure parking.
Exceptions may be granted with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit when the following findings can be
made:
·The design incorporates habitable space built close to the public sidewalk to the extent feasible
·The site is small and constrained such that underground parking or surface parking located more than 40
feet from the street frontage is not feasible
The proposed site plan for 988 El Camino Real incorporates public open space amenities and landscaping
adjacent to the BART right-of-way, and provides pedestrian access to Centennial Way Trail. While the majority
of the project parking is within the at-grade garage or the subterranean garage levels, the 11 commercial and
visitor surface parking spaces will be screened by trees and landscaping, which will adequately buffer the
pedestrian right-of-way. The area will be paved with permeable pavers, which will assist with reducing surface
runoff. Staff supports the exception to this parking limitation based on the site constraints, and the design of the
surface parking area within 40 feet of the BART right-of-way.
Parking Requirements
Vehicle Parking
Unlike other zoning districts in South San Francisco, the ECR/C Area Plan Zoning does not include specific
parking requirements, but states that “required parking for any use within the ECR/C Area shall be established
by the Chief Planner based on the particular characteristics of the proposed use and any other relevant data
regarding parking demand”. Since this project requires a Conditional Use Permit, the parking requirement
would be approved as part of the project entitlements.
The ECR/C Area Plan Zoning provides the following general parking guidelines:
·Residential: no more than two spaces per unit (the applicant is proposing 1.3 spaces per unit, or
approximately 1.09 space per bedroom)
·Commercial: no more than one space per 300 sq. ft. (the applicant is proposing this maximum ratio)
To support the parking proposal, the applicant provided a parking demand calculation as part of the Traffic
Study completed by Hexagon Transportation Consultants (CEQA Resolution, Exhibit B). The parking study
compiled peak parking demand data from comparable existing apartment complexes in San Mateo County, and
concluded that the typical average demand for comparable projects is 1.34 parking spaces per unit, and
approximately 0.8 spaces per bedroom. These ratios are comparable to what is proposed for 988 El Camino
Real. The project is also proposing a variety of TDM measures intended to reduce the need for residents to own
cars. Staff supports the proposed parking as adequate for a mixed-use, transit-oriented development, and finds it
is consistent with SSFMC requirements.
Bicycle Parking
The 988 El Camino Real project includes a range of short-term and long-term bike parking options for
City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/18/2024Page 9 of 16
powered by Legistar™15
File #:18-102 Agenda Date:2/28/2018
Version:1 Item #:2.
residents, visitors, and employees.
SSFMC Section 20.330.008 includes standards for bicycle parking:
·Short-term for multi-family residential and commercial projects: 10 percent of the number of required
automobile parking spaces (26 spaces required, 40 bike rack spaces provided)
·Long-term for multi-family residential projects: A minimum of one bicycle parking space shall be
provided for every four units (43 spaces required, 90 spaces provided - combination of bike rooms and
vertical spaces)
The project exceeds the required amount of bicycle parking, and also provides amenities including a charging
station for electric bicycles and a bicycle repair station.
Transportation Demand Management Plan
The 988 El Camino Real project is proposing increased density and FAR, and is required to implement a TDM
plan to achieve these increases. Hexagon Transportation Consultants prepared a TDM Plan (Entitlements
Resolution, Exhibit D), outlining a range of measures designed to reduce the number of peak hour vehicle trips,
automobile dependency, and the need for vehicle ownership. The proposed TDM plan is designed to achieve a
28 percent peak hour trip reduction target, consistent with the requirements of the City’s TDM ordinance
(SSFMC Chapter 20.400). The applicant will provide the City with annual reports regarding the efficacy of the
TDM program, and will adjust program components as necessary to achieve the peak hour trip reduction goal.
The proposed TDM measures are organized into the following categories:
·Bicycle and pedestrian facilities
·Carpool and vanpool programs
·Transit subsidy
·Emergency ride home (commercial employees)
·Online information center
·Program marketing and administration (including an on-site Transportation Coordinator)
·Car share programs
·Telecommuting
·On-site amenities
The project’s location lends itself to successful TDM implementation, as it is accessible to bus routes, shuttles,
pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and is less than one mile from BART. It is also across the street from the future
Community Civic Center, and additional planned mixed-use development sites within the ECR/C Area Plan,
further offering opportunities for pedestrian and bicycle trips. A draft condition of approval is included to
ensure TDM implementation and compliance.
Vesting Tentative Parcel Map
As part of the overall entitlements, the applicant has submitted a Vesting Tentative Parcel Map, prepared by
CBG Engineering and dated December 1, 2017, to combine four separate lots located at the northeast
City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/18/2024Page 10 of 16
powered by Legistar™16
File #:18-102 Agenda Date:2/28/2018
Version:1 Item #:2.
CBG Engineering and dated December 1, 2017, to combine four separate lots located at the northeast
intersection of El Camino Real and Chestnut Avenue, totaling 1.67 acres (detailed in project plan set, Sheet
C1.0, Entitlements Resolution, as Exhibit A). The four lots are identified as APNs: 011-325-030, 011-325-070,
011-325-260, and 011-014-280. Per Section 20.270.004 of the SSFMC, the minimum lot size in the ECR/C-
MXH zoning district is 20,000 sq. ft., with no maximum lot size; therefore, the combination of the four lots for
a combined total 1.67 acre parcel meets the development standards. The Engineering Division has reviewed the
Vesting Tentative Parcel Map application, and has included relevant conditions of approval.
GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
The General Plan Land Use Designation for the site is El Camino Real Mixed-Use North, High Intensity. The
El Camino Real sub-area includes guiding policies related to development within the corridor, focusing on
development El Camino Real as a boulevard with mixed-use development centers:
·3.4-G-1: Develop El Camino Real as a boulevard that accommodates its role as a regional corridor but
with streetscape and development that provides identity to the street.
·3.4-G-2: Encourage development of a mix of uses, with pockets of concentrated activity that provide
foci and identity to the different parts of El Camino Real.
The General Plan also includes implementing policies specific to the El Camino Real / Chestnut Area:
·3.4-1-13: Develop the El Camino Real/Chestnut Area in accordance with the vision established for the
area by the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan.
·3.4-1-14: Maintain the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan as the detailed implementing guide
for the area. The El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan provides principles and policies that lay
the framework for development within the area. The Area Plan provides an overall vision for the area in
terms of land use, urban design and circulation, and emphasizes the creation of a vibrant and viable
activity center in South San Francisco. The Area Plan also includes Design Standards and Guidelines to
guide design review of projects.
The proposed project will conform to the General Plan by constructing a high-density, mixed-use residential
development that will improve the pedestrian environment and provide active and vibrant retail uses along El
Camino Real and Chestnut Avenue. The project also utilizes a variety of architectural detailing and materials to
accentuate the building and define the intersection, providing an example of high-quality development within
the ECR/C plan area. Moreover, the project provides public open space benefits, implements the goals of the
ECR/C Area Plan, and is consistent with the City’s Design Guidelines as it relates to building design, form and
articulation.
SUSTAINABILITY / CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
The proposed project is consistent with recent sustainability regulations that have been adopted at State,
regional and local levels. Examples include the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008
(Senate Bill 375), which aims to create more efficient communities by providing alternatives to using single
occupancy vehicles. Projects that link higher density development to transit help meet this goal. At the local
level, the ECR/C Plan aims to provide linkages to BART, other regional transit including SamTrans, and
community amenities. The project is envisioned as a high-density mixed-use development, located adjacent to
City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/18/2024Page 11 of 16
powered by Legistar™17
File #:18-102 Agenda Date:2/28/2018
Version:1 Item #:2.
community amenities. The project is envisioned as a high-density mixed-use development, located adjacent to
pedestrian and bicycle facilities that provide direct link to the BART station and well as multiple SamTrans bus
routes.
The building design incorporates a variety of green building features such as passive ventilation and cooling,
large windows to provide natural daylight, robust insulation, high performance glazing, a selection of
sustainably-produced materials, and electric vehicle charging spaces.
In February 2014, the City adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP), which serves as South San Francisco’s
greenhouse gas reduction strategy. As previously discussed, the applicant has submitted a Green Building Plan,
indicating that the project includes green building elements beyond code requirements. As currently designed,
the proposed project will comply with the CAP standards.
HOUSING STANDING COMMITTEE
The South San Francisco Housing Standing Committee (HSC) reviewed the project on August 7, 2017. The
committee members generally supported mixed-use residential development in this location and the project
design.
HSC members provided the following direction and comments regarding the project design:
·Revise the design on the Chestnut/El Camino Real corner, to help articulate the building and
soften the corner
·Provide a larger sidewalk on El Camino Real
·Ensure project security in terms of the garage and entrances from Centennial Way Trail
·Focus on loading areas and relationship between retail and residential uses
·Provide screening for rooftop equipment
·The vehicle exit on El Camino Real should be as far from the intersection as possible
·A pool is not the right amenity, given the South San Francisco climate
The project has incorporated all of the HSC’s direction and design comments, reflected in the project plan set
(Entitlements Resolution, Exhibit A).
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
The South San Francisco Design Review Board (DRB) reviewed the proposed 988 El Camino Real project at
their meeting of August 15, 2017. The Board was generally supportive of the project, and recommended
approval with the following conditions:
·Work with SSF Scavenger on the proposed trash enclosure locations and pickup times.
·Revise the design of the vertical corner window element to project above the parapet wall on the corner
of Chestnut and El Camino. The current design of the roof parapet overshadows the corner element.
This main building corner element should project, similar to the other corner elements.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/18/2024Page 12 of 16
powered by Legistar™18
File #:18-102 Agenda Date:2/28/2018
Version:1 Item #:2.
·The plans are lacking roof equipment screening, include in the revised plans.
·If possible, tie the paving to match the color of the building and add some score pattern to create a
design pattern; discuss with the Public Works Department.
·The tree species around the spa area should be wind tolerant.
·Consider adding some planter boxes with infiltration systems on the roof deck.
·Carefully review the landscaping plan and select trees, plants, grasses and shrubs that will work well on
this site. For street trees consider taller species such as Platanus Acerifolia ‘Colombia’, Columbia
London Plane Tree, which is the most mildew resistant cultivar, and holds its leaves latest in autumn.
·The proposed vines on the green screen may not work well; consider changing the screen element to be
partially solid, and select a vine that can survive the constant cool winds in South San Francisco.
·On two sides of the building, there are large blank brick walls with stairs leading to the podium deck.
Soften these walls either through articulation or an art piece mounted to the wall, above and/or below
the stairwell to help break up the blank wall. Consider landscaping to soften the wall, such as tall
narrow trees or vines.
Following the DRB meeting, the applicant re-designed the project’s circulation and access, and also addressed
the Board’s comments. DRB reviewed the project for a second time on December 19, 2017, and the Board
members unanimously supported the design changes and project enhancements. A draft condition of approval is
included, to ensure that the applicant incorporates the Board’s final comments and recommendations.
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
The South San Francisco Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed the project at its meeting on September
19, 2017, focusing on the public realm and landscaping improvements. Commission members provided the
following comments and feedback:
·Fitness equipment should be multi-generational, so children can use it as well as adults.
·The applicant should maintain the fitness park area.
·Turf areas should be drought tolerant, and should match the existing turf along Centennial Way Trail.
·Tables, chairs and benches would be a nice amenity.
·Consider bike racks with an artistic and whimsical look.
The applicant has addressed the Park and Recreation Commission’s comments, and will continue to work with
Planning and Park and Recreation staff during the construction phase, to ensure that the project enhances the
public realm and provides open space benefits for the community.
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING
The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on September 27, 2017, and provided a brief overview of the
proposed project design followed by an opportunity for discussion. Approximately 20 to 30 members of the
community attended the meeting. Community members, as well as City stakeholders, provided input regarding
project access and improvements to the pedestrian environment. Community members also had general
concerns about traffic in the project vicinity, and the location of the PG&E gas line located within the project
site as a safety concern. At the meeting, the applicant provided contact information and offered to meet with
City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/18/2024Page 13 of 16
powered by Legistar™19
File #:18-102 Agenda Date:2/28/2018
Version:1 Item #:2.
site as a safety concern. At the meeting, the applicant provided contact information and offered to meet with
community members individually, to answer questions and address any project concerns.
PLANNING COMMISSION
The South San Francisco Planning Commission reviewed this project at the February 1, 2018 hearing.
Commissioners had questions and comments about the types of retail contemplated for the site, the design of
the surface parking area at the rear of the building, commercial parking ratio, project affordability, construction
timeline, and ensuring adequate notice to the South City Carwash prior to construction. There was also
discussion about traffic volumes and transportation improvements in the ECR/C Plan Area. In general, the
Planning Commission was supportive of the project design and benefits, and recommended approval of this
project, with a 5-1 vote.
Two members of the public commented on this project. The property owner spoke in support of the
development, and provided a letter to the Planning Commission (included as Attachment 2). A neighborhood
resident also commented, and stated concerns about the driveway on Chestnut Avenue. The Planning
Commission Resolution and draft minutes are both attached to this staff report (included as Attachments 3 and
4).
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed project is exempt from the CEQA, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15332 as it is a
qualified in-fill development project, and per CEQA Guidelines section 15183 because the project is consistent
with the General Plan and the Area Plan and would have no environmental impacts that would be particular to
the Project, and per Public Resources Code section 21155.4 as the project is a mixed-use development that is
located within a transit priority area.
In addition to these exemptions, CEQA allows for limited environmental review of subsequent projects under a
program EIR (CEQA Guidelines section 15168). Components of a subsequent project must be examined in the
light of the program EIR to determine whether any additional environmental analysis must be conducted. The
CEQA Guidelines require lead agencies to use checklists or similar mechanisms to conduct this evaluation.
Staff, in conjunction with the applicant’s environmental consultant, prepared an Environmental Consistency
Analysis (“ECA”) (CEQA Resolution, Exhibit A), which satisfies the CEQA Guidelines. Under this ECA, the
City uses a written checklist to evaluate the site and the activity to determine whether the environmental effects
of the proposed project were sufficiently analyzed under the El Camino Real / Chestnut Area Plan program
EIR. (CEQA Guidelines section 15168(c)(4)).
On July 27, 2011, the City Council certified a programmatic EIR (Final EIR for the El Camino Real / Chestnut
Area Plan, State Clearinghouse #2010072015). The program EIR assessed the potential environmental impacts
resulting from implementation of the ECR/C Area Plan, which established new land use, development, and
urban design regulations for the area over a 20-year planning period. The City Council also adopted a
Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) on July 27, 2011, which carefully considered each significant
and unavoidable impact identified in the EIR and found that the significant environmental impacts were
acceptable in light of the economic, legal, social, technological and other benefits associated with
City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/18/2024Page 14 of 16
powered by Legistar™20
File #:18-102 Agenda Date:2/28/2018
Version:1 Item #:2.
acceptable in light of the economic, legal, social, technological and other benefits associated with
implementation of the ECR/C Area Plan.
The ECA demonstrates that even if the project was not categorically and statutorily exempt from CEQA, it
would still qualify for streamlining pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15168. In addition, the ECA analysis
further supports the above-stated exemptions by concluding that all environmental effects stemming from the
project were previously analyzed and no event pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21166 has occurred
since preparation and certification of the ECR/C program EIR.
In order to support the ECA analysis, the applicant provided the following technical studies, which were peer
reviewed by City staff and consultants (attached to the Associated CEQA Resolution as Exhibits B-H):
·Geotechnical Investigation, Rockridge Geotechnical
·Traffic and Circulation Analysis, Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
·Archaeological Report, Holman & Associates Archaeological Consultants (per State law, this report
may contain confidential information regarding archaeological resources, and thus is not available for
public review)
·Phase 1 Historic Resources Evaluation, Holman & Associates Archaeological Consultants
·Noise Assessment, Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc.
·Solar Study, KTGY Architects
·Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring Memo, Carlson, Barbee & Gibson
·Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (Executive Summary), Engeo Inc.
The ECA established the following:
1. This subsequent Project is within the scope of the project covered by the Final Program EIR for the
City’s ECR/C Area Plan and the Civic Center Project Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
(SEIR).
2. This subsequent Project will have no additional significant environmental effects not discussed or
identified in the ECR/C Program EIR or SEIR.
3. No new or additional mitigation measures or alternatives are required for the Project’s impacts to be less
than significant. All applicable policies, regulations, and mitigation measures identified in the ECR/C
Program EIR and SEIR will be applied to this subsequent Project or otherwise made conditions of
approval of this subsequent Project.
CONCLUSION
The proposed project seeks to transform underutilized and vacant parcels into a high-density mixed-use and
residential development that will provide new opportunities for residents, retail spaces, and an improved
pedestrian environment along both El Camino Real and Chestnut Avenue. The project furthers the City’s goals
for improving and activating the El Camino Real corridor, providing residential opportunities, and enhancing
the bicycle and pedestrian environment. In addition, the proposed development conforms to the vision
articulated in the General Plan, and is consistent with the standards and guidelines of the ECR/C Area Plan, as
City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/18/2024Page 15 of 16
powered by Legistar™21
File #:18-102 Agenda Date:2/28/2018
Version:1 Item #:2.
applicable with the exception requests.
For these reasons, staff recommends that the City Council take the following actions:
1. Adopt a resolution making findings and a determination that the Project is exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines sections 15332 and 15183, per Public
Resources Code section 21155.4; and that the project is within the scope of the El Camino
Real/Chestnut Area Plan pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15168; and
2. Adopt a resolution making findings and approving the entitlements request for Project P17-0060
including Use Permit (UP17-0013), Design Review (DR17-0049), Transportation Demand Management
Plan (TDM17-0006), and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map (PM17-0004), subject to the draft Conditions of
Approval.
Attachments
1. PG&E Developer Review Letter
2. Property Owner Letter to Planning Commission
3. Planning Commission Resolution #2816-2018
4. Planning Commission Meeting Draft Minutes, February 1, 2018
5. 988 El Camino Real PowerPoint Presentation
6. Applicant Letter to City Council
City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/18/2024Page 16 of 16
powered by Legistar™22
Pipeline Services 6111 Bollinger Canyon Rd Facility Integrity Management San Ramon, CA 94583
Asset and Risk Management Phone: 800.PGE.5000
Gas Operations pipelinesafety@pge.com
1
Subject: Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) Gas Transmission Pipeline Development
Plan Review: Safety Aspects when working near High-Pressure Natural Gas Pipelines
To Whom it May Concern,
The Summerhill Apartment Community 988 El Camino Real project is located in close
proximity to L-132, which is situated within a 50-ft wide PG&E pipeline easement and
its position within the easement is believed to be centered within the strip. The
structures and site work in the conceptual site plans (dated 12/01/2017) submitted to
PG&E appear to be compatible with the easement agreement for this property.
However, it is imperative that this development project, and all proposed construction
work associated with it, not impair the integrity of the gas lines. This not only includes
the immediate safety risk to workers during construction, but the long-term public
safety aspect of this critical piece of infrastructure as well. PG&E requires adequate
access at all times to patrol, survey, excavate, inspect, test, and otherwise maintain the
pipelines on a continuous basis in accordance with the Code of Federal Regulations
Title 49 Section 192 mandated by the United States Department of Transportation and
adopted by the State of California Public Utilities Commission in General Order 112E.
Below you will find bullet points with general PG&E safety requirements for work
around the pipeline easement.
**IMPORTANT--A standby mechanic must be present during any excavations
within 10 feet of the gas line. This is required by law, pursuant to California
Government Code Section 4216. This inspection can be coordinated through the
Underground Service Alert (USA) service at 811 or 1-800-227-2600**
1. Grading/Excavation: PG&E requires a minimum of existing grade or 36 inches of
cover over gas lines (whichever is less). Any excavations, including grading work,
above or around the gas transmission facilities must be performed while a PG&E
inspector is present. This includes all laterals, subgrades, gas line depth verifications
(potholes), etc. Any plans to expose and support a PG&E gas transmission pipeline
across an open excavation need to be approved by PG&E Pipeline Engineering in
writing PRIOR to performing the work.
2. Structures: No structures are to be built on the easements. This includes fences,
water fountains, pools, ponds, decks, patios, building overhangs, signs, carports,
septic or other tanks, leach fields, bioswale areas, storage sheds, loading ramps, or
similar.
23
2
3. Substructures: All utility crossings must be as close to perpendicular as feasible
(90° +/- 15°) to the 30 inch gas pipeline and a minimum of 24 inch separation
between the pipeline and such utilities must be maintained. Parallel utilities,
electroliers, water lines, ‘kicker blocks’, storm drain inlets, drainage outlets, water
meters, valves, back pressure devices or other utility substructures cannot be
allowed in the PG&E easement/right of way or within 10 feet of the pipeline,
whichever is greater.
4. Retired PG&E Facilities: If previously retired PG&E facilities are in conflict with
proposed substructures, PG&E must verify they are safe prior to removal. This
includes verification testing of the contents of the facilities, as well as
environmental testing of the coating and internal surfaces. Timelines for PG&E
completion of this verification will vary depending on the type and location of
facilities in conflict.
5. Landscaping: Trees or deep rooted shrubs shall not be located within 10 feet of
edge of the 20”/34” pipe (pipe zone). Trees less than 12 inches in diameter with
non-intrusive root structures can be placed outside of the 10 foot pipe zone. Please
see the attached “Guide to Safe Landscaping Near Gas Pipelines” flyer for
suggestion on plant types that may be located within the PG&E easement.
6. Construction loading: Care must be taken to ensure the safety of the pipeline and
the public. There are wheel loading restrictions over the pipeline which will limit
the construction equipment used during road/site grading and building operations
over the pipeline. Minimally invasive construction techniques must be utilized to
minimize damage to the pipeline coating or the pipeline itself. For compaction,
please use walk-behind compaction equipment if within 2-feet of the pipeline. At
greater than 2-ft, use only equipment that meets the Wheel Loading limits shown
below. These limits will be enforced within 10 feet of the pipeline:
Wheel Weight Limits –
PGE L-132
988 El Camino, South San Francisco
COVER Lb. per wheel
2 ft 17,000
3 ft 30,000
4 ft 46,000
5 ft 65,000
6 ft 89,000
7. Cathodic Protection: The active Gas Transmission pipelines in the project area are
protected from corrosion with an “Impressed Current” Cathodic Protection System.
Any proposed substructures/facilities, such as metal conduit, pipes, service lines,
24
3
ground rods, anodes, wires, etc. that may affect the pipeline Cathodic Protection
System will require review and approval by PG&E Corrosion Engineering.
8.Pipeline Markers: PG&E requires pipeline markers be placed along the pipeline
route in order to ensure public awareness of the presence of the pipeline, as well as
allow visual confirmation of the pipeline location during aerial patrols. Any
existing markers will be temporarily relocated to accommodate construction work,
but disk or post markers must be reinstalled at the property lines and public road
crossings at a minimum.
9.Boring/Trenchless Installations and Tie-Back installations: PG&E must review and
approve of 3rd party plans to bore across or parallel to (within 10 feet) a gas
transmission pipeline. There are stringent criteria to pothole the gas transmission
facilities at regular intervals for all parallel bore installations. A PG&E Standby
Inspector must be present during all pothole and boring/trenchless
installations within 10 feet of the pipelines.
10.Fencing: Care must be taken to ensure the safety and accessibility of the pipelines.
No parallel fencing will be allowed within the easements, and any perpendicular
fencing will require a minimum of 14 foot access gates, secured with PG&E
corporation locks. Any temporary construction fencing must be coordinated with
PG&E Operations personnel, and a PG&E corporation lock placed on the gate, to
allow PG&E access to the Gas Transmission Pipeline Easement at all times
Feel free to contact me if there are any questions or concerns with the above
information.
Sincerely,
Jon Freedman
Gas Transmission Pipeline Engineer
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
408-282-7128 office
25
RESOLUTION NO. 2816-2018
PLANNING COMMISSION, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE THE ENTITLEMENTS REQUEST (P17-0060, UP17-0013, DR17-
0049, TDM17-0006, AND PM17-0004) TO CONSTRUCT A NEW SIX-STORY MIXED-
USE BUILDING WITH A TOTAL OF 172 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND
APPROXIMATELY 10,900 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL AT 988 EL CAMINO REAL
(COLLECTIVELY REFERRED TO AS “988 EL CAMINO REAL” OR “PROJECT”)
AND MAKE A DETERMINATION THAT THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO CEQA
GUIDELINES SECTIONS 15332 AND 15183, AND PER PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE
SECTION 21155.4, AND THAT THE PROJECT IS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE EL
CAMINO REAL/CHESTNUT AVENUE AREA PLAN (“ECR/C PLAN”) PURSUANT
TO CEQA GUIDELINE SECTION 15168.
WHEREAS, the applicant has proposed construction of a high-density mixed-use residential
development, consisting of 172 residential units, 10,900 sq. ft. of retail space, and 259 parking
spaces over 1.67 acres at 988 El Camino Real, APNs 011-325-030, 011-325-070, 011-325-260,
and 011-014-280 (collectively referred to as “Project Site”) in the City; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Project is located within the El Camino Real / Chestnut Area Plan
(“ECR/C”) area; and
WHEREAS, the applicant seeks approval of a Conditional Use Permit (UP17-0013), Design
Review (DR17-0049), Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM17-0006), and Vesting
Tentative Parcel Map (PM17-0004) for the Project; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a separate request for vacation of the Mission Road
Public Utilities Easement, which is consistent with the City’s General Plan and ECR/C Area Plan
policies, and will enable development of a mixed-use, residential building at this site; and
WHEREAS, approval of the applicant’s proposal is considered a “project” for purposes of the
California Environmental Quality Act, Pub. Resources Code §21000, et seq. (“CEQA”); and
WHEREAS, the City Council certified an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) on July 27,
2011 (State Clearinghouse number 2010072015 ), 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 development of
the ECR/C Area Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council also adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations (“SOC”)
on July 27, 2011 , in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
29
(Public Resources Code, §§ 21000, et seq., “CEQA”) and CEQA Guidelines, which carefully
considered each significant and unavoidable impact identified in the EIR and found that the
significant environmental impacts are acceptable in light of the ECR/C Area Plan’s economic,
legal, social, technological and other benefits; and
WHEREAS, the City Council certified a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (“SEIR”)
on December 13, 2017 (State Clearinghouse number 1996032052) 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
amendments to the ECR/C Area Plan and adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program;
WHEREAS, the Project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15332 as it
is a qualified in-fill development project; and
WHEREAS, the Project is also exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section
15183, as it is consistent with the General Plan and the ECR/C Area Plan and would have no
environmental impacts that would be peculiar to the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Project is also exempt from CEQA pursuant to Public Resources Code section
per Public Resources Code section 21155.4 as the project is a mixed-use development project
that meets three specific criteria and has no new or more significant impacts than disclosed in the
EIR and applicable portions of the SEIR (“EIRs”), and is statutorily exempt from CEQA review;
and
WHEREAS, the City and applicant prepared an Environmental Consistency Analysis for the
Project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15183 and an Environmental Checklist pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines § 15168(c)(4) that concluded that even if the Project was not exempt from
CEQA pursuant to the above-listed exemptions, in accordance with the requirements of CEQA
Guidelines § 15168, the Project is within the scope of the ECR/C Area Plan and would not result
in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of any
previously identified effects beyond those disclosed and analyzed in the ECR/C EIRs certified by
City Council nor would new mitigation be required; and
WHEREAS, on February 1, 2018, the Planning Commission for the City of South San Francisco
held a lawfully noticed public hearing to solicit public comment and consider the proposed
entitlements and environmental effects of the Project and take public testimony.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the record before it,
which includes without limitation, the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources
Code §21000, et seq. (“CEQA”) and the CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of Regulations
§15000, et seq.; the South San Francisco General Plan and General Plan EIR; the El Camino /
Chestnut Area Plan and Area Plan Program EIR; the SEIR; the South San Francisco Municipal
Code; the Project applications; the Project Plans, as prepared by KTGY Architects, dated
December 1, 2017; the Environmental Consistency Analysis, as prepared by the applicant and
City staff, including all appendices thereto; all site plans, and all reports, minutes, and public
30
testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission’s duly noticed February 1, 2018
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
General
1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution.
2. The Exhibits attached to this Resolution, including the 988 El Camino Real Entitlement
Plan Set Submittal (Exhibit A), Applicant Support Statement (Exhibit B), the Draft
Conditions of Approval (Exhibit C), The Draft Transportation Demand Management Plan
(Exhibit D), the GreenPoint Scorecard (Exhibit E), The Development Conformance
Checklist (Exhibit F), the Environmental Consistency Analysis, as prepared by the
applicant and City staff (Exhibit G), and Environmental Consistency Analysis Supporting
Documents (Exhibits H-M) 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 Planning Manager, Sailesh
Mehra.
CEQA Findings
1. For the reasons stated in this Resolution, the Project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines § 15332: Class 32 as an infill development project because:
a. As described in the record, the Project is consistent with the City’s General Plan,
all applicable General Plan policies and zoning designations and regulations.
b. The Project will be located within the City’s limits, on a site of less than 5 acres
and will be surrounded by urban uses in a built-out environment.
c. The Project site no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species as it
is in a built-out environment and is currently disturbed as the site of an existing
carwash and parking areas.
d. As supported by the findings of the ECA, approval of the Project would not result
in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality or water quality.
e. The Project can be adequately serviced by all required utilities and public
services.
2. For the reasons stated in this Resolution, the Project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines § 15183 as the Project is consistent with a Community Plan, General
Plan or Zoning because as supported by the findings of the ECA:
31
a. The Project is consistent with the development density established by existing
ECR/C zoning, Area Plan, and General Plan policies for which the ECR/C Area
Plan Program EIR was certified.
b. There are no project-specific effects which are peculiar to the project or its site.
c. There are no project-specific impacts which the ECR/C Area Plan Program EIR
failed to analyze as significant effects.
d. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which the
ECR/C Area Plan Program EIR failed to evaluate.
e. There is no substantial new information which results in more severe impacts than
anticipated by the ECR/C Program EIR
3. For the reasons stated in this Resolution, there is not substantial evidence in the record to
support a fair argument that approval of the Project will result in significant
environmental effects beyond those adequately evaluated and addressed by the ECR/C
Program EIRs nor would the Project require any new mitigation measures and therefore
the Project is within the scope of the ECR/C Area Plan pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
section 15168 because:
a. The Project does not propose substantial changes to the ECR/C Area Plan Project,
which will require major revisions of the ECR/C Program EIRs due to the
involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in
the severity of previously identified significant effects;
b. No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under
which the ECR/C Project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the
ECR/C Program EIRs due to the involvement of new significant effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
c. No new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could
not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the
ECR/C Program EIRs was certified as complete, shows any of the following:
i. The Project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the
ECR/C Program EIRs;
ii. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe
than shown in the previous EIRs;
iii. 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
32
iv. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from
those analyzed in the ECR/C Program EIRs would substantially reduce one
or more significant effects on the environment, but the Project proponents
decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
4. For reasons stated in this Resolution, the project is statutorily exempt from CEQA per
Public Resources Code section 21155.4 as it is a mixed-use transit priority project as
defined by SB 375, and meets the following criteria:
a. The project is proposed within a transit priority area, as it is within one-half mile
of an existing major transit stop that is served by at least two major bus routes
with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and
afternoon peak commute periods; and
b. The project implements and is consistent with the ECR/C Chestnut Area Plan,
which was approved pursuant to a certified Program EIR; and
c. The project is consistent is with the general use designation, density, building
intensity, and applicable policies for the ECR/C Area in Plan Bay Area 2040,
which is the Bay Area Sustainable Communities Strategy.
5. Based upon the testimony and information presented at the hearing and upon review and
consideration of the environmental documentation provided, including but not limited to
the Environmental Consistency Analysis, as prepared by City staff and the applicant,
attached hereto as Exhibit G, the Planning Commission, exercising its independent
judgment and analysis, finds that the Project is statutorily and categorically exempt from
CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15332: Class 32, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §
15183, and pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21155.4, the Project falls within the
environmental parameters analyzed in the ECR/C EIRs, and further finds that the Project
is within the scope of the ECR/C Area Plan pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15168
because the Project would not result in any new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified effects beyond those
disclosed and analyzed in the ECR/C Program EIRs certified by City Council nor would
new mitigation be required by the Project. These findings are supported by the fact that,
the project implements the policies of the ECR/C Area Plan, and the Project prepared an
Historic Resources Analysis, an Archaeological Report, a Geotechnical Investigation, a
Solar Study, a Noise Assessment, a Traffic and Circulation Analysis, and a Sewer
Analysis, all of which determined that the Project would not result in any new impacts
not adequately evaluated and addressed by the ECR/C Program EIR and Statement of
Overriding Considerations.
Conditional Use Permit
1. The proposed use is allowed within the El Camino Real/Chestnut Mixed-Use High
Density (ECR/C-MXH) Zoning District and complies with all other applicable provisions
of this Ordinance and all other titles of the South San Francisco Municipal Code.
33
2. The proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan and the El Camino
Real/Chestnut Area Plan by creating a high-density residential mixed-use project that
emphasizes active retail storefronts, pedestrian and bicycle improvements, connection to
transit, and that implements the goals of the El Camino Real/Chestnut Area Plan, and is
consistent with the City’s Design Guidelines as they relate to building design, form and
articulation.
3. The proposed residential use will not be adverse to the public health, safety, or general
welfare of the community, nor detrimental to surrounding properties or improvements,
because the proposed use is consistent with the approved uses in both the General Plan
and El Camino Real/Chestnut Area Plan. The Project proposes high-density mixed-uses
located in the City’s El Camino Real/Chestnut Area plan area, which is intended for this
type of use, and would be redeveloping underutilized parcels that are adjacent to the
future City Civic Center. The General Plan has analyzed this type of use and concluded
that such mixed-uses are not adverse to the public health, safety, or welfare. As the
proposed Project is consistent with other mixed-use and residential land uses in the El
Camino Real/Chestnut Mixed-Use High Density District, approval of the Project will not
be detrimental to nearby properties. Further, the proposed use is well suited to the site,
and would improve the property for surrounding users and the City. In addition, the
Environmental Consistency Analysis prepared for the Project concludes that the as a
result of the Project no new environmental effects would result from the Project beyond
those previously analyzed and addressed in the ECR/C EIR.
4. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed Project are
compatible with the existing and reasonably foreseeable future land uses in the vicinity
because the Project proposes residential and mixed-uses in the El Camino Real/Chestnut
Mixed-Use High Density District, which is specifically intended for such uses.
5. With the exception of the commercial frontage and location of parking exceptions, as
discussed below, the proposed project complies with any design or development
standards applicable to the zoning district or the use in question and has been vetted and
recommended for approval by the City’s Design Review Board at their meetings on
August 15, 2017 and December 19, 2017.
6. The site is physically suitable for the type of development and density proposed, as the
residential use will benefit from being located in close proximity to the South San
Francisco BART Station, future Civic Center and mixed-use sites on El Camino Real,
and pedestrian and bicycle amenities, and the size and development is appropriate for the
location and meets the City’s land use and zoning standards, as amended by the
Conditional Use Permit process. Access to the site via existing roadways is sufficient as
the project is within a built-out urban environment, utilities are provided on-site or
proposed for minor upgrades, and no physical constraints such as topography or lack of
facilities exists that would prevent suitable development.
7. Per South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 20.270.004, El Camino Real/Chestnut
Additional Development Standards, an increase in FAR and density may be achieved in
the ECR/C-MXH District through a combination of the following elements: a
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures, projects that include high
34
quality, innovative design and product type, and maximum provision for pedestrian and
bicycle use, provision of off-site improvements, and provision of green building
measures over and above SSFMC requirements. The City Council shall review any
request for an increased Density and FAR, subject to a Conditional Use Permit. The
proposed mixed-use development has provided robust TDM program intended to reduce
peak-hour vehicle trips, high-quality architectural design and materials, bicycle amenities
including private and public and private bike parking spaces, a bike repair area, and direct
linkages to the Centennial Way Trail, pedestrian improvements to the sidewalks on El
Camino Real and Chestnut Avenues, off-site improvements in the form of publicly
accessible open space on private property and extending to Centennial Way Trail, an
improved intersection at Chestnut Avenue and Antoinette Lane, and a Green Building
plan beyond what is required by the SSFMC. Thus, the project is meeting the
requirements for the requested FAR and density.
8. Per South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 20.270.005 (C), El Camino
Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan Supplemental Regulations, Depth of Required
Commercial Frontage, the minimum average depth of the required commercial frontage
shall be 65 feet for parcels less than 100 feet in depth, and a reduced average depth of 55
feet for parcels less than 100 feet in depth may be approved to allow for efficient site
layout and site configuration. The proposed commercial depth of 56 feet and 8 inches is
appropriate, given the site’s irregular size and site constraints, and will help to provide
active commercial street frontages on both El Camino Real and Chestnut Avenue. Thus,
the project is meeting the exception requirements for Required Commercial Frontage.
9. Per South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 20.270.005 (I) Limitations on Location
of Parking, above-ground parking may not be located within 40 feet of a street-facing
property line or BART right-of-way. The project proposes twelve surface commercial
and visitor parking spaces approximately 30 feet from the property line that is adjacent to
the BART right-of-way. The PG&E easement constrains the site, and prevents this
parking from being located within the structure. The parking area will be screened by
trees and landscaping, which will buffer the pedestrian right-of-way. Thus, the project is
meeting the exception requirements for Limitations on Location of Parking.
10. The Project is statutorily and categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant CEQA
Guidelines § 15332: Class 32 and § 15183, and Public Resources Code § 21155.4. In
addition, an environmental determination has been prepared for the Project in accordance
with CEQA as the City prepared an Environmental Consistency Analysis in accordance
with the requirements of CEQA Guidelines § 15168(c), which concluded that the Project
would not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in
the severity of any previously identified effects beyond those disclosed and analyzed in
the ECR/C EIRs certified by City Council nor would any new mitigation be required.
Design Review
1. The Project, including Design Review, is consistent with Title 20 of the South San
Francisco Municipal Code because the Project has been designed as a high-density
mixed-use and residential project which will provide a pedestrian-friendly, transit-
oriented environment with sustainability elements incorporated.
35
2. The Project, including Design Review, is consistent with the General Plan and the ECR/C
Area Plan, because the proposed high-density residential development is consistent with
the policies and design direction provided in the South San Francisco General Plan for
the El Camino Real/Chestnut Mixed-Use, High Density land use designation by
encouraging the development of new residential units within close proximity to the
BART Station and within the ECR/C plan area, by activating the streetscape on Chestnut
Avenue and El Camino Real, and by providing ground-floor retail and active uses.
3. The Project, including Design Review, is consistent with the applicable design guidelines
adopted by the City Council in that the proposed Project is consistent with the El Camino
Real/Chestnut Area Plan Design Guidelines, as evaluated in the Zoning Ordinance
Compliance analysis for the Project.
4. The Project is consistent with the Use Permit for the reasons stated in the section above.
5. The Project is consistent with the applicable design review criteria in South San
Francisco Municipal Code Section 20.480.006 (“Design Review Criteria”) because the
project has been evaluated by the Design Review Board on August 15, 2017 and
December 19, 2017, and found to be consistent with each of the eight design review
criteria included in the Design Review Criteria” section of the Ordinance.
Vesting Tentative Parcel Map
1. The proposed vesting tentative parcel map, prepared by CBG Engineering and dated
December 1, 2017, including the proposed designs and improvements, is consistent with
the City’s General Plan and El Camino Real / Chestnut Sub-Area because the tentative
map would facilitate the infill and development of a mixed-use residential project which
would implement the goals of the ECR/C Area Plan.
2. The proposed vesting tentative parcel map is consistent with the standards and
requirements of the City’s Zoning Ordinance and with the provisions of the ECR/C Area
Plan.
3. The vesting tentative parcel map complies and meets all of the requirements of Title 19
of the South San Francisco Municipal Code (“Subdivisions”) and with the requirements
of the State Subdivision Map Act.
4. The Project site is physically suitable for the type of development and density proposed,
as the mixed-use residential project will be located on underutilized parcels on El Camino
Real which calls for a mix of vibrant commercial and residential uses, active frontages,
and open space connections in the ECR/C plan area.
5. The vesting tentative parcel map is consistent with the analysis included in the already
certified ECR/C EIR, and the approval of this vesting tentative map would not result in
any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of any
previously identified effects beyond those disclosed and analyzed in the ECR/C EIR
certified by City Council, nor does the vesting tentative parcel map constitute a change in
36
the Project or change in circumstances that would require additional environmental
review.
6. The design and improvements of the vesting tentative parcel map are not in conflict with
any existing public easements.
7. The property is located in a developed, urban setting, and is not subject to a Williamson
Act contract, on open space easement, a conservation easement, or an agricultural
conservation easement. The surrounding land uses and resulting parcels would not
support agricultural uses; the resulting parcels would result in mixed-use development
not incidental to commercial agricultural use of the land.
Transportation Demand Management Program
1. The project’s proposed trip reduction measures are feasible and appropriate for the
project, considering the proposed use or mix of uses and the project’s location, size, and
hours of operation.
2. The proposed performance guarantees will ensure that the target alternative mode use
established for the project by Section 20.400 and the ECR/C Area Plan will be achieved
and maintained.
SECTION 2 DETERMINATION
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City
of South San Francisco hereby makes the findings contained in this Resolution, and recommends
City Council approval of entitlements request for 988 El Camino Real (P17-0060, UP17-0013,
DR17-0049, TDM17-006, and PM17-0004), and a determination that the Project is statutorily
and categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15332: Class 32, Public
Resources Code § 21155.4, and CEQA Guidelines §15183 and the Project is within the scope of
the ECR/C Area Plan under CEQA Guidelines § 15168 because the environmental effects of the
Project were sufficiently analyzed under the El Camino Real/Chestnut Area Plan (ECR/C)
Program Environmental Impact Report and Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIRs),
per the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as analyzed in the
Environmental Consistency Analysis subject to the attached Conditions of Approval.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the resolution shall become effective immediately
upon its passage and adoption.
* * * * * * *
I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the
City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting held on the 1st day of February, 2018 by the
following vote:
37
AYES: Chairperson Faria Commissioner Shihadeh, Commissioner Wong, Commissioner
Murphy, Commissioner Tzang
NOES: Vice Chairperson Nagales
ABSTENTIONS______________________
ABSENT:
Attest_/s/Sailesh Mehra__________
Secretary to the Planning Commission
38
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:18-103 Agenda Date:2/28/2018
Version:1 Item #:2a.
Resolution making findings and a determination that the 988 El Camino Real mixed-use project is exempt from
the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines sections
15332 and 15183, and per Public Resources Code section 21155.4, and that the Project is within the scope of
the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines
section 15168.
WHEREAS, the SummerHill Homes has proposed construction of a high-density mixed-use residential
development, consisting of 172 residential units, 10,900 sq. ft. of retail space, and 259 parking spaces over 1.67
acres at 988 El Camino Real, APNs 011-325-030, 011-325-070, 011-325-260, and 011-014-280 (collectively
referred to as the “Project”) in the City of South San Francisco (“City”); and
WHEREAS, the proposed Project is located within the El Camino Real / Chestnut Area Plan (“ECR/C”) area;
and
WHEREAS, the applicant seeks approval of a Conditional Use Permit (UP17-0013), Design Review (DR17-
0049), Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM17-0006), and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map (PM17-
0004) for the Project; and
WHEREAS, approval of the applicant’s proposal is considered a “project” for purposes of the California
Environmental Quality Act, Pub. Resources Code §21000, et seq. (CEQA); and
WHEREAS, the City Council certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on July 27, 2011 (State
Clearinghouse number 2010072015), in accordance with the provisions of the CEQA (Public Resources Code,
§§ 21000, et seq., CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines, which analyzed the potential environmental impacts of the
development of the ECR/C Area Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council also adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) on July 27, 2011 ,
in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code, §§
21000, et seq., CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines, which carefully considered each significant and unavoidable
impact identified in the EIR and found that the significant environmental impacts are acceptable in light of the
ECR/C Area Plan’s economic, legal, social, technological and other benefits; and
City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/18/2024Page 1 of 6
powered by Legistar™70
File #:18-103 Agenda Date:2/28/2018
Version:1 Item #:2a.
WHEREAS, the City Council certified a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) on December 13,
2017 (State Clearinghouse number 1996032052) in accordance with the provisions of the CEQA (Public
Resources Code, §§ 21000, et seq., CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines, which analyzed the potential environmental
impacts of amendments to the ECR/C Area Plan and adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program;
and
WHEREAS, the Project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15332 as it is a qualified
in-fill development project; and
WHEREAS, the Project is also exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15183, as it is
consistent with the General Plan and the ECR/C Area Plan and would have no environmental impacts that
would be peculiar to the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Project is also exempt from CEQA pursuant to Public Resources Code section per Public
Resources Code section 21155.4 as the Project is a mixed-use development project that meets three specific
criteria and has no new or more significant impacts than disclosed in the EIR and applicable portions of the
SEIR (“EIRs”), and is statutorily exempt from CEQA review; and
WHEREAS, the City and applicant prepared an Environmental Consistency Analysis (“ECA”) for the Project
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15183 and an Environmental Checklist pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15168
(c)(4) that concluded that even if the Project was not exempt from CEQA pursuant to the above-listed
exemptions, in accordance with the requirements of CEQA Guidelines § 15168, the Project is within the scope
of the ECR/C Area Plan and would not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial
increase in the severity of any previously identified effects beyond those disclosed and analyzed in the ECR/C
EIRs certified by City Council nor would new mitigation be required; and
WHEREAS, on February 1, 2018, the Planning Commission for the City of South San Francisco held a
lawfully noticed public hearing to solicit public comment and consider the proposed entitlements and
environmental effects of the Project and take public testimony; and
WHEREAS, on February 28, 2018, the City Council for the City of South San Francisco held a lawfully
noticed public hearing to solicit public comment and consider the proposed entitlements and environmental
effects of the Project, and take public testimony; and
WHEREAS, the City Council exercised its independent judgment and analysis, and considered all reports,
recommendations, and testimony before making a determination on the Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the record before it, which includes
without limitation, the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code §21000, et seq. (CEQA)
City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/18/2024Page 2 of 6
powered by Legistar™71
File #:18-103 Agenda Date:2/28/2018
Version:1 Item #:2a.
without limitation, the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code §21000, et seq. (CEQA)
and the CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of Regulations §15000, et seq.; the South San Francisco General
Plan and General Plan EIR; the El Camino / Chestnut Area Plan and Area Plan Program EIR and Statement of
Overriding Considerations; the SEIR; the South San Francisco Municipal Code (“SSFMC”); the Environmental
Consistency Analysis, as prepared by the applicant and City staff, including all appendices thereto; all site
plans, and all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the City Council’s duly noticed
February 28, 2018 meeting; and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e)
and §21082.2), the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby finds as follows:
SECTION 1 FINDINGS
General
1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution.
2. The Exhibits attached to this resolution, including the Environmental Consistency Analysis, as prepared
by the applicant and City staff (Exhibit A), and Environmental Consistency Analysis Supporting
Documents (Exhibits B-H) 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 Planning Manager, Sailesh Mehra.
CEQA Findings
1. For the reasons stated in this Resolution, the Project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines § 15332: Class 32 as an infill development project because:
a. As described in the record, the Project is consistent with the City’s General Plan, all applicable
General Plan policies and zoning designations and regulations.
b. The Project will be located within the City’s limits, on a site of less than 5 acres and will be
surrounded by urban uses in a built-out environment.
c. The Project site no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species as it is in a built-
out environment and is currently disturbed as the site of an existing carwash and parking areas.
d. As supported by the findings of the ECA, approval of the Project would not result in any
significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality or water quality.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/18/2024Page 3 of 6
powered by Legistar™72
File #:18-103 Agenda Date:2/28/2018
Version:1 Item #:2a.
e. The Project can be adequately serviced by all required utilities and public services.
2. For the reasons stated in this Resolution, the Project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines § 15183 as the Project is consistent with a Community Plan, General Plan or Zoning because
as supported by the findings of the ECA:
a. The Project is consistent with the development density established by existing ECR/C zoning,
Area Plan, and General Plan policies for which the ECR/C Area Plan Program EIR was certified.
b. There are no project-specific effects which are peculiar to the Project or its site.
c. There are no project-specific impacts which the ECR/C Area Plan Program EIR failed to analyze
as significant effects.
d. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which the ECR/C Area
Plan Program EIR failed to evaluate.
e. There is no substantial new information which results in more severe impacts than anticipated by
the ECR/C Program EIR
3. For the reasons stated in this Resolution, there is not substantial evidence in the record to support a fair
argument that approval of the Project will result in significant environmental effects beyond those
adequately evaluated and addressed by the ECR/C Program EIRs nor would the Project require any new
mitigation measures and therefore the Project is within the scope of the ECR/C Area Plan pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines section 15168 because:
a. The Project does not propose substantial changes to the ECR/C Area Plan Project, which will
require major revisions of the ECR/C Program EIRs due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant
effects;
b. No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the ECR/C
Project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the ECR/C Program EIRs due to the
involvement of new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified significant effects;
c. No new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been
known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the ECR/C Program EIRs was
certified as complete, shows any of the following:
i. The Project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the ECR/C
City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/18/2024Page 4 of 6
powered by Legistar™73
File #:18-103 Agenda Date:2/28/2018
Version:1 Item #:2a.
i. The Project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the ECR/C
Program EIRs;
ii. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in
the previous EIRs;
iii. 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
iv. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed
in the ECR/C Program EIRs would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on
the environment, but the Project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or
alternative.
4. For reasons stated in this resolution, the Project is statutorily exempt from CEQA per Public Resources
Code section 21155.4 as it is a mixed-use transit priority project as defined by Senate Bill (SB) 375, and
meets the following criteria:
a. The Project is proposed within a transit priority area, as it is within one-half mile of an existing
major transit stop that is served by at least two major bus routes with a frequency of service
interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods; and
b. The Project implements and is consistent with the ECR/C Chestnut Area Plan, which was
approved pursuant to a certified Program EIR; and
c. The Project is consistent is with the general use designation, density, building intensity, and
applicable policies for the ECR/C Area in Plan Bay Area 2040, which is the Bay Area
Sustainable Communities Strategy.
5. Based upon the testimony and information presented at the hearing and upon review and consideration
of the environmental documentation provided, including but not limited to the Environmental
Consistency Analysis, as prepared by City staff and the applicant, attached hereto as Exhibit A the City
Council, exercising its independent judgment and analysis, finds that the Project is statutorily and
categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15332: Class 32, pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines § 15183, and pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21155.4, the Project falls within the
environmental parameters analyzed in the ECR/C EIRs, and further finds that the Project is within the
scope of the ECR/C Area Plan pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15168 because the Project would not
City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/18/2024Page 5 of 6
powered by Legistar™74
File #:18-103 Agenda Date:2/28/2018
Version:1 Item #:2a.
scope of the ECR/C Area Plan pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15168 because the Project would not
result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of any
previously identified effects beyond those disclosed and analyzed in the ECR/C Program EIRs certified
by City Council nor would new mitigation be required by the Project. These findings are supported by
the fact that, the Project implements the policies of the ECR/C Area Plan, and the Project prepared an
Historic Resources Analysis, an Archaeological Report, a Geotechnical Investigation, a Solar Study, a
Noise Assessment, a Traffic and Circulation Analysis, and a Sewer Analysis, all of which determined
that the Project would not result in any new impacts not adequately evaluated and addressed by the
ECR/C Program EIR and Statement of Overriding Considerations.
SECTION 2 DETERMINATION
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby makes the
findings contained in this Resolution and a determination that the Project is statutorily and categorically exempt
from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15332: Class 32, Public
Resources Code § 21155.4, and CEQA Guidelines §15183 and the Project is within the scope of the ECR/C
Area Plan under CEQA Guidelines § 15168 because the environmental effects of the Project were sufficiently
analyzed under the El Camino Real/Chestnut Area Plan (ECR/C) Program Environmental Impact Report and
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIRs), per the requirements of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) as analyzed in the Environmental Consistency Analysis.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and
adoption.
* * * * *
City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/18/2024Page 6 of 6
powered by Legistar™75
988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development
City of South San Francisco
February 2018
Page 1
INTRODUCTION
This document is a Consistency Checklist to examine the environmental effects of the proposed 988 El Camino
Real Mixed-Use Development (the “Project”). This document has been prepared in accordance with the relevant
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970 (as amended) and the State CEQA
Guidelines as implemented by the City of South San Francisco (the “City”). According to Section 15168(c)(2) of
the State CEQA Guidelines, a program EIR can be used in compliance with CEQA to address the effects of a
subsequent activity so long as the activity is within the scope of the project covered by the program EIR and no
new effects are found and no new mitigation measures would be required. As supported by the analysis presented
in this document, the Project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant environmental
effects than what was analyzed in the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue (ECR/C) Area Plan Program EIR
(“ECR/C EIR”) as modified by the Community Civic Campus Project Subsequent EIR (“Civic Project SEIR”).
The ECR/C EIR and Civic Campus SEIR are collectively referred to as the ECR/C EIRs. This document includes
a description of the Project and a comparison of the potential impacts of the Project to those identified in the
ECR/C EIRs.
This document also examines the consistency of the Project with the ECR/C Area Plan for the purposes of CEQA
Guidelines 15183, which allows a streamlined environmental review process for projects that are consistent with
the densities established by existing zoning, community plan or general plan policies for which an EIR was
certified.
BACKGROUND
On July 27, 2011, after public review and comment, the City certified the ECR/C EIR (State Clearinghouse
#2010072015), adopted CEQA findings and a statement of overriding considerations, and adopted the
ECR/C Area Plan. The ECR/C EIR assessed the potential environmental impacts resulting from
implementation of the ECR/C Area Plan and associated General Plan and Zoning Code amendments, which
collectively established new land use, development, and urban design regulations for the Plan Area for a 20-
year planning period.
Subsequent to approval of the ECR/C Area Plan, the City modified it to permit a proposed Community Civic
Center Campus Project and make other minor modifications, including updating the Zoning Code and
General Plan (the “Civic Project”). The Civic Project SEIR reviewed the proposed modifications, concluding
that new mitigation measures would be required from those disclosed in the ECR/C EIR. The City Council
certified the Civic Project SEIR (State Clearinghouse #2010072015), adopted CEQA findings and a
mitigation monitoring and reporting program, and adopted the changes to the ECR/C Area Plan, as well as
associated zoning and General Plan amendments, on December 13, 2017.
The full, original ECR/C EIRs are available for public review at the City of South San Francisco Planning
Division, 315 Maple Avenue, in South San Francisco and online on the City of South San Francisco website
at http://weblink.ssf.net/weblink/Browse.aspx?startid=341385&row=1&dbid=0 and
http://weblink.ssf.net/weblink/0/fol/341385/Row1.aspx. Both of the ECR/C EIRs are incorporated by
reference.
The City has prepared this document to analyze the Project, which meets the relevant development standards
in the General Plan, Zoning Code, and ECR/C Area Plan, and would implement the vision set forth in the
ECR/C Area Plan as amended by the Civic Project (the “Area Plan”).
LEGAL AUTHORITY
CEQA Guidelines Section 15168
The Project is a component of the Area Plan and would implement the vision and goals described in the Area Plan
76
988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development
City of South San Francisco
February 2018
Page 2
for the Project area. CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines establish the type of environmental documentation which is
required for subsequent actions in a program. Specifically, CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines allow for limited
environmental review of subsequent projects within the scope of a project analyzed in a Program EIR. Subsequent
activities in a proposed program are examined in the light of the Program EIR to determine whether an additional
environmental document must be prepared. The CEQA Guidelines require agencies to use checklists or similar
mechanisms to conduct this analysis.
CEQA Guidelines section 15168(c) explains how the City should use the ECR/C EIR with later activities within
the scope of the Area Plan:
Use with Later Activities: Subsequent activities in the program must be examined in the light of the program
EIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared.
1. If a later activity would have effects that were not examined in the program EIR, a new initial study
would need to be prepared leading to either an EIR or a negative declaration.
2. If the agency finds that pursuant to Section 15162, no new effects could occur or no new mitigation
measure would be required, the agency can approve the activity as being within the scope of the
project covered by the program EIR, and no new environmental document would be required.
3. An agency shall incorporate feasible mitigation measures and alternatives developed in the program
EIR into subsequent actions in the program.
4. Where the subsequent activities involve site specific operations, the agency should use a written
checklist or similar device to document the evaluation of the site and the activity to determine
whether the environmental effects of the operation were covered in the program EIR.
5. A program EIR will be most helpful in dealing with subsequent activities if it deals with the effects of
the program as specifically and comprehensively as possible. With a good and detailed analysis of the
program, many subsequent activities could be found to be within the scope of the project described in
the program EIR, and no further environmental documents would be required.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183
The Project also is designed to be consistent with the development standards in the Area Plan and Zoning Code,
which were analyzed in the ECR/C EIRs. CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines mandate that projects consistent with
the development density established by existing zoning policies or community plan for which an EIR was
certified shall not require additional environmental review, except as might be necessary to examine whether there
are project-specific significant effects that are peculiar to the project or its site. Specifically, in approving a project
meeting the requirements of CEQA Guidelines section 15183, the City must limit its examination of
environmental effects to those that the agency determines, in an initial study or other analysis:
1. Are peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project would be located,
2. Were not analyzed as significant effects in a prior EIR on the zoning action, general plan or community
plan with which the project is consistent,
3. Are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts which were not discussed in the prior
EIR prepared for the general plan, community plan or zoning action, or
4. Are previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information which was
not known at the time the EIR was certified, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact than
discussed in the prior EIR.
If an impact is not peculiar to the parcel or to the project, has been addressed as a significant effect in the prior
EIR, or can be substantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards,
then no additional EIR is required to address that impact. Uniformly applied development policies and standards
include those policies in the General Plan, Area Plan, and Municipal Code, as well as applicable regional, state,
77
988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development
City of South San Francisco
February 2018
Page 3
and federal laws.
PURPOSE
One purpose of the Consistency Checklist is to analyze whether the Project is within the scope of the Area Plan
and whether its construction or operation could result in any new or substantially more severe significant
environmental impacts than those identified in the ECR/C EIRs or require new mitigation measures. A second
purpose of this Consistency Checklist is to analyze whether the Project would result in peculiar impacts that was
not analyzed as significant in the ECR/C EIRs and would not be reduced to less-than-significant levels by
uniformly applied development policies or standards. Another purpose of the Consistency Checklist is to make
sure the Project is consistent with the zoning and Area Plan and has no impacts that are peculiar to the Project or
Project site that either were not analyzed in the ECR/C EIRs or would be more severe than previously disclosed
and would not be addressed by uniformly applied development policies or standard.
As determined in the analysis provided in the Consistency Checklist, the Plan will not involve “new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects” that
were not previously identified ECR/C EIRs. Additionally no new mitigation measures would be required;
mitigation measures that were adopted for the ECR/C EIRs continue to remain applicable. The environmental
impacts associated with the Project would be within the scope of impacts analyzed in the ECR/C EIRs and would
not be new or greater. In addition, the Consistency Checklist shows that the Project is consistent with the Area
Plan and zoning and has no impacts that would more severe than discussed in the ECR/C EIRs or that would be
peculiar to the Project or the Project site. On the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, the
City has determined that no further CEQA documentation is required for adoption of the Project because the
Project meets the requirements under CEQA Guidelines section 15168(c) and that the Project qualifies for a
CEQA exemption under CEQA Guidelines section 15183.
OTHER AVAILABLE CEQA EXEMPTIONS
The City has chosen to rely on the CEQA review processes provided by CEQA Guidelines sections 15168 and
15183. Nevertheless, because the Consistency Checklist shows that the Project would have no new or more
significant impacts on the environment than disclosed in the ECR/C EIRs, the Project also may qualify for a few
additional CEQA exemptions related to projects consistent with a Specific Plan that require the same findings.
Although not specifically called a Specific Plan, the Area Plan has all of the information required by Government
Code section 65451: text and diagrams that specify the (1) distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land,
including open space, within the area covered by the plan, (2) distribution, location, and extent and intensity of
major components of public and private transportation, sewage, water, drainage, solid waste disposal, energy, and
other essential facilities proposed to be located within the area covered by the plan and needed to support the land
uses described in the plan, (3) standards and criteria by which development will proceed, and standards for the
conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources, where applicable, and (4) measures including
regulations, programs, public works projects, and financing measures necessary to implement paragraphs (1), (2),
and (3). The Area Plan also includes a statement of its relationship to the General Plan. Accordingly, the CEQA
exemption provided by Public Resources Code section 21155.4 applies to the Project. That section provides that
residential, employment center, and mixed-use development projects that meet three specific criteria and has no
new or more significant impacts than disclosed in applicable EIRs are statutorily exempt from CEQA review. The
first criterion is that the project must be located within a transit priority area, which is “an area within one-half
mile of a major transit stop that is existing or planned.” A major transit stop includes an area served by at least
two major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon
peak commute periods. (Pub. Resources Code § 21064.3.) The second criterion is that the project is undertaken to
implement and is consistent with a specific plan that was approved pursuant to a certified EIR. The third criterion
is that the project is consistent with the general use designation, density, building intensity, and applicable policies
specific for the project area in a sustainable communities strategy (“SCS”). The Consistency Checklist shows the
78
988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development
City of South San Francisco
February 2018
Page 4
Project meets the criteria required to be exempt from CEQA under Public Resources Code section 21155.4.
79
988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development
City of South San Francisco
February 2018
Page 5
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
INITIAL STUDY
AND CONSISTENCY CHECKLIST
1. Project Title
988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development
2. Lead Agency Name and Address
City of South San Francisco
315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
3. Contact Person
Adena Friedman, Senior Planner
Economic and Community Development Department - Planning Division
(650) 877-8535
Adena.friedman@ssf.net
4. Project Location
988 and 998 El Camino Real, South San Francisco, California, APNs: 011-325-030, 011-325-070, 014-
011-260, and 014-011-280. See Figure 1.
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address
Elaine Breeze, Vice President of Development
SummerHill Apartment Communities
777 South California Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94303
ebreeze@shapartments.com
(650) 842-2404
6. General Plan Designation
El Camino Real Mixed Use North, High Intensity
7. Zoning
El Camino Real/Chestnut Mixed Use, High Density (ECR/C-MXH)
8. Project Description
Overview
The Project site consists of approximately 1.67 acres bounded by Chestnut Avenue to the northwest,
Centennial Way Trail to the northeast, a developed commercial site to the southeast, and El Camino Real
to the southwest. The Project site is an infill site that is currently developed with a car wash and
surrounded by other urban uses and is located within the area covered by the Area Plan.
The Project proposes to redevelop the Project site with a mixed residential/commercial development that
would have 172 apartments above approximately 10,915 square feet of commercial space. The Project
would consist of a single building that would be up to six stories tall over two floors of underground
parking. The building would have a contemporary architectural style, using high-quality materials (primarily
80
988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development
City of South San Francisco
February 2018
Page 6
brick and steel) that reference to the City’s historic industrial fabric. The Project also would be consistent
with height limits and development standards for the Project site in the Area Plan and Zoning Code.
Uses
The Project would provide 172 residential units. Additionally, consistent with the Area Plan’s vision, the
Project proposes active uses along its ground-floor frontages on El Camino Real and Chestnut Avenue,
with residential units above. Ground-floor active uses would include residential amenities and retail uses.
Additional proposed active uses include a landscaped open space area along Centennial Way Trail with a
publicly accessible outdoor fitness park.
Below is a list of the Project’s amenities:
• Publicly Accessible Amenities
o Publicly accessible outdoor fitness park on the Project site and, pending landowner
approval, on the adjacent Centennial Way Trail; and
o An outdoor dining area facing the Centennial Way Trail
• Resident Amenities
o Two podium-level landscaped courtyards for resident use that would have lounge areas, fire
pits, outdoor dining, games, BBQs, and a spa;
o A club room off the spa courtyard;
o Cyber cafe on the third floor;
o Ground floor lobby and leasing office; and
o Ground floor fitness studio and Wi-Fi lounge
The Project would be approximately 178,315 square feet, including non-ground floor open spaces,
broken down as follows (all sizes are approximate and in square feet):
Residential: 152,280
Ground-floor retail: 10,360
Other ground-floor uses:
Fitness 1,315
Lobby, Leasing, &Wi-Fi Lounge 2,800
Resident Amenities:
North Courtyard 4,175
South Courtyard 5,925
Club Room 1,075
Cyber Café 350
In addition to the residential courtyards, the project includes publicly accessible open spaces
including a plaza and fitness park area. Figure 2 shows a conceptual site plan for the Project.
Parking, Circulation, and Transportation Demand Management
Vehicular access to the Project site would be provided via one 2-way entrance on El Camino Real close to
the southern end of the Project site and a one-way entrance on Chestnut Avenue at the eastern end of the
Project site. Pedestrians and cyclists would have access the Project site from El Camino Real, Chestnut
Avenue, and Centennial Way Trail.
81
988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development
City of South San Francisco
February 2018
Page 7
The Project would include 259 off-street parking spaces for residents, visitors, and the ground floor
commercial uses, as well as 130 bicycle parking spaces. The Area Plan does not include a specific
parking requirement for the multi-family portion of the Project and permits a maximum of one space for
every 300 square feet of commercial space. As such, the Proposed Project includes 35 commercial
parking spaces, the most permitted by the zoning district. A summary of the vehicle parking follows:
Parking:
Retail Max Permitted: 35
Retail Proposed: 35
Residential Required: N/A
Residential Proposed: 224 (1.3 spaces:1 unit)
Total Parking: 259
As noted above, there is no parking standard for residential uses on the Project site. The proposed 1.3
parking spaces per unit is consistent with the parking ratio used at other mixed-use developments within
the City and meets the demand anticipated for residential multi-family development in the City and
similar areas.
The Proposed Project also includes a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program designed to
reduce the number of peak-hour vehicle trips generated by the project by 28% through measures that
include providing introductory transit passes, bike share, and carpool subsidies to new residents, bike
parking and repair facilities, an online transportation information kiosk, carpool/rideshare matching,
emergency rides home, and onsite facilities to encourage residents to telecommute. The TDM Program,
together with the Project’s location near bicycle lanes and transit, will help reduce the need for vehicle
use (and parking) by Project residents and employees.
Frontage and Off-Site Improvements
The El Camino Real and Chestnut frontages will be improved with 10-foot wide sidewalks, planting
strips with street trees at the curb, benches, and other landscape treatments, consistent with the Grand
Boulevard Plan. A public plaza with sculptural seating, landscaping and architectural pottery would be
located at the intersection of Chestnut and El Camino Real.
A pedestrian crossing at Chestnut and Antoinette will be constructed to continue the Centennial Way
Trail across Chestnut Avenue, connecting the Project site to the future Community Civic Campus and the
rest of the Centennial Way Trail. In addition, as mentioned above, with approval from Bay Area Rapid
Transit (BART), the Project would make improvements to a portion of Centennial Way Trail adjacent to
the Project site.
Infrastructure Improvements
The Project would construct new on-site infrastructure to serve the Project, utilities that would be placed
underground (water, sewer, site drainage, electrical wires, telephone wires, and cable), site lighting, and
drainage. The Project would abandon existing public utility easements associated with previously
abandoned Mission Road and reroute the public sewer main and place underground utilities within a new
utility easement.
9. Existing Setting
82
988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development
City of South San Francisco
February 2018
Page 8
Currently, the Project site contains a full-service car wash, with a two-way vehicular entrance provided
from Chestnut Avenue and separate ingress and egress driveways on El Camino Real. The car wash is
housed in a one-story building surrounded by parking and queuing areas, and includes a materials and
storage area. The site also contains a vacant area in the northwest corner that contained a gas station,
which was removed in 2007. The site is relatively level in elevation, at approximately 45 feet above mean
sea level (msl). A 50-foot wide PG&E easement that contains a gas transmission line installed in 2014 is
located along the eastern boundary of the Project site.
10. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting
The Project site is within the El Camino Real / Chestnut Area Plan area (Figure 1). The Project site is
bordered by Chestnut Avenue to the northwest; El Camino Real to the southwest; a PG&E easement,
BART right-of-way (underground train), and open space (Centennial Way Trail) to the northeast;
and commercial property (Burger King fast food restaurant) to the southeast. A gas station and bank
are located on the western side of El Camino Real, while a currently vacant area is located on the
northern side of Chestnut Avenue. The area north of Chestnut Avenue is the future site of the City’s
Community Civic Campus, which would contain a library and recreation center, a police station, and
offices for several City departments.
11. Required approval s (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement):
City: The Project requires CEQA clearance, a Conditional Use Permit, Design Review,
Transportation Demand Management Plan and approval of a Vesting Tentative Parcel Map.
Caltrans: The Project requires encroachment permits from Caltrans for improvements within the El
Camino Real right-of-way.
BART: The Project requires encroachment permits for improvements (i.e. pedestrian access to
Centennial Trail from the Project and an outdoor fitness park) within the BART right-of-way.
83
988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development
City of South San Francisco
February 2018
Page 9
FIGURE 1 – PROJECT VICINITY MAP
84
988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development
City of South San Francisco
February 2018
Page 10
FIGURE 2 – CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN
Sizes, measurements, and location of Project uses are conceptual. All measurements are approximate.
85
988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development
City of South San Francisco
February 2018
Page 11
DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation and Consistency Checklist:
□ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
□ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the
project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. □ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. □ I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant
unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an
earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ■ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all
potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed and addressed adequately in an earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) its effects are less than or equal
to the effects disclosed in the earlier EIR(s) or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, nothing further is required.
_______________________________________ January 26, 2018
Sailesh Mehra, Chief Planner Date
86
988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development
City of South San Francisco
February 2018
Page 13
become a State Scenic Highway.1 The Plan Area is just over one mile east of U.S. Highway 101, which
is not a scenic highway. Highway 280 is a State Scenic Highway located approximately one mile from
the Plan Area, but is not visible from the Plan Area nor can the Plan Area be seen from it. There have
been no changes to officially designated scenic highways in the Project vicinity since certification of the
ECR/C EIRs. As such, the Project would continue to have no impact on a state scenic highway,
consistent with the findings in the ECR/C EIRs.
c. The ECR/C EIR concluded that implementation of the ECR/C Area Plan would improve the existing
visual character of the Area Plan area. The Area Plan includes policies supporting development of a
vibrant corridor that is walkable and pedestrian-scaled. The Area Plan established development
standards for new construction that the ECR/C EIR concluded would minimize adverse aesthetic
impacts and ensure harmony with the scale and character of existing surrounding development. The
Area Plan would implement a comprehensive urban design scheme and includes policies that would
ensure common design elements across the Area Plan area. As such, the ECR/C EIR found impacts on
the existing visual character would be beneficial (ECR/C EIR, p. 3.8-7). The Civic Project SEIR agreed
with the conclusions in the ECR/C EIR (Civic Project SEIR, p. 3.1-9). No changes have occurred since
certification of the ECR/C EIRs that would change the conclusions of those documents.
Implementation of the Project is consistent with the Area Plan’s aesthetic vision for the Project site. The
Project would replace a car-oriented use with uses that would activate El Camino Real and Chestnut
Avenue, consistent with the Area Plan’s goal to create a walkable, pedestrian-oriented area. This goal
also is supported by the Project’s proposed construction of significant pedestrian and streetscape
enhancements along El Camino Real and Chestnut Area, as well as attractive and usable publicly
accessible open space amenities. The Project would be subject to the Area Plan’s design guidelines,
which ensure conformity with the Area Plan’s vision. Therefore, the Project would not substantially
degrade the visual character of the area. As such, the Project’s impact on visual character remains less
than significant, consistent with the findings in the ECR/C EIRs.
d. The ECR/C EIR concluded that impacts of the original Area Plan from construction and operation as a
result of light and glare would be less than significant because the Area Plan area is highly developed
and has a number of existing light sources. The Area Plan allows residential uses, which the ECR/C EIR
found may increase the amount of nighttime lighting. Nighttime lighting impacts are significant when
they interfere with or intrude into neighboring residences. Light pollution is typically related to the use
of high voltage light fixtures with inadequate shields and improper positioning or orientation. The
ECR/C EIR found that compliance with the City’s Zoning Ordinance, which contains general standards
for lighting, including standards that control outdoor artificial light, would reduce potentially significant
long-term light and glare impacts to less than significant levels (ECR/C EIR, p. 3.8-11). The Civic
Project SEIR reached the same conclusion (Civic Project SEIR, p. 3.1-9). No changes have occurred
since certification of the ECR/C EIRs that would change those documents’ conclusions.
The Project has been designed to adhere to the City’s requirements regarding lighting and architectural
materials. In addition, the Project is consistent with the massing allowed under the Area Plan and Zoning
Code. Therefore, no new sources of substantial light or glare not evaluated by the ECR/C EIRs would
result from implementation of the Project. Consistent with the ECR/C EIRs, the Project would continue
to result in less than significant impacts due to light and glare. In addition, to confirm that the Project
would not adversely affect the light received by neighboring uses, the applicant submitted a solar study
(August, 2017), which demonstrates that there will be little to no adverse shading effects to the adjacent
properties as a result of the project (attached to this ECA).
1 http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/guidelines/scenic_hwy_guidelines_04-12-2012.pdf
88
988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development
City of South San Francisco
February 2018
Page 16
ECR/C EIR also found that the City’s General Plan policies conformed to the control strategies included
in the 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan and concluded that impacts would be less than significant (ECR/C
EIR, p. 3.2-17).
As noted in the Civic Project SEIR, since the ECR/C EIR was prepared, BAAQMD has prepared a new
Clean Air Plan (the 2017 Clean Air Plan). Civic Project SEIR found that the Area Plan would remain
consistent with the 2017 Clean Air Plan because development planned for the City, including in the Area
Plan area is consistent with the growth projections used by BAAQMD to develop the 2017 Clean Air
Plan. (Civic Project SEIR, p. 3.2-21.)
The Project is consistent with the land use designations and development density presented in the
General Plan and Area Plan, and therefore would not cause the City to exceed the population or job
growth projections used to inform the air quality forecasts of the 2017 Clean Air Plan. The Project also
supports the primary goals in the 2017 Clean Air Plan, which, among other goals, aims to reduce Bay
Area greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and promote locating new development near transit and
pedestrian and cycling opportunities. The Project is a transit-oriented mixed-use development, and will
improve the City’s pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure to help encourage alternative modes of
transportation. The Project also includes a transportation demand management (TDM) plan designed to
reduce trip generation and associated emissions. Accordingly, the Project remains consistent with the
Clean Air Plan, consistent with the conclusions in the ECR/C EIRs.
b, c. The ECR/C EIR did not calculate whether development of the Plan Area would violate air quality
standards during construction, but, as discussed above, did conclude that operation of development
permitted by the Plan Area would be consistent with the goals and policies of the 2010 Clean Air Plan.
The Clean Air Plan is BAAQMD’s strategy reduce emissions and ambient concentrations of ozone, fine
particulate matter, toxic air contaminants, as well as greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change
and thus consistency with the Clean Air Plan indicates that the Area Plan would not violate any air
quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation.
The Civic Project EIR calculated construction-related, operational, and cumulative emissions (Civic
Project EIR, pp. 3.2-22–3.2-23). According to that document, all construction projects in South San
Francisco are required to implement the BAAQMD’s Basic Construction Mitigation Measures (see
Table AQ-1, below) as a condition of project approval, making the measures generally applicable
standards. With implementation of the measures, the Civic Center Project would conform to BAAQMD
recommendations related to fugitive dust emissions and all criteria pollutant emissions would remain
below their respective thresholds, with the exception of NOx. But implementation of Mitigation
Measure 3.2.2, which requires all diesel-powered construction equipment comply with California Air
Resource Board (CARB) regulations (have Tier 3 engines or better) would reduce impacts to less than
significant (Civic Project EIR, p. 3.2-23). Operational emissions were less than significant without any
mitigation. (Id.) The Civic Project EIR also concluded that the Civic Project would make a less than
cumulatively considerable contribution to any air quality violations because its project-level impacts
were less than significant and air quality analysis is inherently cumulative. (Civic Project EIR, p. 3.2-
28.)
There have been no changes in circumstances since the preparation of the Civic Project EIR. Like that
project, the Project would comply with General Plan Policy 7.3-I-3, which requires projects to
incorporate BAAQMD’s recommended BMPs during construction to ensure that the Project would not
exceed the significance threshold for construction projects. These BMPs would be included as a
Condition of Approval and are listed in Table AQ-1 below. In addition, the Project would need to
comply with the generally applicable state requirement for construction equipment to meet CARB’s Tier
3 engine requirements as well as the BAAQMD regulations listed in Table AQ-2 below. Given that the
91
988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development
City of South San Francisco
February 2018
Page 18
average 20 percent NOx reduction and 45 percent PM reduction compared to the most recent CARB fleet average.
Acceptable options for reducing emissions include the use of late model engines, low-emission diesel products,
alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, after-treatment products, add-on devices such as particulate filters,
and/or other options as such become available.
11. Use low VOC (i.e., ROG) coatings beyond the local requirements (i.e., Regulation 8, Rule 3: Architectural
Coatings).
12. Requiring that all construction equipment, diesel trucks, and generators be equipped with Best Available
Control Technology for emission reductions of NOx and PM.
13. Requiring all contractors use equipment that meets CARB’s most recent certification standard (Tier 4) for off-
road heavy-duty diesel engines.
TABLE AQ-2
ADDITIONAL BAAQMD REGULATIONS
BAAQMD Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC) Requirements. The construction contractor shall implement the
following measures during demolition and construction to reduce TAC emissions:
Notify BAAQMD at least ten business days before any demolition activities. The purpose of the
notification process is to assure that buildings are demolished in compliance with procedures that assure
asbestos is not released into the environment.
Require surveys and removal of lead-based paints by licensed contractors certified in the handling
methods requisite to protect the environment, public health, and safety.
BAAQMD Architectural Coating Requirement. The construction contractor shall implement the following
measures to reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs):
Use paints and solvents with a VOC content of 100 grams per liter or less for interior and 150 grams per
liter or less for exterior surfaces.
BAAQMD Hearth Emissions.
If fireplaces or wood burning stoves are installed in new residential units, require cleaner-burning (e.g.,
natural gas or propane) USEPA-certified stoves and inserts.
d. The ECR/C EIR (p. 3.2-25) concluded that two permitted sources of toxic air contaminant (TAC)
emissions exist within the Plan Area: a dry cleaner located at 1053 El Camino Real, and a stand-by diesel
generator located at 1040 Old Mission Road, which is a site owned by the County of San Mateo. As
stated in the ECR/C EIR, BAAQMD’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook recommends a 300-foot
buffer around dry cleaning operations, but the dry cleaner is required to phase out perchloroethylene
operations by 2023, which would reduce health risks to a less than significant level. Projects proposed
prior to the phase-out will be required to complete a site-specific analysis. The risks from the generator
were considered de minimus because it is less than 50 horsepower and operates only one day per week.
The Area Plan area did not have sufficient traffic volumes to pose a significant risk from mobile sources
of air pollutants to sensitive receptors. Therefore, the ECR/C EIR concluded that development pursuant to
the Area Plan would have less than significant impacts.
Consistent with the ECR/C EIR, the Civic Project EIR concluded that the Civic Project would have less
than significant impacts related to TACs. (Civic Project EIR, pp. 3.2-24–3.2-25.) Regarding construction
TACs, the Civic Project EIR found that the use of TAC sources (diesel-powered equipment) would be
temporary and episodic, reduced by compliance with BAAQMD’s regulations and California regulations
limiting the idling of vehicles, and that diesel fumes disperse rapidly over relatively short distances. For
these reasons, construction emissions would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial amounts of air
toxics. The Civic Project EIR also concluded that the project’s operational emissions would not create
93
988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development
City of South San Francisco
February 2018
Page 19
significant TAC impacts because the proposed use would not include any stationary sources.
Since publication of the ECR/C EIR, business records indicate that the dry cleaner in the Area Plan Area
has closed and TAC sources outside of the Area Plan area are more than 300-feet from the Project site.
The Project would be subject to the same BAAQMD and state regulations discussed in the ECR/C EIRs
and does not include any stationary sources. The Project also would not increase traffic volumes to more
than 44,000 vehicles per hour or 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing of
pollutants and atmosphere is substantially limited (i.e., an enclosed parking structure), which are the
screening levels BAAQMD uses to determine if a project would contribute to CO hotspots. Consistent
with the analysis in the ECR/C EIRs, the Project would not generate substantial levels of TACs and
therefore would not expose sensitive receptors to such emissions. No new mitigation is required.
e. The ECR/C EIRs (ECR/C EIR, p. 3.2-27; Civic Project EIR, p. 3.2-26) identifies BAAQMD-
recommended screening distances for known odor-emitting sources, and determines that none of them are
located within the Area Plan area, or within a one-mile distance. New industrial uses are not permitted in
the Area Plan area. The ECR/C EIRs thus conclude that development consistent with the Area Plan would
not result in significant impacts related to odor. There have been no changes in circumstances related to
odor since preparation of the ECR/C EIRs.
The Project does not propose uses typically associated with objectionable odors, such as wastewater
treatment plants, sanitary landfills, food processing facilities, chemical manufacturing plants, rendering
plants, paint/coating operations, asphalt batch plants, agricultural feedlots, and dairies. Instead the Project
would consist of commercial and residential uses. The Project may contain a café or restaurant, but would
not contain uses that would cause objectionable odors. As part of standard project review, equipment used
for outdoor food preparation (courtyard) and the outdoor fireplace (courtyard) would be subject to City
approval for safety and odor control. The Project will also be required to comply with zoning standards
related to odors. Furthermore, the Project will accommodate refuse and recycling in an enclosed trash
rooms at the street level lower/street level of the garage fed by trash chutes. Refuse and recycling pick-up
would be provided by a local waste service provider (South San Francisco Scavenger) and would occur
on a weekly basis.
As discussed in the Civic Project EIR, Project odors generated during construction would be intermittent,
temporary, and would disperse rapidly with distance from the source, and therefore construction-related
odors would not result in the frequent exposure of a substantial number of individuals to objectionable
odors. The Project is required to comply with BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 3, Architectural Coatings,
and Rule 15, Emulsified Asphalt, which establish volatile organic compound (VOC) content limits for
these construction materials. VOCs are the main sources of odors from these sources.
For the reasons stated above, the Project would not result in new or more significant odor impacts than
disclosed in the ECR/C EIRs and no mitigation is required.
94
988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development
City of South San Francisco
February 2018
Page 21
channelized and lined with concrete sides, with no aquatic vegetation present and is not suitable to
support special-status aquatic species. Three special-status species were analyzed for the potential to
occur in the Area Plan area: San Francisco garter snake, Alameda song sparrow, and congested-headed
hayfield tarplant. The analysis concluded that there were no wetlands, coastal resources, or other habitats
within the Area Plan area suitable to support those species. In addition, there have been no reported
occurrences of those species within the Area Plan area. (ECR/C EIR, p. 3.12-9.) As disclosed in the Civic
Project EIR, there have been no substantial changes in circumstances in the Area Plan area (p. 3.3-15).
The Project site is currently developed with a car wash and associated surface paving and has no potential
habitat for candidate, sensitive, or special status species.
Therefore, the Project would not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service beyond what was disclosed in the ECR/C EIR and no new mitigation measures are
required.
b, c. The ECR/C EIR did not identify any riparian habitats or other natural communities or wetlands or Waters
of the United States in the Area Plan area. The conditions on the Project site have not changed since the
ECR/C EIR analysis was done with regard to such habitat. There are still no riparian habitats or special-
status vegetation communities or wetlands or Waters of the United States in the Project site. Therefore the
Project would continue to have no impact, as disclosed in the ECR/C EIR, and no mitigation is required.
d. The ECR/C EIR analysis showed that the Area Plan area was highly urbanized, was not located in a
migratory corridor, and would not interfere with any wildlife migration routes. As noted in the Civic
Project EIR, the conditions in the Area Plan area have not changed since the ECR/C EIR analysis was
performed with regard to wildlife movements and nursery sites.
Available data on movement corridors and linkages was accessed via the CDFW BIOS Viewer (CDFW
2017). Data reviewed includes the Essential Connectivity Areas [ds623] layer and the Missing Linkages
in California [ds420] layer. The Project site is not located within an identified corridor. In addition, the
Project site is urbanized, does not provide suitable movement opportunities, and is surrounded by
additional urban land uses. Construction and development associated with implementation of the Project
would not occur within an area containing habitat or wildlife corridors that supports biological resources.
Further, there are no watercourses on the Project site and therefore the Project would have no impact on
migratory fish.
Nevertheless, landscaping vegetation, including within the Project site, could provide potential nesting
habitat for migrating birds. If Project vegetation removal were to occur during the February 1 through
August 31 bird nesting period, construction would be required to comply with generally applicable
regulations in the California Fish and Game Code (Section 3503, 3513, or 3800), which would protect
nesting birds from construction disturbances; compliance is required as a standard condition of approval.
Therefore the Project would continue to have no impact on wildlife corridors and nursery sites, consistent
with the conclusions in the ECR/C EIRs and no mitigation is required.
e. The ECR/C EIR analysis identified that tree removals may be required under implementation of the Area
Plan. Tree removals would be subject to City Municipal Code, Chapter 13.30, Tree Preservation (Tree
Preservation Ordinance). The Tree Preservation Ordinance also requires replacement trees of three 15-
gallon-size or two 24-inch-box-minimum-size landscape trees for each tree removed as approved with a
tree permit. In addition, the ECR/C EIR found that implementation of the Area Plan would not conflict
with the City’s 1999 General Plan.
96
988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development
City of South San Francisco
February 2018
Page 23
Section 5020.1(k), or cause a
substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological
resource as defined in CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5(k); or
2) 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.
Documentation:
a. The ECR/C EIR identified one recorded historic resource within the Area Plan area, however, the
resource has since been demolished. The ECR/C EIR also identified seven unrecorded properties in and
around the Area Plan area that meet the State Office of Historic Preservation’s minimum age standard that
buildings, structures, and objects 45 years or older may be of historical value. However, in addition to
age, these unrecorded buildings would have to possess architecturally significant elements or integrity in
order to be eligible to be determined for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources
(CRHR). The 1985-1986 South San Francisco Historic Preservation Survey does not identify any local
historic resources within the Area Plan area. The ECR/C EIR concluded that compliance with federal,
state, and local laws would reduce potential impacts on historic resources to less than significant. (ECR/C
EIR, pp. 3.14-12–3.14-13.) The Civic Project EIR reached the same conclusion (p. 3.4-11). There have
been no changes in circumstances that would affect historic resources.
Holman & Associates, an archaeological firm, prepared a Phase One Historic Assessment for the Project
site. (Holman & Associates Archaeological Consultants, November, 2017, attached to this ECA) The
existing car wash on the Project site is over 50 years old, but according to the Historic Assessment, it no
longer retains enough historic integrity to be deemed eligible for a National, State, or Local historic
registers and thus is not a historic resource. There are no other potential historic resources on the Project
site. Therefore, the Project would not have the potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource. There is no new or more significant impact on historic resources than
disclosed in the ECR/C EIRs and no new mitigation is required.
b. The ECR/C EIR concluded that there exists sensitivity for historic archaeological materials within the
Plan area, since it includes the former edge of marshlands. According to that document, there may be
potential for construction activities in the Plan Area to impact prehistorical archaeological resources. The
ECR/C EIR outlines state regulations that provide guidance on the steps that must be taken if significant
resources are uncovered during ground-disturbing activities associated with construction. Specifically,
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f), if potentially significant cultural resources are
discovered, work would stop in that area until a qualified archaeologist can assess the significance of the
find, and, if necessary, develop appropriate treatment measures in consultation with the City and other
appropriate agencies and interested parties. If the archaeologist determines that the find does not meet the
CEQA standards of significance, construction may proceed. On the other hand, if the archaeologist
determines that further information is needed to evaluate significance, Department of Economic and
Community Development staff would be notified and a data recovery plan would be prepared. In
addition, General Plan Policy 7.5-I-5 requires the preparation of a resource mitigation plan and
monitoring program by a qualified archaeologist in the event archaeological resources are uncovered.
Based on required compliance with state law and General Plan Policy 7.5-I-5, the ECR/C EIR concluded
98
988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development
City of South San Francisco
February 2018
Page 24
that impacts from development within the Area Plan area on archeological resources would be less than
significant. (ECR/C EIR, p. 3.4-13.)
The Civic Project EIR concluded that construction of the Civic Project could have a potentially
significant impact on archeological resources. Specifically, the Civic Project EIR noted that the NWIC
identified two archaeological Native American sites within one-quarter mile of the Civic Project site,
which is across the street from the Project site. Those resources consisted of a shell midden site and a
past habitation site near the western boundary of the Civic Project site. Further, the Civic Project EIR
disclosed that there were two identified archaeological resources near the eastern boundary of the Civic
Project site. The Civic Project EIR concluded that impacts would be reduced to less than significant with
the following mitigation measures:
MM 3.4.2a An archaeologist approved by the City and meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for Archeology shall conduct a preconstruction meeting for all construction workers
who will be disturbing the ground on the eastern project site. The preconstruction meeting shall
cover archaeological and tribal cultural resources sensitivity, safety, and next steps if a resource
is identified, and shall be conducted on the first day of construction.
MM 3.4.2b An archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Archeology
shall monitor all ground disturbance on the east project site. If an archaeological resource is
identified, the archaeologist will assess the find and evaluate whether it is eligible for inclusion
in the California Register of Historical Resources, if applicable.
MM 3.4.2c If deposits of prehistoric or historic period archaeological resources are encountered
during project construction on the west project site, all work within 50 feet will be halted until
an archaeologist can evaluate the findings and make recommendations. Prehistoric materials can
include flaked-stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, choppers) or obsidian, chert, or
quartzite toolmaking debris; culturally darkened soil (i.e., midden soil often containing heat-
affected rock, ash, and charcoal, shellfish remains, and cultural materials); and stone milling
equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, handstones). Historic period materials might include wood,
stone, or concrete footings, walls, and other structural remains; debris-filled wells or privies; and
deposits of wood, metal, glass, ceramics, and other refuse. The City shall consider the mitigation
recommendations and agree on implementation of the measure(s) that are feasible and
appropriate. Such measures may include avoidance, preservation in place, excavation,
documentation, curation, or other appropriate measures. After the measures have been put into
place, construction activities may resume.
(Civic Project EIR, p. 3.4-12.) There have been no other changes in circumstances with respect to
archaeological resources in the Area Plan area.
The Project site has been surveyed for the potential of archeological resources. (Report prepared by
Holman & Associates, dated May 2017. Per State law, this report may contain confidential
information regarding archaeological resources, and thus is not available for public review). The
Project site has been previously graded, filled, and developed, which decreases the likelihood of finding
undamaged archeological resources. Nevertheless, of the twelve geoprobes tests conducted by the
archaeologist, four found evidence of likely prehistoric Native American archaeological deposits in the
form of a thin layer of shell midden deposit, ranging from 57.5 to 89 inches below current surface. The
archaeological report concluded that there may be a roughly oval-shaped deposit in the north/south
middle of the Project site, perhaps all within the Old Mission Road right-of-way. Thus, as stated in the
ECR/C EIR, development of the Area Plan, including Project site construction, has the potential to
adversely impact archeological resources during ground disturbance. However, compliance with state
law (particularly CEQA Guidelines sections 15064.5(f) and 15126.4(b)(3) and the City’s General Plan
99
988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development
City of South San Francisco
February 2018
Page 25
policies and standard conditions of approval would reduce potential impacts to less than significant.
These provisions require a Project sponsor to monitor during construction and if there is a find, first
consider preservation in place and only if preservation in place is infeasible, data recovery. Although not
required to reduce impacts, the Project sponsor proposes to include Mitigation Measures 3.4.2a and
3.4.2c as conditions of approval because they provide more detail about how to meet state law
requirements. In addition, to clarify the City’s standard conditions of approval, the City would require
the following implementation measures, which provide additional detail about how to achieve the
requirements of the standard conditions for the Project: (1) site monitoring by a qualified archaeologist
which shall be governed by a written Archaeological Monitoring Agreement (AMA), (2) recordation of
archaeological prehistoric shell midden deposit, submitted to the Northwest Information Center (NWIC)
to California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) standards, (3) submittal of a final report
of the site monitoring and impact mitigation efforts to the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) of the
CHRIS. With state law and City policies and standard conditions of approval, the Project would have no
new or more significant impacts than disclosed and analyzed in the ECR/C EIRs and no new mitigation
is required.
c. The ECR/C EIR determined that future development in the Plan Area would not have any impact on
paleontological resources (p. 3.4-14). The ECR/C EIR analysis states that according to the University of
California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP), South San Francisco contains a record for Equus, which
includes horses, donkeys, and zebras. However, the lithology of the record indicates that the fossil is
most likely found in the San Bruno Mountains or near the Bay, both outside the Planning Area. The
Civic Project EIR indicates that even though there are no known paleontological resources in the area,
the project may impact unknown paleontological resources. The Civic Project EIR imposed the
following mitigation measure (MM 3.4.3) to reduce impacts to less than significant:
If deposits of paleontological resources are encountered during project construction on the west
project site, all work within 50 feet will be halted until a qualified paleontologist can evaluate
the findings and make recommendations. Work will not commence until significance of the find
has been determined and the find has been evaluated.
(Civic Project EIR, p. 3.4-13.) There have been no changes in circumstances related to paleontological
resources.
The Project would not cause a potentially significant impact to any known paleontological resources
because no such resources existing in the Project vicinity. As discussed in the ECR/C EIR, compliance
with state law and the City’s General Plan policies concerning resources would reduce the potential to
impact unknown paleontological resources to less than significant. Nevertheless, the Project proposes
that compliance with Civic Project EIR Mitigation Measure MM 3.4.3, which provides further detail
about how to ensure state law is followed, be added as a condition of approval. With compliance with
state law and City policies, the Project will not result in new or more significant impacts to
paleontological resources than disclosed in the ECR/C EIRs and no new mitigation is required.
d. The ECR/C EIR concluded that development in the Area Plan area would not cause a potentially
significant impact to any known or unknown cemeteries or human remains in the project vicinity (ECR/C
EIR, p. 3.4-13). There are no known cemeteries in the Area Plan area. As noted in the ECR/C EIR, should
any unknown human remains be found during development of the Plan Area, the developer would have to
comply with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, which requires that no further
disturbances shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to the origin and
disposition of the remains, pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.98. PRC Section
5097.98 outlines the Native American Heritage Commission notification process and the required
100
988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development
City of South San Francisco
February 2018
Page 27
iv) Landslides? X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil? X
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?
X
d) Be located on expansive soil, as
defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code, creating
substantial risks to life or property?
X
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
X
Documentation:
a. (i.) The ECR/C EIR found that the Area Plan would have a less than significant impact due to fault
rupture because of the lack of active faults in the Area Plan area. The San Andreas Fault, located
approximately two miles west of the project site, is the nearest active fault. Because ground rupture
generally only occurs at the location of a fault, and no active faults are known to traverse the ECR/C area,
the Project would not be subject to a substantial risk of surface fault ruptures. The ECR/C EIR also
indicated that any projects in the planning area would implement the California Building Code and
Chapters 19.40 and 20.170 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. Chapter 19.40 requires a
preliminary soils report as part of the City’s standard subdivision procedures. Chapter 20.170 requires all
areas identified as seismic and geologic hazard areas in the City’s General Plan to prepare a soils and
geologic report prior to construction. (ECR/C EIR, p. 3.10-8).
The Civic Project EIR concluded that because the project would be required to comply with the building
standards in the California Building Code (contained in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations),
the project would have a less than significant impact due to fault rupture. Specifically, compliance with
the law would protect against building collapse and major injury. (Civic Project EIR, p. 3.5-7.) There
have been no changes in circumstances related to this impact since preparation of the ECR/C EIRs.
The Project is not on an active fault and also would comply with the California Building Code. Therefore,
there would be no new or more significant impacts related to fault rupture than discussed in the ECR/C
EIRs and no new mitigation is required.
(ii, iii) The ECR/C EIR states that structures and infrastructure in the Area Plan area would likely
experience at least one major earthquake during their functional lifetime. Building codes and construction
standards established by the California Building Code and contained in Title 24 of the California Code of
Regulations would protect against building collapse and major injury. Additionally, the ECR/C EIR found
that the Area Plan area has a high liquefaction potential. Liquefaction-induced ground failure can result in
damage to underground utilities, shallow foundations, and paved areas. The ECR/C EIR noted that all
projects in the Area Plan area would need to comply with the California Building Code as well as
Chapters 15.08 and 19.40 of the City’s Municipal Code. Chapter 15.08 adopts and amends the California
102
988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development
City of South San Francisco
February 2018
Page 28
Building Code. Chapter 19.40 requires a preliminary soils report using the City’s standard subdivision
procedure (ECR/C EIR, p. 3.10-9). The ECR/C EIR concluded that compliance with existing building
codes and construction standards would reduce seismic-related ground shaking and liquefaction to less
than significant levels. There have been no changes in circumstances since the preparation of the ECR/C
EIR.
The Civic Project EIR also noted that the area is susceptible to seismic activity and susceptible to
liquefaction, and development would be required to comply with the California Building Code, which
contains policies to reduce impacts from earthquakes and liquefaction. Nevertheless, the Civic Project
EIR concluded that there could be potentially significant impacts that would be reduced to less than
significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.5.2, which requires a site-specific geotechnical
report for the Civic Project site. (Civic Project EIR, p. 3.5-8.) There have been no changes in
circumstances related to this impact since the preparation of the ECR/C EIRs.
The Project also would have to comply with the California Building Code and City Municipal Code
Chapters 15.08 and 19.40 and prepare a final site-specific geotechnical in accordance with the City’s
standard conditions of approval. In addition, the Project would not cause or exacerbate the area’s
susceptibility to seismic ground shaking or liquefaction. Accordingly, the Project would have no new or
more significant impacts than disclosed in the ECR/C EIRs and no new mitigation is required.
(iv.) The ECR/C EIR stated that the Area Plan area is "flatland” and potential slope hazards related to
slope instability are minimal. The Civic Project EIR came to the same conclusion. There have been no
changes in circumstances since the preparation of the ECR/C EIRs that would alter these conclusions.
Because the Project is not in a location subject to slope instability it would have no impacts related to
landslides and no new mitigation is required.
b. The ECR/C EIR evaluated whether there is significant risk of development in the Plan Area resulting in
substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. The ECR/C EIR outlines policies required in the City’s
Municipal Code for compliance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General
Construction Permit requirements. The ECR/C EIR determined that mandatory compliance with the
City’s Municipal Code and NPDES General Construction Permit requirements would reduce impacts
from development in the Plan Area due to soil erosion to less than significant levels. (ECR/C EIR, pp.
3.10-8–3.10-9).
The Civic Project EIR noted that development would disturb soil, but would be subject to the State’s
General Construction Permit (CGP) and would be required by federal law to prepare and implement an
approved storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP). As the Civic Project EIR noted, SWPPPs
provide a schedule for the implementation and maintenance of erosion control measures and a description
of erosion control practices, including appropriate design details and a time schedule. Additionally,
Municipal Code Chapter 15.08 requires development projects to obtain grading permits from the City
Engineer prior to excavation, grading, filling, clearing, or erosion control measures. The Civic Project
EIR concluded that compliance with applicable laws and regulations, including the requirement to prepare
a soils report and a SWPPP that would include measures to control erosion during construction would
prevent construction from having a significant impact on soil erosion and loss of topsoil. (Civic Project
EIR, p. 3.5-8.) There have been no changes in circumstances that would change this impact analysis since
the ECR/C EIRs were prepared.
The Project would remove the topsoil for the portion of the Project site that would be excavated for the
underground parking garage and also move soil around during other ground-disturbing activities. As
discussed in the ECR/C EIRs, the Project is required to prepare and implement a SWPPP and comply
103
988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development
City of South San Francisco
February 2018
Page 29
with the NPDES permit, as well as City Municipal Code Chapter 15.08. Thus, with compliance with
applicable rules and regulations, the Project would result in a less than significant impact related to soil
erosion or loss of topsoil and has no new or more significant impacts than described in the ECR/C EIR
and requires no new mitigation.
c., d. As described in the ECR/C EIR, due to the variability of soils in the planning area, it is possible that
future development could be subject to soil expansion and settlement. The ECR/C EIR outlines provisions
in the South San Francisco Municipal Code for development that require the preparation of a site-specific
soil report as a way of reducing hazards related to expansive or unstable soils. The ECR/C EIR concluded
that compliance with the City’s Municipal Code would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
The Civic Project EIR noted that the site there is not in an area where landslides have historically
occurred and is relatively flat. That document noted that the area where the Civic Project would be
located is known to have a high shrink-swell potential and the potential for soil settlement and has
potential for unstable soils. The Civic Project EIR found that implementation of Mitigation Measure
3.5.2, which requires the preparation of a geotechnical report and requires that any recommended building
techniques be implemented in the project’s construction plans, would reduce impacts to a less than
significant level. No changes in circumstances have occurred since the preparation of the ECR/C EIRs
that would change the impact analysis.
The Project is in an area that has soils similar to the Civic Project site. The Project would be required with
the City’s Municipal Code provisions requiring preparation of a site-specific soil report and compliance
with its recommendations. A site-specific geotechnical report (attached to this ECA) determined that the
threat of lateral spreading on the project site is very low and that although the Project site is located
within a zone of high liquefaction susceptibility, the potential for liquefaction induced ground failure at
the ground surface is low. Project construction also would not cause soil to become unstable or exacerbate
the risk of landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. Accordingly, the Project
would have no new or more significant impacts than disclosed in the ECR/C EIRs and no new mitigation
is required.
e. The ECR/C EIR did not evaluate Area Plan impacts from soils incapable of adequately supporting the use
of septic tanks because the development in the Area Plan will be served by the City’s municipal sewer
system, and all future projects would be connected to this system. The Area Plan was found to have no
impact with respect to use of septic tanks. No changes in circumstances have occurred since preparation
of the ECR/C EIRs related to the use of septic tanks.
The Project would not use them because it would be connected to the City’s sanitary sewer system, which
has adequate capacity to serve the Project. The Project has no new or more significant impacts related to
septic tanks than disclosed in the ECR/C EIRs and requires no new mitigation.
104
988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development
City of South San Francisco
February 2018
Page 31
and sold by utilities to retail customers per year from eligible renewable energy resources to be increased
to 50 percent by December 31, 2030. That bill also made other revisions to the RPS program and to
certain other requirements on public utilities and publicly owned electric utilities. Additionally, the state
amended Title 24 to require more energy efficiency from new development. Finally, the Association of
Bay Area Governments (ABAG) adopted an updated Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS)/Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP) (known as Plan Bay Area). These regulatory changes will help the state and
the City continue to decrease GHG emissions and therefore do not result in any new or more significant
impacts than accounted for in the ECR/C EIR analysis.
The Project implements the Area Plan and this is within the scope of development analyzed in the ECR/C
EIR. For this reason, the Project would not result in new or more significant impacts than discussed in the
ECR/C EIR and no new mitigation is required.
b. The ECR/C EIR noted that in 2011, the City did not have a CAP, but was working to develop one.
Therefore the ECR/C EIR analyzed the Area Plan’s consistency with AB 32 and Bay Area 2010 Clean
Air Plan. The ECR/C EIR concluded that the Area Plan would not conflict with AB 32 or the Clean Air
Plan. Regarding AB 32, the ECR/C EIR found that the City’s GHG emissions will be reduced to below
current levels as a result of State mandates and further reduced as a result of implementing the Area Plan
and that these reductions would assist California in achieving its reduction goal. Regarding the Clean Air
Plan, the ECR/C EIR found that the Area Plan and the City’s General Plan policies conform to the control
strategies included in the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan and therefore the Area Plan is consistent with the
2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan control measures. For these reasons, the ECR/C EIR concluded that
impacts would be less than significant. (ECR/C EIR, p. 3.3-43.)
The Civic Project EIR analyzed the Area Plan’s consistency with the City’s CAP and the current version
of Plan Bay Area. The CAP contains separate policy provisions addressing the increase of pedestrian,
bicycle, and private shuttle systems. The Civic Project EIR noted that consistent with the CAP, the Area
Plan is a transit-oriented development in support of the South San Francisco BART station. The CAP
contains environmental sustainability related policy provisions in the categories of land use and mixed-
use development, open space, efficient and alternative transportation, transportation demand management,
and parking that promotes transit. The Area Plan would provide moderate- to high-density housing in
locations within convenient walking distance of employment centers, shopping centers, and transit routes.
As such, the Area Plan would result in improved access to local and regional transit services, and promote
alternative means of transportation through increased access to pedestrian and bicycle facilities and is
consistent with the CAP. Plan Bay Area is ABAG’s plan to achieve a 7 percent per capita reduction in
GHG emissions from cars and light-duty trucks compared to 2005 vehicle emissions by 2020 and a 15
percent per capita reduction by 2035. Plan Bay Area contains funding priorities for individual
transportation projects and transportation and land use strategies that help the region achieve state GHG
emissions reduction targets and federal Clean Air Act requirements. The Civic Project EIR notes that the
Area Plan area is characterized as an Urbanized Area in Plan Bay Area, as opposed to a Priority
Conservation Area, and is surrounded by lands identified as Urbanized Area. Therefore, ABAG predicts
urban growth will occur in the Area Plan area. Development of the Area Plan area is consistent with Plan
Bay Area’s goal to encourage mixed-use development and development in proximity to transit options.
The Project is consistent with the Area Plan’s planning strategy to encourage mixed-use development
near transit. The Project is mixed-use development with a robust transportation demand management
(TDM) program and in close proximity to bicycle paths, bus stops, and less than one mile from the South
San Francisco BART station. Accordingly, the Project would have no new or more significant impacts
related to plan consistency than disclosed in the ECR/C EIRs and no new mitigation is required.
106
988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development
City of South San Francisco
February 2018
Page 33
The Civic Project EIR noted that demolition and construction activities would require the temporary
transport, handling, use, storage, and disposal of common products used in construction equipment such
as gasoline, diesel fuel, oils, and construction materials such as solvents, asphalt, glues and cements, and
paints. That EIR also found that uses allowed by the Area Plan would involve the routine use of common
items such as cleaning and maintenance products, but would not involve uses that handle large quantities
of hazardous materials or industrial uses that would pose a substantial adverse risk to people and the
environment. The Civic Project EIR found that numerous existing regulations at the federal, state, and
local levels would minimize potential hazards to the public and the environment from the improper
handling or accidental release of hazardous materials, including compliance with the State’s Construction
General Permit and SWPPP requirements. Accordingly, it concluded that impacts would be less than
significant. There have been no changes in circumstances that would alter this analysis.
The Project includes residential and commercial uses, which do not handle large amounts of hazardous
materials. As the Civic Project EIR noted, construction would involve the use of hazardous materials, but
those are regulated at the federal, state, and local levels to ensure that they are not mishandled. In
addition, the existing car wash may contain asbestos and other hazardous materials, but the demolition
and disposal of those materials would comply with state and regional regulations designed to ensure the
safety of the public and environment. Accordingly, the Project would have no new or more substantial
impacts related to the potential to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or through a reasonably foreseeable upset or
accident and no new mitigation is required.
c. The ECR/C EIR noted that there are five schools within a quarter mile of the Planning Area: El Camino
High School, Baden Continuation High School, Buri Buri Elementary School, Urban Sprouts Pre-School
and RW Drake Pre-School. The ECR/C EIR concluded that there would be no impact to these schools
because no hazardous materials handlers are anticipated to be built under the Area Plan. The Civic Project
EIR also concluded that none of that project’s activities or uses would result in hazardous air emissions
within 0.25 mile of the preschools in the vicinity. There are no changes in circumstances that would alter
these conclusions.
The Project is consistent with the Area Plan and zoning and for the reasons stated above would have no
new or more significant impacts related to the emission of hazards and hazardous materials or waste than
disclosed in the ECR/C EIRs and no mitigation is required.
d. The ECR/C EIR stated that the Area Plan area does not contain any sites listed on the Cortese List. The
Civic Project EIR did not state whether that site was on the Cortese List. A search of the State
Waterboard’s GeoTracker and Department of Toxic Substances Control’s (DTSC’s) EnviroStor
databases2 does not show any changes in circumstances.
A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was prepared by Engeo on March 7, 2017, for the
Project site. The ESA found that a portion of the site was formerly used as a gas station but that the
underground storage tanks (USTs) were removed and the local health department issued a letter indicating
that no further action is necessary. As such, the Project site is not a site included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and would have no new or more
significant impacts related to this issue than disclosed in the ECR/C EIR and no new mitigation is
required.
e, f. The ECR/C EIR noted that the Area Plan area is located north of San Francisco International Airport
2 State Water Board’s GeoTracker website accessed 12/22/17; DTSC’s EnviroStor website accessed 1/2/18.
108
988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development
City of South San Francisco
February 2018
Page 35
volume or a lowering of the local groundwater
table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-
existing nearby wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing land uses or
planned uses for which permits have been
granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including through the alteration
of the course of a stream or river, in a manner
that would result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site?
X
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or off-site?
X
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
X
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard
area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other
flood hazard delineation map?
X
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures that would impede or redirect flood
flows?
X
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury or death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam?
X
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X
Documentation:
a. The ECR/C EIR evaluated whether implementation of the plan would result in a violation of any water
quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The ECR/C EIR concluded that development
permitted by the Area Plan would not result in a significant impact because all development would have
to comply with the Construction General Permit, which requires development to provide permanent
treatment for site runoff, prepare SWPPPs for construction related activities, and implement best
management practices (BMPs) as part of its storm water management program. The ECR/C EIR
concluded that adherence to federal, state, and local laws protecting water quality would ensure that
impacts from Area Plan development will be less than significant.
The Civic Project EIR analyzed whether the Civic Project would result in a violation of any water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements as a result of construction activity, its operations, and whether
it would contribute to a cumulative impact. It found that because the construction period contractors
would be required to implement a SWPPP and BMPs in accordance with the Construction General Permit
requirements, the Civic Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts related to water
quality or waste discharge during the construction period than had been analyzed in the ECR/C EIR. In
relation to water quality, it found that with compliance with the stormwater runoff reduction measures in
Area Plan Policies UD-7 and DG-40, and as required by Municipal Code Chapter 14.04, Stormwater
110
988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development
City of South San Francisco
February 2018
Page 36
Management and Discharge Control, in compliance with the MRP Provision of C.3 of the San Mateo
Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program C.3 Stormwater Technical Guidance Manual, the Civic
Project’s operation would not result in any violations of water quality standards.
The Proposed Project is consistent with the development considered in the Area Plan’s environmental
reviews, and will be subject to the federal, state, and local regulations listed above that ensure that both
the construction of the project and its operation will not cause a violation of any water quality standards
or waste discharge requirements. Accordingly, the Project would have no new or more significant impacts
than disclosed in the ECR/C EIRs and no new mitigation is required.
b. The ECR/C EIR concluded that implementation of the Area Plan would have no impact on groundwater
supplies or recharge (South San Francisco 2011b). The Civic Project EIR noted that there are no changed
circumstances since certification of the ECR/C EIR in 2011 and there would be no impact relative to
depletion of groundwater supply or recharge.
The Project does not include a well and would not substantially alter the percentage of the Project site that
is impervious. Accordingly, the Project will not deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level. Thus the Project would have no new or more significant impacts than
disclosed in the ECR/C EIRs and no mitigation is required.
c, d. ECR/C EIR found that within the Area Plan area, the majority of the storm water run-off is conveyed to a
network of drain inlets and pipes that discharge to Colma Creek. The ECR/C EIR also found that the Area
Plan area is largely developed with impermeable surfaces and the underlying soils are typically clays with
low permeability and erosivity. It concluded that as buildout occurs, compliance with the General Permit
would require the preparation of a SWPPP which would include BMPs that would reduce potential
erosion and/or siltation impacts to less than significant.
The Civic Project EIR analyzed the impacts that could result from construction and operation of the Civic
Project. It found that adherence to SWPPP and best management practices in accordance with the
Construction General Permit requirements as described in the ECR/C EIR would ensure that construction
activities would not result in any new or more severe impacts than previously identified related to
construction runoff, changes in drainage patterns, or erosion.
The Project site in its current state is largely impervious and construction of the Project will not result in a
significant net increase in impervious area. The Project will comply with all applicable rules and
regulations including SWPPP and BMPs as required by regulation. Accordingly, the Proposed Project
would have no new or more significant impacts than disclosed in the ECR/C EIRs and no mitigation is
required.
e, f. On pages 3.11-11 thru 3.11-12 of the ECR/C EIR, that EIR found that by following the federal, state, and
local laws, rules, and regulations and the development requirements contained within the Area Plan
during the development application and review process that development permitted by the Area Plan
would not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm
water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff or otherwise
substantially degrade water quality at a significant level.
The Civic Project EIR found that while construction site runoff has the potential to contribute soil and
pollutants from equipment and materials handling to Colma Creek, which could affect water quality, the
implementation of SWPPP and BMPs in accordance with the Construction General Permit requirements
111
988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development
City of South San Francisco
February 2018
Page 37
would ensure that the potential impact did not require any new mitigations and would remain less than
significant. Similarly, it found that operation the Civic Project would not result in an increase in
stormwater not already considered by the ECR/C Program EIR. Further, new development would be
required to implement stormwater runoff reduction measures as directed under Area Plan Policies UD-7
and DG-40, and as required under Municipal Code Chapter 14.04, Stormwater Management and
Discharge Control, in compliance with the MRP Provision C.3 of the San Mateo Countywide Water
Pollution Prevention Program C.3 Stormwater Technical Guidance Manual. Compliance with these
policies would ensure that there would be no new or unidentified impact.
The Project is consistent with the development considered in the Area Plan. The Project was reviewed by
the Public Works Department, which determined that no additional capacity was needed for the Project’s
storm water discharged. Further, during construction and operation the Project will be subject to the
federal, state, and local laws, rules and regulations regarding storm water discharge. Accordingly, the
Proposed Project would have no new or more significant impacts than disclosed in the ECR/C EIRs and
no mitigation is required.
g–j. As discussed on page 3.11-10 of the ECR/C EIR, there are no structures such as levees or dams that
would expose people and structures in the Plan Area to significant loss, injury, or death as the result of
their failure. The Civic Project EIR noted that there are no changes in circumstances that would alter this
conclusion.
Examination of the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) shows that the Project site is in an area
delineated as an “Area of Minimal Flood Hazard”, or Zone X. This zone is outside the 100-year flood
hazard area. The Proposed Project would not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other authoritative flood
hazard delineation map or place structures that would impede or redirect flood flows in a 100-year flood
zone, or expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam, or expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or death involving inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Considering
that the Proposed Project site is outside a 100 year floor hazard zone and is not in a dam or levee failure
flood inundation area, the Proposed Project would have no new or more significant impacts than disclosed
in the ECR/C EIRs and no new mitigation is required.
112
988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development
City of South San Francisco
February 2018
Page 39
have been no other changes in land use plans that would affect the conclusions in the ECR/C EIR.
The Project is consistent with the Area Plan, General Plan, and the City Municipal Code. The Project
complies with all applicable ECR/C standards, guidelines, and regulations. The applicant will be
requesting a Conditional Use Permit for construction of multi-family residential development and density
and FAR increases, as allowed under the Area Plan’s incentive program, as well as that the Planning
Commission approve commercial spaces with a depth of 56 feet (where 75 feet is the minimum permitted
without Planning Commission approval), and an approval to allow parking within 40 feet of the
Centennial Way Trail, consistent with the City’s adopted Zoning Ordinance. Overall density for this
project will be consistent with the standards set forth in City Municipal Code section 20.270 at 103
dwelling units per acre. As such, the Proposed Project would have no new or more significant impacts
than disclosed in the ECR/C EIRs and no mitigation is required.
c. There is no adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Communities Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan that is applicable to the Area Plan area and the
project remains consistent with the analysis of the ECR/C EIR and no mitigation is required.
114
988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development
City of South San Francisco
February 2018
Page 42
b. The ECR/C EIR found that the risk of Area Plan development causing an impact is less than significant
because new development would have to adhere to Section 20.300.010 of the Zoning Ordinance which
contains performance standards regarding vibrations. This portion of the municipal code includes a
provision requiring that “no vibration shall be produced that is transmitted through the ground and is
discernible without the aid of instruments by a reasonable person at the lot lines of the site. Vibrations
from temporary construction, demolition, and vehicles that enter and leave the subject parcel (e.g.,
construction equipment, trains, trucks, etc.) are exempt from this standard.” (City Code § 20.300.010 (F).)
The Civic Project EIR did not find changed circumstances related to vibration.
The Project would consist of apartments above ground-level retail and underground parking. None of
these uses will generate ground-borne vibrations and ground-borne noise. During construction, the Project
will generate ground-borne vibrations and noise, but the vibrations will be temporary and exempted by
the City’s Municipal Code as disclosed in the ECR/C EIRs. The Project is compliant with both the Area
Plan’s and the Municipal Code’s requirements and would not produce impacts beyond those disclosed in
the ECR/C EIRs. Considering this, the Project will not expose people to or generate excessive ground-
borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels. The Project would have no new or more significant impacts
than disclosed in the ECR/C EIRs and no mitigation is required.
c-d. On pages 3.5-14 thru 3.5-17, the ECR/C EIR found that buildout of the Area Plan area would raise the
ambient noise levels in that area by approximately three decibels. The ECR/C EIR concluded that this
increase is a less-than-significant impact. On page 3.5-16 the ECR/C EIR found that because the
development permitted by the ECR/C Area Plan would be required to comply with the noise standards in
Title 8 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, the temporary noise impacts generated by buildout of
the Area Plan area would be less than significant. The Civic Project EIR confirmed that there have been
no changes in circumstances that would alter the ECR/C EIR’s conclusions.
The Project is required to and would comply with the acoustical requirements of the General Plan and
Municipal Code. (Attached to this ECA, Environmental Noise Assessment, prepared by Charles M. Salter
and Associates, July 7, 2017). Further, the proposed project is consistent with the Area Plan, the
implementation of which was found to have a less than significant impact. Considering this, the proposed
project will not create any new or more significant impacts than disclosed in the ECR/C EIRs and no new
mitigation is required.
e–f. The ECR/C EIR found that per the San Francisco International Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan,
the 2001 Noise Exposure Map (NEM) placed a small portion of the Area Plan area in the 60-65 dB and
CNEL 65 dB areas in the southwest portion of the Area Plan area. However, it found that there are no
noise/land use compatibility standards that apply within these noise contours (ECR/C EIR, p. 3.5-10). For
this reason, implementation of the Area Plan would have no impact.
The Civic Campus EIR found that as analyzed in the ECR/C EIR, there are no private airports in the
vicinity of the project site and there had been no changes in circumstances that would affect the ECR/C
EIR’s analysis.
San Francisco International Airport is the closest public or private airstrip to the Project site. The Project
is approximately 2.5 miles from the airport. Examination of the current and 2019 Noise Contour Maps
published by the airport indicates that the project site is outside of the current and future 65 dB CNEL
contour3. Further, the Project is consistent with the Area Plan and the analysis contained within the
3 2014 SFO Noise Exposure Map accessed on 12/26/17: https://media.flysfo.com/media/sfo/noise-abatement/sfo_p150_2014-nem-36x24-plot-
signed_ada.pdf ; and
117
988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development
City of South San Francisco
February 2018
Page 44
required.
b, c. The ECR/C EIR found that it was possible for residential uses to convert to high density or mixed uses.
Any loss of housing units due to conversion of residential uses to high density or mixed uses would be
offset because of the significant increase of the total number of dwelling units allowed under the Area
Plan in the Area Plan area. Therefore, ECR/C EIR concluded the Area Plan would have a less than
significant impact.
The Civic Project EIR concluded that the Civic Project would not displace any existing housing or people
in the Area Plan area and thus would not alter the conclusions of the ECR/C EIR.
The Project site is currently occupied by a car wash. There is no housing on the site. The Project is
consistent with the Area Plan as well as the analysis of the ECR/C EIRs. The Project would have no new
or more significant impacts than disclosed in the ECR/C EIRs and no mitigation is required.
119
988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development
City of South San Francisco
February 2018
Page 49
Ramp/Junipero Serra
Boulevard
with improvements
The ECR/C EIR found that the Area Plan would have less than significant impacts with mitigation
incorporated under existing plus project conditions. The mitigation involved the restriping of streets to
improve the level of service, which the ECR/C EIR found to be feasible (ECR/C EIR, p. 3.1-25). The
ECR/C EIR found impacts on freeway segments to be less than significant under the existing plus project
scenario, because all freeway segments would continue to operate at an acceptable level of service (id., p.
3.1-33). Under the 2030 cumulative conditions plus project scenario, the ECR/C EIR concluded that the
Area Plan would have multiple impacts, some of which could be mitigated and others that were
significant and unavoidable. These conclusions are summarized in Table TRA-1, above. The City Council
determined that certain traffic impacts could not be avoided and no other feasible mitigations or
alternatives would avoid or lessen the impacts. Consequently, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding
Considerations for the ECR/C EIR that determined the Area Plan’s benefits outweighed the traffic
impacts.
The Civic Project EIR analyzed level of service impacts at the same intersections and on the same
freeway segments as analyzed in the ECR/C EIR. The Civic Project EIR concluded that the project would
result in significant impacts at Intersections 1, 4, and 12, but impacts could be reduced to less than
significant with mitigation. The project would have no project-level impacts at the other study
intersections or on freeway segments. In the cumulative scenario plus project scenario, the project would
make a cumulative considerable contribution to cumulative impacts at Intersections 1, 2, 4, 5, and 8.
These impacts could be reduced to less than cumulatively considerable with mitigation. The project
would make a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to the other study intersections and
freeway segments. The cumulative analysis considered project trips associated with implementation of the
Area Plan.
For Intersection 4, the Civic Project EIR concluded that Mitigation Measure 3.10.6c would be required
under the cumulative plus project scenario:
The City shall optimize the traffic signal cycle length in both the AM and PM peak hours.
The City shall also modify traffic signal operations at the intersection of El Camino Real
and Chestnut Avenue to include a right turn overlap phase for vehicles traveling
eastbound on Chestnut Avenue. If feasible within the existing right-of-way, the City shall
also add an eastbound left turn lane from Chestnut Avenue to El Camino Real.
Mitigation Measure 3.10.6c includes the requirements of Mitigation Measure 3.10.1b, which requires the
Civic Project to modify the signal timing to optimize the cycle length at the intersection of El Camino
Real and Chestnut Avenue. It also includes additional recommendations, including adding an eastbound
left turn lane. Even though the City was uncertain whether an eastbound left turn lane could be added, the
Civic Project EIR concludes that project impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable because
General Plan Policy 4.2-G-14 allows for LOS E or LOS F if there is no practical and feasible way to
mitigate the impact and if the proposed uses are of clear and overall public benefit. The Civic Project EIR
concludes that the Civic Project has an overall public benefit and therefore, even if the intersection would
continue to operate at LOS F or LOS E, the City would not consider it a significant impact. There have
been no changes in circumstances that would alter the level-of-service impact conclusions of the ECR/C
EIRs.
The Project is consistent with the development contemplated and analyzed in the ECR/C EIRs. To ensure
that the Project would not create new or more substantial impacts than disclosed in the Program EIR, a
traffic consultant prepared a transportation impact analysis (Attached to this ECA, Hexagon
124
988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development
City of South San Francisco
February 2018
Page 50
Transportation Consultants, January 5, 2018) for the Project. The Project’s transportation impact analysis
shows that the Project could have a potentially significant impact at the intersection of El Camino Real
and Chestnut Avenue (Intersection 4), but that implementation of Civic Project EIR Mitigation Measure
3.10.1b (which is the same as the first part of Mitigation Measure 3.10.6c) would reduce the impact to
less than significant. It is anticipated that the City would perform the signal optimization as required by
the Civic Project EIR for that project. Nevertheless, to ensure that the signal optimization occurs by the
time this Project is constructed, the conditions of approval for the Project would require the Project
sponsor to work with the City to accomplish the signal timing optimization prior to occupancy of the
Project if optimization has not already been accomplished. With this existing signal optimization measure
from the SEIR, the Project would not have any significant level of service impacts and has no new or
more significant impacts than disclosed in the ECR/C EIRs and no new mitigation is required. Similarly,
the Project is within the scope of development analyzed in the ECR/C EIR and remains consistent with
the CMP and therefore would not create new or more significant impacts to freeway segments than
discussed in the ECR/C EIRs and no new mitigation is required.
c. The EIR/C EIRs concluded that the Area Plan, including the Civic Project, would not have any impacts
on air traffic. There have been no changes in circumstances that would alter these conclusions.
The Project also would not result in a change in air traffic patterns at San Francisco International Airport
and would have no impact on air traffic. Therefore the Project would have no new or more significant
impacts than disclosed in the ECR/C EIRs and no mitigation is required.
d, e. The ECR/C EIR concluded that development of the Plan Area would not increase hazards due to a design
feature or incompatible uses and instead would increase the design quality of the Plan Area through
policies and design guidelines in the Plan, including the policies promoting active frontages along certain
streets and streetscape improvements such as public plazas and pedestrian connections. The ECR/C EIR
also found that the Area Plan would not change emergency vehicle access routes, which would remain
adequate to serve the Plan Area.
The Civic Project EIR concluded that project also would not increase hazards due to a design feature. The
project did not change Area Plan policies and design guidelines, and would follow applicable policies to
ensure compliance with the General Plan, resulting in less than significant impacts. There have been
changes in circumstances that would alter the ECR/C EIRs’ impact conclusion.
The Project’s traffic impact analysis confirmed that the Project would have no new or greater impacts
related to hazardous features than discussed in the ECR/C EIRs. The Project’s traffic impact analysis
concluded that the Project would conform to all engineering and fire safety standards related to
transportation design features of the site, including the design of the driveways and on-site circulation.
The Project does not propose incompatible uses or offsite roadway alterations or alterations that would
make the existing, adequate emergency access inadequate. Additionally, the Project would pay the City’s
Public Safety Impact Fee that funds improvements to infrastructure or public services necessitated by new
development to ensure adequate emergency access. The Project would not substantially increase hazards
due to a design feature or use with incompatible vehicles such as farm equipment and would not result in
inadequate emergency vehicle access. Thus the Project would not result in any new or more significant
impacts than disclosed in the ECR/C EIRs and no mitigation is required.
f. The ECR/C EIR found that the Area Plan would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety
of such facilities. According to the ECR/C EIR, the Area Plan supports the City’s plans concerning
alternative transportation in numerous ways. For example, the Area Plan would establish pedestrian and
bicycle connections through the Plan Area. The Area Plan also permits residential uses near existing
125
988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development
City of South San Francisco
February 2018
Page 52
statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Documentation:
a, b, e. (Wastewater) As described in the ECR/C EIR, all wastewater produced in South San Francisco is treated
at the City’s Water Quality Control Plant (WQCP), which also treats water from San Bruno. As further
described in the ECR/C EIR, the plant is permitted by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality
Control Board (RWQCB) and, has an average dry weather flow (ADWF) design capacity of 13 mgd. In
its analysis on Page 3.7-21, the ECR/C EIR found that implementation of the Area Plan (i.e., buildout
under the Area Plan) would have less-than-significant impacts on wastewater treatment facilities and that
no mitigation would be required because there is adequate wastewater treatment capacity to accommodate
the proposed development. The WQCP complies with the requirements of the Regional Water Quality
Control Board and therefore there would be no exceedance of wastewater treatment requirements.
According to the SEIR, in 2016, there is still sufficient permitted influent capacity at the WQCP to treat
effluent from Area Plan development. Accordingly, no changes in circumstances have occurred that
would alter the ECR/C EIR’s assessment that there is sufficient wastewater treatment capacity to serve
the development contemplated by the Area Plan, including the Project, as well as existing development.
As the Project is consistent with the Area Plan, it will not cause an excess in wastewater beyond that
which the existing facilities can treat. The WQCP complies with the requirements of the Regional Water
Quality Control Board and because the Project’s wastes would be treated at that facility, its wastes would
be treated in compliance with the Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements. Further, the
Project would pay the City’s sewer capacity fee, which helps to offset impacts on sewer capacity from
new development projects. Accordingly, there are no new or more significant impacts than disclosed in
the ECR/C EIRs and no mitigation is required.
b. (Water) On pages 3.7-20, the ECR/C EIR found that based on discussions with California Water Service
(CWS), the existing water distribution system is generally in good condition and should be able to support
the Plan Area’s proposed development without the need for major repairs or upgrades to the existing
system, although minor upgrades could be required. The Civic Project EIR confirmed that no
improvements to infrastructure beyond what was identified and analyzed in the ECR/C EIR would be
required to serve the Plan Area. Thus there are no changes in circumstances that would alter the ECR/C
EIR’s conclusions.
CWS has provided confirmation that they can serve the Project. As the Area Plan was found to have a less
than significant impact, and the Proposed Project is consistent with the Area Plan, the Project will not
require the construction of significant water facilities that would have a significant impact. As such, the
Proposed Project would have no new or more significant impacts than disclosed in the ECR/C EIR and no
mitigation is required.
c. The ECR/C EIR stated that the planning area is largely covered with impermeable surfaces. As noted in
the Area Plan, the existing and future storm drain system discharges into the Colma Creek canal, and an
increase in stormwater flows and accompanying major infrastructure improvements is not anticipated.
The ECR/C EIR noted that the addition of the community park, as well as other open spaces, would likely
improve runoff in the area. It also noted that future projects would be subject to incentives and guidelines
to include plazas and open spaces with permeable surfaces in project design to potentially decrease on-
site stormwater runoff. The ECR/C EIR concluded that with implementation of these measures, the
capacity of the storm drain system would not be exceeded, and impacts would be less than significant.
The Civic EIR found that changes to the Area Plan would not result in new increases not previously
anticipated. The EIR also noted that development in the Area Plan area would be required to implement
127
988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development
City of South San Francisco
February 2018
Page 53
stormwater runoff reduction measures as directed under Area Plan Policy DG-40 and in compliance with
the Provision C.3 of the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program Technical Guidance
Manual. There are no changes in circumstances that would change the conclusions in the ECR/C EIRs.
The Project is consistent with the development planned under the Area Plan and would implement
stormwater runoff reduction measures as directed under Area Plan Policy DG-40 and in compliance with
the Provision C.3 of the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program Technical Guidance
Manual. Thus the Project would have no new or more significant impacts than those disclosed in the
ECR/C EIRs and no mitigation is required.
d. The ECR/C EIR stated that the population growth associated with the Area Plan (a combination of
residential and nonresidential) uses would increase the demand for water in the CWS area, but such
growth would be within the Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) projections. The ECR/C EIR
concluded that the development contemplated by the Area Plan would not require additional water supply
in excess of the supply contemplated by the UWMP.
The Civic Project EIR noted that Cal Water’s South San Francisco District (the City’s water supplier) had
adopted a new UWMP in 2016 (the “2015 UWMP”). As the Civic Project EIR notes, the 2015 UWMP
concluded that the South San Francisco District has sufficient water supply during years under normal
conditions, but during one-year or multiyear droughts, shortfalls of up to 20 percent or more are
projected. Under such conditions, Cal Water will implement its Water Shortage Contingency Plan. In
recent drought years, customers were asked to reduce their demand by 8 percent as specified by the State
Water Resources Control Board. The South San Francisco District exceeded this amount (20 percent
reduction based on June 2015 to March 2016 totals). Cal Water is also working toward increasing the
water supply portfolio for the South San Francisco District (Cal Water 2016).
California Water Service serves the Project site and has issued the applicant a “will serve” letter dated
January 2, 2018 stating that it will provide water to the Project. Further, the existing Project site’s use is
as a car wash, which is a water intensive use. The Project would replace that use with less water-intensive
uses that are consistent with the development allowed by the Area Plan. Thus the Project would have no
new or more significant impacts than disclosed by the ECR/C EIRs and no mitigation is required.
f, g. The ECR/C EIR evaluated whether future development under the proposed Plan will be served by a
landfill with adequate permitted capacity and would not fail to fully comply with federal, state, and local
statutes and regulations related to solid waste on page 3.7-22. The ECR/C EIR found that buildout
consistent with the Area Plan’s development standards would not necessitate any mitigations as there is
adequate capacity at Ox Mountain to accommodate the solid waste needs of development permitted by
the Area Plan while maintaining compliance with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related
to solid waste. The ECR/C EIR also noted that diversion rates would likely continue, resulting in less
solid waste that would need to be landfilled, and that General Plan policies addressed the need for solid
waste reduction. The ECR/C EIR concluded impacts were less than significant.
The Civic Project EIR confirmed that there remains adequate capacity at Ox Mountain to accommodate
solid waste from buildout of the Area Plan. It also noted that solid waste requiring landfill disposal would
be reduced compared to 2011 with continued implementation of the City’s recycling programs and state
mandates for increased diversion and enactment of legislation requiring additional increases in diversion
(e.g., AB 341 and AB1826). Thus there are no changes in circumstances that would result in new or more
severe impacts.
The Project is consistent with the Area Plan and will not result in landfill waste beyond that contemplated
in the ECR/C EIR. Thus, the Project will not result in new or more significant impacts related to landfills
128
988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development
City of South San Francisco
February 2018
Page 55
c. The Project would not have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly, as analyzed in the ECR/C EIRs.
Conclusions
As discussed, the Environmental Checklist confirms that 1) the Project does not exceed the environmental
impacts analyzed in the ECR/C EIRs, 2) that no new impacts have been identified, and 3) no new mitigation
measures are required. As detailed in the analysis presented above, the Project would not result in greater impacts
than were identified for the ECR/C EIRs. No new impacts have been identified and no new mitigation measures
are required.
130
988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development
City of South San Francisco
February 2018
Page 56
References
1. ECR/C Draft and Final Program EIR
2. Community Civic Center Campus Project Subsequent EIR
3. FEMA National Flood Hazard Layer:
http://fema.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=cbe088e7c8704464aa0fc34eb99e7f30
&extent=-122.45397202661182,37.649016688411635,-122.41242997338809,37.660228901797346
4. State Water Board GeoTracker Website: https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/
5. Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency website: http://bawsca.org/members/profiles/cws-san-
francisco accessed 12/23/17
6. 2014 SFO Noise Exposure Map accessed on 12/26/17: https://media.flysfo.com/media/sfo/noise-
abatement/sfo_p150_2014-nem-36x24-plot-signed_ada.pdf
7. 2019 SFO Noise Exposure Map accessed on 12/26/17: https://media.flysfo.com/media/sfo/noise-
abatement/sfo_p150_2019-nem-36x24-plot-signed_ada.pdf
8. US Census Website “Quick Facts” for South San Francisco accessed on 12/26/17:
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/southsanfranciscocitycalifornia#viewtop
9. Rockridge Geotechnical Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Mixed-Use Development 988
El Camino Real, South San Francisco dated 3/6/17.
10. Hexagon Traffic Analysis dated January 4, 2018
11. Holman and Associates Historical Resources Records Search and Subsurface Archaeological
Reconnaissance dated May 2017
12. Holman and Associates Phase I Historical Site Assessment
13. Project Plans, dated 12/1/17, submitted 12/4/17
14. Cortese List accessed 12/27/17:
http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/search.asp?cmd=search&reporttype=CORTESE&site_type=CSI
TES,OPEN,FUDS,CLOSE&status=ACT,BKLG,COM&reporttitle=HAZARDOUS+WASTE+AND+SU
BSTANCES+SITE+LIST; see also Reference Number 4.
15. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment from Engeo Incorporated dated March 7, 2017
16. California Water Services “Will Serve” letter dated 1/2/18
17. Environmental Noise Assessment dated July 7, 2017, Charles M. Salter and Associates
18. SummerHill Apartment Communities Response to City Comments dated September 26, 2017
19. KTGY Solar Study dated August 15, 2017
131
988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development
City of South San Francisco
February 2018
Page 57
20. VA Consulting Sewer Study dated December 2017
21. Hexagon Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan dated December 15, 2017
2915362.1
132
Memorandum
Date: January 5, 2018
To: Ms. Elaine Breeze, SummerHill Apartment Communities
From: Trisha Dudala and Gary Black
Subject: 988 El Camino Real Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA
Introduction
This report presents the results of the traffic study for the proposed mixed-use project at 988 El
Camino Real in South San Francisco, CA. The project is located East of El Camino Real, bounded
by Centennial Way Trail to the east, Chestnut Avenue to the north, El Camino Real to the west and
an existing Burger King restaurant to the south (see Figure 1). The project site is located across the
street from the future site of the South San Francisco Community Civic Campus. The project site is
currently occupied by South City Car Wash, which will be replaced by the project. The proposed
project is a 6-story mixed use residential and commercial building with two additional subterranean
levels for parking. The project will provide 172 residential units and 10,360 sf of retail space (see
Figure 2). The project proposes one driveway on El Camino Real and one driveway on Chestnut
Avenue. The driveway on El Camino Real will accommodate right turns in and out of the project and
the driveway on Chestnut Avenue will allow right turns in only. Because of the raised median on El
Camino Real and Chestnut Avenue along the project frontages, left turns in or out of the project will
not be possible. Parking for the retail space and residential guests will be provided on the ground
floor of the project. Residential parking will be provided in the two-level subterranean garage.
The project is located within the El Camino Real/Chestnut (ECR/C) Avenue Area Plan District,
which covers areas generally to the west of downtown South San Francisco, and are bordered by
the South San Francisco BART station on the north, El Camino Real to the west, Mission Road to
the east and the existing retail development just south of Chestnut Avenue. The City of South San
Francisco adopted the El Camino Real/ Chestnut Avenue Area Plan and associated Zoning
Ordinance amendments in 2011. Because the project is located in the ECR/C district, and is
consistent with the land use approved for the site in that plan, the transportation impact analysis
from that plan was utilized as a reference for this analysis.
The Community Civic Campus Project SEIR is a subsequent environmental impact report that was
prepared in June 2017 to analyze the impacts of the inclusion of the Community Civic Campus to
the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan. An updated traffic study for the El Camino
Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan associated with the Community Civic Campus Project SEIR was
completed in April 2017 by Kimley Horn. The cumulative impact analysis prepared for the El
Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan amendment adequately captures the project’s
contribution to cumulative transportation impacts because the project is consistent with the land use
assumptions about the project site used in the SEIR’s transportation impact analysis.
Scope of Study
The impacts of the project were evaluated consistent with the Community Civic Campus Project
SEIR, following the standards and methodologies set forth by the City of South San Francisco, San
133
988 El Camino Real DRAFT Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA January 5, 2018
Page | 2
Mateo County, Caltrans, and the applicable provisions of California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). Traffic operations for the following seven intersections were analyzed based on direction
provided by City staff. Intersections 1, 2, 4 and 7 were analyzed in the updated traffic study for the
El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan. This list of study intersections was reviewed and
approved by City staff.
Study Intersections
1. El Camino Real/Arroyo Drive/Oak Extension
2. El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue
3. El Camino Real/Southwood Drive/1st Street (Unsignalized)
4. El Camino Real/W Orange Avenue
5. Camaritas Avenue/Arroyo Drive (Unsignalized)
6. Westborough Boulevard/Camaritas Avenue/W Orange Avenue
7. Mission Road/Chestnut Avenue
Traffic conditions at the intersections were analyzed for the weekday AM and PM peak hours of
traffic. The AM peak hour of traffic is generally between 7:00 and 9:00 AM, and the PM peak hour is
typically between 4:00 and 6:00 PM. It is during these periods that the most congested traffic
conditions occur on an average weekday.
Traffic conditions were evaluated for the following scenarios:
1. Existing Conditions. Existing traffic conditions were evaluated based on the level of
service analysis described for existing conditions in the Community Civic Campus Project
SEIR.
2. Existing Plus Project Conditions. Project-generated traffic was added to the existing
traffic volumes to analyze existing plus project conditions. Project generated traffic was
estimated using the vehicular trip generation rates recommended by the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE) manual entitled Trip Generation, 9th Edition. The ITE
manual has limited survey data for car washes. Therefore, peak-hour trips generated by
the existing car wash were obtained from driveway counts conducted at the existing
driveways in February 2017. These trips were subtracted from the trips generated by the
project to determine the net trips generated by the project. The total net trips were added
to the existing traffic volumes to generate existing plus project conditions.
134
988 El Camino Real DRAFT Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA January 5, 2018
Page | 5
Methodology
Traffic conditions at the study intersections were evaluated using level of service (LOS). Level of
Service is a qualitative description of operating conditions ranging from LOS A, or free-flow
conditions with little or no delay, to LOS F, or jammed conditions with excessive delays.
Signalized Intersections
The City of South San Francisco evaluates level of service at signalized intersections based on the
2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) level of service methodology. This method evaluates
signalized intersection operations on the basis of average control delay time for all vehicles at the
intersection. Table 1 shows the level of service definitions for signalized intersections. Intersection
traffic operations were analyzed using Traffix traffic analysis software. The HCM 2000 methodology
was used for intersection analysis to maintain consistency with the updated traffic study prepared
for the Community Civic Campus Project SEIR.
Table 1
Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Control Delay
Unsignalized Intersections
Similar to signalized intersections, the City of South San Francisco evaluates level of service at
unsignalized intersections based on the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) level of service
Source: Transportation Research Board, 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (Washington, D.C., 2000) p10-16.
Level of
Service Description
Average Control
Delay Per
Vehicle (sec.)
Signal progression is extremely favorable. Most vehicles arrive during the
green phase and do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to
the very low vehicle delay.
10.0 or lessA
B
Operations characterized by good signal progression and/or short cycle
lengths. More vehicles stop than with LOS A, causing higher levels of average
vehicle delay.
10.1 to 20.0
Higher delays may result from fair signal progression and/or longer cycle
lengths. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level. The number
of vehicles stopping is significant, though may still pass through the
intersection without stopping.
20.1 to 35.0C
This level of delay is considered unacceptable by most drivers. This condition
often occurs with oversaturation, that is, when arrival flow rates exceed the
capacity of the intersection. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may
also be major contributing causes of such delay levels.
greater than 80.0F
The influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may
result from some combination of unfavorable signal progression, long cycle
lenghts, or high volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios. Many vehicles stop and
individual cycle failures are noticeable.
35.1 to 55.0D
This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values
generally indicate poor signal progression, long cycle lengths, and high
volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios. Individual cycle failures occur frequently.
55.1 to 80.0E
137
988 El Camino Real DRAFT Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA January 5, 2018
Page | 6
methodology. This methodology determines the LOS based on delay. Similar to signalized
intersections, the measure of effectiveness of an unsignalized intersection is measured in average
control delay. However, the delay is reported for the worst-case approach of the intersection. The
LOS criteria for unsignalized intersections are summarized in Table 2.
Table 2
Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Control Delay
Regulatory Framework
Existing policies, laws and regulations that apply to the proposed project are summarized below.
The City of South San Francisco has jurisdiction over all City streets and City-operated traffic
signals. State Routes, including US-101, are under the jurisdiction of California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans). Public transit agencies with operations in the study area are SamTrans,
Caltrain, and BART.
City of South San Francisco General Plan
The Transportation and Circulation Element of the City of South San Francisco General Plan
addresses the location and extent of existing and planned transportation routes, terminals, and
other public utilities and facilities. The General Plan identifies roadway and transit goals and policies
that have been adopted to ensure that the transportation system of the City will have adequate
capacity to serve planned growth. These goals and policies are intended to provide a plan and
implementation measures for an integrated, multi-modal transportation system that will safely and
efficiently meet the transportation needs of all economic and social segments of the City.
Level of Service Policies
The following Level of Service (LOS) guidelines are outlined in the City of South San Francisco
General Plan (City of South San Francisco 1999):
Strive to maintain LOS D or better on arterial and collector streets, at all intersections, and
on principal arterials during peak hours.
Accept LOS E or F after finding that there is no feasible and practical way to mitigate the
lower level of service, and the uses resulting in the lower level of service are of clear overall
public benefit.
A Little or no traffic delay 10.0 or less
B Short traffic delays 10.1 to 15.0
C Average traffic delays 15.1 to 25.0
D Long traffic delays 25.1 to 35.0
E Very long traffic delays 35.1 to 50.0
F Extreme traffic delays greater than 50.0
Source: Transportation Research Board, 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (Washington, D.C., 2000) p17-2.
Level of Service Description Average Delay Per Vehicle (Sec.)
138
988 El Camino Real DRAFT Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA January 5, 2018
Page | 7
Exempt development within 0.25 mile of a Caltrain or BART station, or a ferry terminal, from
LOS standards.
The project site is located on an arterial street, and is not located within 0.25 mile of a Caltrain or
BART station.
The City follows the significance criteria in the CEQA guidelines. Under the CEQA guidelines, a
project would have a significant impact if it would:
a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of
effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all
modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant
components of the circulation system, including, but not limited to, intersections, streets,
highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths and mass transit.
City Clarification of (a)
According to impact criteria established administratively, the project would result in a
significant traffic impact at a signalized or unsignalized intersection if either of the
following criteria are met:
An intersection with base traffic volumes operating at an acceptable LOS (LOS D or
better) deteriorates to an unacceptable operation (LOS E or F) with the addition of
project traffic; or
An intersection is already operating at an unacceptable LOS and the proposed
project would add any traffic to that intersection.
b. Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited
to, level-of-service standards, and travel demand measures, or other standards
established by a county congestion management agency for designated roadways or
highways.
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment).
d. Result in inadequate emergency vehicle access.
e. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or
pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities.
Analysis and Performance of the Circulation System (Threshold a)
The current transportation network within the study area, including roadway, bicycle, pedestrian,
and transit facilities are described under Existing conditions. Also, the existing traffic operations of
the study intersections are analyzed and described. Impacts of the project on existing intersection
operations are analyzed and described under Existing pus Project conditions.
Existing Conditions
Existing Roadway Network
Regional access to the project site is provided by US 101, I- 380, I- 280 and SR 82/El Camino Real.
Local access to the project site is provided via Westborough Boulevard/ Chestnut Avenue and
Mission Road.
US 101 is a north-south freeway that extends through and beyond the Bay Area, connecting San
Francisco to San Jose. US 101 is eight lanes wide (four mixed-flow lanes in each direction) in the
139
988 El Camino Real DRAFT Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA January 5, 2018
Page | 8
vicinity of the project site. US 101 provides site access via a full interchange at I 380, and partial
interchanges at Produce Avenue, Grand Avenue and Sister Cities Boulevard.
I-280 is a north/south freeway that extends from San Francisco through San Mateo and Santa Clara
Counties. Near the project vicinity, I-280 is eight lanes wide. Regional access to the project site is
provided via an interchange with Westborough Boulevard.
I-380 is a six-lane east/west freeway that connects I-280 and US-101 within San Bruno. El Camino
Real provides access to I-380 via an interchange.
SR-82/El Camino Real is a six-lane north-south arterial with a raised center median within the
project area. El Camino Real extends northward to San Francisco where it changes designation to
Mission Street and San Jose Avenue, and southward through San Jose. El Camino Real provides
direct access to the project site.
Westborough Boulevard /Chestnut Avenue is a four-lane major arterial with a raised median west of
Mission Road. Chestnut Avenue begins at Hillside Boulevard and terminates at the intersection with
El Camino Real and becomes Westborough Boulevard. Inbound access to the project is provided
via Chestnut Avenue.
Mission Road is a four-lane roadway that is aligned mostly north-south in the vicinity of the site.
Mission Road extends north-south between El Camino Real and Chestnut Avenue. Mission Road
provides access to the project site via El Camino Real and Chestnut Avenue.
Arroyo Drive is a two-lane collector that extends between Junipero Serra Boulevard to the west and
El Camino Real to the east. Arroyo Drive provides access to the project via Chestnut Avenue.
Camaritas Avenue is a north-south roadway which is classified as an “Other Street” in the City’s
General Plan. It is generally two lanes except between Arroyo Drive and Westborough Road, where
it is four lanes wide.
Existing Transit Service
Existing transit service to the study area is provided by SamTrans, BART and the shuttle operated
by SamTrans. The transit services are described below and shown on Figure 3.
SamTrans Bus Routes
Route ECR travels between the Daly City BART station and the Palo Alto Transit Center. Along the
route, it connects with the Daly City, Colma, South San Francisco, San Bruno and Millbrae BART
stations, the Millbrae and Redwood City Transit Centers and various Caltrain stations. On
weekdays, it operates with approximately 15-minute headways during peak hours and 30-minute
headways from 4:00 AM to 2:00 AM. On the weekends, it operates with 15- to 30-minute headways
from 5:00 AM to 2:00 AM. The closest bus stop is located near the El Camino Real and 1st Street
intersection, about 500 feet from the project site.
Route 122 travels between Stonestown Shopping Center in San Francisco and the South San
Francisco BART station, providing service to the Colma BART Station, San Francisco State
University and many retail and medical centers along the way. On weekdays, it operates with
approximately 20-minute headways during the peak hours and approximately 30-minute headways
for the rest of the day, from 5:00 AM to 11:15 PM. It operates on weekends and holidays with 30-
minute headways. In the project vicinity, it travels on El Camino Real south of the South San
Francisco BART Station and then travels west on Arroyo Drive. The closest bus stop is located near
the El Camino Real and Arroyo Drive intersection, about 1,200 feet from the project site.
140
988 El Camino Real DRAFT Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA January 5, 2018
Page | 9
Route 131 travels between the Serramonte Center in Daly City and the intersection of Airport
Boulevard & Linden Avenue in South San Francisco. It also provides service to the South San
Francisco BART station. On weekdays, it operates with 15- to 20-minute headways during the peak
hours and approximately 15- to 30-minute headways for the rest of the day, from 5:00 AM to 11:00
PM. It operates on weekdays with 30-minute headways. In the project vicinity, it travels on Grand
Avenue, Mission Road, and El Camino Real. The closest bus stop is located near the Chestnut
Avenue and Grand Avenue intersection, about 2,000 feet from the project site.
Route 37 travels through South San Francisco from the intersection of Grove Avenue and Hillside
Boulevard to Alta Loma Middle School. It provides service during school start and dismissal times at
Alta Loma Middle School. The service is only provided on school days and operates one morning
and one afternoon bus from 7:59 to 8:20 AM and 3:35 to 3:59 PM, respectively. In the project
vicinity, it travels on El Camino Real between Arroyo Drive and Orange Avenue.
Route 39 travels through South San Francisco from the intersection of Hazelwood Drive and
Northwood Drive to Alta Loma Middle School. It provides service during school start and dismissal
times at Alta Loma Middle School. The service is only provided on school days and operates one
morning and one afternoon bus from 8:16 to 8:32 AM and 3:25 to 3:40 PM, respectively. In the
project vicinity, it travels on El Camino Real between Arroyo Drive and Orange Avenue.
Route 28 travels between the Serramonte Center in Daly City and South San Francisco High
School. Along the route, it connects with regional shopping centers in Daly City and South San
Francisco. It operates with 10-minute headways during the AM period and 6-minute headways
during the PM period except for Wednesdays. The service is only provided on school days. In the
project vicinity, it travels on Westborough Boulevard and then heads south on El Camino Real.
The bus stops for Routes 37, 39 and 28 are located near the El Camino Real/1st Street intersection,
about 500 feet from the project site, and on West Orange Ave near the West Orange Library, about
1,200 feet from the project site.
South City Shuttle
The South City shuttle is the City of South San Francisco’s free public shuttle service, which travels
around South San Francisco, with trips to local stores, senior center, libraries, city hall and parks.
This shuttle provides transit connections with SamTrans and BART. In the vicinity of the project site,
the shuttle stops at the bus stop near the El Camino Real and 1st Street intersection. The shuttle
operates between 7:30 AM and 6:30 PM on weekdays with 40 to 45-minute headways. This shuttle
is wheelchair accessible and can accommodate 2 bikes. The shuttle service is a pilot program of
the City of South San Francisco, funded in part by the San Mateo County Transportation Authority.
BART Service
Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) operates regional rail service in the Bay Area, connecting between
San Francisco International Airport, San Francisco to the north, and cities in the East Bay. The
Richmond-Daly City/Millbrae Line on weekdays provides service from 5:00 AM to 9:15 PM with
typical headways (frequency of service) of 15 minutes during peak and mid-day hours. The
Pittsburg/Bay Point-SFO Airport-Millbrae Line on weekdays provides service between 5:15 AM to
1:30 AM with typical headways of 15 minute during peak and mid-day hours and 20 minutes
headway after 8:00 PM. There are bicycle racks and bicycle lockers available at the South San
Francisco BART Station. This station has monthly reserved, single day reserved and carpool
parking. The South San Francisco BART station is located less than a mile from the project site.
The BART station is served by SamTrans Buses 37 and 122 and the South City shuttle.
Alternatively, project residents could access the BART station via the Centennial Way trail, which
provides a safe and easy pedestrian and bicycle connection to the BART station.
141
988 El Camino Real DRAFT Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA January 5, 2018
Page | 11
Caltrain
Caltrain provides commuter rail service between San Francisco and Gilroy. The project is located
approximately 2 miles from the South San Francisco Caltrain station, which is located at 590
Dubuque Avenue, on the east side of US-101, immediately north of East Grand Avenue. The South
San Francisco Caltrain Station serves local and limited trains. Weekday peak commute headways
are between 20 and 60 minutes, with more frequent service for AM northbound and PM southbound
trips. Transfers between the Caltrain and BART system can occur at the Millbrae BART station.
Residents can access Caltrain via SamTrans bus routes.
East of US-101 Area Shuttles
Since no SamTrans bus service exists east of US-101 in South San Francisco, project residents
who work in the east of US-101 area and rely on public transit must rely on supplementary shuttle
services. The Commute.org, a public agency representing 17 cities and the County of San Mateo,
operates seven shuttles to the east of US-101 area from the Caltrain and BART stations. The
following shuttles connect the South San Francisco BART station to the east of US-101 area.
Oyster Point BART Shuttle
The Oyster Point BART shuttle provides service between the South San Francisco BART station
and the Oyster Point area office buildings with seven shuttles leaving from the South San Francisco
BART station every 30 minutes in the morning (6:40 AM – 9:40 AM) and eight shuttles arriving at
the South San Francisco BART station every 30 minutes in the evening (3:30 PM – 7:00 PM)
Monday through Friday.
Utah-Grand BART Shuttle
The Utah-Grand BART shuttle provides service between the South San Francisco BART Station
and the Utah-Grand area office buildings with eight shuttles leaving from the South San Francisco
BART station every 30 minutes in the morning (6:10 AM to 9:40 AM) and seven shuttles arriving at
the South San Francisco BART station every 30 minutes in the evening (3:30 PM – 6:30 PM)
Monday through Friday.
Genenbus
Genentech provides a comprehensive bus service for its employees (but not available to the
general public). Multiple routes serving 57 communities across the Bay Area provide direct access
to the Genentech campus. Also, as a “last mile” connection, shuttles opereate between both the
South San Francisco BART station and South San Francisco Caltrain station, serving the campus;
these buses operate every 30 minutes in the morning period (6:10 AM – 9:40 AM) and the evening
period (3:30 PM – 6:35 PM).
Existing Bicycle Facilities
Bicycle facilities include bike paths, bike lanes, and bike routes. Bike paths (Class I facilities) are
pathways, separate from roadways, which are designated for use by bicycles. Often, these
pathways also allow pedestrian access. Bike lanes (Class II facilities) are lanes on roadways
designated for use by bicycles with special lane markings, pavement legends, and signage. Bike
routes (Class III) are existing rights-of-way that accommodate bicycles but are not separate from
the existing travel lanes. Routes are typically designated only with signs. Existing bicycle facilities in
the project study area are shown on Figure 4.
143
988 El Camino Real DRAFT Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA January 5, 2018
Page | 12
The following bicycle facilities exist in the project study area.
Class I Bikeway (Multi-Use Path)
Centennial Way Trail is a bike path that extends from the South San Francisco BART
station to the San Bruno BART station. This path connects to Class III bike routes on
Chestnut Avenue and W. Orange Avenue in the immediate project vicinity.
Class II Bikeways (Bike Lanes)
Westborough Boulevard between I-280 and Camaritas Avenue/West Orange Avenue
Grand Avenue between Chestnut Avenue and Spruce Avenue
Mission Road north of McLellan Drive
Antoinette Lane between Chestnut Avenue and Centennial Way Trail
Class III Bikeways (Bike Routes)
Camaritas Avenue -West Orange Avenue south of Arroyo Drive
Commercial Avenue between Chestnut Avenue and Lindon Avenue
Del Monte Avenue between Bryon Drive to Arroyo Drive
El Camino Real through the City of South San Francisco
Mission Road between McLellan Drive and Sequoia Avenue
Westborough Boulevard-Chestnut Avenue between Camaritas Avenue/West Orange
Avenue and Hillside Boulevard
Grand Avenue between Mission Road and Chestnut Avenue
Existing Pedestrian Facilities
Pedestrian facilities in the study area consist of sidewalks that are ADA (American with Disabilities
Act) compatible along most of the surrounding streets. Crosswalks with pedestrian signal heads are
located at all of the signalized intersections in the study area. There are a few gaps within the
sidewalk network in the project area. Most prominent is the lack of a sidewalk on the west side of El
Camino Real from BART Road to just north of Arroyo Drive. This is identified as an improvement
and is recommended by the City’s El Camino Real Master Plan, prepared in 2006. Overall, the
existing pedestrian facilities provide adequate connectivity between the site and all of the
surrounding land uses in the area.
144
988 El Camino Real DRAFT Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA January 5, 2018
Page | 14
Existing Intersection Operations
This section describes existing operations based on the analysis presented in the Community Civic
Campus Project SEIR. Each study intersection was analyzed using existing lane configurations,
existing AM and PM peak hour turning movement counts and existing traffic signal timing data, as
presented in the SEIR except at the following intersections which were not analyzed in the SEIR:
El Camino Real/Southwood Drive/1st Street
Camaritas Avenue/Arroyo Drive
W. Orange Avenue/Westborough Boulevard
AM and PM peak hour turning movement counts were conducted at these three intersections on
July 12, 2017. Lane geometry and signal timing information were collected from field observations.
As these counts were conducted during non-school days, the counts were adjusted based on the
traffic counts conducted for nearby intersections in September 2016 presented in the Community
Civic Campus Project SEIR.
The existing lane configurations at the study intersections are shown on Figure 5 and the existing
traffic volumes are shown on Figure 6.
A traffic operations model was developed for the study area using TRAFFIX software. As shown in
Table 3, the analysis shows that most of the study intersections currently operate at acceptable
LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours, with the following exceptions:
El Camino Real/ Chestnut Avenue – The analysis shows that this intersection currently operates at
LOS E during the AM peak hour and LOS D during the PM peak hour. Field observations showed
long queues (up to 16 vehicles) for the northbound left-turn movement that exceeded the available
storage during the PM peak hour. The westbound approach has a short storage length due to the
close proximity of the adjacent signal at Chestnut Avenue/Antoinette Lane. This short storage
length resulted in vehicles consistently backing up into the Chestnut Avenue/Antoinette Lane
intersection during the AM and PM peak hours.
EL Camino Real/1st Street/Southwood Drive – The analysis shows that this intersection currently
operates at LOS B or better during both the AM and PM peak hour periods based on the weighted
average delay for all vehicles entering the intersection. However, the analysis shows that vehicles
on the eastbound and westbound stop-controlled approaches of Southwood Drive and 1st Street
experience long wait times, resulting in LOS F conditions for those movements. It should be noted
that the volumes on both of the stop controlled approaches were very low, less than 35 vehicles
during both the AM and PM peak hours. This intersection was evaluated for the CA MUTCD peak-
hour signal Warrant 3, and the analysis showed that the intersection would not meet the warrant
during either of the peak hours under existing conditions due to the low traffic volumes on the side
street approaches.
146
988 El Camino Real DRAFT Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA January 5, 2018
Page | 17
Table 3
Existing Conditions Intersection LOS Analysis
Existing Plus Project Conditions
This section describes the impacts of the proposed project on existing intersection conditions.
The magnitude of traffic produced by a new development and the locations where that traffic would
appear are estimated using a three-step process: (1) trip generation, (2) trip distribution, and (3) trip
assignment. In determining project trip generation, the magnitude of traffic entering and exiting the
site is estimated for the AM and PM peak hours. As part of the project trip distribution, an estimate
is made of the directions to and from which the project trips would travel. In the project trip
assignment, the project trips are assigned to specific streets. These procedures are described
further in the following sections.
Project Trip Generation
The proposed project will provide 172 residential units and 10,360 square feet of retail space within
a 6-story building.
Ave Delay
(sec/veh)
AM 25.5 C
PM 20.5 C
AM 56.7 E
PM 52.4 D
AM 9.2 A
Northbound Left 17.8 C
Southbound Left 12.7 B
Eastbound Left OVR F
Westbound Left 65.0 F
PM 12.0 B
Northbound Left 14.0 B
Southbound Left 25.9 D
Eastbound Left OVR F
Westbound Left 101.7 F
AM 36.8 D
PM 40.7 D
AM 9.7 A
PM 11.7 B
AM 18.8 B
PM 33.4 C
AM 26.7 C
PM 26.4 C
Italics indicates specific movement.
OVR - Delay longer than 120 seconds
Signal
Intersection
El Camino Real and West Orange Aven Signal
Camaritas Avenue and Arroyo Drive All-way Stop
Wes tborough Boluevard and
Camaritas
Avenue/W Orange Avenue
Signal
Mission Road and Chestnut Avenue
El Camino Real and Chestnut Avenue Signal
El Camino Real and Southwood
Drive/First Street
Two-way Stop
El Camino Real and Arroyo Drive Signal
Control Peak Hour LOS
Existing
149
988 El Camino Real DRAFT Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA January 5, 2018
Page | 18
AM and PM peak hour trip generation estimates for the proposed project are based on regression
equations obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) publication Trip Generation,
Ninth Edition, for Apartments (ITE Land Use 220) and average rates for Shopping Center (ITE Land
Use 820) and are shown in Table 4.
Trip reductions were taken for the mixed-use internalization of the project, as well as its proximity to
regional rail transit, in accordance with the El Camino Real/Chestnut (ECR/C) Avenue Area Plan
District; these reductions were reviewed and approved by City of South San Francisco staff.
Specific reductions include the following:
Due to the mixed-use nature of the project some residents of the apartments are expected
to be customers at the retail stores, thus not creating any new trips. A 5% reduction was
applied to the total trips to account for mixed-use internalization.
Since the project is within a mile of the South San Francisco BART station and walking
distance from other transit services, the trip estimates can be reduced further. A 15%
reduction was applied to the residential trips, and a 5% reduction was applied to the retail
trips to account for transit usage.
A 20% pass-by trip reduction was also applied to the retail space during the PM peak hour
to account for any traffic attracted from the traffic stream on El Camino Real.
The Community Civi Campus Project SEIR calculated an additional 10 to 14% trip reduction rate for
the ECR/C plan area due to the incorporation of Travel Demand Management (TDM) plans by
development within the plan area. The 988 El Camino Real project will implement a TDM plan.
However, no TDM credit was taken in the trip generation calculations, which is a conservative
approach. Thus, the actual trip generation of the project could be less than analyzed in this traffic
study.
Trip credits were applied for the existing car wash on the site. The number of trips generated by the
car wash was determined by traffic counts conducted during the AM and PM peak periods on
February 14, 2017 at the existing driveways. Based on existing traffic counts, the AM peak hour in
the study area generally occurred between 7:45 to 8:45 and the PM peak hour occurred between 5
to 6 PM. Accordingly, trips generated by the car wash during these peak hours were credited for
existing uses on site. Also, a 20% pass-by was applied to the car wash trip generation before taking
trip credits for existing uses on site.
As shown in Table 4 below, it is estimated that the proposed project would generate a net total of
59 AM peak hour trips and 101 PM peak hour trips on a regular weekday after accounting for all
reductions.
Trip Distribution Pattern and Trip Assignment
The trip distribution pattern for the project was estimated consistent with the trip distribution
assumptions presented in the Community Civic Campus Project SEIR and shown on Figure 7.
These distribution estimates were developed based on the location of complementary land uses,
existing travel patterns in the area and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) regional
travel demand model. The net project trips assigned to the study intersections are shown on Figure
8.
150
988 El Camino Real DRAFT Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA January 5, 2018
Page | 19
Table 4
Project Trip Generation
Land Use Unit Rate In Out Total Rate In Out Total
Proposed Uses
Multi-Family Housing1 172 DU 0.51 18 71 89 0.62 73 39 112
Transit Trip Reduction for Residential (15%) 2 -3 -11 -14 -11 -6 -17
Residential & Retail Internal Capture (5%) 3 0 0 0 -1-1-2
Retail 4 10,360 s.f. 0.96 6 4 10 3.71 18 20 38
Transit Trip Reduction for Retail (5%) 2 0 0 0 -1-1-2
Residential & Retail Internal Capture (5%) 3 0 0 0 -1-1-2
Retail Pass-By Reduction (20%) 5 0 0 0 -3-4-7
Primary Project Trips 21 64 85 74 47 121
Existing Use
Full-Service Car Wash6 - --22 -11 -33 -8 -18 -26
Retail Pass-By Reduction (20%) 5 5 27 246
Overall Net Project Trips 4 55 59 68 33 101
Notes:
1. Based on Fitted Curved Equation for Apartments (220) land use, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 9th Edition.
4. Based on average trip generation rates for Shopping Center (820) lane use, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 9th Edition.
6. Based on AM and PM peak hour drivew ay counts conducted on February 14, 2017.
5. Given the location of the project site, a 20% pass-by trip reduction w as applied to the retail component of the project and to the existing uses. The pass-
by trips account for the vehicular traffic already present on El Camino Real that stops at the retail as they pass by the site.
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
3. A 5% residential/retail mixed-use trip reduction w as applied to the project. The 5% reduction w as first applied to the smaller generator (retail). The same
number of trips w ere subtracted from the larger generator (residential) to account for both trip ends.
Size
2. A 15 % transit reduction w as applied to the residential component of the project and a 5% transit reduction w as applied to the retail component of the
project to account for the close proximty of the project to the South San Francisco BART station.
Trip rates for multi-family and retail uses are from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, 2012. The ECR/C Supplementary Environmental Impact Report
SEIR), calculated a 28% trip reduction rate for the plan area due to the proximity to transit and the incorporation of Travel Demand Management (TDM) plans.
The 988 El Camino Real project w ill implement a TDM plan. How ever, no TDM credit w as taken in the trip generation calculations, w hich is a conservative
approach. Thus, the actual trip generation of the project could be less than show n in this table.
151
988 El Camino Real DRAFT Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA January 5, 2018
Page | 22
Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes
The project trips were added to the existing traffic volumes to obtain existing plus project traffic
volumes (see Figure 9).
Existing plus Project Intersection Operations
The results of the intersection level of service analysis for all the study intersections for both AM
and PM peak period are shown in Table 5 below.
Table 5
Existing Plus Project Intersection Operations
As shown in Table 5, the analysis shows that most study intersections would operate at acceptable
LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours, with the following exception:
El Camino Real/ Chestnut Avenue – The analysis shows that this intersection currently operates at
LOS E during the AM peak hour and LOS D during the PM peak hour under existing conditions.
Ave Delay Ave Delay
(sec/veh)(sec/veh)
AM 25.5 C 25.5 C
PM 20.5 C 20.4 C
AM 56.7 E 57.4 E
PM 52.4 D 53.1 D
AM 9.2 A 9.5 A
Northbound Left 17.8 C 18.0 C
Southbound Left 12.7 B 12.7 B
Eastbound OVR F OVR F
Westbound 65.0 F 65.6 F
PM 12.0 B 12.4 B
Northbound Left 14.0 B 14.1 B
Southbound Left 25.9 D 26.3 D
Eastbound Left OVR F OVR F
Westbound Left 101.7 F 106.7 F
AM 36.8 D 36.8 D
PM 40.7 D 40.8 D
AM 9.7 A 9.8 A
PM 11.7 B 11.7 B
AM 18.8 B 19.0 B
PM 33.4 C 33.4 C
AM 26.7 C 26.7 C
PM 26.4 C 26.4 C
Italics indicates specific movement.
OVR - Delay exceed 120 seconds
SignalEl Camino Real and West Orange Aven
Camaritas Avenue and Arroyo Drive
Westborough Boluevard and
Camaritas Avenue/W Orange Avenue
El Camino Real and Chestnut Avenue
El Camino Real and
Southwood Drive/First Street
Signal
Existing + Project Existing
Intersection Control Peak Hour LOS LOS
Signal
All-way Stop
El Camino Real and Arroyo Drive Signal
Mission Road and Chestnut Avenue
Signal
Two-way Stop
154
988 El Camino Real DRAFT Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA January 5, 2018
Page | 23
With the proposed project, the analysis shows that this intersection would continue to operate at
LOS E during the AM peak hour and LOS D during the PM peak hour.
Based on the significance criteria used in the Community Civic Campus Project SEIR to evaluate
project impacts to signalized intersections, the project is considered to have an impact if trips
generated by the project would add any additional traffic to an intersection that does not meet the
current City LOS standard. As the subject intersection does not meet the current LOS standard
during the AM peak hour and as the project would add traffic to this intersection, the project would
cause a significant impact to this intersection during the AM peak hour. The Community Civic
Campus Project SEIR identified the following mitigation at this intersection:
Mitigation Measure TRAF-1b: The City will modify the signal timing to optimize the cycle
length at the intersection of El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue.
The proposed mitigation measure would alleviate the project’s impact at this intersection and would
improve the intersection level of service to an acceptable LOS D for both AM and PM peak hours.
As shown in Table 5, the analysis shows that the following intersection would operate at acceptable
LOS but experience long delays:
EL Camino Real/1st Street/Southwood Drive – This intersection would continue to operate at LOS A
during the AM peak hour and LOS B during the PM peak hour with the proposed project based on
the average control delay at this intersection. The analysis shows that the eastbound and
westbound stop-controlled approaches of Southwood Drive and 1st Street would continue to
experience long delays in finding gaps on El Camino Real, but the project would not add any
vehicles to these congested movements.
Because the project would not add any traffic to the unacceptably-congested movements, and the
overall intersection delay would remain acceptable, no traffic impact would result and no mitigation
is required.
Design Features and Emergency Access (Thresholds c, d)
The proposed project would conform to all engineering and fire safety standards related to
transportation design features of the site, including the design of the driveways and on-site
circulation (as further discussed below). The project does not propose incompatible uses or offsite
roadway alterations. Therefore, the project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature or use with incompatible vehicles such as farm equipment. The project would not result in
inadequate emergency vehicle access.
Transit, Pedestrian and Bicycle Impacts (Thresholds a, e)
The project is well situated to take advantage of the existing and planned pedestrian, bicycle, and
transit services in the immediate vicinity. These services would allow project residents to access
employment, shopping, restaurants and many services without a car. The project would provide a
direct connection to the Centennial Way Trail that connects to the South San Francisco BART
Station. According to the Community Civic Campus Project SEIR, with the full buildout of the El
Camino Real/ Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, there will not be any significant impact on the
performance of transit, pedestrian and bicycle networks. The project is consistent with the El
Camino Real/ Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and would reinforce, the planned pedestrian, bicycle,
and transit orientation of the neighborhood. Therefore, the project would not result in a significant
impact on the existing transit, pedestrian, and bicycle networks.
155
988 El Camino Real DRAFT Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA January 5, 2018
Page | 25
Non-CEQA Transportation Considerations
Several transportation considerations are not related to CEQA, but are presented here for
informational purposes.
Project Vehicular Site Access and Circulation
The site access and circulation evaluation is based on the September 25, 2017 site plans prepared
by KTGY Architecture and Planning (see Figure 2, Figure 10A and Figure 10B).
Access to the project would be provided via one driveway on El Camino Real and one driveway on
Chestnut Avenue. The driveway on El Camino Real would be located approximately 325 feet south
of Chestnut Avenue and the driveway on Chestnut Avenue would be located approximatey 120 feet
east of El Camino Real. The driveway on El Camino Real will accommodate right turns in and out of
the project and the driveway on Chestnut Avenue will allow right turns in only. Because of the
raised median on El Camino Real and on Chestnut Avenue, left turns in or out will not be possible.
Both driveways would provide access to the ground floor commercial/visitor parking spaces and the
subterranean resident parking. The Chestnut Avenue driveway is shown to measure approximately
12 feet wide at the throat, which is adequate for a one-way access, and the El Camino Real
driveway is shown to measure 25 feet wide, which is adequate for two-way traffic for residential
developments.
The ground floor parking would include 47 spaces. The first level subterranean parking would
provide 103 parking spaces (see Figure 10A), and the second level subterranean parking would
provide 109 parking spaces (see Figure 10B).
157
988 El Camino Real DRAFT Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA January 5, 2018
Page | 28
Driveway Operations
The project-generated trips that are estimated to occur at the project driveways are 21 inbound and
64 outbound trips during the AM peak hour and 74 inbound and 47 outbound trips during the PM
peak hour. While the inbound trips would be split between the two driveways, all project outbound
trips would occur at the El Camino Real driveway. Vehicle queuing issues are not expected to occur
at the project driveways based on the relatively low number of peak hour trips generated by the
project. The driveway on El Camino Real is located approximately 325 feet south of the El Camino
Real/Chestnut Avenue intersection. A queue of more than 13 vehicles in the northbound right-turn
lane on El Camino Real at the Chestnut Avenue intersection would block the southern driveway. As
a result, outbound vehicles would experience some delay until the queue dissipates. This could
cause some minor temporary vehicle queuing to develop on-site, especially during the PM peak
hour based on field observations. The site plan shows that there is adequate space to
accommodate a queue of 6 outbound vehicles at the southern driveway. Outbound vehicular
queues longer than that would extend into the parking aisle but would not block any inbound
vehicles. The site plan also shows that the residential parking would be gated, and residents could
enter the parking garage using card readers. Any vehicular queues that might develop on site
attributable to the operation of the gates would be contained within the project site. The site plan
shows that approximately 7 inbound vehicles could be accommodated on site between the
driveway entrance on El Camino Real and the gated entry to the resident parking.
Sight Distance at the Project Driveways
In general, the project driveways should be free and clear of any obstructions to optimize sight
distance. On-street parking is prohibited along El Camino Real and exiting vehicles can see
pedestrians on the sidewalk, as well as vehicles on the road. Providing the appropriate sight
distance reduces the likelihood of a collision at a driveway or intersection, and provides drivers with
the ability to exit a driveway or locate sufficient gaps in traffic. Sight distance generally should be
provided in accordance with Caltrans standards. The minimum acceptable sight distance is often
considered the Caltrans stopping sight distance. Sight distance requirements vary depending on the
roadway speeds. For driveways on El Camino Real, which has a posted speed limit of 35 mph in
the study area, the Caltrans stopping sight distance is 250 feet. Thus, a driver must be able to see
250 feet down El Camino Real in order to stop and avoid a collision.
Any landscaping and signage should be located in such a way to ensure an unobstructed view for
drivers exiting the site. The site plan shows a setback of 18 feet from the curb on El Camino Real
which would satisfy this requirement. Since the project is located within a pedestrian priority zone, it
is recommended that a pedestrian warning system be installed at the El Camino Real driveway to
alert pedestrians when a vehicle is exiting the project.
On-Site Circulation
On-site vehicular circulation was reviewed in accordance with the City of South San Francisco
Zoning Ordinance and generally accepted traffic engineering standards.
All three parking garage levels would contain 90-degree parking. The City’s standard width for two-
way drive aisles is 25 feet where 90-degree parking is provided. This allows sufficient room for
vehicles to back out of parking spaces. According to the site plan, the drive aisles on all three
parking levels measure approximately 25 feet wide. The width of the ramps that provide access to
the subterranean parking also measure 25 feet.
The width of the parking aisle in the outside visitor parking lot is shown to measure 22 feet. The
standard width for a two-way parking aisle is 25 feet where 90 degree parking is provided on both
sides of the aisle. Since parking would be provided only on one side of the aisle and vehicles would
160
988 El Camino Real DRAFT Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA January 5, 2018
Page | 29
be able to back into the landscaping area behind the parking spaces when leaving, no significant
issues are anticipated with the 22-foot parking aisle.
The site plan does not show any dead-end parking spaces on the ground floor or the two basement
floors. Therefore, vehicles should be able to circulate within the structure efficiently. The site plan
shows a designated turnaround area on the main parking level near the Chestnut Avenue driveway,
adjacent to the commercial loading zone. Since vehicles would not be able to exit via the Chestnut
Avenue driveway, this turnaround area would allow vehicles approaching from the south to be able
to turn around and exit via the El Camino Real driveway. Adequate turning radius would be
provided for commercial and auto vehicles coming from the south to be able to enter and back out
of the designated turnaround area. The outside visitor parking lot provides a backup area for cars
parked in the dead-end space at the very end.
Truck Access
The site plan shows two designated on-site loading zones: one located near the Chestnut Avenue
driveway and the other located adjacent to the El Camino Real driveway. The City’s municipal code
requires that for on-site loading zones, the loading space shall not be less than 12 feet wide, 50 feet
long, and 14 feet high. Both loading zones measure 12 feet wide and 50 feet long and meet the
city’s standard. The loading zone located near the El Camino Real driveway is intended also to be
used for garbage collection. The site plan shows that the trash enclosures for residential and
commercial uses will be located on the ground floor. The maintenance staff would move the
garbage bins to the loading zone for collection. Garbage trucks would exit the project by backing
out onto El Camino Real, which would require backing into to the middle travel lane on El Camino
Real and would momentarily block the traffic on the two outside travel lanes. Since garbage
collection is expected to occur every day before 7 AM, backing out of the garbage trucks onto El
Camino Real would not cause any significant impacts to the through traffic on El Camino Real. The
El Camino Real loading zone would also be used for residential move-in and move-out parking.
Large two-axle single-unit trucks (SU-30) in and out of the loading area would also need to
maneuver over to the middle lane and would momentarily block the traffic on the two outside travel
lanes. Peak commute direction on northbound El Camino Real occurs during the PM peak. It is
recommended that residential move-in and move-out operations be restricted to outside of the
afternoon peak hours to minimize conflict with through traffic on El Camino Real. The loading zone
near the Chestnut Avenue entrance would be used primarily by trucks making deliveries to the
commercial uses on site. These trucks would enter via the Chestnut Avenue driveway and exit via
the El Camino Real driveway. The vehicular and truck turning templates are included in the
appendix.
Vehicle Queuing Analysis
The operations analysis is based on vehicle queuing for high-demand movements at signalized
intersections. Vehicle queues were estimated using a Poisson probability distribution, which
estimates the probability of “n” vehicles for a vehicle movement using the following formula:
P (x=n) = n e – (
n!
Where:
P (x=n) = probability of “n” vehicles in queue per lane
n = number of vehicles in the queue per lane
average number of vehicles in the queue per lane (vehicles per hour per lane/signal
cycles per hour)
The basis of the analysis is as follows: (1) the Poisson probability distribution is used to estimate
the 95th percentile maximum number of queued vehicles per signal cycle for a particular
161
988 El Camino Real DRAFT Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA January 5, 2018
Page | 30
movement; (2) the estimated maximum number of vehicles in the queue is translated into a queue
length, assuming 20 feet per vehicle; and (3) the estimated maximum queue length is compared to
the existing or planned available storage capacity for the movement. This analysis thus provides a
basis for estimating future turn pocket storage requirements at intersections. The 95th percentile
queue length value indicates that during the peak hour, a queue of this length or less would occur
on 95 percent of the signal cycles. Likewise, a queue length larger than the 95th percentile queue
would only occur on 5 percent of the signal cycles (about 3 cycles during the peak hour for a signal
with a 60-second cycle length). Therefore, left-turn storage pocket designs based on the 95th
percentile queue length would ensure that storage space would be exceeded only 5 percent of the
time. The 95th percentile queue length is also known as the “design queue length”.
The following four left-turn movements were analyzed:
Northbound left-turn at El Camino Real and Arroyo Drive
Northbound left-turn at El Camino Real and Westborough/Chestnut Avenue
Westbound left-turn at El Camino Real and Westborough/Chestnut Avenue
Southbound left-turn at El Camino Real and Westborough/Chestnut Avenue
Vehicle queuing for these turn movements were analyzed under existing and existing plus project
conditions. The estimated queue lengths based on the Poisson numerical calculations show
queuing deficiencies for two of the four studied turn pockets, as discussed below (see Table 6 and
Table 7).
El Camino Real and Westborough/Chestnut Avenue
The queuing analysis shows that the northbound left-turn vehicle queue on El Camino Real
exceeds the turn pocket storage during the PM peak hour under existing conditions. The
northbound left-turn pocket consists of two lanes and provides approximately 300 feet of vehicle
storage in each of the two lanes, which can accommodate about 15 vehicles per lane. The analysis
shows a 95th percentile vehicle queue of 22 vehicles per lane for the northbound left-turn pocket
during the PM peak hour under existing conditions. The project would add approximately 6 vehicles
to each of the left-turn lanes over a duration of 60 minutes during the PM peak hour. This calculates
to 1 vehicle every 4 signal cycles (based on a cycle length of 150 seconds). The addition of project
trips to the northbound left-turn movement would not increase the 95th percentile queue during the
PM peak hour.
The queuing analysis also shows that the westbound left-turn vehicle queue on Chestnut Avenue
currently exceeds the turn pocket storage during the AM peak hour by approximately 4 vehicles and
during the PM peak hour by 2 vehicles. AM and PM peak hour field observations showed that due
to the close spacing of the signalized intersection of Antoinette Lane to the east, the westbound left-
turn queues were contained in the through lane along Chestnut Avenue. The project would not add
any traffic to this movement during the AM peak hour and would add 5 vehicles during the PM peak
hour (over a duration of 60 minutes). This calculates to approximately 1 project trip per lane every 8
signal cycles (based on a cycle length of 150 seconds) during the PM peak hour. The 95th
percentile vehicle queues during the AM and PM peak hour would not increase with the proposed
project.
162
988 El Camino Real DRAFT Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA January 5, 2018
Page | 31
Table 6
AM Queueing Analysis
NBL NBL WBL SBL
Measurement AM AM AM AM
Existing
Cycle/Delay 1 (sec)144 144 144 144
Volume (vph)141 224 183 104
Avg. Queue (veh)6 9 7 4
Avg. Queue (ft.)120 180 140 80
95th %. Queue (veh)10 14 12 8
95th %. Queue (ft.)200 280 240 160
Storage 240 300 160 280
Adequate (Yes/No)Yes Yes No Yes
Project 1
Cycle/Delay 1 (sec)144 144 144 144
Volume (vph)147 234 183 106
Avg. Queue (veh)6 9 7 4
Avg. Queue (ft.)120 180 140 80
95th %. Queue (veh)10 14 12 8
95th %. Queue (ft.)200 280 240 160
Storage 240 300 160 280
Adequate (Yes/No)Yes Yes No Yes
1 Vehicle queue calculations based on cycle length for signalized intersections.
2 Assumes 20 Feet Per Vehicle Queued
El Camino Real/
Chestnut Avenue
El Camino Real/ Arroyo
Drive
El Camino Real/
Chestnut Avenue
El Camino Real/
Chestnut Avenue
163
988 El Camino Real DRAFT Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA January 5, 2018
Page | 32
Table 7
PM Queueing Analysis
Parking
Calculation of Vehicular Parking Requirement
Parking requirements for the proposed project were evaluated based on the parking requirement
provided under the supplemental regulations established in the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue
Area Plan District, as follows:
Required parking for any use in ERC/C sub-districts shall be established by the Chief Planner
based on the particular characteristics of the proposed use and any other relevant data regarding
parking demand. The Chief Planner may require the provision of parking studies or any other
information at the applicant’s cost as needed to assess parking demand for the proposed project.
Where a Conditional Use Permit is required for the use, the Planning Commission will establish the
ultimate parking requirement during the Conditional Use Permit application process. Generally,
parking shall not exceed two spaces per unit for residential uses and one space per 300 square feet
of commercial use.
Based on these guidelines, the maximum parking that may be provided on site calculates to 381
spaces, which comprises 344 residential parking spaces (2 spaces per unit for 172 units) and 35
retail parking spaces (1 space per 300 s.f. for 10,360 s.f.). The site plan shows that the project
would provide a total of 259 parking spaces on-site within the three levels of the parking garage and
the out-door visitor parking lot. The project would provide 212 secured residential parking spaces
within the two gated parking levels and 4 future resident parking spaces, 35 retail parking spaces
NBL NBL WBL SBL
Measurement PM PM PM PM
Existing
Cycle/Delay1 (sec)150 150 150 150
Volume (vph)173 364 150 104
Avg. Queue (veh)7 15 6 4
Avg. Queue (ft.)175 375 150 100
95th %. Queue (veh)12 22 10 8
95th %. Queue (ft.)240 440 200 160
Storage 240 300 160 280
Adequate (Yes/No)Yes No No Yes
Project 1
Cycle/Delay1 (sec)150 150 150 150
Volume (vph)177 370 153 120
Avg. Queue (veh)7 15 6 5
Avg. Queue (ft.)175 375 150 125
95th %. Queue (veh)12 22 10 9
95th %. Queue (ft.)240 440 200 180
Storage 240 300 160 280
Adequate (Yes/No)Yes No No Yes
1 Vehicle queue calculations based on cycle length for signalized intersections.
2 Assumes 20 Feet Per Vehicle Queued
El Camino Real /
Chestnut Ave
El Camino Real/
Arroyo Drive
El Camino Real/
Chestnut Avenue
El Camino Real/
Chestnut Avenue
164
988 El Camino Real DRAFT Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA January 5, 2018
Page | 33
and 8 visitor parking spaces within the main parking level and the outside visitor parking lot. The
project would provide retail parking at the rate of 1 space per 300 square feet. Residential parking
would be provided at the rate of 1.3 spaces per unit. The proposed on-site residential parking is
based on other comparable projects and in the context of the project’s TDM (Travel Demand
Management) Program as described below.
Hexagon Parking Studies
In the past, Hexagon has conducted parking studies at existing apartment complexes in San Mateo
County to determine the ratios of parked cars to the number of dwelling units and to the number of
bedrooms. Parking counts were conducted on three consecutive days in September 2014 at the
following four apartment complexes that are large-scale, with on-site amenities and constructed
within the last 15 years.
The Plaza at 1 Plaza View Lane, Foster City,
Avalon San Bruno at 1099 Admiral Court, San Bruno,
Metropolitan Apartments at 338 S. Fremont Street, San Mateo,
Archstone San Mateo Apartments at 1101 Park Plaza, San Mateo,
Peak parking demand for residential developments occurs overnight. Parking occupancy counts
were performed after midnight in order to capture peak residential demand. A summary of the
parking counts is shown in Table 8. The parking study concluded that, overall, the typical average
peak parking demand for apartment complexes comparable to the proposed project is
approximately 1.34 parking spaces per unit and approximately 0.80 parking spaces per bedroom.
Table 8
Comparable Parking Studies by Hexagon
Comparing these ratios to the proposed on-site parking, the project would provide parking at a ratio
of 1.3 spaces per dwelling unit (inclusive of visitor and future resident parking) and1.09 space per
bedroom (including the 20 studio units). Hexagon believes that the proposed on-site parking would
be adequate to accommodate the peak parking demand.
Given the project’s proximity to the BART station, it is expected that many residents would use
public transportation and might not need a car. The project would be required to implement a TDM
165
988 El Camino Real DRAFT Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA January 5, 2018
Page | 34
(Travel Demand Management) Program (such as providing trial transit passes to residents,
providing expanded bike parking and repair facilities on-site, on site transit coordinator to educate
new residents on TDM programs, etc.).
Per the California Building Code (CBC) Table 11B-6, based on the parking provision of 259 parking
spaces, the project would need to dedicate seven of those parking spaces as accessible stalls, two
of which are required to be van accessible. The project currently proposes eight accessible parking
spaces (3 on the ground floor commercial parking, 1 on the visitor parking lot and 4 on the first floor
of the parking garage) with all of them being van accessible. The project meets the parking
requirements for accessible parking spaces.
Parking Dimensions
Based on the site plan, the proposed parking would consist of a mix of standard, compact and ADA
(American Disability Act) compliant parking stalls. The minimum basic dimension for standard
parking spaces is 8.5 feet by 18 feet. The site plan shows 242 standard parking spaces measuring
9 feet by 18 feet, 6 compact parking spaces measuring 8.5 feet by 16 feet and 11 parking spaces
measuring 9 feet by 16 feet with 2 feet overhang. Out of the 259 spaces 8 would be ADA spaces.
Calculation of Bicycle Parking Spaces
Bicycle parking requirements were calculated based on the following criteria from the zoning
ordinance.
Short-term bicycle parking spaces shall be provided at a rate of 10 percent of the
number of required automobile parking spaces.
A minimum of one long-term bicycle parking space shall be provided for every four units
for multi-unit residential and group residential projects.
With a total of 259 parking spaces provided on site, the proposed project would require 26 short-
term bicycle parking spaces and 43 long term parking spaces (1/4 of 172 dwelling units).
The site plan shows that long-term bicycle parking would be accommodated within two bike rooms
on the ground level with 65 horizontal spaces and 25 vertical spaces for maximum space efficiency
and to accommodate different styles of bikes. The total number of long term bicycle parking that
would be provided on site exceeds the code by 47 spaces. The total number of short term bicycle
spaces required by the code is 26 spaces (10% of 259 on-site vehicular spaces). The site plan
shows a total of 32 short term bicycle spaces. 18 short term bicycle parking spacing would be
provided in front of the fitness center fronting El Camino Real, 2 short term bicycle parking spaces
will be provided outside the pedestrian tunnel on El Camino Real and 12 short term bicycle parking
spaces would be provided adjacent to the pedestrian/bicycle pathway that connects to the
Centennial Trail. Adequate short-term bicycle parking would be provided on site.
Conclusions – CEQA Impacts
The potential impacts of the project were evaluated consistent with the Community Civic Campus
Project SEIR. The traffic generated by the project was found to be consistent with the assumptions
in the SEIR for El Camino Real/ Chestnut Avenue Area Plan. The study included the analysis of AM
and PM peak hour traffic operations for 5 signalized intersections, 4 of these intersections were
analyzed in the Community Civic Campus Project SEIR. The study also included 2 unsignalized
intersections that were not analyzed in the SEIR.
The analysis shows that under existing conditions, six out of seven study intersections currently
operate at an acceptable level of service D or better during both AM and PM peak hour.
166
988 El Camino Real DRAFT Traffic Study – South San Francisco, CA January 5, 2018
Page | 35
El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue - The intersection at El Camino real/ Chestnut Avenue currently
operates at an unacceptable LOS E during the AM peak hour and acceptable LOS D during the PM
peak hour. As this intersection does not meet the current LOS standard during the AM peak hour
and as the project would add traffic to this intersection, the project would cause a significant impact
to this intersection during the AM peak hour. The Community Civic Campus Project SEIR identified
the following mitigation at this intersection:
Mitigation Measure TRAF-1b: The City will modify the signal timing to optimize the cycle
length at the intersection of El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue.
The proposed mitigation measure would alleviate the project’s impact at this intersection and would
improve the intersection level of service to an acceptable LOS D for both AM and PM peak hours.
Transit, Pedestrian and Bicycle Impacts
The project is consistent with the City’s pedestrian and bicycle plans and according to the SEIR for
El Camino Real/ Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, the project plus other development in the El Camino
Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan would not decrease the performance or safety of public transit
system or pedestrian/bicycle network.
Non-CEQA Conclusions
Site Access and On-site Circulation
Site access and on-site circulation were evaluated based on the site plan dated November 6, 2017,
prepared by KTGY Architecture + Planning. A review of the site plan for the proposed project
showed that the two driveways into the project would provide adequate access and circulation to
the site. The parking aisles and ramps connecting the different levels of parking would be designed
according to City’s standards for accommodating two-way traffic. The site plan does not show any
dead-end parking aisles on the three levels. The driveway leading to the outside parking lot for
visitor parking does not meet the width standard set by the city. The two loading zones shown on
the site plan meet the standard set forward by the city.
Recommendation: It is recommended that the residential move-in and move-out operations be
restricted to outside of the afternoon peak hours on weekdays so that trucks backing in or out of the
southern loading zone have minimal impact on the through traffic on El Camino Real. The peak
commute direction on northbound El Camino Real occurs during the PM peak hour.
The site plan shows that the three parking levels consist of standard spaces, standard overhang
spaces, and ADA accessible spaces.
On-site Parking
Based on parking studies conducted by Hexagon at existing apartment complexes in San Mateo
County, adequate parking would be provided on site. The project will be required to implement a
TDM (Travel Demand Management) Program that will encourage residents to meet their daily
needs by walking, bicycling or taking transit to support a healthy community, and reduce traffic
congestion and resulting greenhouse gas emissions.
The site plan shows that adequate long-term and short-term bicycle parking would be provided on
site.
167
988 El Camino Real – South San Francisco, CA Environmental Noise Assessment
7 July 2017 Page 2
INTRODUCTION
This report summarizes our environmental noise assessment for the 988 El Camino Real project in South
San Francisco, California. The mixed-use project will consist of a six-story building with 172 residential
units and 12,245 square feet of commercial space over two levels of subterranean parking. The 1.67-acre
site is currently occupied by a car wash. Following is a summary of our findings:
1. The site is between the CNEL 60 and 65 dB contours of the San Francisco International Airport. This
falls into the satisfactory category for residential, commercial, and open space use, per the South San
Francisco General Plan land use compatibility guidelines.
2. Estimates show that sound-rated windows and exterior doors with sound insulation ratings of up to
approximately STC 40 will be needed to meet the CNEL 45 dB criterion indoors, due to exterior
sources. Exterior wall assemblies at some units along El Camino Real will need to be upgraded.
3. Estimates show that storefront assemblies at the non-residential areas with sound insulation ratings
of approximately STC 35 will be needed to meet the CalGreen criterion of Leq(h) 50 dB indoors, due
to exterior sources.
4. Incorporating solid noise barriers at residential and common outdoor use space would help reduce
noise due to local traffic in these spaces.
ACOUSTICAL CRITERIA
South San Francisco General Plan
The Noise Element of the South San Francisco General Plan (1999) includes land use compatibility
guidelines in terms of Community Noise Equivalent Level 1 (CNEL) for various land uses. We understand
these should be applied to aircraft noise at this site. A summary of these guidelines for residential,
commercial, and open space land usages is shown in Table 1, below.
Table 1: Land Use Compatibility Guidelines (Table 9.2-1 of the General Plan)
Exterior CNEL Range Land Use Compatibility Level Residential Commercial Open Space
65 dB 2 or less 70 dB or less 75 dB or less Satisfactory; no special insulation requirements
65 to 70 dB 70 to 80 dB n/a Development requires analysis of noise reduction requirements and
noise insulation as needed
70 dB or higher 80 dB or higher 75 dB or higher Development should not be undertaken
Policy 9-I-4 of the General Plan Noise Element states that new residential units proposed within the CNEL
60 dB to CNEL 69 dB aircraft noise contours need to include an acoustical study, prepared by a
professional acoustic engineer, that specifies the appropriate noise mitigation features to be included in
the design and construction of these uses, to achieve an interior noise level of not more than CNEL 45 dB
in any habitable room.
1 CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level) – A descriptor for a 24-hour A-weighted average noise level. CNEL accounts for the
increased acoustical sensitivity of people to noise during the evening and nighttime hours. CNEL penalizes sound levels by 5 dB
during the hours from 7 PM to 10 PM and by 10 dB during the hours from 10 PM to 7 AM.
2 A-Weighted Sound Level (dB) — A term for the A-Weighted sound pressure level. The sound level is obtained by use of a
standard sound level meter and is expressed in decibels. All noise data in this report are A-Weighted.
169
988 El Camino Real – South San Francisco, CA Environmental Noise Assessment
7 July 2017 Page 3
California Building Code (CBC)
The California Building Code limits indoor noise from outdoor sources to CNEL 45 dB in habitable rooms
of attached housing.3
Section 5.507.4 of the 2013 CALGreen Code provides both prescriptive and performance based criteria for
interior noise levels in non-residential spaces where day/night or hourly average sound levels exceed
CNEL or Leq(h)4 65 dB, which are summarized as follows:5
• Prescriptive method: Wall and roof-ceiling assemblies exposed to the noise source shall have a
composite STC rating of at least 45, with exterior windows having a minimum STC rating of 40
• Performance method: Wall and roof-ceiling assemblies shall reduce average hourly noise levels to
Leq(h) 50 dB, or lower, in occupied areas during any hour of operation
This analysis uses the CALGreen performance method to determine the necessary sound insulation at
non-residential spaces.
NOISE ENVIRONMENT
Environmental noise levels at the site are most influenced by traffic on El Camino Real and Chestnut
Avenue. Noise from aircraft flyovers also contributes. To quantify the existing noise environment, two
multi-day monitors continuously measured noise levels at the site between 10 and 15 February 2017. In
addition, two short-term “spot” measurements were conducted, and compared with corresponding time
periods of the multi-day monitors to determine how noise levels vary with location and elevation. Table 2
summarizes existing noise levels. Figure 1, attached, shows the approximate measurement locations.
Table 2: Existing Noise Environment
Site Location Date/Time CNEL Leq(h)
L1
El Camino Real Monitor
Approximately 65’ east of El Camino Real centerline,
12’ above grade 10 to 15
February 2017
76 dB 74 dB
L2
Chestnut Avenue Monitor
Approximately 65’ south of Chestnut centerline, 12’ above
grade
72 dB* 74 dB*
S1
El Camino Real Spot
Approximately 60’ east of El Camino Real centerline, 5’ above
grade
12:15 to 12:30 PM
15 February 2017 75 dB n/a
S2
Corner of El Camino Real and Chestnut Avenue Spot
Approximately 65’ east of El Camino Real centerline, 65’
south of Chestnut centerline, 5’ and 16’ above grade
11:20 to 11:35 AM
15 February 2017 74 dB n/a
*Siren noise events excluded from the data during the 8:00 AM hour on 12 February and the 4:00 PM hour on 14 February.
The site is between the CNEL 60 and 65 dB contours on the Forecast 2020 Noise Exposure Map, found in
the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of the San Francisco
3 California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2: 2016 California Building Code, Chapter 12, Section 1207: Sound Transmission.
4 Leq (Time-Average Sound Level) – The average sound level for a specified measurement period (in this case, one hour), as
described in ASTM 1686 and ANSI S1.1.
5 California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11: 2016 California Green Building Standards Code, Chapter 5, Section 5.507.4:
Acoustical Control.
170
988 El Camino Real – South San Francisco, CA Environmental Noise Assessment
7 July 2017 Page 4
International Airport.6 This falls into the satisfactory land use compatibility category for residential,
commercial, and open spaces. For reference, the typical maximum noise level due to noise events
identified as aircraft is 82 dB.7
A draft traffic impact analysis by DKS Associates for the South San Francisco General Plan Amendment,
dated 28 October 2009, contains existing year 2009 and projected future year 2030 peak hour traffic
volumes for the intersection of El Camino Real and Chestnut Avenue. In summary, peak hour traffic
volumes along El Camino Real are expected to increase from 2,742 to 5,732 vehicles, and along Chestnut
Avenue from 2,175 to 3,701 vehicles. Accounting for increases between 2009 and the current year, this
corresponds with approximately a 2 dB and 1 dB increase in CNEL at the site by 2030, respectively.
Therefore, the noise levels identified in the Analysis and Recommendations section below are based on
the levels we measured at the site, and include a 2 dB increase for future traffic along El Camino Real
and a 1 dB increase for future traffic along Chestnut Avenue.
ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Exterior-to-Interior Noise
Residential Units
The estimated future noise level at the residential facades ranges from approximately CNEL 65 dB at the
shielded courtyard facades to CNEL 78 dB at facades along El Camino Real. Exterior building assemblies
will need to be sound-rated to reduce environmental noise to the CNEL 45 dB criterion indoors.
Preliminary estimates suggest that window and exterior door sound insulation ratings up to STC 8 40 will
be needed, as indicated in Figure 3, attached. These estimates are based on the following:
• Conceptual Site Plan dated 5 July 2017
• Typical room sizes of 12 by 15 feet in living rooms, and 10 by 12 feet in bedrooms, with 9-foot
ceilings throughout and carpeted bedrooms
• Approximately 30% of the exterior wall consisting of windows or doors
• Exterior walls equivalent to 7/8-inch thick stucco over wood sheathing with batt insulation in stud
cavities and 1 layer of gypsum board on the interior
• Where upgraded walls are noted on Figure 3, a second layer of gypsum board should be added to
interiors, and wall assemblies will either be staggered stud assemblies or the interior gypsum board
will be attached with resilient clips (e.g., Pac International RSIC-1 clips)
For reference, standard construction grade dual-pane windows and sliding glass doors typically have
sound insulation ratings of STC 26 to 28. Sound insulation ratings should be for the complete assembly,
6 Figure D-3, Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport, dated
July 2012.
7 Lmax30 (Typical Maximum Sound Level) – There is no standardized metric to quantify “typical” maximum sound levels in an
environment (instead of the absolute maximum sound level for a measurement period). The metric Lmax30 comes from a paper
by Rob Greene (“Max Level Intrusive Noise Limit: 1982 National Conference on Environmental and Occupational Noise”). It is
based on the logarithmic average of the noisiest 30 percent of single events (e.g., train passbys, aircraft flyovers).
8 STC (Sound Transmission Class) – A single-number rating defined in ASTM E90 that quantifies the airborne sound insulating
performance of a partition under laboratory conditions. Increasing STC ratings correspond to improved airborne sound
insulation.
171
988 El Camino Real – South San Francisco, CA Environmental Noise Assessment
7 July 2017 Page 5
including glass and frame, and should be based on laboratory test reports of similar sized samples from
an NVLAP accredited lab. Since windows will need to be closed to meet the interior noise criterion, an
alternate means of providing outside air to habitable spaces should be provided.
Commercial Space
Commercial space is planned along the north and west facades on the ground level. Based on the
measured data, the estimated future Leq(h) during the louder hours at the proposed setback of the
commercial space is 74 dB. Figure 2, attached, shows recommended minimum STC ratings for exterior
windows and doors at commercial spaces intended to meet the CALGreen criterion of Leq(h) 50 dB
indoors (due to exterior sources). These estimates are based on the Conceptual Site Plan dated 5 July
2017, and assume that commercial spaces will have sound-absorbing ceilings.
Outdoor Use Spaces
We understand that outdoor use spaces will be provided at a podium-level pool deck in the northeast
courtyard, a podium-level courtyard at the south portion of the building with an opening perpendicular to
El Camino Real, and elevated decks along El Camino Real and Chestnut Avenue. We understand that
decks along El Camino Real and Chestnut Avenue will incorporate 5-foot tall noise barriers at the railings.
In addition, an open space is planned for the eastern portion of the site, opposite El Camino Real. The
General Plan does not identify an appropriate noise level for outdoor use spaces. Consider the following:
• Pool Deck and Courtyard - Estimated future noise levels at the podium-level pool deck and courtyard
are approximately CNEL 65 to 72 dB, depending on receiver location. For reference, incorporating 36-
inch tall solid noise barriers at the pool deck edge and the courtyard edge, would reduce noise due to
local traffic to approximately CNEL 70 dB and below for seated persons.
• Residential Decks –
o For reference, estimates suggest that the 5-foot tall noise barriers along El Camino Real
and Chestnut Avenue would reduce local traffic noise levels to CNEL 70 dB or below for
seated persons.
o The estimated future noise levels at elevated decks elsewhere in the site are CNEL 60 to
65 dB without noise reduction measures.
• Public Open Space - Estimated future noise levels at the public open space to the east of the building
are approximately CNEL 65 to CNEL 72 dB.
Effective noise barriers may be comprised of various materials including CMU, plaster, wood (enhanced
fencing), glass and plastic. They should be solid from bottom to top with no cracks or gaps, and should
have a minimum surface density of approximately three pounds per square foot.
172
Prepared for SummerHill Homes
PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
PROPOSED MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT
988 EL CAMINO REAL
South San Francisco, California
UNAUTHORIZED USE OR COPYING OF THIS DOCUMENT IS STRICTLY
PROHIBITED BY ANYONE OTHER THAN THE CLIENT FOR THE SPECIFIC
PROJECT
March 6, 2017
Project No. 17-1272
176
March 6, 2017
Project No. 17-1272
Ms. Ellen Huynh
SummerHill Homes
777 California Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94304
Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report
Proposed Mixed-Use Development
988 El Camino Real
South San Francisco, California
Dear Ms. Huynh:
We are pleased to present our preliminary geotechnical investigation report for the
proposed mixed-use development in support of the due diligence evaluation of the
property located at 988 El Camino Real in South San Francisco, California. Our
geotechnical investigation was performed in accordance with our contract for consultant
services dated January 26, 2017.
The project site is an irregular-shaped parcel with plan dimensions of about 150 to
200 feet by 400 feet. The site encompasses an area of about 1.7 acres. The site is
bordered by Chestnut Avenue to the northwest, El Camino Real to the southwest, PG&E
easement/open space to the northeast, and commercial property to the southeast. The site
is currently occupied by a carwash building surrounded by a surface parking lot.
Preliminary plans are to develop the subject property for construction of a mixed-use
building with ground floor commercial space and five stories of residential units above.
The building will also have two levels of subterranean parking.
On the basis of the results of our geotechnical investigation, we conclude the site can be
developed as planned. The primary geotechnical concerns are:
providing adequate foundation support for the proposed building;
the presence of soil layers underlying the foundation level that are susceptible to
liquefaction and may result in liquefaction-induced settlement and reduction in
bearing capacity during a major seismic event; and
a design groundwater depth above the proposed finished floor for the below-grade
parking.
177
Ms. Ellen Huynh
SummerHill Homes
March 6, 2017
Page 2
We preliminarily conclude a mat foundation would be the most appropriate foundation
system for the proposed building.
Preliminary conclusions and recommendations regarding seismic hazards, foundation
design, basement wall design, seismic design, temporary shoring, and other geotechnical
aspects of the project are presented in the attached report. The recommendations
contained in our report are based on limited subsurface exploration and review of
available data for the site, and are not intended for final design. Prior to final design,
additional borings and/or CPTs should be performed within the proposed building
footprint to supplement existing subsurface information and to develop final geotechnical
conclusions and recommendations.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide our services to you on this project. If you have
any questions, please call.
Sincerely yours,
ROCKRIDGE GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
Darcie Maffioli, P.E. Linda H. J. Liang, P.E., G.E.
Project Engineer Associate Engineer
Enclosure
QUALITY CONTROL REVIEWER:
Craig S. Shields, P.E., G.E.
Principal Engineer
178
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES .......................................................................................................1
3.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION ..................................................................................................2
4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ..........................................................................................3
5.0 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS ..........................................................................................4
5.1 Regional Seismicity and Faulting ............................................................................4
5.2 Seismic Hazards .......................................................................................................7
5.2.1 Ground Shaking ...........................................................................................7
5.2.2 Ground Surface Rupture ..............................................................................7
5.2.3 Liquefaction and Associated Hazards ..........................................................8
5.2.4 Cyclic Densification ...................................................................................10
6.0 PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................10
6.1 Design Groundwater Table ....................................................................................11
6.2 Foundation and Settlement ....................................................................................11
6.3 Basement Walls .....................................................................................................13
6.4 Excavation Considerations.....................................................................................14
6.4.1 Temporary Shoring ....................................................................................14
6.4.2 Dewatering .................................................................................................16
6.5 Seismic Design.......................................................................................................16
7.0 ADDITIONAL GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES ...............................................................17
8.0 LIMITATIONS ..................................................................................................................17
FIGURES
APPENDIX A – Cone Penetration Test Results
179
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Site Location Map
Figure 2 Site Plan
Figure 3 Regional Geologic Map
Figure 4 Regional Fault Map
Figure 5 Liquefaction Susceptibility Map
APPENDIX A
Figures A-1 Cone Penetration Test Results CPT-1 through
through A-4 CPT-4
180
17-1272 1 March 6, 2017
PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
PROPOSED MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT
988 EL CAMINO REAL
South San Francisco, California
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of the preliminary geotechnical investigation performed by
Rockridge Geotechnical, Inc. in support of the due diligence evaluation of the property located at
988 El Camino Real in South San Francisco, California. The subject property is located to the
east of the intersection of El Camino Real and Chestnut Avenue at the approximate location
shown on the Site Location Map, Figure 1.
The project site is an irregular-shaped parcel with plan dimensions of about 150 to 200 feet by
400 feet. The site encompasses an area of about 1.7 acres. The site is bordered by Chestnut
Avenue to the northwest, El Camino Real to the southwest, PG&E easement/open space to the
northeast, and commercial property to the southeast, as shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. The
site is currently occupied by a carwash building surrounded by a surface parking lot. Preliminary
plans are to develop the subject property for construction of a mixed-use building with ground
floor commercial space and five stories of residential units above. The building will also have
two levels of subterranean parking.
2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES
Our preliminary geotechnical investigation was performed in accordance with our proposal dated
January 26, 2017. Our scope of services consisted of reviewing available subsurface information
and geologic maps of the site and vicinity, exploring subsurface conditions at the site by
performing four cone penetration tests (CPTs), and performing engineering analyses to develop
preliminary conclusions and recommendations regarding:
181
17-1272 2 March 6, 2017
subsurface soil and groundwater conditions
site seismicity and seismic hazards, including the potential for liquefaction and lateral
spreading, and total and differential resulting from liquefaction and/or cyclic
densification
the most appropriate foundation type(s) for the proposed structure
preliminary design criteria for the recommended foundation type(s)
estimates of foundation settlement under static and seismic conditions
permanent wall pressures
temporary shoring
dewatering
2016 California Building Code (CBC) site class and design spectral response acceleration
parameters
construction considerations.
3.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION
Our subsurface investigation consisted of performing four CPTs to provide continuous in-situ
soil data. The CPTs, designated as CPT-1 through CPT-4, were advanced at the approximate
locations shown on Figure 2. Prior to performing the CPTs, we obtained a drilling permit from
the San Mateo County Environmental Health Department (SMCEHD), contacted Underground
Service Alert (USA) to notify them of our work, as required by law, and retained Precision
Locating, LLC, a private utility locator, to check that the CPT locations were clear of
underground utilities.
The CPTs were performed by Middle Earth Geo Testing, Inc. of Orange, California on February
20, 2017. CPT-3 was advanced to a depth of approximately 50 feet below the ground surface
(bgs). CPT-1, CPT-2 and CPT-4 were planned to be advanced to 50 feet bgs, but were
terminated in hard or very dense soil at depths of approximately 28, 47, and 44 feet bgs,
respectively.
182
17-1272 3 March 6, 2017
The CPTs were performed by hydraulically pushing a 1.4-inch-diameter cone-tipped probe with
a projected area of 10 square centimeters into the ground using a 25-ton truck rig. The cone-
tipped probe measured tip resistance and the friction sleeve behind the cone tip measured
frictional resistance. Electrical strain gauges within the cone continuously measured soil
parameters for the entire depth advanced. Soil data, including tip resistance, frictional resistance,
and pore water pressure, were recorded by a computer while the test was conducted.
Accumulated data were processed by computer to provide engineering information such as the
soil behavior types, approximate strength characteristics, and the liquefaction potential of the soil
encountered. The CPT logs, showing tip resistance, friction ratio, and pore water pressure by
depth, as well as correlated soil behavior type (Robertson, 2010), are presented in Appendix A
on Figures A-1 through A-4. Groundwater was measured in CPT-2 and CPT-4 and the depth of
groundwater and measurement method is noted on the CPT logs. Upon completion, the CPTs
were backfilled with cement grout and patched with concrete.
4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
A regional geologic map prepared by Graymer, et al. (2006), a portion of which is presented on
Figure 3, indicates the site is underlain by Holocene-aged alluvium (Qha). The results of the
CPTs indicate the site is underlain by alluvium predominantly consisting of clay and silty clay
interbedded with sand layers. The clay and silty clay above a depth of 18 to 32 feet bgs is
generally medium stiff to very stiff. Below a depth of about 18 and 22 feet bgs in CPT-1 and
CPT-4, respectively, the subsurface becomes dense to very dense sand with occasional layers of
clay and silty clay. Below a depth of 22 and 31 feet bgs in CPT-2 and CPT-3, respectively, the
subsurface soil becomes stiff to very stiff clay and silty clay interbedded with dense to very
dense silty sand.
Pore pressure dissipation tests performed in CPT-2 and CPT-4 indicate the depth to groundwater
was at about 21.8 and 17.7 feet bgs, respectively, at the time of our field investigation. Based on
the existing groundwater level data, we conclude a preliminary design high groundwater level of
about 15 feet below the existing ground surface should be used for planning purposes. The
183
17-1272 4 March 6, 2017
groundwater level at the site is expected to fluctuate several feet seasonally with potentially
larger fluctuations annually, depending on the amount of rainfall.
5.0 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS
The San Francisco Bay Area is considered to be one of the more seismically active regions in the
world. This section provides an evaluation and identifies geologic and seismic considerations for
the project site.
5.1 Regional Seismicity and Faulting
The major active faults in the area are the San Andreas, San Gregorio, Hayward and Calaveras
faults. These and other faults of the region are shown on Figure 4. The fault systems in the Bay
Area consist of several major right-lateral strike-slip faults that define the boundary zone
between the Pacific and the North American tectonic plates. Numerous damaging earthquakes
have occurred along these fault systems in recorded time. For these and other active faults
within a 50-kilometer radius of the site, the distance from the site and estimated mean
characteristic moment magnitude1 [Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities
(WGCEP, 2008) and Cao et al. (2003)] are summarized in Table 1.
1 Moment magnitude is an energy-based scale and provides a physically meaningful measure of the
size of a faulting event. Moment magnitude is directly related to average slip and fault rupture area.
184
17-1272 6 March 6, 2017
approximately 470 kilometers in length. It had a maximum intensity of XI (MM), an Mw of
about 7.9, and was felt 560 kilometers away in Oregon, Nevada, and Los Angeles. The most
recent earthquake to affect the Bay Area was the Loma Prieta Earthquake of October 17, 1989
with an Mw of 6.9. This earthquake occurred in the Santa Cruz Mountains about 84 kilometers
southwest of the site.
In 1868, an earthquake with an estimated maximum intensity of X on the MM scale occurred on
the southern segment (between San Leandro and Fremont) of the Hayward Fault. The estimated
Mw for the earthquake is 7.0. In 1861, an earthquake of unknown magnitude (probably an Mw of
about 6.5) was reported on the Calaveras Fault. The most recent significant earthquake on this
fault was the 1984 Morgan Hill earthquake (Mw = 6.2).
The U.S. Geological Survey's 2014 Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities has
compiled the earthquake fault research for the San Francisco Bay area in order to estimate the
probability of fault segment rupture. They have determined that the overall probability of
moment magnitude 6.7 or greater earthquake occurring in the San Francisco Bay Region during
the next 30 years (starting from 2014) is 72 percent. The highest probabilities are assigned to the
Hayward Fault, Calaveras Fault, and the northern segment of the San Andreas Fault. These
probabilities are 14.3, 7.4, and 6.4 percent, respectively.
186
17-1272 7 March 6, 2017
5.2 Seismic Hazards
During a major earthquake on a segment of one of the nearby faults, strong to very strong ground
shaking is expected to occur at the project site. Strong shaking during an earthquake can result
in ground failure such as that associated with soil liquefaction,2 lateral spreading,3 and cyclic
densification4. We used the results of the CPTs to evaluate the potential of these phenomena
occurring at the project site.
5.2.1 Ground Shaking
The ground shaking intensity felt at the project site will depend on: 1) the size of the earthquake
(magnitude), 2) the distance from the site to the fault source, 3) the directivity (focusing of
earthquake energy along the fault in the direction of the rupture), and 4) site-specific soil
conditions. The site is less than 5 kilometers from the San Andreas Fault. Therefore, the
potential exists for a large earthquake to induce strong to very strong ground shaking at the site
during the life of the project.
5.2.2 Ground Surface Rupture
Historically, ground surface displacements closely follow the trace of geologically young faults.
The site is not within an Earthquake Fault Zone, as defined by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Act, and no known active or potentially active faults exist on the site. We therefore
conclude the risk of fault offset at the site from a known active fault is very low. In a seismically
active area, the remote possibility exists for future faulting in areas where no faults previously
existed; however, we conclude the risk of surface faulting and consequent secondary ground
failure from previously unknown faults is also very low.
2 Liquefaction is a phenomenon where loose, saturated, cohesionless soil experiences temporary
reduction in strength during cyclic loading such as that produced by earthquakes.
3 Lateral spreading is a phenomenon in which surficial soil displaces along a shear zone that has
formed within an underlying liquefied layer. Upon reaching mobilization, the surficial blocks are
transported downslope or in the direction of a free face by earthquake and gravitational forces.
4 Cyclic densification is a phenomenon in which non-saturated, cohesionless soil is compacted by
earthquake vibrations, causing ground-surface settlement.
187
17-1272 8 March 6, 2017
5.2.3 Liquefaction and Associated Hazards
When a saturated, cohesionless soil liquefies, it experiences a temporary loss of shear strength
created by a transient rise in excess pore pressure generated by strong ground motion. Soil
susceptible to liquefaction includes loose to medium dense sand and gravel, low-plasticity silt,
and some low-plasticity clay deposits. Flow failure, lateral spreading, differential settlement,
loss of bearing strength, ground fissures and sand boils are evidence of excess pore pressure
generation and liquefaction.
The site has been mapped within a zone of high liquefaction susceptibility as shown on the map
titled Maps of Quaternary Deposits and Liquefaction Susceptibility in the Central San Francisco
Bay Region, California, 2006 (see Figure 5).
Liquefaction susceptibility was assessed using the software CLiq v2.06.92 (GeoLogismiki,
2016). CLiq uses measured field CPT data and assesses liquefaction potential, including
post‐earthquake vertical settlement, given a user-defined earthquake magnitude and peak ground
acceleration (PGA). We evaluated the liquefaction potential of soil encountered below
groundwater at the site using data collected in our CPTs. Our liquefaction analyses were
performed using the methodology proposed by Boulanger and Idriss (2014). We also used the
relationship proposed by Zhang, Robertson, and Brachman (2002) to estimate post-liquefaction
volumetric strains and corresponding ground surface settlement; a relationship that is an
extension of the work by Ishihara and Yoshimine (1992).
Our analyses were performed using an assumed “during earthquake” groundwater depth of
15 feet bgs. In accordance with the 2016 CBC, we used a peak ground acceleration of 0.90 times
gravity (g) in our liquefaction evaluation; this peak ground acceleration is consistent with the
Maximum Considered Earthquake Geometric Mean (MCEG) peak ground acceleration adjusted
for site effects (PGAM). We also used a moment magnitude 8.05 earthquake, which is consistent
with the mean characteristic moment magnitude for the Northern San Andreas Fault (1906
rupture), as presented in Table 1.
188
17-1272 9 March 6, 2017
The results of our preliminary liquefaction analyses indicate there are interbedded layers of
potentially liquefiable soil underlying the site, which is typical for younger alluvial deposits in
this area. Our liquefaction analyses indicate there are thin layers of potentially liquefiable soil
underlying the southern side of the site near CPT-3 and CPT-4. These potentially liquefiable
layers are below a depth of about 24 feet bgs and are generally less than two feet thick. On the
northern side of the site near CPT-1 and CPT-2, our liquefaction analyses indicate there are 4- to
9-foot-thick layers of potentially liquefiable soil. In CPT-1 this layer is approximately between
depths of 16 and 18 feet bgs, which will be excavated for construction of the subterranean levels.
In the northwestern corner near CPT-2, the layer of potentially liquefiable soil is between depths
of approximately 24 and 33 feet bgs, which underlies the finished floor of the subterranean
structure. The majority of the material identified as potentially liquefiable in the liquefaction
analyses has a soil behavior type of “silty sand” and “silty clay” based on the soil behavior type
interpretations of the CPT data. Considering the proposed project will be founded two levels
below-grade, we judge that there is a potential for reduction of soil strength and bearing capacity
during an earthquake due to liquefaction under the northwestern corner of the site near CPT-2.
Therefore, soil samples should be obtained from these potentially liquefiable soil layers to
confirm soil type, susceptibility to liquefaction, and the potential for temporary reduction of
bearing capacity below foundations during the final geotechnical investigation.
Based on the results of our preliminary geotechnical investigation, we estimated total and
differential settlements associated with liquefaction at the site during a MCE event generating a
PGAM of 0.90g will be up to one inch and 1/2 inch across a horizontal distance of 30 feet,
respectively. These settlement estimates are for “free-field” conditions. If there is shear strength
loss resulting from seismically induced excess pore pressure in soil underlying foundations, the
building may settle more than that estimated for free-field conditions during an MCE event.
Ishihara (1985) presented empirical relationship that provides criteria that can be used to
evaluate whether liquefaction-induced ground failure, such as sand boils, would be expected to
occur under a given level of shaking for a liquefiable layer of given thickness overlain by a
189
17-1272 10 March 6, 2017
resistant, or protective, surficial layer. We conclude the non-liquefiable soil overlying the
potentially liquefiable soil layers is sufficiently thick such that the potential for liquefaction-
induced ground failure at the ground surface is low
Considering the site topography is relatively flat and the potentially liquefiable layers are
discontinuous, we conclude the risk of lateral spreading is very low.
5.2.4 Cyclic Densification
Cyclic densification (also referred to as differential compaction) of non-saturated sand (sand
above groundwater table) can occur during an earthquake, resulting in settlement of the ground
surface and overlying improvements. The soil encountered above the groundwater table is not
susceptible to cyclic densification because of it cohesion. Therefore, we conclude the potential
for cyclic densification to occur at the site is nil.
6.0 PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the results of our preliminary geotechnical investigation, we conclude there are no
major geotechnical issues that would preclude development of the site as proposed. The primary
geotechnical issues affecting the proposed development include:
providing adequate foundation support for the proposed building;
the presence of soil layers underlying the foundation level that are susceptible to
liquefaction and may result in liquefaction-induced settlement and reduction in bearing
capacity during a major seismic event; and
a design groundwater depth above the proposed finished floor for the below-grade
parking.
Our preliminary conclusions and recommendations regarding these issues are presented in the
following sections.
190
17-1272 11 March 6, 2017
6.1 Design Groundwater Table
As discussed in Section 4.0, groundwater was measured in the CPTs at depths of 17.7 and
21.8 feet bgs. Based on the existing groundwater level data, we conclude a preliminary
groundwater depth of 15 feet bgs should be used for design. The basement walls, building
foundations, and mat/floor slabs extending below the design groundwater level should be
waterproofed and designed to resist hydrostatic pressures.
6.2 Foundation and Settlement
The factors influencing the selection of a safe, economical foundation system are adequate
foundation support, total and differential settlement of the structure resulting from new building
loads, and liquefaction-induced ground settlement. Based on the results of our preliminary
investigation, we anticipate the foundation of the proposed building with two subterranean levels
will be underlain by alluvium that can provide adequate foundation support for moderate loads
under static conditions. However, the foundation level is underlain by potentially liquefiable soil
layers in localized areas that may result in liquefaction-induced settlement up to about one inch
and reduction in bearing capacity for shallow foundations. On the basis of our experience, we
judge the anticipated total and differential settlements due to static foundation loads and post-
liquefaction reconsolidation will exceed the typical tolerance of a conventional spread footing
foundation system; in addition, spread footings bearing on localized liquefiable layers may
experience bearing failures during a major seismic event.
We preliminarily conclude a mat foundation would be the most appropriate foundation system
for the proposed building. The mat is capable of minimizing distortion of the superstructure
from static and seismically induced differential settlement and redistributing the building
foundation loads over localized areas of liquefied soil with temporary reduction in bearing
capacity during a major seismic event. The foundation will be bottomed below the preliminary
design groundwater table of 15 feet bgs; therefore, the mat foundation should be designed to
resist hydrostatic uplift forces and be waterproofed.
191
17-1272 12 March 6, 2017
We recommend the mat be designed for an average allowable bearing pressure of 1,500 pounds
per square foot (psf) for dead-plus-live loads; this value may be increased by one-third for total
loads (including seismic and wind loads). The allowable bearing pressure for total load
conditions has been reduced to account for strength loss of the underlying soil during a seismic
event. Localized higher bearing pressures may be acceptable; however, this should be reviewed
on a case-by-case basis. To develop adequate mat rigidity, we recommend the mat be designed
for dead-plus-live-load conditions using a modulus of vertical subgrade reaction of 30 pounds
per cubic inch (pci); this value should also be used for total load conditions (no increase due to
potential for liquefaction-induced settlement. The modulus of vertical subgrade reaction has
been reduced to account for the size of the mat (therefore, this is not kv1 for a one-foot-square
plate).
We estimate the total settlement of a mat supported building under the static building loads
would be about 3/4 inch and differential settlement would be approximately 1/2 inch over a
horizontal distance of 30 feet. As discussed in Section 5.2.3, the mat should be designed for an
additional 1 inch of total liquefaction-induced settlement and 1/2 inch of differential
liquefaction-induced settlement over a horizontal distance of 30 feet.
Lateral loads may be resisted by a combination of friction along the base of the mat and passive
resistance against the vertical faces of the mat foundation. To compute lateral resistance, we
recommend using a uniform pressure of 1,200 psf for transient load conditions and an equivalent
fluid weight of 150 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) for sustained loading; the upper foot of soil
should be ignored unless confined by a slab. For bentonite-based waterproofing membranes,
such as Paraseal or Voltex, a friction factor of 0.12 should be used (assumes a bentonite friction
angle of 10 degrees). If Preprufe is used, a base friction factor of 0.20 should be used. Friction
factors for other types of waterproofing membranes can be provided upon request. The passive
pressure and frictional resistance values include a factor of safety of at least 1.5.
The soil subgrade at foundation level will be saturated and sensitive to disturbance from
construction equipment. The final two feet of excavation and fine grading of the building
192
17-1272 13 March 6, 2017
subgrade should be performed with tracked equipment to minimize heavy concentrated loads that
may disturb the wet soil. The subgrade should be free of standing water, debris, and disturbed
materials and be approved by the geotechnical engineer prior to placing a mud slab. A three-
inch-thick mud slab should be placed on the mat subgrade to protect it from disturbance during
placement of waterproofing and reinforcing steel.
6.3 Basement Walls
Basement walls should be designed to resist both static lateral earth pressures, hydrostatic
pressures, and lateral pressures caused by earthquakes. We recommend basement walls at the
site be designed for the more critical of the following criteria:
At-rest equivalent fluid weight of 56 pcf above the design groundwater table and 89 pcf
below, plus a traffic increment where the wall will be within 10 feet of adjacent streets.
Active pressure of 37 pcf plus a seismic increment of 36 pcf (triangular distribution)
above the design groundwater level, and 80 pcf plus a seismic increment of 17 pcf
(triangular distribution) below the groundwater level.
The recommended pressures above are based on a level backfill condition with no additional
surcharge loads. Where the permanent wall will be subject to vehicular loading within 10 feet of
the wall, an additional uniform lateral pressure of 50 psf applied to the upper 10 feet of the wall.
The design pressures recommended for above the design water level are based on fully drained
walls. One acceptable method for back-draining a basement wall is to place a prefabricated
drainage panel against the back of the wall. The drainage panel should extend down to the
design groundwater table.
To protect against moisture migration, below-grade basement walls should be waterproofed and
water stops should be placed at all construction joints. In recent years, we have observed
numerous leaks in below-grade portions of buildings constructed with waterproofed, shotcrete
walls. In areas where there is a high sensitivity to leaks, we recommend cast-in-place concrete
be considered.
193
17-1272 14 March 6, 2017
If backfill is required behind below-grade walls, the walls should be braced, or hand compaction
equipment used, to prevent unacceptable surcharges on walls (as determined by the structural
engineer).
6.4 Excavation Considerations
We estimate construction of the proposed building with two subterranean levels will require an
excavation extending to a depth of about 23 feet bgs. Excavations that will be deeper than five
feet and will be entered by workers should be sloped or shored in accordance with CAL-OSHA
standards (29 CFR Part 1926). We judge that temporary cuts in on-site soil inclined in
accordance to OSHA guidelines for Type B soil will be stable provided the excavation is not
surcharged by equipment or building material. Temporary shoring will be required where
temporary slopes are not possible because of space constraints. Excavations will extend about
eight feet below the design groundwater table and, therefore, temporary dewatering will be
needed.
6.4.1 Temporary Shoring
We preliminarily conclude a soldier pile and lagging shoring system or a continuous soil-cement
mixing (SMX) system with tiebacks and/or internal bracing would be the most suitable and
economical temporary shoring systems for the project site.
A soldier pile and lagging system usually consists of steel H-beams and concrete placed in
predrilled holes extending below the bottom of the excavation. Wood lagging is placed between
the piles as the excavation proceeds. About 18 inches of horizontal space is required for
installation of this type of shoring. Seepage through the sides of the excavation should be
expected with the construction of a soldier pile-and-lagging system.
As an alternative to the soldier pile-and-lagging system, a continuous SMX, also called deep soil
mixing (DSM), is a viable option for creating a continuous shoring wall that supports the
excavation, as well as provides a hydraulic barrier when properly constructed. SMX columns are
installed by injecting and blending cement into the soil using a drill rig equipped with single or
194
17-1272 15 March 6, 2017
multiple augers/paddles, or a specialized proprietary cutterhead. The soil is mixed with the
binder material(s) in situ, forming continuous, overlapping, soil-cement columns or a continuous
wall of uniform thickness. Steel beams are placed in the soil-cement columns to provide rigidity.
The SMX system, in combination with steel soldier beams and tiebacks, serves to shore the
excavation as well as cut off lateral groundwater flow, thus reducing the potential for
groundwater seepage into the excavation and reduce dewatering costs.
Considering the height of excavation is on the order of 23 feet, tiebacks and/or internal bracing
will be needed to limit lateral deflections of the shoring system.
Tiebacks will extend beneath the neighboring properties, which will require encroachment
agreements with neighboring property owners; these property owners include the property owner
for the commercial property to the southwest, PG&E for the PG&E easement to the southeast,
City of South San Francisco for Chestnut Street, and the State of California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) for El Camino Real. Based on our experience, Caltrans does not allow
tiebacks or soldier piles to be installed beneath its property (i.e. El Camino Real, which is a State
highway). Internal braces may be required if there are obstructions precluding the use of
tiebacks such as the PG&E easement on the northeastern side of the site or if the adjacent
property owners will not agree to a temporary easement for installation of the tiebacks.
The selection, design, construction, and performance of the shoring system should be the
responsibility of the contractor. A structural engineer/civil engineer knowledgeable in this type
of construction should design the shoring. We should review the geotechnical aspects of the
proposed shoring system to ensure that it meets our requirements. During construction, we
should observe the installation of the shoring system and check the condition of the soil
encountered during excavation.
195
17-1272 16 March 6, 2017
6.4.2 Dewatering
The proposed excavation will extend about eight feet below the design groundwater level.
During excavation of the subterranean levels, groundwater will flow into the excavation unless
collected and removed prior to reaching the work area. Therefore, a temporary dewatering
system should be installed to provide a firm, relatively dry base from which to construct the
foundation system. We anticipate an active dewatering system consisting of a series of
extraction wells installed outside the excavation would be the most appropriate temporary
dewatering system. Where the temporary shoring system consists of a groundwater cut-off wall
(i.e. secant pile wall or SMX wall), an active dewatering system will not be required. We
anticipate a passive system, in which water is collected from a series of trench drains around the
perimeter and across the base of the excavation, would be the most appropriate temporary
dewatering system to be used in combination with a cut-off wall shoring system.
The method used to dewater the excavation should be the responsibility of the contractor.
6.5 Seismic Design
As discussed in Section 5.2.3, the site is underlain by thin zones of potentially liquefiable soil.
Although the 2016 CBC calls for a Site Class F designation for sites underlain by potentially
liquefiable soil, we conclude a Site Class D designation is more appropriate because the
potentially liquefiable layers are relatively thin and the site will not incur significant nonlinear
behavior during strong ground shaking. Therefore, for seismic design we recommend Site Class
D be used. The latitude and longitude for the site are 37.6546° and -122.43357°, respectively.
Hence, in accordance with the 2016 CBC, we recommend the following:
SS = 2.320g, S1 = 1.112g
SMS = 2.320, SM1 = 1.668g
SDS = 1.547g, SD1 = 1.112g
Seismic Design Category E for Risk Categories I, II, and III.
196
17-1272 17 March 6, 2017
7.0 ADDITIONAL GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES
Prior to final design, additional borings and/or CPTs should be performed within the proposed
building footprint to supplement existing subsurface information and to develop final
geotechnical conclusions and recommendations.
8.0 LIMITATIONS
This preliminary geotechnical investigation has been conducted in accordance with the standard
of care commonly used as state-of-practice in the profession. No other warranties are either
expressed or implied. The preliminary recommendations made in this report are based on the
assumption that the subsurface conditions do not deviate appreciably from those disclosed in the
exploratory CPTs. If any variations or undesirable conditions are encountered during
construction, we should be notified so that additional recommendations can be made. The
preliminary foundation recommendations presented in this report are developed exclusively for
the proposed development described in this report and are not valid for other locations and
construction in the project vicinity.
197
17-1272 18 March 6, 2017
REFERENCES
2016 California Building Code
Boulanger, R.W and Idriss, I.M., (2014). “CPT and SPT Based Liquefaction Triggering
Procedures,” Center for Geotechnical Modeling, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of California, Davis, Report No. UCD/CGM-14/01, April.
Cao, T., Bryant, W. A., Rowshandel, B., Branum D. and Wills, C. J. (2003). The Revised 2002
California Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Maps.
Field, E.H., and 2014 Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, (2015). UCERF3:
A new earthquake forecast for California’s complex fault system: U.S. Geological Survey 2015-
3009, 6 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/fs20153009.
GeoLogismiki, (2016). CLiq, Version 2.0.6.92.
Graymer, R.W., Moring, B.C., Saucedo, G.J, Wentworth, C.M., Brabb, E.E., and Knudsen, K.L.
(2006). Geologic Map of the San Francisco Bay Region, prepared in cooperation with U.S.
Geological Survey and California Geological Survey, March 6.
Ishihara, K., (1985). “Stability of Natural Deposits During Earthquakes,” proceedings of the 11th
International Conference of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, San Francisco, CA,
Vol 1, 321-376.
Ishihara, K. and Yoshimine, M., (1992). Evaluation of Settlements in Sand Deposits Following
Liquefaction During Earthquakes, Soils and Foundations, Volume 32, No. 1, pp 173-188.
Robertson, P.K. (2010). “Soil Behaviour type from the CPT: an update”, 2nd International
Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing, Huntington Beach, CA, Vol.2. pp575-583.
Toppozada, T.R. and Borchardt G. (1998). “Re-evaluation of the 1936 “Hayward Fault” and the
1838 San Andreas Fault Earthquakes.” Bulletin of Seismological Society of America, 88(1),
140-159.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) (2006). Maps of Quaternary Deposits and Liquefaction
Susceptibility in the Central San Francisco Bay Region, prepared in cooperation with the
California Geological Survey (CGS).
U.S. Geological Survey, (2008). The Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version
2 (UCERF 2): prepared by the 2007 Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, U.S.
Geological Survey Open File Report 2007-1437.
U.S. Geological Survey, (2017). U.S. Seismic Design Maps,
(http://earthquake.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php), accessed March 1, 2017
198
17-1272 19 March 6, 2017
Zhang, G., Robertson. P.K., Brachman, R., (2002). “Estimating Liquefaction Induced Ground
Settlements from the CPT”, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 39: pp 1168-1180.
199
FIGURES
200
APPENDIX A
Cone Penetration Test Results
206
November 9, 2017
Richard Norris
Associate Development Manager
SummerHill Apartment Communities
777 South California Avenue,
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Re: Phase One Historic Assessment for South City Car Wash
988 El Camino Real, South San Francisco, CA 94080
Dear Mr. Norris,
SummerHill Apartment Communities has retained Holman & Associates to conduct a Phase One
Historic Assessment to determine if the proposed project will have a negative impact on the
integrity of any built resource over 50 years old located on-site. The historic integrity of the
building was examined through the seven criteria of historic integrity used to evaluate structures
for the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register of Historic Resources. The
survey was carried out by Architectural Historian Fallin E. Steffen, M.P.S., who meets the Secretary
of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards to identify, evaluate, register and treat historic
properties.
The integrity of the subject building is essential when determining whether or not it will qualify for
the National, State, or Local registers. The following evaluation addresses the condition of the
property observed during the survey on 10/26/2017 as it relates to the period of significance and
the seven aspects of historic integrity: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and
association.
Period of Significance: 1957 was chosen as the period of significance because it was the year that
the South City Car Wash was completed. The building was modified shortly thereafter, in 1958.,
concluding the period of significance.
Location: The building remains in its original configuration on the parcel. There is no record or
indication that it was moved at any point since its construction in 1957. Additionally, the building
remains in its original roadside context in South San Francisco, therefore, the integrity of location
remains intact.
Design: The building retains several features that are intrinsic to the Mid-Century Modern
Commercial style; a low, boxy repetitive profile, a tar and gravel roof system that dynamically
projects over the uncovered eaves, and a series of original-era fixed picture windows across
the front facade. However, as a result of multiple insensitive renovation campaigns, some of
the more subtle features of the architectural style, have been lost altogether. These include
211
P:\2700 - 2799\2718-000\Memos\Memo-001.docx
December 21, 2017
Job No.: 2718-000
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Ray Towne – City of South San Francisco (Public Works)
Sam Bautista – City of South San Francisco (Public Works)
FROM: Ryan Hansen, P.E. – Associate
SUBJECT: Sewer Capacity Analysis Findings
988 El Camino Real
South San Francisco, California
The following Memorandum is a response to Engineering Comments provided by City Staff on
August September 25, 2017 as well as a meeting held between SummerHill Apartments (SHAC)
and Public Works regarding potential existing downstream sewer capacity issues and how the
proposed development 988 El Camino Real will affect the existing sewer system. In order to
obtain existing flow monitoring data CBG consulted with V&A Engineers to perform flow tests
at three specific sites downstream of the proposed project. The main objective of the study was
to identify any existing surcharged conditions in not only the surrounding property sewer mains
that will serve as points of connection to the development, but at a junction near the intersection
of Mission Road and Chestnut Avenue where 15” and 18” trunk lines connect and discharge to a
single 24” main along Colma Creek. It is at this junction where two large tributary areas join
together based on available City system maps and was discussed as an area of focus in the
meeting with Public Works. A secondary objective was to specifically identify the capacity of
the existing 12” sewer main that is anticipated to be rerouted by the proposed development to
Chestnut Avenue, as the City indicted a potential upsize to a 15” main would be required given
there was an anticipated surcharge condition if all properties within the nearby Chestnut Area
Plan were to connect to this portion of the system.
The results in the attached V&A report identify the specific three test sites which were
coordinated with the City prior to commencing work. See Table 3-1 for details on each
individual section of sewer main. In summary, the test sites are as follows:
Site 1: A 12” VCP sewer main immediately downstream of the proposed 988 El Camino Real
development.
Carlson, Barbee
& Gibson, Inc.
CIVIL ENGINEERS x SURVEYORS x PLANNERS
2633 CAMINO RAMON, SUITE 350 • SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583 • (925) 866-0322 • www.cbandg.com
SAN RAMON • SACRAMENTO
223
Sewer Flow Analysis December 21, 2017
Page 2 of 2 Job No.: 2719-000
P:\2700 - 2799\2718-000\Memos\Memo-001.docx
Sites 2 and 3: A 15” VCP sewer main and 18” VCP sewer main upstream of the manhole placed
within the Mission Road and Chestnut Avenue intersection, before discharging to an existing 24”
VCP sewer main along Colma Creek, flowing southeast to the treatment plant.
The attached report first identifies the Average Dry Weather Flows and the Peak Dry Weather
Flows for each site and then also identifies expected flow for the combined 24” main
immediately downstream of the Site 2 and 3 junctions. The City of South San Francisco does not
have available sewer design standards and therefore V&A has used City of San Jose criteria for
the purposes of this report. Assumptions and field notes regarding the flow monitoring tests,
which took place from 11/17 to 12/1, are also listed in the report. CBG then provided expected
development flows as well as existing site flows from the operational car wash in order to obtain
a net development flow which would be added to the Site 1 and Site 2 PDWF analysis. Table 3-
4 includes a summary of each PDWF, including the net development flow, and a comparison to
the 2/3 full capacity of each individual main. The combined Site 2 and 3 flows are compared to
the available 2/3 capacity flow within the downstream 24” main, as seen on the page 1 graphic of
the report.
Conclusion
Site 1: The 12” main immediately downstream of the proposed development is at 15% capacity
in the existing condition and only 19% capacity in the PDWF condition with the proposed
development included, which is well below that 2/3 full requirement. An upsize of the 12” main
to a 15” main as requested by the City is not required by the proposed development and only
potentially required based on future development land use changes within the Chestnut Area
Plan.
Site 2: The downstream 15” main prior to the system junction is at 7% capacity in the existing
condition and 9.5% including the proposed development. No additional upsize or capacity issues
are anticipated.
Site 3: Site three is upstream of the sewer system junction and therefore not directly affected by
the project development flows
Downstream 24” Sewer Main: The combined Site 2 and 3 flows in the PDWF existing condition
result in roughly 23% capacity of the 24” main and result in a negligible increase when the
proposed development flow of 0.093 MGD is included. No additional upsize or surcharge
condition is anticipated.
Given the presented sewer flow monitoring data provided by V&A, there are no known capacity
issues at the three test sites, nor will the proposed 988 El Camino Real development attribute to
any future capacity issues. Should the City have any questions regarding the report or
information provided, please do not hesitate to call.
224
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:18-104 Agenda Date:2/28/2018
Version:1 Item #:2b.
Resolution making findings and approving the entitlements request (UP17-0013, DR17-0049, TDM17-
0006, and PM17-0004) to construct a new six-story mixed-use building with a total of 172 residential
units and approximately 10,900 square feet of retail at 988 El Camino Real.
WHEREAS, the Summerhill Homes (herein referred to as the “Applicant”) has proposed construction of a high
-density mixed-use residential development, consisting of 172 residential units, 10,900 sq. ft. of retail space,
and 259 parking spaces over 1.67 acres at 988 El Camino Real, APNs 011-325-030, 011-325-070, 011-325-260,
and 011-014-280 (collectively referred to as “Project”) in the City of South San Francisco (“City”); and
WHEREAS, the proposed Project is located within the El Camino Real / Chestnut Area Plan (“ECR/C”) area;
and
WHEREAS, the applicant seeks approval of a Conditional Use Permit (UP17-0013), Design Review (DR17-
0049), Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM17-0006), and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map (PM17-
0004) for the Project; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a separate request for vacation of the Mission Road Public Utilities
Easement, which is consistent with the City’s General Plan and ECR/C Area Plan policies, and will enable
development of a mixed-use, residential building at this site; and
WHEREAS, approval of the applicant’s proposal is considered a “project” for purposes of the California
Environmental Quality Act, Pub. Resources Code §21000, et seq. (“CEQA”); and
WHEREAS, the City Council certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on July 27, 2011 (State
Clearinghouse number 2010072015), 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 development of the ECR/C Area Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council also adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) on July 27, 2011 ,
in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code, §§
21000, et seq., CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines, which carefully considered each significant and unavoidable
impact identified in the EIR and found that the significant environmental impacts are acceptable in light of the
City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/18/2024Page 1 of 7
powered by Legistar™252
File #:18-104 Agenda Date:2/28/2018
Version:1 Item #:2b.
ECR/C Area Plan’s economic, legal, social, technological and other benefits; and
WHEREAS, the City Council certified a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) on December 13,
2017 (State Clearinghouse number 1996032052) 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 amendments to the ECR/C Area Plan and adopted a Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program; and
WHEREAS, the Project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15332 as it is a qualified
in-fill development project; and
WHEREAS, the Project is also exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15183, as it is
consistent with the General Plan and the ECR/C Area Plan and would have no environmental impacts that
would be peculiar to the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Project is also exempt from CEQA pursuant to Public Resources Code section per Public
Resources Code section 21155.4 as the Project is a mixed-use development project that meets three specific
criteria and has no new or more significant impacts than disclosed in the EIR and applicable portions of the
SEIR (“EIRs”), and is statutorily exempt from CEQA review; and
WHEREAS, the City and applicant prepared an Environmental Consistency Analysis for the Project pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines § 15183 and an Environmental Checklist pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15168(c)(4) that
concluded that even if the Project was not exempt from CEQA pursuant to the above-listed exemptions, in
accordance with the requirements of CEQA Guidelines § 15168, the Project is within the scope of the ECR/C
Area Plan and would not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the
severity of any previously identified effects beyond those disclosed and analyzed in the ECR/C EIRs certified
by City Council nor would new mitigation be required; and
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board reviewed the Project at its August 15, 2017 and December 19, 2017
meetings, and strongly recommended approval of the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the Project and recommended approval of the entitlements
request including the Conditional Use Permit, Design Review, Transportation Demand Management Plan, and
Vesting Tentative Parcel Map, as well as a CEQA determination for the Project at its February 1, 2018 public
hearing; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a lawfully noticed public hearing on February 28, 2018 at which time
interested parties had the opportunity to be heard, and to review the Project and supporting documents, prior to
the City Council making its decision on the Project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council exercised its independent judgment and analysis, and considered all reports,City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/18/2024Page 2 of 7
powered by Legistar™253
File #:18-104 Agenda Date:2/28/2018
Version:1 Item #:2b.
WHEREAS, the City Council exercised its independent judgment and analysis, and considered all reports,
recommendations and testimony before making a determination on the Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the record before it, which includes
without limitation, the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code §21000, et seq. (CEQA)
and the CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of Regulations §15000, et seq.; the South San Francisco General
Plan and General Plan EIR; the El Camino / Chestnut Area Plan and Area Plan Program EIR and Statement of
Overriding Considerations; the SEIR; the South San Francisco Municipal Code; the Project applications; the
Project Plans, as prepared by KTGY Architects, dated December 1, 2017; the Environmental Consistency
Analysis, as prepared by the applicant and City staff, including all appendices thereto; all site plans, and all
reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the City Council’s duly noticed February 28, 2018
meeting; and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e) and §21082.2), the
City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby finds as follows:
General
1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution.
2. The Exhibits attached to this resolution, including the 988 El Camino Real Entitlement Plan Set
Submittal (Exhibit A), Applicant Support Statement (Exhibit B), the Draft Conditions of Approval
(Exhibit C), The Draft Transportation Demand Management Plan (Exhibit D), the GreenPoint Scorecard
(Exhibit E), and the Development Conformance Checklist (Exhibit F) are each incorporated by
reference and made a part of this Resolution, as if set forth fully herein.
3. The documents and other materials 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 Planning Manager, Sailesh Mehra.
Conditional Use Permit
1. The proposed use is allowed within the El Camino Real/Chestnut Mixed-Use High Density (ECR/C-
MXH) Zoning District and complies with all other applicable provisions of this Ordinance and all other
titles of the South San Francisco Municipal Code.
2. The proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan and the El Camino Real/Chestnut Area Plan by
creating a high-density residential mixed-use project that emphasizes active retail storefronts, pedestrian
and bicycle improvements, connections to transit, that implements the goals of the El Camino
Real/Chestnut Area Plan, and is consistent with the City’s Design Guidelines as they relate to building
design, form and articulation.
3. The proposed residential use will not be adverse to the public health, safety, or general welfare of the
community, nor detrimental to surrounding properties or improvements, because the proposed use is
consistent with the approved uses in both the General Plan and El Camino Real/Chestnut Area Plan. The
City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/18/2024Page 3 of 7
powered by Legistar™254
File #:18-104 Agenda Date:2/28/2018
Version:1 Item #:2b.
consistent with the approved uses in both the General Plan and El Camino Real/Chestnut Area Plan. The
Project proposes high-density mixed-uses located in the City’s El Camino Real/Chestnut Area plan area,
which is intended for this type of use, and would be redeveloping underutilized parcels that are adjacent
to the future City Civic Center. The General Plan has analyzed this type of use and concluded that such
mixed uses are not adverse to the public health, safety, or welfare. As the proposed Project is consistent
with other mixed-use and residential land uses in the El Camino Real/Chestnut Mixed-Use High
Density District, approval of the Project will not be detrimental to nearby properties. Further, the
proposed use is well suited to the site, and would improve the property for surrounding users and the
City. In addition, the Environmental Consistency Analysis prepared for the Project concludes that as a
result of the Project no new environmental effects would result from the Project beyond those
previously analyzed and addressed in the ECR/C EIRs.
4. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed Project are compatible with the
existing and reasonably foreseeable future land uses in the vicinity because the Project proposes
residential and mixed-uses in the El Camino Real/Chestnut Mixed-Use High Density District, which is
specifically intended for such uses.
5. With the exception of the commercial frontage and location of parking exceptions, as discussed below,
the proposed Project complies with any design or development standards applicable to the zoning
district and the use in question and has been vetted and recommended for approval by the City’s Design
Review Board at their meetings on August 15, 2017 and December 19, 2017.
6. The site is physically suitable for the type of development and density proposed, as the residential use
will benefit from being located in close proximity to the South San Francisco BART Station, future
Civic Center and other mixed-use sites on El Camino Real, and pedestrian and bicycle amenities, and
the size and development is appropriate for the location and meets the City’s land use and zoning
standards, as amended by the Conditional Use Permit process. Access to the site via existing roadways
is sufficient as the Project is within a built-out urban environment, utilities are provided on-site or
proposed for minor upgrades, and no physical constraints such as topography or lack of facilities exists
that would prevent suitable development.
7. Per South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 20.270.004, El Camino Real/Chestnut Additional
Development Standards, an increase in FAR and density may be achieved in the ECR/C-MXH District
through a combination of the following elements per an incentives program: a Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) measures, projects that include high quality, innovative design and product type,
and maximum provision for pedestrian and bicycle use, provision of off-site improvements, and
provision of green building measures over and above SSFMC requirements. The City Council shall
review any request for an increased Density and FAR, subject to a Conditional Use Permit. The
proposed mixed-use development has provided a robust TDM program intended to reduce peak-hour
vehicle trips, high-quality architectural design and materials, bicycle amenities including private and
public bike parking spaces, a bike repair area, direct linkages to the Centennial Way Trail,
improvements to the sidewalks on El Camino Real and Chestnut Avenues,off-site improvements in the
City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/18/2024Page 4 of 7
powered by Legistar™255
File #:18-104 Agenda Date:2/28/2018
Version:1 Item #:2b.
improvements to the sidewalks on El Camino Real and Chestnut Avenues,off-site improvements in the
form of publicly accessible open space on private property and extending to the Centennial Way Trail,
an improved intersection including a crosswalk at Chestnut Avenue and Antoinette Lane, and a Green
Building plan beyond what is required by the SSFMC.Thus, the Project is meeting the requirements for
the requested FAR and density per the incentives program.
8. Per South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 20.270.005 (C), El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue
Area Plan Supplemental Regulations, Depth of Required Commercial Frontage, the minimum average
depth of the required commercial frontage shall be 65 feet for parcels less than 100 feet in depth, and a
reduced average depth of 55 feet for parcels less than 100 feet in depth may be approved to allow for
efficient site layout and site configuration. The proposed commercial depth of 56 feet and 8 inches is
appropriate, given the site’s irregular size and site constraints, and will help to provide active
commercial street frontages on both El Camino Real and Chestnut Avenue. Thus, the Project is meeting
the exception requirements for Required Commercial Frontage.
9. Per South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 20.270.005 (I) Limitations on Location of Parking,
above-ground parking may not be located within 40 feet of a street-facing property line or BART right-
of-way. The Project proposes eleven surface commercial and visitor parking spaces approximately 30
feet from the property line that is adjacent to the BART right-of-way. The PG&E easement constrains
the site, and prevents this parking from being located within a structure. The parking area will be
screened by trees and landscaping, which will buffer the pedestrian right-of-way. Thus, the Project is
meeting the exception requirements for Limitations on Location of Parking.
10. The Project is statutorily and categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15332:
Class 32 and § 15183, and Public Resources Code § 21155.4. In addition, an environmental
determination has been prepared for the Project in accordance with CEQA as the City prepared an
Environmental Consistency Analysis in accordance with the requirements of CEQA Guidelines § 15168
(c), which concluded that the Project would not result in any new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified effects beyond those disclosed and
analyzed in the ECR/C EIRs certified by City Council nor would any new mitigation be required.
Design Review
1. The Project, including Design Review, is consistent with Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal
Code because the Project has been designed as a high-density mixed-use and residential project which
will provide a pedestrian-friendly, transit-oriented environment with sustainability elements
incorporated.
2. The Project, including Design Review, is consistent with the General Plan and the ECR/C Area Plan,
because the proposed high-density residential development is consistent with the policies and design
direction provided in the South San Francisco General Plan for the El Camino Real/Chestnut Mixed-
Use, High Density land use designation by developing new residential units within close proximity to
the BART Station and within the ECR/C plan area, by activating the streetscape on Chestnut Avenue
City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/18/2024Page 5 of 7
powered by Legistar™256
File #:18-104 Agenda Date:2/28/2018
Version:1 Item #:2b.
the BART Station and within the ECR/C plan area, by activating the streetscape on Chestnut Avenue
and El Camino Real, and by providing ground-floor retail and active uses.
3. The Project, including Design Review, is consistent with the applicable design guidelines adopted by
the City Council in that the proposed Project is consistent with the El Camino Real/Chestnut Area Plan
Design Guidelines, as evaluated in the Zoning Ordinance Compliance analysis for the Project.
4. The Project is consistent with the Use Permit for the reasons stated in the section above.
5. The Project is consistent with the applicable design review criteria in South San Francisco Municipal
Code Section 20.480.006 (“Design Review Criteria”) because the Project has been evaluated by the
Design Review Board on August 15, 2017 and December 19, 2017, and found to be consistent with each
of the eight design review criteria included in the Design Review Criteria” section of the ordinance.
Vesting Tentative Parcel Map
1. The proposed vesting tentative parcel map, prepared by CBG Engineering and dated December 1, 2017,
including the proposed designs and improvements, is consistent with the City’s General Plan and El
Camino Real / Chestnut Sub-Area because the vesting tentative parcel map would facilitate the infill
and development of a mixed-use residential project which would implement the goals of the ECR/C
Area Plan.
2. The proposed vesting tentative parcel map is consistent with the standards and requirements of the
City’s Zoning Ordinance and with the provisions of the ECR/C Area Plan.
3. The vesting tentative parcel map complies and meets all of the requirements of Title 19 of the South San
Francisco Municipal Code (“Subdivisions”) and with the requirements of the State Subdivision Map
Act.
4. The Project site is physically suitable for the type of development and density proposed, as the mixed-
use residential project will be located on underutilized parcels on El Camino Real which is envisioned
as a mix of vibrant commercial and residential uses, active frontages, and open space connections in the
ECR/C plan area.
5. The vesting tentative parcel map is consistent with the analysis included in the already certified ECR/C
EIR, and the approval of this vesting tentative map would not result in any new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified effects
beyond those disclosed and analyzed in the ECR/C EIR certified by City Council, nor does the vesting
tentative parcel map constitute a change in the Project or change in circumstances that would require
additional environmental review.
6. The design and improvements of the vesting tentative parcel map are not in conflict with any existing
City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/18/2024Page 6 of 7
powered by Legistar™257
File #:18-104 Agenda Date:2/28/2018
Version:1 Item #:2b.
6. The design and improvements of the vesting tentative parcel map are not in conflict with any existing
public easements.
7. The property is located in a developed, urban setting, and is not subject to a Williamson Act contract, on
open space easement, a conservation easement, or an agricultural conservation easement. The
surrounding land uses and resulting parcels would not support agricultural uses; the resulting parcels
would result in mixed-use development not incidental to commercial agricultural use of the land.
Transportation Demand Management Program
1. The Project’s proposed trip reduction measures are feasible and appropriate for the Project, considering
the proposed use or mix of uses and the Project’s location, size, and hours of operation.
2. The proposed performance guarantees will ensure that the target alternative mode use established for the
Project by Section 20.400 and the ECR/C Area Plan will be achieved and maintained.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby makes the
findings contained in this resolution and approves the Conditional Use Permit (UP17-0013), Design Review
(DR17-0049), Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM17-0006), and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map
(PM17-0004), subject to the Conditions of Approval, attached herewith as Exhibit C.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and
adoption.
*****
City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/18/2024Page 7 of 7
powered by Legistar™258
DN
U
P
DN
UP
CMPCT
UP
CMPCT
UP
CMPCT
UP
U
P
CMPCT CMPCT CMPCT
DN
UP
UPDN
UP
UP
CC
CC C C C C C
FR
C FR CFR CC CFRCC
C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C
C C C v V V V V V V
V
C
PARKING LEVEL P1
GROUND LEVEL
PARKING LEVEL P2RESIDENTIAL LEVEL R1
TR
DNUP
UP DN
UP
DN
ID
F
IDF
IDF
COM.
VENT
GAR.
VENT COM.
VENT
RESIDENTIAL LEVEL R2
RESIDENTIAL LEVEL R3
TR
DNUP
UP DN
UP
DN
ID
F
COM.
VENT
GAR.
VENT
IDF
IDF
COM.
VENT
TR
UP
DN
DNUP
UP DN
ID
F
COM.
VENT
GAR.
VENT
IDF
IDF
COM.
VENT
RESIDENTIAL LEVEL R4
TR
DN
UP DN
DN
ID
F
COM.
VENT
GAR.
VENT
IDF
IDF
COM.
VENT
RESIDENTIAL LEVEL R5
OPEN TO
BELOW
1A 1A 1A 1A 1A
S
1B 2A 2A 1B
1C1AS 1C
1B
1C
2D
2C
1A
2A
2A
1D
1D
1D
1D
1D
1D
1A-alt
S-alt
1JR
1B
2B
1A 1A 1A 1A 1A
S
1B 2A 2A 1B
1C1AS 1C
1B
1C
2D
2C
1A
2A
2A
1D
1D
1D
1D
1D
1D
1A-alt
S-alt
1JR
1B
2B
1A 1A 1A 1A 1A
S
1B 2A 2A 1B
1C1AS 1C
1B
1C
2D
2C
1A
2A
2A
1D
1D
1D
1D
1D
1D
1A-alt
S-alt
1JR
1B
2B
1A 1A 1A 1A 1A
S
1B 2A 2A 1B
1C1AS 1C
1B
1C
2D
2C
1A
2A
2A
1D
1D
1D
1D
1D
1D
1A-alt
S-alt
1JR
1B
1A 1A 1A 1A 1A
S
1B 2A 2A 1B
1C1AS 1C 1C
2D
2C
S1A1A
1A
2A
2A
1D
1D
1D
1D
1D
1D
1A-alt
S-alt
1JR
1B
SOUTH
COURTYARD
EAST
COURTYARD SECURE RESIDENT PARKING
SECURE RESIDENT PARKING
COMMERCIAL & FUTURE
RESIDENT PARKING
COMME
R
C
I
A
L
&
VISITOR
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
COMMERCIAL
COMMERCIAL
RES.
TR.COM.
TR.
LOADING
LO
A
D
I
N
G
RESI
D
E
N
T
GATE
PUBLIC
OPEN SPACE
FITNESS
CLUB
ROOM
PLAZA
RES. LEASING,
LOBBY, & WIFI
LOUNGE
BIKES
30'
20
'
DNUP
UP DN
DN
UP
UP
DN
BIKES
E
L
E
C
ELEC
STOR.
S1A1A
S1A1A
S1A1A
S1A1A
CYBER
CAFE
SPA
DOG PARK
Architecture + Planning
FEBRUARY 16, 2018SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA # 20160986
988 EL CAMINO REAL
SummerHill Apartment Communities
777 S. California Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94304
CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS
www.cbandg.com
Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc.SP.4PROJECT CALCULATIONS
0 50 10025
REVISED JANUARY 30, 2018
26
5
EL CAMINO REAL
CH
E
S
T
N
U
T
A
V
E
CENTENNIAL WAY TRAIL
PUBLIC
OPEN SPACE
7,058 SF
LO
A
D
I
N
G
12
'
x
5
0
'
TR
A
S
H
ST
A
G
I
N
G
ANTOIN
E
T
T
E
L
N
BACK
UP
RESIDENTIAL
LEASING, LOBBY,
& WIFI LOUNGE
2,800 SF
BIKE
ROOM 2
(25 SPACES
@ 2'X6')
RESI
D
E
N
T
GATE
CO
M
M
.
T
R
A
S
H
55
5
S
F
ELEC
10' x 20'
BIKE ROOM 1
(40 SPACES @ 2' X 6', 25 SPACES @ 2' X 4' VERT.)
FITNESS
1,315 SF
30' X 45'
T
T R
R
RT
RES.
TRASH
COMMERCIAL
4,960 GSF
LOADING
12'x50'
T
R
T
T
T
WM
BI
K
E
RE
P
A
I
R
R
R R
T
R
COMMERCIAL
5,400 GSF
DN
UP
UPDN
UP
U
P
CC
LO
A
D
I
N
G
12
'
x
5
0
'
TR
A
S
H
ST
A
G
I
N
G
B
A
C
K
U
P
SPA ABOVE
GAS ME
T
E
R
S
SPA
EQUIP
COM.
VENT
GAR.
VENT INTAKE
C
ELEC
STOR.
COMMERCIAL AND
FUTURE RESIDENT PARKING
36 SPACES
C C C C C C
FR
C FR CFR CC CFRCC
C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C
COMME
R
C
I
A
L
&
V
I
S
I
T
O
R
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
11 SPAC
E
S
C C C v V V V V V V
V
DOWN T
O
B
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
PARKIN
G
(
2
0
%
M
A
X
)
C
ELEV.
RM.
STOR.
COM.
VENT
PLAZA
1,268 SF
DOG
PARK
1,054 SF
18
'
12'
10
'
56
'
-
8
"
25'
12'
6'
8'-9"
24
'
-
8
"
15
'
28'
25
'
22'
15'
20'
1
5
'
10'
5'
7'5'
8
'
2
2
'
1
6
'
124'-9"40'-2"164'-6"
78
'
-
6
"
33'-5"
26
'
-
9
"
407'9
0
'
-
3
"
15
1
'
-
5
"
6
'
5
2
'
40'-8"
5'-4"56
'
-
8
"
48'-1"
54'-5"
1
8
'
8'-7"
18
'
9'
31'-2"
20
'
-
2
"
9
4
'
-
4
"
EXISTING HYDRANT
EXISTING HYDRANT
1
5
0
'
H
O
S
E
L
E
N
G
T
H
FDC
150' HO
S
E
L
E
N
G
T
H
1
5
0
'
H
O
S
E
L
E
N
G
T
H
15
0
'
H
O
S
E
L
E
N
G
T
H
1
5
0
'
R
A
D
I
U
S
1
5
0
'
R
A
D
I
U
S
EXISTING HYDRANT
+ 135' FROM PL
1
0
2
'
H
O
S
E
L
E
N
G
T
H
1
5
0
'
H
O
S
E
L
E
N
G
T
H
PROPOSED HYDRANT
150'
R
A
D
I
U
S
1
5
0
'
R
A
D
I
U
S
PROPOSED HYDRANT
10'
Architecture + Planning
FEBRUARY 16, 2018SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA # 20160986
988 EL CAMINO REAL
SummerHill Apartment Communities
777 S. California Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94304
CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS
www.cbandg.com
Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc.0 20 4010 SP.5FIRE ACCESS PLAN
GROUND LEVEL
FIRE ACCESS SUMMARY
SITE AREA:1.67 AC, 72,603 SF
BUILDING USE:RESIDENTIAL OVER
GROUND LEVEL COMMERCIAL
BUILDING HEIGHT:6 STORIES, 80'
+ 2 BASEMENT PARKING LEVELS
CONSTRUCTION:TYPE IIIA, GROUP R-2
OCCUPANCY
TYPE 1-A, GROUP S-2 AND
GROUP B OCCUPANCIES
FIRE SPRINKLERS:NFPA 13
PERIMETER FENCING:NONE
26
6
(CYBER
CAFE
ABOVE
350 SF)COURTYARD
4,175 SF
COURTYARD
5,925 SFTR
W
M
DNUP
UP DN
DN
UP
1A
CLUB ROOM
1075 SF
(2 STORY VOLUME)
2D
2C
1A 1A 1A 1A
S
1B
1B
2A 2A
1C1C
S
1A
1A
1A
1A
2A
1JR
2A
S 1C
1D
1D
1D
1D
1D
1D
S-alt
1A-alt 1B
IDF
COM.
VENT
GAR.
VENT
SPA
U
P
D
N
IDF
ID
F
INTAKECOM.
VENT
246'
227'
211'
249'232'
3H
R
FI
R
E
W
A
L
L
3
H
R
F
I
R
E
W
A
L
L
PROPOSED
STANDPIPES
PROPOSED
STANDPIPES
EXIT TRAVEL DISTANCE
3
H
R
F
I
R
E
W
A
L
L
Architecture + Planning
FEBRUARY 16, 2018SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA # 20160986
988 EL CAMINO REAL
SummerHill Apartment Communities
777 S. California Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94304
CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS
www.cbandg.com
Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc.0 20 4010 SP.6FIRE ACCESS PLAN
PODIUM LEVEL
FIRE ACCESS SUMMARY
SITE AREA:1.67 AC, 72,603 SF
BUILDING USE:RESIDENTIAL OVER
GROUND LEVEL COMMERCIAL
BUILDING HEIGHT:6 STORIES, 80'
+ 2 BASEMENT PARKING LEVELS
CONSTRUCTION:TYPE IIIA, GROUP R-2
OCCUPANCY
TYPE 1-A, GROUP S-2 AND
GROUP B OCCUPANCIES
FIRE SPRINKLERS:NFPA 13
PERIMETER FENCING:NONE
26
7
CH
E
S
T
N
U
T
A
V
E
EL CAMINO REAL
25'-0"
2
2
'
-
0
"
8
'
-
0
"
5'-0"
5
'
-
9
"
13
1
'
-
9
"
8'-6"
10
'
-
0
"
15'-0"
5'
10'-0"
BACK
UP
RESIDENTIAL
LEASING, LOBBY,
& WIFI LOUNGE
2,800 SF
BIKE
ROOM 2
(25 SPACES
@ 2'X6')
RESI
D
E
N
T
GATE
CO
M
M
.
T
R
A
S
H
55
5
S
F
ELEC
10' x 20'
BIKE ROOM 1
(40 SPACES @ 2' X 6', 25 SPACES @ 2' X 4' VERT.)
FITNESS
1,315 SF
30' X 45'
T
T R
R
RT
RES.
TRASH
COMMERCIAL
4,960 GSF
LOADING
12'x50'
T
R
T
T
T
WM
BI
K
E
RE
P
A
I
R
R
R R
T
R
COMMERCIAL
5,400 GSF
DN
UP
UPDN
UP
U
P
CC
LO
A
D
I
N
G
12
'
x
5
0
'
TR
A
S
H
ST
A
G
I
N
G
B
A
C
K
U
P
SPA ABOVE
GAS ME
T
E
R
S
SPA
EQUIP
COM.
VENT
GAR.
VENT INTAKE
C
ELEC
STOR.
COMMERCIAL AND
FUTURE RESIDENT PARKING
36 SPACES
C C C C C C
FR
C FR CFR CC CFRCC
C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C
COMME
R
C
I
A
L
&
V
I
S
I
T
O
R
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
11 SPAC
E
S
C C C v V V V V V V
V
DOWN T
O
B
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
PARKIN
G
(
2
0
%
M
A
X
)
C
ELEV.
RM.
STOR.
COM.
VENT
22'-0"
25
'
-
0
"
25'-0"
5'-0"
8'-9"
3'-0"
18
'
-
0
"
9'-0"
10'-0"
6'
-
0
"
9'-8"
18
'
-
0
"
4'
12
'
-
6
"
6'
-
1
0
"
3'
-
0
"
17
'
-
6
"
50'-0"
TO
C
E
N
T
E
N
N
I
A
L
WAY
T
R
A
I
L
Architecture + Planning
FEBRUARY 16, 2018SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA # 20160986
988 EL CAMINO REAL
SummerHill Apartment Communities
777 S. California Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94304
CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS
www.cbandg.com
Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc.SP.7CIRCULATION PLAN
CHESTNUT INGRESS ALTERNATIVE08163211-06-2017
VEHICULAR CIRCULATION - COMMERCIAL AND GUEST
VEHICULAR CIRCULATION - RESIDENT ONLY CONTROLLED ACCESS - RESIDENTS ONLY
VISITOR ACCESS
CONTROLLED ACCESS - FIRE DEPARTMENTPEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION - PRIVATE
PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION - PUBLIC
COMMERCIAL LOADING
RESIDENTIAL AND TRASH LOADING
CONTROLLED ACCESS - TRASH AND MOVE-INS
CIRCULATION PLAN LEGEND
26
8
Architecture + Planning
FEBRUARY 16, 2018SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA # 20160986
988 EL CAMINO REAL
SummerHill Apartment Communities
777 S. California Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94304
CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS
www.cbandg.com
Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc.A.1.1CONCEPTUAL RENDERING
CORNER OF EL CAMINO REAL AND CHESTNUT AVENUE
26
9
Architecture + Planning
FEBRUARY 16, 2018SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA # 20160986
988 EL CAMINO REAL
SummerHill Apartment Communities
777 S. California Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94304
CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS
www.cbandg.com
Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc.A.1.2CONCEPTUAL RENDERING
CORNER OF CHESTNUT AVENUE AND CENTENNIAL WAY
27
0
Architecture + Planning
FEBRUARY 16, 2018SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA # 20160986
988 EL CAMINO REAL
SummerHill Apartment Communities
777 S. California Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94304
CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS
www.cbandg.com
Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc.A.1.3RENDERING ENLARGEMENT
CENTENNIAL WAY FITNESS PARK ENLARGEMENT
27
1
Architecture + Planning
FEBRUARY 16, 2018SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA # 20160986
988 EL CAMINO REAL
SummerHill Apartment Communities
777 S. California Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94304
CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS
www.cbandg.com
Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc.
SUN DECKS BEHIND STREET WALL
OUTDOOR SEATING FACING CENTENNIAL WAY TRAIL BALCONY RAILING DETAIL
A.1.4RENDERING ENLARGEMENTS
CORNICE DETAIL
27
2
Architecture + Planning
FEBRUARY 16, 2018SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA # 20160986
988 EL CAMINO REAL
SummerHill Apartment Communities
777 S. California Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94304
CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS
www.cbandg.com
Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc.A.1.5RENDERING ENLARGEMENT
PLAZA AND STREET WALL VIEW FROM EL CAMINO REAL
27
3
Architecture + Planning
FEBRUARY 16, 2018SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA # 20160986
988 EL CAMINO REAL
SummerHill Apartment Communities
777 S. California Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94304
CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS
www.cbandg.com
Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc.A.1.6CONCEPTUAL PERSPECTIVE
AERIAL VIEW OF EL CAMINO REAL STREET WALL
27
4
Architecture + Planning
FEBRUARY 16, 2018SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA # 20160986
988 EL CAMINO REAL
SummerHill Apartment Communities
777 S. California Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94304
CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS
www.cbandg.com
Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc.A.1.7CONCEPTUAL PERSPECTIVE
SOUTH CORNER AT EL CAMINO REAL 6' HIGH FENCE AT P.L.
27
5
Architecture + Planning
FEBRUARY 16, 2018SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA # 20160986
988 EL CAMINO REAL
SummerHill Apartment Communities
777 S. California Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94304
CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS
www.cbandg.com
Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc.A.1.8CONCEPTUAL PERSPECTIVE
EAST PERSPECTIVE
27
6
NORTH ELEVATION
(CHESTNUT AVENUE)
TYP.TYP.TYP.TYP.TYP.TYP.TYP.
G1
R1
R2
10
'
-
3
"
R3
R4
R5
ROOF
17
'
-
6
"
10
'
-
3
"
10
'
-
3
"
10
'
-
3
"
10
'
-
3
"
80' HEIGHT LIMIT
FINISHED FLOOR VARIES
BETWEEN 42.7' - 43.9'
80
'
-
0
"
M
A
X
O
V
E
R
A
L
L
B
L
D
G
.
H
T
.
FF 60'-6"
EG LOW 38.2'
FF 70'-9"
FF 81'-0"
FF 91'-3"
FF 101'-6"
FS 115-7"
FF 111'-9"3'
-
1
0
"
9'
-
3
"
120.9' MAX
AVG. GRADE PLANE 40.9'
EG HIGH 43.6'
8 18 17 161A107 19 129131B54
TYP.TYP.
11
TYP.
2B 2013
TYP.
1B 2B
TYP.
6 1A
TYP.BEYOND
1412
G1
R1
R2
10
'
-
3
"
R3
R4
R5
ROOF
17
'
-
6
"
10
'
-
3
"
10
'
-
3
"
10
'
-
3
"
10
'
-
3
"
80' HEIGHT LIMIT
FINISHED FLOOR VARIES
BETWEEN 42.7' - 43.9'
80
'
-
0
"
M
A
X
O
V
E
R
A
L
L
B
L
D
G
.
H
T
.
FF 60'-6"
EG LOW 38.2'
FF 70'-9"
FF 81'-0"
FF 91'-3"
FF 101'-6"
FS 115-7"
FF 111'-9"3'
-
1
0
"
9'
-
3
"
120.9' MAX
EG HIGH 43.6'
AVG. GRADE PLANE 40.9'
EAST ELEVATION
(CENTENNIAL WAY TRAIL)
16 17 6 9 16111068121A1A2A1A
TYP.TYP.TYP.TYP.
1A 2A 1A 2A 1A 2A18
TYP.TYP.
1A
TYP.
1A
TYP.TYP.TYP.TYP.TYP.TYP.TYP.TYP.
2A
TYP.TYP.
1A 2A
TYP.TYP.TYP.TYP.TYP.TYP.
19
TYP.
7
TYP.
2B14
BEYOND
Architecture + Planning
FEBRUARY 16, 2018SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA # 20160986
988 EL CAMINO REAL
SummerHill Apartment Communities
777 S. California Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94304
CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS
www.cbandg.com
Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc.A.2.1CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONS
0 8 16 32
COLORS & MATERIAL LEGEND
1A
2A 6
5
4
9
8
11
12STUCCO SAND FINISH: COLOR 1
STUCCO SAND FINISH: COLOR 2
FIBER CEMENT PANEL-SMOOTH FINISH
THIN BRICK VENEER
METAL RAILING
METAL ANCHOR PLATES STOREFRONT WINDOW SYSTEM
VINYL WINDOW SYSTEM
FIBER CEMENT TRIM BOARD-
SMOOTH 4/4 FINISH 13
14 FROSTED GLASS PARTITION SCREEN
15 METAL PARTITION SCREEN
16 CORNICE/CAP SMOOOTH STUCCO COATED FOAM
17 METAL MULTI-PURPOSE PANELS
18
1B STUCCO SMOOTH FINISH: COLOR 1
METAL GREEN-SCREEN/ VINE TRELLIS
7 CLEAR GLASS RAILING
10 METAL AWNING
19 EXTERIOR LIGHTING2BSTUCCO SMOOTH FINISH: COLOR 2 METAL + GLASS AWNING
20SIGNAGE
NOTE: STUCOO SAND FINISH
TYPICAL, STUCCO SMOOTH
FINISH AS NOTED PER
KEYNOTES
27
7
G1
R1
R2
10
'
-
3
"
R3
R4
R5
ROOF
17
'
-
6
"
10
'
-
3
"
10
'
-
3
"
10
'
-
3
"
10
'
-
3
"
80' HEIGHT LIMIT
FINISHED FLOOR VARIES
BETWEEN 42.7' - 43.9'
80
'
-
0
"
M
A
X
O
V
E
R
A
L
L
B
L
D
G
.
H
T
.
FF 60'-6"
FF 70'-9"
FF 81'-0"
FF 91'-3"
FF 101'-6"
FS 115-7"
FF 111'-9"3'
-
1
0
"
9'
-
3
"
120.9' MAX
EG HIGH 43.6'
AVG. GRADE PLANE 40.9'
WEST ELEVATION
(EL CAMINO REAL)
TYP.TYP.TYP.TYP.
13 6192041B7125162B2B1A1B 171B1B 1B 1A 82A2A2B2A2B2B2B
TYP.TYP.
6
TYP.
1A
TYP.
2B 1A
TYP.
9
TYP.
1A
TYP.
1B 2B1B 1A
TYP.
2B 1B 2B1B2B1A
TYP.
1A
TYP.TYP.
14
BEYOND.
G1
R1
R2
10
'
-
3
"
R3
R4
R5
ROOF
17
'
-
6
"
10
'
-
3
"
10
'
-
3
"
10
'
-
3
"
10
'
-
3
"
80' HEIGHT LIMIT
FINISHED FLOOR VARIES
BETWEEN 42.7' - 43.9'
80
'
-
0
"
M
A
X
O
V
E
R
A
L
L
B
L
D
G
.
H
T
.
FF 60'-6"
FF 70'-9"
FF 81'-0"
FF 91'-3"
FF 101'-6"
FS 115-7"
FF 111'-9"3'
-
1
0
"
9'
-
3
"
120.9' MAX
EG HIGH 43.6'
AVG. GRADE PLANE 40.9'
SOUTH ELEVATION
TYP.TYP.TYP.TYP.TYP.
1712181668712101A1A2A20
TYP.TYP.
1A
TYP.
2A
TYP.TYP.
Architecture + Planning
FEBRUARY 16, 2018SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA # 20160986
988 EL CAMINO REAL
SummerHill Apartment Communities
777 S. California Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94304
CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS
www.cbandg.com
Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc.0 8 16 32
COLORS & MATERIAL LEGEND
1A
2A 6
5
4
9
8
11
12STUCCO SAND FINISH: COLOR 1
STUCCO SAND FINISH: COLOR 2
FIBER CEMENT PANEL-SMOOTH FINISH
THIN BRICK VENEER
METAL RAILING
METAL ANCHOR PLATES STOREFRONT WINDOW SYSTEM
VINYL WINDOW SYSTEM
FIBER CEMENT TRIM BOARD-
SMOOTH 4/4 FINISH 13
14 FROSTED GLASS PARTITION SCREEN
15 METAL PARTITION SCREEN
16 CORNICE/CAP SMOOOTH STUCCO COATED FOAM
17 METAL MULTI-PURPOSE PANELS
18
1B STUCCO SMOOTH FINISH: COLOR 1
METAL GREEN-SCREEN/ VINE TRELLIS
7 CLEAR GLASS RAILING
10 METAL AWNING
19 EXTERIOR LIGHTING2BSTUCCO SMOOTH FINISH: COLOR 2 METAL + GLASS AWNING
20SIGNAGE
A.2.2CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONS
NOTE: STUCOO SAND FINISH
TYPICAL, STUCCO SMOOTH
FINISH AS NOTED PER
KEYNOTES
27
8
CH
E
S
T
N
U
T
A
V
E
EL CAMINO REAL
25'-0"
2
2
'
-
0
"
8
'
-
0
"
5'-0"
5
'
-
9
"
13
1
'
-
9
"
8'-6"
10
'
-
0
"
15'-0"
5'
10'-0"
BACK
UP
RESIDENTIAL
LEASING, LOBBY,
& WIFI LOUNGE
2,800 SF
BIKE
ROOM 2
(25 SPACES
@ 2'X6')
RESI
D
E
N
T
GATE
CO
M
M
.
T
R
A
S
H
55
5
S
F
ELEC
10' x 20'
BIKE ROOM 1
(40 SPACES @ 2' X 6', 25 SPACES @ 2' X 4' VERT.)
FITNESS
1,315 SF
30' X 45'
T
T R
R
RT
RES.
TRASH
COMMERCIAL
4,960 GSF
LOADING
12'x50'
T
R
T
T
T
WM
BI
K
E
RE
P
A
I
R
R
R R
T
R
COMMERCIAL
5,400 GSF
DN
UP
UPDN
UP
U
P
CC
LO
A
D
I
N
G
12
'
x
5
0
'
TR
A
S
H
ST
A
G
I
N
G
B
A
C
K
U
P
SPA ABOVE
GAS ME
T
E
R
S
SPA
EQUIP
COM.
VENT
GAR.
VENT INTAKE
C
ELEC
STOR.
COMMERCIAL AND
FUTURE RESIDENT PARKING
36 SPACES
C C C C C C
FR
C FR CFR CC CFRCC
C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C
COMME
R
C
I
A
L
&
V
I
S
I
T
O
R
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
11 SPAC
E
S
C C C v V V V V V V
V
DOWN T
O
B
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
PARKIN
G
(
2
0
%
M
A
X
)
C
ELEV.
RM.
STOR.
COM.
VENT
22'-0"
25
'
-
0
"
25'-0"
5'-0"
8'-9"
3'-0"
18
'
-
0
"
9'-0"
10'-0"
6'
-
0
"
9'-8"
18
'
-
0
"
4'
12
'
-
6
"
6'
-
1
0
"
3'
-
0
"
17
'
-
6
"
50'-0"
TO
C
E
N
T
E
N
N
I
A
L
WAY
T
R
A
I
L
Architecture + Planning
FEBRUARY 16, 2018SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA # 20160986
988 EL CAMINO REAL
SummerHill Apartment Communities
777 S. California Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94304
CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS
www.cbandg.com
Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc.A.3.1FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL G
0 8 16 32
27
9
(CYBER
CAFE
ABOVE
350 SF)COURTYARD
4,175 SF
COURTYARD
5,925 SFTR
W
M
DNUP
UP DN
DN
UP
1A
CLUB ROOM
1075 SF
(2 STORY VOLUME)
2D
2C
1A 1A 1A 1A
S
1B
1B
2A 2A
1C1C
S
1A
1A
1A
1A
2A
1JR
2A
S 1C
1D
1D
1D
1D
1D
1D
S-alt
1A-alt 1B
IDF
COM.
VENT
GAR.
VENT
SPA
U
P
D
N
IDF
ID
F
INTAKECOM.
VENT
DECKS,
TYP.
DECKS,
TYP.
5'
-
6
"
10
'
-
6
"
5
'
-
6
"
5'-6"
17
'
-
0
"
5
0
'
-
9
"
5
0
'
10'
21'-6"
15'-0"
10
'
-
6
"
1
5
'
-
9
"
5'
SEISMIC
GAP
Architecture + Planning
FEBRUARY 16, 2018SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA # 20160986
988 EL CAMINO REAL
SummerHill Apartment Communities
777 S. California Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94304
CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS
www.cbandg.com
Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc.A.3.2FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL R1
0 8 16 32
28
0
CYBER
CAFE
TR
DNUP
UP DN
U
P
D
N
OPEN
TO
BELOW
1A 1A 1A 1A 1A
1B 2A 2A 1B
1C
1A S 1C
1B
1C2D
2C
1A
2A
2A
1D
1D
1D
1D
1D
1D
1A-alt
1JR
1B
S
1A
1A
S-alt
ID
F
S
IDF
IDF
COM.
VENT
GAR.
VENT
COM.
VENT
DECKS
BELOW
DECKS,
TYP.
DECKS
BELOW
DECKS,
TYP.
SEISMIC
GAP
Architecture + Planning
FEBRUARY 16, 2018SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA # 20160986
988 EL CAMINO REAL
SummerHill Apartment Communities
777 S. California Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94304
CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS
www.cbandg.com
Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc.A.3.3FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL R2
0 8 16 32
28
1
TR
DNUP
UP DN
U
P
D
N
ID
F
COM.
VENT
GAR.
VENT
IDF
IDF
1A 1A 1A 1A 1A
1B
1B
2A 2A
1B
1C1AS 1C
1B
1C2D
2B
2C
2A
1D
1D
1D
1D
1D
1D 2A
1D
1A-alt
1JR
S
1A
1A
1A
S-alt
S
COM.
VENT
DECKS
BELOW
DECKS
BELOW
SEISMIC
GAP
Architecture + Planning
FEBRUARY 16, 2018SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA # 20160986
988 EL CAMINO REAL
SummerHill Apartment Communities
777 S. California Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94304
CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS
www.cbandg.com
Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc.A.3.4FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL R3
0 8 16 32
28
2
TR
U
P
D
N
DNUP
UP DN
ID
F
COM.
VENT
GAR.
VENT
IDF
IDF
1A
1B
1B
2A 2A
1B
1CS 1C
1B
1C2D
2B
2C
2A
2A
1D
1D
1D
1D
1D 2A
1D
1A 1A 1A 1A 1A
1A-alt
1JR
S
1A
1A
1A
S-alt
S
COM.
VENT
5
1
'
5
0
'
21'-6"
17
'
-
0
"
1
5
'
-
9
"
SEISMIC
GAP
Architecture + Planning
FEBRUARY 16, 2018SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA # 20160986
988 EL CAMINO REAL
SummerHill Apartment Communities
777 S. California Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94304
CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS
www.cbandg.com
Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc.A.3.5FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL R4
0 8 16 32
28
3
TR
DN
UP DN
D
N
ID
F
COM.
VENT
GAR.
VENT
IDF
IDF
1B
1B
2A 2A
1B
1CS 1C
1B
1C
2D
2B
2C
2A
1D
1D
1D
1D
1D 2A
1D
1A 1A 1A 1A 1A 1A
1A-alt
1JR
S
1A
1A
1A
S-alt
S
COM.
VENT
SEISMIC
GAP
Architecture + Planning
FEBRUARY 16, 2018SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA # 20160986
988 EL CAMINO REAL
SummerHill Apartment Communities
777 S. California Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94304
CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS
www.cbandg.com
Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc.A.3.6FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL R5
0 8 16 32
28
4
SOLAR AREAS BREAKDOWN
AREA PROVIDED
(SQ. FT.)TOTAL (SQ. FT)
SOLAR ZONE 1 1066 SQ. FT.
SOLAR ZONE 2 688 SQ. FT.
SOLAR ZONE 3 788 SQ. FT.
SOLAR ZONE 4 772 SQ. FT.
SOLAR ZONE 5 928 SQ. FT.
4,266
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx
xxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxxxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxx xxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
PRELIMINARY TOTAL ROOF AREA SF: 28131 SQ. FT.
TOTAL SOLAR AREA REQUIRED AT 15%: 4,220 SQ. FT.
TOTAL SOLAR AREA PROVIDED: 4,266 SQ. FT.
PROPOSED SOLAR ZONE 3:
788 SQ. FT.
PROPOSED SOLAR ZONE 1:
1066 SQ. FT.
PROPOSED SOLAR ZONE 2:
688 SQ. FT.
PROPOSED SOLAR
ZONE 4: 772 SQ. FT.
PROPOSED SOLAR
ZONE 5: 928 SQ. FT.
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx xxxxxx
xxxxxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
xxx
xxx
COM.
VENT
GAR.
VENT
xxx
xxx
COM.
VENTxxx
25'-2" TYP.
10'-0"
MIN. CLEAR
11
'
-
4
"
T
Y
P
.
10
'
-
0
"
M
I
N
.
C
L
E
A
R
11
'
-
0
"
11
'
-
0
"
T
Y
P
.
10
'
-
0
"
M
I
N
.
C
L
E
A
R
10
'
-
6
"
12
'
-
0
"
1
2
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
4
"
T
Y
P
.
1
0
'
-
0
"
M
I
N
.
C
L
E
A
R
HVAC CONDENSER
EQUIPMENT, TYP.
Architecture + Planning
FEBRUARY 16, 2018SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA # 20160986
988 EL CAMINO REAL
SummerHill Apartment Communities
777 S. California Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94304
CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS
www.cbandg.com
Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc.A.3.7ROOF PLAN
0 8 16 32
28
5
DN
U
P
MECH
SECURE RESIDENT PARKING
101 STANDARD SPACES (4 ADA), 2 COMPACT SPACES
DN
UP
CMPCT
MECH
VENT
INTAKE
ELEC
27'-0" x
21'-6"
UP
ELEC
6'-2" x 2
1
'
-
6
"
CMPCT
ELEV.
RM.
9'-0"
18
'
-
0
"
2
8
'
-
0
"
20'-0"
25
'
-
0
"
25
'
-
0
"
Architecture + Planning
FEBRUARY 16, 2018SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA # 20160986
988 EL CAMINO REAL
SummerHill Apartment Communities
777 S. California Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94304
CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS
www.cbandg.com
Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc.A.3.8FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL P1
0 8 16 32
28
6
SECURE RESIDENT PARKING
105 STANDARD SPACES, 4 COMPACT SPACES
UP
CMPCT
STOR.
VENT
UP
INTAKE
U
P
STOR.
CMPCT CMPCT CMPCT
9'-0"
18
'
-
0
"
2
5
'
-
0
"
25
'
-
0
"
25
'
-
0
"
Architecture + Planning
FEBRUARY 16, 2018SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA # 20160986
988 EL CAMINO REAL
SummerHill Apartment Communities
777 S. California Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94304
CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS
www.cbandg.com
Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc.A.3.9FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL P2
0 8 16 32
28
7
PL
CHESTNUT
AVE.
PL
COMMERCIAL
RES.
TRA.
RES.
LOBBY
BIKE
REPAIR
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
COMMERCIAL
PODIUM
COURTYARDUNITUNITUNITUNITUNIT
UNIT UNIT UNIT UNITUNIT
UNIT UNIT UNIT UNITUNIT
UNIT
UNIT UNIT UNIT UNITUNIT
PARKING
PARKING
PARKING
PARKING
R2
R3
R4
R5
ROOF
R1
P1
P2
AVG. GRADE 40.9'
DRIVE DRIVE
80' LIMIT
SECTION A - LONGITUDINAL
SCALE: 1" = 20'-0"
CUNITUNITUNITUNITC
COMM.
TRA.
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
17
'
-
6
"
10
'
-
3
"
12
'
-
1
"
11
'
-
6
"
11
'
-
0
"
80
'
-
0
"
(O
V
E
R
A
L
L
B
L
D
G
.
HE
I
G
H
T
)
10
'
-
3
"
10
'
-
3
"
10
'
-
3
"
16
'
-
0
"
mi
n
.
41
'
mi
n
.
59
'
-
1
0
"
EG HIGH 43.6'
EG LOW 38.2'
G
REST
ROOM
STORAGE
STORAGE
AC CONDENSER
R2
R3
R4
R5
ROOF
R1
P1
P2
WALL SECTION
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"
16
'
9'
-
1
"
9'
-
1
"
11
'
-
6
"
11
'
80
'
(O
V
E
R
A
L
L
B
L
D
G
.
HE
I
G
H
T
)
9'
-
1
"
9'
-
1
"
9'
-
1
"
41
'
-
6
"
mi
n
.
36
"
42
"
10
'
-
6
"
10
'
18
"
14
"
TY
P
.
59
'
-
1
0
"
G
B
B
C
C
KEY PLAN
NTS
POOL DECK
COURTYARD
EL CAMINO REAL
CH
E
S
T
N
U
T
A
V
E
A A
B
C
C
KEY PLAN
NTS
Architecture + Planning
FEBRUARY 16, 2018SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA # 20160986
988 EL CAMINO REAL
SummerHill Apartment Communities
777 S. California Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94304
CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS
www.cbandg.com
Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc.A.4.1CROSS SECTIONS
28
8
PL PL
C
C
C
C
C
UNITUNIT
UNITUNIT
UNITUNIT
UNITUNIT
UNIT
PARKING
PARKING
R2
R3
R4
R5
ROOF
R1
P1
P2
AVG. GRADE 40.9'
PARKING DRIVE AISLE
80' LIMIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
PUBLIC
OPEN
SPACE
SECTION C - THROUGH COURTYARD
SCALE: 1" = 20'-0"
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
C
C
C
C
C
COURTYARD
17
'
-
6
"
10
'
-
3
"
12
'
-
1
"
11
'
-
0
"
11
'
-
0
"
59
'
-
1
0
"
80
'
-
0
"
(O
V
E
R
A
L
L
B
L
D
G
.
HE
I
G
H
T
)
10
'
-
3
"
10
'
-
3
"
10
'
-
3
"
16
'
-
0
"
mi
n
.
31
'
mi
n
.
EG HIGH 43.6'
EG LOW 38.2'
G
AC CONDENSER
EL
CAMINO
REAL
B
B
C
C
KEY PLAN
NTS
POOL DECK
COURTYARD
EL CAMINO REAL
CH
E
S
T
N
U
T
A
V
E
A A
B
C
C
KEY PLAN
NTS
PL
EL
CAMINO
REAL
PL
C
C
C
C
C
COMMERCIAL
UNITUNIT
UNITUNIT
UNITUNIT
UNITUNIT
UNIT
PARKING
PARKING
R2
R3
R4
R5
ROOF
R1
P1
P2
AVG. GRADE 40.9'
PARKING
80' LIMIT
SPA
C
PUBLIC
OPEN
SPACE
SECTION B - THROUGH POOL DECK
SCALE: 1" = 20'-0"
UNIT
17
'
-
6
"
10
'
-
3
"
12
'
-
1
"
11
'
-
6
"
11
'
-
0
"
59
'
-
1
0
"
80
'
-
0
"
(O
V
E
R
A
L
L
B
L
D
G
.
H
E
I
G
H
T
)
10
'
-
3
"
10
'
-
3
"
10
'
-
3
"
12
'
-
0
"
mi
n
.
31
'
mi
n
.
EG HIGH 43.6'
EG LOW 38.2'
G
AC CONDENSER
Architecture + Planning
FEBRUARY 16, 2018SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA # 20160986
988 EL CAMINO REAL
SummerHill Apartment Communities
777 S. California Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94304
CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS
www.cbandg.com
Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc.A.4.2CROSS SECTIONS
28
9
UNIT S - ALT : STUDIO, 1 BATH
525 SQ. FT.
UNIT 1 JR : JUNIOR 1 BEDROOM, 1 BATH
538 SQ. FT.
18'-0"
30
'
-
3
"
KITCHEN
7'-0" X 13'-5"
SLEEPING
AREA
9'-8" X 8'-6"
LIVING/DINING
17'-3" X 10'-0"
BATH
8'-10" X 7'-2"
W/D
BEDROOM
10'-10" X 11'-5"LIVING
12'-2" X 9'-8"
KITCHEN
6'-9" X 12'-0"BATH
10'-10" X 7'-6"
W/D
UNIT S : STUDIO, 1 BATH
542 SQ. FT.
18'-0"
30
'
-
3
"
KITCHEN
7'-0" X 13'-5"
SLEEPING
AREA
9'-8" X 8'-6"
LIVING/DINING
17'-3" X 10'-0"
BATH
8'-10" X 7'-0"
W/D
22
'
-
1
"
8'
-
2
"
15'-10 1/2"2'-1 1/2"
Architecture + Planning
FEBRUARY 16, 2018SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA # 20160986
988 EL CAMINO REAL
SummerHill Apartment Communities
777 S. California Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94304
CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS
www.cbandg.com
Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc.A.5.1UNIT 1JR, S, S-ALT
FLOOR PLANS
0 2 4 8
29
0
UNIT 1A : 1 BEDROOM, 1 BATH
700 SQ. FT.
DECK: 77 SQ. FT.
UNIT 1A-ALT : 1 BEDROOM, 1 BATH
787 SQ. FT.
31
'
-
0
"
24'-6"
GREAT ROOM
12'-2" X 18'-10"
BEDROOM
11'-4" X 11'-4"
BATH
7'-0" X 11'-2"
KITCHEN
8'-7" X 11'-3"
36
'
-
5
1
/
2
"
24'-6"
GREAT ROOM
12'-2" X 24'-3"BEDROOM
11'-7" X 14'-9"
KITCHEN
8'-7" X 11'-3"
BATH
7'-0" X 11'-2"
W/D W/D
DECK
11'-5" X 6'-10"
Architecture + Planning
FEBRUARY 16, 2018SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA # 20160986
988 EL CAMINO REAL
SummerHill Apartment Communities
777 S. California Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94304
CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS
www.cbandg.com
Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc.A.5.2UNIT 1A, 1A-ALT
FLOOR PLANS
0 2 4 8
29
1
UNIT 1C : 1 BEDROOM, 1 BATH
740 SQ. FT.
UNIT 1B : 1 BEDROOM, 1 BATH
736 SQ. FT.
DECK: 87 SQ. FT.
24
'
-
1
1
"
32'-10"
GREAT ROOM
12'-0" X 14'-5"
KITCHEN
12'-8" X 9'-7"
BEDROOM
11'-0" X 15'-4"
BATH
7'-6" X 13'-5"
W/D
22
'
-
6
"
34'-4"
BEDROOM
11'-1" X 11'-10"
KITCHEN
12'-6" X 9'-9"
W/DBATH
11'-1" X 7'-2"
DINING
10'-0" X 7'-9"
LIVING
12'-1" X 11'-10"
DECK
15'-4" X 6'-4"
Architecture + Planning
FEBRUARY 16, 2018SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA # 20160986
988 EL CAMINO REAL
SummerHill Apartment Communities
777 S. California Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94304
CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS
www.cbandg.com
Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc.A.5.3UNIT 1B, 1C FLOOR PLANS
0 2 4 8
29
2
UNIT 1D : 1 BEDROOM, 1 BATH
727 SQ. FT.
DECK: 56 SQ. FT.
26
'
-
0
"
30'-0"
KITCHEN
9'-1" X 12'-6"
BEDROOM
12'-10" X 10'-9"
W/D
GREAT ROOM
16'-2" X 12'-7"
BATH
11'-0" X 7'-3"
DECK
10'-10" X 5'-2"
Architecture + Planning
FEBRUARY 16, 2018SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA # 20160986
988 EL CAMINO REAL
SummerHill Apartment Communities
777 S. California Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94304
CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS
www.cbandg.com
Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc.A.5.4UNIT 1D FLOOR PLAN
0 2 4 8
29
3
31
'
-
0
"
35'-0"
BEDROOM 1
11'-2" X 14'-8"
BATH 1
9'-1" X 8'-10"
W.I.C.
5'-2" X 6'-1"
KITCHEN
9'-5" X 13'-0"W/D
BATH 2
6'-9" X 11'-1"
BEDROOM 2
11'-2" X 11'-5"GREAT ROOM
11'-4" X 17'-1"
28
'
-
8
1
/
2
"
49'-1 3/4"
BEDROOM 2
12'-2" X
13'-10"BEDROOM 1
12'-1" X 13'-3"
BATH 1
6'-9" X 11'-6"
BATH 2
6'-10" X 9'-5"
W.I.C.
7'-1" X 7'-7"
GREAT ROOM
19'-7" X 12'-10"
KITCHEN
13'-11" X 10'-1"
W/D
DECK
11'-5" X 6'-10"
DECK
11'-9" X 5'-0"
UNIT 2B : 2 BEDROOM, 2 BATH
1136 SQ. FT.
DECK: 56 SQ. FT.
UNIT 2A : 2 BEDROOM, 2 BATH
1025 SQ. FT.
DECK: 76 SQ. FT.
Architecture + Planning
FEBRUARY 16, 2018SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA # 20160986
988 EL CAMINO REAL
SummerHill Apartment Communities
777 S. California Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94304
CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS
www.cbandg.com
Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc.A.5.5UNIT 2A, 2B FLOOR PLANS
0 2 4 8
29
4
UNIT 2C : 2 BEDROOM, 2 BATH
1014 SQ. FT.
38'-8 1/2"
32
'
-
9
"
BEDROOM 1
11'-0" X 16'-2"
BATH 1
9'-2" X 8'-10"
BATH 2
8'-8" X 8'-7"
GREAT
ROOM
11'-11" X
18'-3"
BEDROOM 2
14'-0" X 11'-7"
38
'
-
1
1
3
/
4
"
38'-0"
GREAT
ROOM
13'-7" X 16'-0"
KITCHEN
9'-3" X 14'-1"
BEDROOM 1
12'-0" X
13'-10"
BATH 1
8'-10" X 9'-4"
W/D
BEDROOM 2
17'-0" X 13'-5"
BATH 2
6'-1" X 10'-5"
UNIT 2D : 2 BEDROOM, 2 BATH
1274 SQ. FT.
W.I.C.
5'-2" X 6'-3"W/D
KITCHEN
11'-1" X 8'-6"
Architecture + Planning
FEBRUARY 16, 2018SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA # 20160986
988 EL CAMINO REAL
SummerHill Apartment Communities
777 S. California Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94304
CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS
www.cbandg.com
Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc.A.5.6UNIT 2C, 2D FLOOR PLANS
0 2 4 8
29
5
Architecture + Planning
FEBRUARY 16, 2018SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA # 20160986
988 EL CAMINO REAL
SummerHill Apartment Communities
777 S. California Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94304
CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS
www.cbandg.com
Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc.A.6.1MATERIAL BOARD
BALCONY RAILINGS AND DIVIDER SCREENS
AIRLINE PERFORATED METAL ALUMINUM
McNICHOLS
PRIMARY STUCCO COLOR 2
OMEGA - SMOOTH COAT FINISH; SAND FINISH*
SW 7009 PEARLY WHITE
MULTI-PURPOSE PANELS MPN 12" WIDE
ATAS
SLATE BLUE
METAL ANCHOR PLATES, HANDRAILS,
AND METAL AWNINGS
SW 7069 IRON ORE
NOTE: Manufacturers may be substituted during final design for equivalents.
VINYL WINDOW SYSTEM
VPI ENDURANCE SERIES
BRICK VENEER
H.C. MUDDOX
OLD TOWN RED, MOUNTAIN ROSE, DUSTY ROSE
PRIMARY STUCCO COLOR 1
OMEGA - SMOOTH COAT FINISH; SAND FINISH*
SW 7067 CITYSCAPE
SMOOTH COAT STUCCO FINISH OVER FOAM
FOAM CONCEPTS
SW 7672 KNITTING NEEDLES
HARDIE BOARD TRIM BOARD 4/4
AND FIBER CEMENT PANEL
SMOOTH FINISH
SW 7069 IRON ORE
NOTE: REFER TO EXTERIOR
ELEVATIONS FOR STUCCO
SMOOTH AND SAND FINISH
MATERIAL APPLICATIONS
EXTERIOR LED WALL LIGH
KICHLER-ESTELLA 2 COLLECTION
ARCHITECTURAL BRONZE
29
6
Architecture + Planning
FEBRUARY 16, 2018SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA # 20160986
988 EL CAMINO REAL
SummerHill Apartment Communities
777 S. California Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94304
CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS
www.cbandg.com
Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc.A.6.2SCHEMATIC DETAILS
SHEET INFORMATION
C INSET WINDOW W/ TRIM
SCALE : 3" = 1'-0"
HEAD
JAMB
SILL
STUD WALL
2x SOLID BACKING REQUIRED WHEN
SHEATHING NOT PROVIDED
W.R.B. O/ BUTTERED SEALANT O/ NAILING FLANGE O/
WINDOW SETTING SEALANT O/ SILL PAN S.A.F. O/
CORNER FLASHING O/ RECESS PAN S.A.F. ASSEMBLY.
W.R.B. O/ S.A.F. BUTYL O/ NAILING
FLANGE O/ WINDOW SETTING SEALANT
O/ JAMB S.A.F.
SEALANT O/ BACKER
ROD TYP.
STUD WALL
SHEATHING MAY OCCUR
2x SOLID BACKING REQUIRED WHEN SHEATHING NOT PROVIDED
SHEATHING MAY OCCUR
LOW EXPANSION FOAM ALL FOUR SIDES OF WINDOW
FACTORY FINISHED WINDOW SET IN
1/2" CONTINUOUS BEAD SEALANT
FACTORY FINISHED WINDOW SET IN 1/2" CONTINUOUS
BEAD SEALANT
W.R.B. O/ RECESS PAN S.A.F. ASSEMBLY O/ 24
GA. GALV. MTL. FLSHG. W/ HEMMED EDGE O/
RECESS BIB S.A.F.
CORNER FLASHING (BELOW)
CORNER FLASHING (BEYOND)
1/4"
MIN 1 x FIBER CEMENT TRIM
1/4"
MIN
FIBER CEMENT BLOCKING
1 x 6 FIBER CEMENT TRIM
GYPSUM BOARD/SHEATHING SEE WALL TYPES
SEALANT O/ BACKER ROD TYP.
SEALANT
1 x 6 FIBER CEMENT TRIM
GYPSUM BOARD/SHEATHING SEE WALL TYPES
GALV. MTL. J-MOULD
SEALANT O/ BACKER ROD TYP.
3-COAT STUCCO SYSTEM O/ METAL LATH O/ W.R.B. O/
5/8" TYPE "X" DENS GLASS GOLD EXTERIOR SHEATHING
GALV. MTL. J-MOULD
W.R.B.
1/
4
"
MA
X
.
1 x FIBER CEMENT BLK'G @ 12" O.C.
MAY BE OMITTED
2-LAYERS OF JUMBO TEX
HEM & BOTT. EDGE OF SHEET MTL.
SLOPED 1 x 6 FIBER CEMENT TRIM O/ 1 FIBER
CEMENT BLOCKING
1 LAYER OF WEATHERSMART
SHEATHING MAY OCCUR
HEADER PER STRUCTURAL
STUD WALL
GYPSUM BOARD/SHEATHING SEE WALL TYPES
2x SOLID BACKING REQUIRED WHEN
SHEATHING NOT PROVIDED
LOW EXPANSION FOAM ALL FOUR SIDES OF WINDOW
HEAD FLANGE S.A.F. O/ 24 GA. GALV. MTL. HEAD
FLSHG. W/ 4" VERT. LEG O/ BUTYL O/ NAILING
FLANGE O/ WINDOW SETTING SEALANT
W.R.B. O/ S.A.F. O/ 24 GA. GALV. MTL. HEAD FLSHG.
W/ 6" VERT. LEG O/ HEAD FLANGE S.A.F.
FACTORY FINISHED WINDOW SET IN 1/2" CONTINUOUS
BEAD SEALANT, APPLY SEALANT TO BACK SIDE OF
WINDOW FLANGE AND THEN SET WINDOW INTO
ROUGH OPENING
1/
4
"
MA
X
.
1 x FIBER CEMENT TRIM
1 x 6 FIBER CEMENT TRIM
FIBER CEMENT SOLID BLOCKING AS REQ'D.
CEMCO #12
DRILL OR NOTCH 1/8" HOLES @ 6"O.C.
3-COAT STUCCO SYSTEM O/ METAL LATH O/ W.R.B. O/
5/8" TYPE "X" DENS GLASS GOLD EXTERIOR SHEATHING
GYPSUM PER ASSEMBLY
3-COAT STUCCO SYSTEM O/ METAL LATH O/ W.R.B. O/
5/8" TYPE "X" DENS GLASS GOLD EXTERIOR SHEATHING
3x BLOCKING @ 12"O.C. SET IN
COMPATIBLE SEALANT
SLOPED (2:1 MIN.) BLOCKING AS REQD.
B TYPICAL INSET WINDOW
SCALE : 3" = 1'-0"
CEMCO #12 SOFFIT DRIP W/
BOND BREAKER, EXTEND 2"
BEYOND RECESSED OPENING
STUD WALL
2x SOLID BACKING REQUIRED
WHEN SHEATHING NOT
PROVIDED
4 1/2"
W.R.B. O/ BUTTERED SEALANT O/
NAILING FLANGE O/ WINDOW
SETTING SEALANT O/ SILL PAN
S.A.F. O/ CORNER FLASHING O/
RECESS PAN S.A.F. ASSEMBLY.
NOTE: TLS LABS TWO PART
CORNER FLASHING NOT SHOWN
FOR DETAIL CLARITY
W.R.B. O/ BUTTERED SEALANT
O/ NAILING FLANGE O/ WINDOW
SETTING SEALANT O/ JAMB
S.A.F.
LOW EXPANSION FOAM ALL
FOUR SIDES OF WINDOW
STUD WALL
SHEATHING MAY OCCUR
2x SOLID BACKING REQUIRED
WHEN SHEATHING NOT PROVIDED
HEADER PER STRUCTURAL
STUD WALL
INTERIOR FINISH
2x SOLID BACKING REQUIRED
WHEN SHEATHING NOT
PROVIDED
LOW EXPANSION FOAM ALL
FOUR SIDES OF WINDOW
WEEP W.R.B. O/ HEAD FLANGE
S.A.F. O/ BUTTERED SEALANT O/
NAILING FLANGE O/ WINDOW
SETTING SEALANT
W.R.B. O/ WEEP S.A.F. O/ CEMCO
#12 SOFFIT DRIP O/ WEEP W.R.B.
O/ HEAD FLANGE S.A.F.
PER
PLAN
SHEATHING MAY OCCUR
LOW EXPANSION FOAM ALL
FOUR SIDES OF WINDOW
4
1
/
2
"
4
1
/
2
"
INTERIOR FINISH
FACTORY FINISHED WINDOW
SET IN 1/2" CONTINUOUS BEAD
SEALANT, APPLY SEALANT TO
BACK SIDE OF WINDOW FLANGE
AND THEN SET WINDOW INTO
ROUGH OPENING
FACTORY FINISHED WINDOW
SET IN 1/2" CONTINUOUS BEAD
SEALANT, APPLY SEALANT TO
BACK SIDE OF WINDOW
FLANGE
FACTORY FINISHED WINDOW
SET IN 1/2" CONTINUOUS BEAD
SEALANT
W.R.B. O/ RECESS PAN S.A.F.
ASSEMBLY O/ RECESS BIB S.A.F.
O/ W.R.B.
5
1
/
2
"
M
I
N
I
M
U
M
CORNER FLASHING (BELOW)
CORNER FLASHING (BEYOND)
2-HR RATED WALL PER PLAN
3-COAT STUCCO SYSTEM O/
METAL LATH O/ W.R.B. O/ 5/8"
TYPE "X" DENS GLASS GOLD
EXTERIOR SHEATHING
3-COAT STUCCO SYSTEM O/
METAL LATH O/ W.R.B. O/ 5/8"
TYPE "X" DENS GLASS GOLD
EXTERIOR SHEATHING
3-COAT STUCCO SYSTEM O/
METAL LATH O/ W.R.B. O/ 5/8"
TYPE "X" DENS GLASS GOLD
EXTERIOR SHEATHING
HEAD
JAMB
SILL
A STOREFRONT CANOPY AT TRANSOM
SCALE : 3" = 1'-0"
PER PLAN
HSS 8x4x3/16" STEEL TUBE
PROVIDE BETWEEN
VERTICAL HSS4X4
BRAKE METAL FORMED ALUMINUM
EXTERIORINTERIOR RETAIL
PROVIDE CONDUIT FOR
FUTURE STORE SIGNAGE
STOREFRONT ALUMINUM
WINDOW SYSTEM
CORNER FLASHING (BEYOND)
INTERIOR FINISH
STUD FURRING
SEALANT AND BACKER ROD
BOTH SIDES
ADHERED 2 1
4 X 7 5
8 THIN BRICK VENEER
OVER SCRATCH AND BROWN COAT
OVER METAL LATH OVER (2) LAYERS
GRADE 'D' BUILDING PAPER
SEALANT AND BACKER ROD
BOTH SIDES 3x8x3/8" STEEL CHANNEL PRIMED
AND PAINTED AT PERIMETER OF
CANOPY
8x3/16" STEEL PLATE VERTICAL SLATS
NOTE:
METAL AT AWNINGS GRIND SMOOTH
AND WELD, PRIME AND PAINTED
ADHERED THIN BRICK VENEER OVER
SCRATCH AND BROWN COAT OVER
METAL LATH OVER (2) LAYERS GRADE
'D' BUILDING PAPER
SEE PLAN
A B C
D
B
D
D RECESSED WINDOW
SCALE : 3" = 1'-0"
SHEATHING MAY OCCUR
PER PLAN
PE
R
P
L
A
N
1/2" EXT. PLYWOOD SHEATHING
4
1
/
2
"
W.R.B. O/ BUTTERED SEALANT O/
NAILING FLANGE O/ WINDOW
SETTING SEALANT O/ SILL PAN S.A.F.
O/ CORNER FLASHING AND DEEP
RECESS PAN S.A.F. ASSEMBLY
W.R.B. O/ DEEP RECESS PAN S.A.F. O/
CEMCO #15 WEEPING JOINT O/
RECESS BIB S.A.F. O/ W.R.B
STUD WALL
2x SOLID BACKING REQUIRED WHEN
SHEATHING NOT PROVIDED
INTERIOR FINISH
PER PLAN
W.R.B. O/ BUTTERED SEALANT O/
NAILING FLANGE O/ WINDOW
SETTING SEALANT JAMB S.A.F.
SHEATHING MAY OCCUR
HEADER PER STRUCTURAL
STUD WALL
INTERIOR FINISH
2x SOLID BACKING REQUIRED WHEN
SHEATHING NOT PROVIDED
APPLY LOW EXPANSION FOAM ALL
FOUR SIDES OF WINDOW
W.R.B. O/ WEEP S.A.F. O/ CEMCO #12
SOFFIT DRIP O/ WEEP W.R.B. O/ HEAD
FLANGE S.A.F.
4
1
/
2
"
CEMCO #12 SOFFIT DRIP W/ BOND
BREAKER, EXTEND 2" BEYOND
RECESSED OPENING
4 1/2"
4
1
/
2
"
LOW EXPANSION FOAM ALL FOUR
SIDES OF WINDOW
LOW EXPANSION FOAM ALL FOUR
SIDES OF WINDOW
CEMCO #15 WEEPING JOINT W/ BOND
BREAKER, EXTEND 2" BEYOND
RECESSED OPENING OR PER
EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
WEEP W.R.B. O/ 9" WIDE HEAD FLANGE
S.A.F. O/ BUTTERED SEALANT O/
NAILING FLANGE O/ WINDOW SETTING
SEALANT
FACTORY FINISHED WINDOW SET IN
1/2" CONTINUOUS BEAD SEALANT,
APPLY SEALANT TO BACK SIDE OF
WINDOW FLANGE AND THEN SET
WINDOW INTO ROUGH OPENING
STUD WALL
INTERIOR FINISH
SHEATHING MAY OCCUR
FACTORY FINISHED WINDOW SET
IN 1/2" CONTINUOUS BEAD
SEALANT, APPLY SEALANT TO
BACK SIDE OF WINDOW FLANGE
FACTORY FINISHED WINDOW SET IN
1/2" CONTINUOUS BEAD SEALANT
SLOPE
14 DEG
R
E
E
S
(3:12)
NOTE: TLS LABS TWO PART CORNER
FLASHING NOT SHOWN FOR DETAIL
CLARITY
DEEP RECESS PAN ASSEMBLY
1/
4
"
MI
N
.
5
1
/
2
"
M
I
N
I
M
U
M
CORNER FLASHING (BELOW)
NOTE: WINDOWS SHOWN FOR FLASHING SEQUENCE AND EXTERIOR FINISH,
REFER TO WALL TYPES FOR SPECIFIC 1HR AND 2HR FIRE RATED REQUIREMENTS
3-COAT STUCCO SYSTEM O/ METAL
LATH O/ W.R.B. O/ 5/8" TYPE "X" DENS
GLASS GOLD EXTERIOR SHEATHING
3-COAT STUCCO SYSTEM O/
METAL LATH O/ W.R.B. O/ 5/8"
TYPE "X" DENS GLASS GOLD
EXTERIOR SHEATHING
3-COAT STUCCO SYSTEM O/
METAL LATH O/ W.R.B. O/ 5/8"
TYPE "X" DENS GLASS GOLD
EXTERIOR SHEATHING
2-HR RATED WALL PER PLAN
2-HR RATED WALL PER PLAN
HEAD
JAMB
SILL
29
7
2
L5
.
0
1
L5.0
17'-0"
4'-0"
20
'
-
0
"
4'-0"
4
'
-
0
"
4'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
11
'
-
7
"
9 BIKE RACKS
(18 SPACES)
38" DEEP INFILTRATION PLANTER
COURTYARD
FURNISHINGS, TYP.
PERMEABLE
PAVING
38" DEEP INFILTRATION
PLANTER
SPECIAL PAVING, TYP.
38" DEEP INFILTRATION
PLANTER
PLANTER POT, TYP.
SPECIAL ENTRY
PAVING, TYP.
SITE FURNISHINGS
BENCHES
(TOTAL 3)
24'-5"
VA
R
I
E
S
REMOVE AND REPLACE
EXISTING FENCE WITH
6' FENCE ON RETAINING
WALL
LO
A
D
I
N
G
SPA
PROPER
T
Y
L
I
N
E
CENTEN
N
I
A
L
W
A
Y
T
R
A
I
L
CH
E
S
T
N
U
T
A
V
E
EL CAMINO REAL
TY
P
.
TYP.
RIGHT OF WAY
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
24" DEEP PLANTER
988 EL CAMINO REAL
OUTDOOR DINING
1
0
'
-
0
"
8'-0"
10'-0"
8'
-
0
"
OUTDOOR
FITNESS PODS WITH
EQUIPMENT TYP.10 BIKE RACKS
(20 SPACES)
PLAZA
SCULPTURAL SEATING, TYP.
GREENSCREEN, TYP.
EASEMENT FOR
PUBLIC ACCESS
1
0
'
5
0
'
P
G
E
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
1
0
'
CLENTRY SIGN,
TYP. (TOTAL 2)
PLANTER
POT, TYP.
VEHICULAR
DRIVE PAVING, TYP.
8'
-
0
"
BBQ
HIGH TOP BAR
WITH STOOLS
WINDSCREEN, TYP.
4'
M
I
N
.
SEATING PLATFORM,
TYP.
12'-0"
24" DEEP PLANTER
10
'
-
0
"
NORTH COURTYARD
SOUTH COURTYARD
PARKING LEVEL 1
10'-0"
10
'
-
0
"
8'
-
0
"
5' TALL SPA FENCE
GLASS PANELS + PLANTER
REMOVE EXISTING FENCE
STRETCHING AREA
FENCE BEGINS
BBQ WITH TRELLIS
BENCHES IN DOG PARK(2)
DOG LAWN (±800SF)
DOG WASTE SYSTEM
SPECIAL ENTRY
PAVING, TYP.
DOG PARK DOUBLE GATE
1
0
'
-
0
"
5
'
-
0
"
BIKE RACK(1)
2 SPACES
OUTDOOR
DINING TABLES
AND CHAIRS(4)
DG
2' SHOULDER
FEBRUARY 16, 2018SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
988 EL CAMINO REAL
SummerHill Apartment Communities
777 S. California Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94304
0 50 10025
Architecture + Planning
CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS
www.cbandg.com
Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc.
ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN L1.007.5 15 30
29
8
FEBRUARY 16, 2018SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
988 EL CAMINO REAL
SummerHill Apartment Communities
777 S. California Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94304
0 50 10025
Architecture + Planning
CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS
www.cbandg.com
Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc.L2.0DETAIL ENLARGEMENTS
SOUTH COURTYARD ENLARGEMENT
1" = 10'-0"1
FITNESS PARK ENLARGEMENT
1" = 10'-0"2
NORTH COURTYARD ENLARGEMENT
1" = 10'-0"3
EL CAMINO REAL / CHESTNUT PLAZA ENLARGEMENT
1" = 10'-0"4
0 5 10 20
CENTENNI
A
L
W
A
Y
T
R
A
I
L
OUTDOOR DINING
CONCRETE SIDEWALK
ACCENT PLANTER, TYP.
SCULPTURAL SEATING
SPECIAL PAVING, TYP.
EL CAMINO REAL
CH
E
S
T
N
U
T
A
V
E
SPA ENTRY FIRE LOUNGE WITH
CUSHIONED SEATING
CHAISE LOUNGE
SEATING, TYP.
38" DEEP INFILTRATION
PLANTER
SPA 8' X 14'
38" DEEP INFILTRATION
PLANTER
FIRE LOUNGE WITH
CUSHIONED SEATING
24" DEEP PLANTER
OUTDOOR
SEATING
PING PONG
GAME AREA
MOVEABLE SEATING
UNIT PAVERS
BBQ WITH TRELLIS
24" DEEP PLANTER
CENTENNIAL WAY
TRAIL CONNECTION
ARCHITECTUAL GREENSCREEN
WITH VINES, TYP.
PERVIOUS UNIT
PAVERS, TYP.
BENCH, TYP.
FITNESS EQUIPMENT
/ATHLETIC SURFACING, TYP.
NATIVE LAWN
10 BIKE RACKS
(20 SPACES)
38" DEEP INFILTRATION
PLANTER
5' TALL SPA FENCE
GLASS PANES + PLANTER.
GREEN SCREEN
FIRE LOUNGE WITH
CUSHIONED SEATINGWIND SCREEN
BBQ
SEATING PLATFORM
TRELLIS.
TRELLIS
DOG LAWN (±800 SF)
BENCHES IN DOG PARK(2)DOG WASTE SYSTEM
DOG PARK DOUBLE GATE
8'-
0
"
DG 2' SHOULDER
29
9
2
L5
.
0
1
L5.0
LO
A
D
I
N
G
SPA
PROPER
T
Y
L
I
N
E
CENTEN
N
I
A
L
W
A
Y
T
R
A
I
L
CH
E
S
T
N
U
T
A
V
E
EL CAMINO REAL
ANTOINE
T
T
E
L
A
N
E
TY
P
.
TYP.
RIGHT OF WAY
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
988 EL CAMINO REAL
PLAZA
CL
NORTH COURTYARD
SOUTH COURTYARD
PARKING LEVEL 1UP
C C C v V V V V V V
V
1
0
'
-
0
"
5
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
5
0
'
P
G
E
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
1
0
'
17'-0"
4'-0"
20
'
-
0
"
4'-0"
4
'
-
0
"
4'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
11
'
-
7
"
9 BIKE RACKS
(18 SPACES)
38" DEEP INFILTRATION PLANTER
COURTYARD
FURNISHINGS, TYP.
PERMEABLE
PAVING
38" DEEP INFILTRATION
PLANTER
SPECIAL PAVING, TYP.
38" DEEP INFILTRATION
PLANTER
PLANTER POT, TYP.
SPECIAL ENTRY
PAVING, TYP.
SITE FURNISHINGS
BENCHES
(TOTAL 3)
24'-5"
VA
R
I
E
S
REMOVE AND REPLACE
EXISTING FENCE WITH
6' FENCE ON RETAINING
WALL
24" DEEP PLANTER
OUTDOOR DINING
10
'
-
0
"
8'-0"
10'-0"
8'
-
0
"
OUTDOOR
FITNESS PODS WITH
EQUIPMENT TYP.10 BIKE RACKS
(20 SPACES)
SCULPTURAL SEATING, TYP.
BENCHES IN DOG PARK(2)
GREENSCREEN, TYP.
EASEMENT FOR
PUBLIC ACCESS
ENTRY SIGN,
TYP. (TOTAL 2)
PLANTER
POT, TYP.
VEHICULAR
DRIVE PAVING, TYP.
8'
-
0
"
BBQ
HIGH TOP BAR
WITH STOOLS
WINDSCREEN, TYP.
4'
M
I
N
.
SEATING PLATFORM,
TYP.
12'-0"
24" DEEP PLANTER
10
'
-
0
"
10'-0"
10
'
-
0
"
8'
-
0
"
5' TALL SPA FENCE
GLASS PANELS + PLANTER
REMOVE EXISTING FENCE
STRETCHING AREA
FENCE BEGINS
BBQ WITH TRELLIS
SPECIAL ENTRY
PAVING, TYP.
VEHICULAR
DRIVE PAVING, TYP.
DOG LAWN (±800SF)
TRELLIS
TRELLIS
DOG WASTE SYSTEM
BIKE RACK(1)
2 SPACES
DOG PARK DOUBLE GATE
BENCH (1)
OUTDOOR
DINNING TABLES
AND CHAIRS(4)
DG
2' SHOULDER
2,616 SF
37 SF
8,492 SF
593 SF
TREE COLOR = OPTIONAL
(FREEZABLE LAYER)
'LP-TREE-COLOR'
MATERIALS LEGEND
SYMBOL DESCRIPTION NOTES
GREY SCORED CONCRETE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY - 2'X2'
GREY SCORED CONCRETE VEHICULAR DRIVE/ LOADING ZONE - 4'X4'
SPECIAL UNIT PAVERS ACKERSTONE
ATHLETIC SURFACE POURED RUBBERIZED SURFACE
COURTYARD UNIT PAVERS ACKERSTONE
WOOD DECKING IPE OR SIMILAR
WOOD SEATING IPE OR SIMILAR
PERMEABLE PAVERS PARKING AREA
6' PRIVACY FENCE AT PARCEL LINE
BIKE RACK TOTAL 16 RACKS = 32 SPACES
PLANTING SCHEDULE
SYMBOL HYDRO
ZONE BOTANTICAL NAME COMMON NAME QUANTITY SIZE WUCOLS
TREES
1 PLATANUS ACERIFOLIA 'COLUMBIA'LONDON PLANE TREE 7 48" BOX
STANDARD MODERATE
2 TRISTANIA CONFERTA BRISBANE BOX 3 48" BOX
STANDARD MODERATE
3 QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA COAST LIVE OAK 5 48" BOX
STANDARD MODERATE
4 LAGERSTROEMIA INDICA 'NATCHEZ'CREPE MYRTLE 14 36" BOX
MULTI LOW
5 OLEA EUROPAEA 'SWAN HILL'SWAN HILL OLIVE 9 48" BOX
MULTI LOW
6 ARBUTUS UNEDO STRAWBERRY TREE 12 15 GAL VERY LOW
7 DODONAEA VISCOSA 'PURPUREA'PURPLE HOPSEED BUSH 18 15 GAL MODERATE
SHRUBS AND GROUNDCOVER
8 RHAPHIOLEPIS INDICA 'BALLERINA'
LIMONIUM CALIFORNICUM
BALLERINA/ M.WASHINGTON
SEA LAVENDER 1981 S.F.5 GAL
1 GAL LOW
9
LIMONIUM CALIFORNICUM
KNIPHOFIA UVARIA HYBRIDS AND CVS
GREVILLEA X 'NOELL'
ACHILLEA MILLEFOLIUM CALIFORNICUM
AQUILEGIA FORMOSA
SEA LAVENDER
RED HOT POKER
NOELL GREVILLEA
WESTERN YARROW
COLUMBINE
1474 S.F.
1 GAL
1 GAL
5 GAL
1 GAL
1 GAL
LOW
10
JUNCUS PATENS
LIMONIUM CALIFORNICUM
CHONDROPETALUM TECTORUM
JUNCUS
SEA LAVENDER
CAPE RUSH
1437 S.F.
1 GAL
1 GAL
5 GAL
LOW
11 LOMANDRA LONGIFOLIA 'BREEZE'
FESTUCA MAIREI
DWARF MAT RUSH
ATLAS FESCUE 6645 S.F.5 GAL
1 GAL LOW
12 NATIVE GRASS BLEND -572 S.F.SOD LOW
VINES
13
PARTHENOCISSUS TRICUSPIDATA
LONICERA HISPIDULA
FICUS PUMILA
BOSTON IVY
CALIFORNIA HONEYSUCKLE
CREEPING FIG
ON GREENSCREEN PANELS
160
1 GAL
1 GAL
1 GAL
LOW
FEBRUARY 16, 2018SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
988 EL CAMINO REAL
SummerHill Apartment Communities
777 S. California Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94304
0 50 10025
Architecture + Planning
CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS
www.cbandg.com
Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc.
PLANTING & WATER USE NOTES:
1.ALL PLANT GROUPS ARE DESIGNED FOR LOW WATER USE, AND LAID OUT BY HYDROZONES.
2.PLANTS HAVE BEEN SELECTED FOR RESISTANCE TO WIND, SIZE AT MATURITY, AND LOW WATER USE. NO INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES HAVE BEEN
INCLUDED (PER CAL-IPC).
3.ALL GROUNDCOVER PLANTING AREAS ARE EXPECTED TO UNIFORMLY COVER THE PLANTING AREA IN TWO (2) YEARS. ALL SHRUB PLANTING AREAS
ARE EXPECTED TO UNIFORMLY COVER THE PLANTING AREA IN FIVE (5) YEARS.
4.ALL NEW PLANTING AREAS SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM OF 3" DEPTH LAYER OF ORGANIC, COMPOSTED WOOD CHIP MULCH APPLIED. STABILIZING MULCH
PRODUCTS SHALL BE APPLIED TO SLOPES OF 3 TO 1 OR GREATER.
5.THIS PROJECT SHALL UTILIZE A DRIP IRRIGATION SYSTEM.
GENERAL NOTES:
1.DESIGN SHALL MEET ALL APPLICABLE STATE AND LOCAL CODES.
2.SEE CIVIL PLANS FOR GRADES, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, DEMOLITION, EXISTING TREE REMOVAL, AND ADA PATH OF TRAVEL.
3.VERIFY EXISTING SITE INFORMATION, INCLUDING GRADES, UTILITIES, PROPERTY LINES, SETBACKS, EASEMENTS, LIMITS OF ROADWAYS, CURBS
AND GUTTERS.
4.MAINTENANCE SPECIFICATION WILL BE PROVIDED AT PERMIT DOCUMENTATION TIME.
L3.0LANDSCAPE AND
MATERIALS PLAN052040
30
0
FEBRUARY 16, 2018SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
988 EL CAMINO REAL
SummerHill Apartment Communities
777 S. California Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94304
0 50 10025
Architecture + Planning
CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS
www.cbandg.com
Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc.
PRECEDENT IMAGERY L4.0
GRAND BLVD INITIATIVE DODONAEA VISCOSA 'PURPUREA'
SAUCER/BOWL PLANTERS PLANTERS PERMEABLE PAVERS LANDSCAPE FORMS - METROSEATING AREAS BBQ AREA
PROPERTY LINE FENCE
SCULPTURAL BENCH NATURAL GREY SCORED CONCRETE BENCH
STREETSCAPE
SPA AREA CONCEPTCOURTYARD GREEN SCREEN CONCEPT
MATERIALS
COURTYARD AMENITIES
COMBINATION OF GRILL PANELS AND GREEN SCREEN METAL GRILL GREEN SCREEN
DOG PARK
ARTIFICIAL TURF
PLANTS
OLEA EUROPAEA 'SWAN HILL'
ARBUTUS UNEDO LOGERSTOEMIA INDICA 'NATCHEZ'
30
1
4'-0"8'-0"
PLANTINGWALKWAY
STREET
BUILDING
SLOPE
STREET TREE
CONCRETE
PAVING
STRUCTURAL
SOIL LAYER
48" ROOTBALL
COMPACTED SOIL
BENCH
VARIES
RETAIL
WALKWAY
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
4'-0"
PLANTING
STREET
BUILDING
SLOPE
STREET TREE
CONCRETE
PAVING
STRUCTURAL
SOIL LAYER
48" ROOTBALL
COMPACTED SOIL
TABLES AND
CHAIRS
VARIES
DINING
AREA
10'-0"
SIDEWALK
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
FEBRUARY 16, 2018SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
988 EL CAMINO REAL
SummerHill Apartment Communities
777 S. California Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94304
0 50 10025
Architecture + Planning
CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS
www.cbandg.com
Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc.
CLASS II PERMEABLE
AGGREGATE BASE
2"-21
2" THICK CONCRETE
UNIT PAVERS
PODIUM WATERPROOFING
AND PROTECTION BOARD
SLOPED STRUCTURAL SLAB
+/
-
6
"
/
V
A
R
I
E
S
BUTT JOINTS, TYP.
18" MIN. LIGHTWEIGHT
PLANTING MEDIA
3" MULCH LAYER
CONCRETE PLANTER WALL;
FINISH TO BE DETERMINED
3"
3"
18
"
M
I
N
.
WATERPROOFING SAD,
TOURNASOL VERSICELL
DRAINAGE PANEL AND
LANDSCAPE FABRIC;
LOCATE DRAINAGE PANEL
AND FABRIC AS SHOWN TO
1" ABOVE SOIL LEVEL
24
"
-
3
8
"
/
V
A
R
I
E
S
9
"
TREE TRUNK
3" MULCH LAYER
TREE ROOTBALL; SET TOP OF ROOTBALL 3" ABOVE
FINISH GRADE
IMPORTED/AMENDED BACKFILL
CURB, SCD
4" DIA. PERFORATED
HDPE DRAINAGE
MONITORING TUBE WITH
4" DIA BLACK FLAT DRAIN
GRATE; TOP OF GRATE
TO BE 4" ABOVE FINISH
GRADE
3"
ZIP TIE (3)
UV RESISTANT VINYL STRAP;
FOLD AND SECURE AS SHOWN
PLAN
REDDY STAKE POLE
T-BAR ROD;
HEIGHT AS REQUIRED
REDDY STAKE SYSTEM; SIZE AND INSTALLATION
PER SPECIFICATIONS
3"
CONCRETE SIDEWALK
ROOT BARRIER
NOTE:
USE CU STRUCTURAL SOIL AS
ROOTABLE SOIL PER
MANUFACTURERS
RECOMMENDATIONS.
4'-0"
2"
ROOTABLE SOIL MIX &
DRAIN ROCK PEDESTAL
ROOTBALL
TREE TRUNK
ROOT BARRIER,
TURNED UP AT
EDGES
4'
-
0
"
VARIES
1200 CUBIC FEET OF
ROOTABLE SOIL PER TREE;
INSTALL IN 6" LIFTS AND
COMPACT
SECTION-A AT EL CAMINO REAL
1/4" = 1'-0"1
SECTION-B AT CHESTNUT AVENUE
1/4" = 1'-0"2
STREET TREE INSTALLATION
1/2" = 1'-0"3
4"
6'-0"6'-0"
12'-0"
FF GRADE
CL
CL
2" X 2" CEDAR FENCE BOARD
2" X 6" CEDAR FENCE BOARD
2" X 6" CEDAR CAP RAIL.
2'
-
0
"
4'
-
0
"
CL
END PANEL MIDDLE PANEL
2'-0"
TYP.
4" X 4" POST
2X2 VERTICAL SUPPORT @
24" O.C. BTWN. POSTS
6'
-
0
"
WOOD FENCE CONCEPT
1/2" = 1'-0"4
CONCRETE UNIT PAVERS ON PODIUM
1 1/2" = 1'-0"6
PODIUM PLANTING CONCEPT
1 1/2" = 1'-0"7
SECTIONS AND DETAILS L5.0
CONCRETE UNIT PAVERS ON GRADE
1 1/2" = 1'-0"5
CLASS II PERMEABLE
AGGREGATE BASE
2"-21
2" THICK CONCRETE
UNIT PAVERS
COMPACTED SUBGRADE
+/
-
7
"
/
V
A
R
I
E
S
BUTT JOINTS, TYP.
1" LEVELING SAND
4'-0" MIN, VARIES
8'-0" MAX
6'
-
0
"
,
V
A
R
I
E
S
2'
-
0
"
,
V
A
R
I
E
S
8'
-
0
"
CUSTOM PERFORATED METAL
PANEL, POWDER COATED
FINISH
CONCEPT: DESIGN TBD
4" TUBE STEEL FRAME
POWDER COATED FINISH
CONCRETE PLANTER WALL
F.G.
WINDSCREEN CONCEPT
3/4" = 1'-0"8
30
2
FEBRUARY 16, 2018SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
988 EL CAMINO REAL
SummerHill Apartment Communities
777 S. California Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94304
0 50 10025
Architecture + Planning
CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS
www.cbandg.com
Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc.
CENTENNIAL WAY FITNESS
PARK PLAN L6.0
PULL-UP/DIP
5
'
2
'
TAI CHI
WHEELS
SQUAT
PRESS
AB CRUNCH/
LEG LIFT
BIKE
PARKING
BIKE
PARKING
BIKE
PARKING
STRETCHING
AREA
DOG
LAWN
CARDIO
STEPPER
CHEST/BACK
PRESS
ELLIPTICAL
EXISTING SITE PHOTOS:
30
3
FEBRUARY 16, 2018SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
988 EL CAMINO REAL
SummerHill Apartment Communities
777 S. California Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94304
0 50 10025
Architecture + Planning
CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS
www.cbandg.com
Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc.
CENTENNIAL WAY FITNESS
PARK DETAILS L7.0
BENCH: TOURNESOL SITEWORKS OR EQUAL
FITNESS SAFETY SURFACING
DECOMPOSED GRANITE TRAIL SHOULDER
BIKE PARKING: LANDSCAPE FORMS METRO "RIDE"
-LOCATED ON CONCRETE PADS
WELCOME SIGN CHEST/BACK PRESS TAI CHI WHEELS AB CRUNCH
ELLIPTICAL SQUAT PRESS CARDIO STEPPER PULL-UP DIP
FITNESS EQUIPMENT AVAILABLE THROUGH LANDSCAPE STRUCTURES
The HealthBeat® Outdoor Fitness System for ages 13+ brings the best of the gym to the great outdoors. HealthBeat uses the latest
exercise methodologies to provide a tailored workout for teens and adults of all fitness levels. This Fitness circulit is ADA accessible
on an ADA play surface.
30
4
EL CAMINO REAL
CH
E
S
T
N
U
T
A
V
E
N
U
E
ANTOINE
T
T
E
L
A
N
E
PARCEL 1
CENTENN
I
A
L
W
A
Y
T
R
A
I
L
4th SUBMITTAL, FEBRUARY 20, 2018SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
988 EL CAMINO REAL
SummerHill Apartment Communities
777 S. California Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Architecture + Planning
CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS
www.cbandg.com
Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc.
GENERAL NOTES
CONTACTS
VICINITY MAP
SITE
SHEET INDEX
SHEET NO.SHEET TITLE
C.1.0VESTING TENTATIVE
PARCEL MAP0306015
LEGEND
EXISTING PROPOSED DESCRIPTION
305
EL CAMINO REAL
CH
E
S
T
N
U
T
A
V
E
N
U
E
CENTENNIAL
W
A
Y
T
R
A
I
L
D.N. 2007-069341
APN 011-325-070
D.N. 2006-010135
APN 011-325-030
PARCEL 3
54 PM 15-16
APN 014-011-260
PARCEL II OF
D.N. 2006-010133
APN 014-011-280
4th SUBMITTAL, FEBRUARY 20, 2018SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
988 EL CAMINO REAL
SummerHill Apartment Communities
777 S. California Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Architecture + Planning
CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS
www.cbandg.com
Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc.
NOTES:
P C
LEGEND
C.2.0BOUNDARY AND
EXISTING CONDITIONS 0 20 4010
ABBREVIATIONS
306
EL CAMINO REAL
CH
E
S
T
N
U
T
A
V
E
N
U
E
CENTENN
I
A
L
W
A
Y
T
R
A
I
L
D.N. 2007-069341
APN 011-325-070
D.N. 2006-010135
APN 011-325-030
PARCEL 3
54 PM 15-16
APN 014-011-260
PARCEL II OF
D.N. 2006-010133
APN 014-011-280
4th SUBMITTAL, FEBRUARY 20, 2018SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
988 EL CAMINO REAL
SummerHill Apartment Communities
777 S. California Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Architecture + Planning
CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS
www.cbandg.com
Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc.
NOTES:
P C
LEGEND
C.3.0EXISTING UTILITIES
AND EASEMENTS 0 20 4010
ABBREVIATIONS
307
DN
UP
UPDN
UP
U
P
CC
CCCCCCC
FR
C FR CFR CC CFRCC
C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C
C
EL CAMINO REAL
CH
E
S
T
N
U
T
A
V
E
N
U
E
CENTENNIAL
W
A
Y
T
R
A
I
L
COMMERCIAL
COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL
AMENITIES
COMMERCIAL AND FUTURE RESIDENT PARKING
ANTOINE
T
T
E
L
A
N
E
PROPOSED EL CAMINO REAL SECTION
PROPOSED CHESTNUT AVENUE SECTION
4th SUBMITTAL, FEBRUARY 20, 2018SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
988 EL CAMINO REAL
SummerHill Apartment Communities
777 S. California Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Architecture + Planning
CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS
www.cbandg.com
Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc.
NOTES:
C.4.0PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
0 20 4010
CORNER CURB RAMPS
308
CHESTNUT AVENUE
U
P
U
P
D
N
A
N
T
O
I
N
E
T
T
E
L
A
N
E
E
L
C
A
M
I
N
O
R
E
A
L
DESCRIPTIONEXISTINGPROPOSED
ABBREVIATIONS
4th SUBMITTAL, FEBRUARY 20, 2018SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
988 EL CAMINO REAL
SummerHill Apartment Communities
777 S. California Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Architecture + Planning
CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS
www.cbandg.com
Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc.C.4.10204010
CHESTNUT AVE & ANTIONETTE LANE
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
309
DN
UP
UPDN
UP
DN
UP
UPDN
UP
U
P
CC
CCCCCCC
FR
C FR CFR CC CFRCC
C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C
C
FF 43.0 FF 42.9 FF 42.7
FF 43.9
FF 43.5
FF 42.7
FF 42.7
FF 42.7
EL CAMINO REAL
CH
E
S
T
N
U
T
A
V
E
N
U
E
A
C
D
E
F
B
CENTENN
I
A
L
W
A
Y
T
R
A
I
L
FF 43.3
G
SECTION E
PARKING
PARKING
SECTION F
STAIR
WELL
PARKING
COMMERCIAL
PARKING
LEVEL 1
PARKING
LEVEL 2
RESIDENTIAL
LEVEL 1
EL CAMINO
REAL
SECTION G
SECTION A
PARKING
PARKING
SECTION B
PARKING
SECTION C
PARKING
SECTION D
UTILITY
ROOM
PARKING
4th SUBMITTAL, FEBRUARY 20, 2018SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
988 EL CAMINO REAL
SummerHill Apartment Communities
777 S. California Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Architecture + Planning
CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS
www.cbandg.com
Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc.
NOTES:
C.5.0PRELIMINARY
GRADING PLAN0204010
310
DN
UP
UPDN
UP
DN
UP
UPDN
UP
U
P
CC
CCCCCCC
FR
C FR CFR CC CFRCC
C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C
C
EL CAMINO REAL
CH
E
S
T
N
U
T
A
V
E
N
U
E
W
E
S
T
B
O
R
O
U
G
H
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
ANTOINE
T
T
E
L
A
N
E
4th SUBMITTAL, FEBRUARY 20, 2018SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
988 EL CAMINO REAL
SummerHill Apartment Communities
777 S. California Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Architecture + Planning
CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS
www.cbandg.com
Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc.
NOTES:
C.6.0PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN
0 30 6015
311
D
N
U
P
UP
DN
DN
UP
DN
D
N
U
P
UP
DN
DNUP
UP DN
EL CAMINO REAL
CH
E
S
T
N
U
T
A
V
E
N
U
E
DMA 1
DMA 2
DMA 4
DMA 3
DMA 4
DMA 4
TYPICAL FLOW-THRU PLANTER SECTION
4th SUBMITTAL, FEBRUARY 20, 2018SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
988 EL CAMINO REAL
SummerHill Apartment Communities
777 S. California Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Architecture + Planning
CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS
www.cbandg.com
Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc.
NOTES:
C.7.0
PRELIMINARY
STORMWATER CONTROL
PLAN0204010
C.3 SUMMARY
DRAINAGE
MNAGEMENT AREA IMPERVIOUS AREA PERVIOUS AREA EFFECTIVE
IMPERVIOUS AREA TREATMENT SIZING TREATMENT
REQUIRED
TREATMENT
PROVIDED TREATMENT TYPE
CATEGORY C SPECIAL PROJECT SUMMARY
PROJECT CRITERIA APPLICABLE
CRITERIA ALLOWABLE CREDIT APPLIED CREDIT
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE SUMMARY
SURFACE TYPE AREA EFFECTIVE IMPERVIOUS
AREA
LEGEND
DMA 1
312
R3
NON-ACCESS.
R3
NON-ACCESS.
THYSSENKRUPP SYNERGY
MRL 4500, (200FPM)
SEISMIC
DN
UP
UPDN
UP
U
P
R3NON
-
A
C
C
E
S
S
.
T
W
E
L
V
E
M
I
L
E
C
R
E
E
K
GI
A
C
A
L
O
N
E
313
GATE
DN
UP
UPDN
UP
U
P
T
W
E
L
V
E
M
I
L
E
C
R
E
E
K
GI
A
C
A
L
O
N
E
314
315
316
317
318
319
3r
d
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
,
D
E
C
E
M
B
E
R
1
8
,
2
0
1
7
SO
U
T
H
S
A
N
F
R
A
N
C
I
S
C
O
,
C
A
98
8
E
L
C
A
M
I
N
O
R
E
A
L
Su
m
m
e
r
H
i
l
l
A
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
77
7
S
.
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
v
e
.
Pa
l
o
A
l
t
o
,
C
A
9
4
3
0
4
Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
+
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
CIV
I
L
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
S
SU
R
V
E
Y
O
R
S
P
L
A
N
N
E
R
S
ww
w
.
c
b
a
n
d
g
.
c
o
m
Ca
r
l
s
o
n
,
B
a
r
b
e
e
&
G
i
b
s
o
n
,
I
n
c
.
CE
N
T
E
N
N
I
A
L
P
A
R
K
ST
U
D
Y
A
00
10
'
20
'
C
E
N
T
E
N
N
I
A
L
W
A
Y
T
R
A
I
L
3
F
I
T
N
E
S
S
S
T
A
T
I
O
N
S
5
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
L
F
I
T
N
E
S
S
ST
A
T
I
O
N
S
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
S
I
T
E
P
H
O
T
O
:
320
321
1
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
P17-0060: UP17-0013, DR17-0049, PM17-0004, TDM 17-0006
988 EL CAMINO REAL
(As approved by the City Council on February 28, 2018)
Planning Division requirements shall be as follows:
1. The applicant shall comply with the Planning Division’s standard Conditions and
Limitations for Commercial, Industrial, Mixed-Use and Multi-Family Residential
Projects, as amended and attached to this document, except where otherwise amended by
the following Conditions of Approval.
2. The project shall be constructed and operated substantially as indicated on the plan set
prepared by SummerHill Apartment Communities, dated February 16, 2018 and
approved by the City Council in association with P17-0060 as amended by the conditions
of approval. The final plans shall be subject to the review and approval of the City’s
Chief Planner.
3. The construction drawings shall comply with the City Council approved plans, as
amended by the conditions of approval, including the plans prepared by SummerHill
Apartment Communities, dated February 16, 2018.
4. Any modification to the approved plans shall be subject to SSFMC Section 20.450.012
(“Modification”), whereby the Chief Planner may approve minor changes. All exterior
design modifications, including any and all utilities, shall be presented to the Chief
Planner for a determination.
5. The project construction drawings shall comply with the following recommendations
of the Environmental Noise Assessment prepared by Charles M. Salter Associates,
dated July 7, 2017, or the recommendations of a future noise assessment if approved
by the Chief Planner:
• For commercial spaces, provide recommended Sound Transmission Class
(STC) rated exterior doors and windows, as illustrated in Figure 2 of the
assessment.
• For residential units, provide recommended STC rated windows and exterior
doors, as illustrated in Figure 3 of the assessment.
• Incorporate noise barriers at outdoor open space locations to reduce noise
levels to CNEL 70 db. Effective noise barriers may be comprised of various
materials including CMU, plaster, wood (enhanced fencing), glass and plastic.
They should be solid from bottom to top with no cracks or gaps, and should
322
2
have a minimum surface density of approximately three pounds per square
foot.
6. The project’s construction drawings and operational plan shall comply with the
following recommendations of the 988 El Camino Real Traffic Study, prepared by
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., dated January 5, 2018:
• Residential move-in and move-out operations should be restricted to outside of
the PM peak traffic hours on El Camino Real.
• The project will be required to implement a TDM (Travel Demand Management)
Program that will encourage residents to meet their daily needs by walking,
bicycling or taking transit to support a healthy community, and reduce traffic
congestion and resulting greenhouse gas emissions. A final TDM plan shall be
submitted to the Chief Planner for review and approval during the building permit
application process. The applicant will submit annual reports as required by the
final TDM plan to demonstrate compliance.
• Install a pedestrian warning system at the El Camino Real driveway to alert
pedestrians when a vehicle is exiting the project.
• Contribute the project’s fair share towards modifying the signal timing to
optimize the cycle length at the intersection of El Camino Real and Chestnut
Avenue.
7. Residential parking spaces shall be assigned to units, to minimize conflict within the
parking area.
8. Any tandem parking spaces shall be assigned to the same unit.
9. The residential parking areas shall be secure, with access provided via key card or fob.
10. Residential, commercial, and visitor parking areas shall all be clearly signed, to help
direct vehicle traffic on-site.
11. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant’s Project Geotechnical Consultant
shall complete a final geotechnical evaluation addressing recommendations as outlined in
the 988 El Camino Real Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report, prepared by
Rockridge Geotechnical, dated March 6, 2017.
12. In conformance with the ECR/C Area Plan Program EIR Air Quality section, the
following measures shall be implemented by the construction contractor:
BAAQMD Required Fugitive Dust Control Measures: The construction contractor
shall reduce construction-related air pollutant emissions by implementing BAAQMD’s
basic fugitive dust control measures, including:
• All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and
unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
323
3
• All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off site shall be
covered.
• All visible mud or dirt track-out 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 miles per hour.
• 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.
• A publically visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and person to
contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and
take corrective action with 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be
visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
BAAQMD Required Basic Exhaust Emissions Reduction Measures. The construction
contractor shall implement the following measures during construction to reduce
construction-related exhaust emissions:
• Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or
reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California
airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of 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.
BAAQMD Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC) Requirements. The construction contractor
shall implement the following measures during demolition and construction to reduce
TAC emissions:
• Notify BAAQMD at least ten business days before any demolition activities. The
purpose of the notification process is to assure that buildings are demolished in
compliance with procedures that assure asbestos is not released into the environment.
• Require surveys and removal of lead-based paints by licensed contractors certified in
the handling methods requisite to protect the environment, public health, and safety.
BAAQMD Architectural Coating Requirement. The construction contractor shall
implement the following measures to reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds
(VOCs):
324
4
• Use paints and solvents with a VOC content of 100 grams per liter or less for
interior and 150 grams per liter or less for exterior surfaces.
BAAQMD Hearth Emissions.
• If fireplaces or wood burning stoves are installed in new residential units, require
cleaner-burning (e.g., natural gas or propane) USEPA-certified stoves and inserts.
Exhaust Emissions Reduction. The construction contractor shall implement the
following measures during construction to further reduce construction-related exhaust
emissions: All off-road equipment greater than 25 horsepower (hp) and operating for
more than 20 total hours over the entire duration of construction activities shall meet
the following requirements:
1. Where access to alternative sources of power are available, portable diesel
engines shall be prohibited; and
2. All off-road equipment shall have:
a. Engines that meet or exceed either USEPA or CARB Tier 2 off-road
emission standards, and
b. Engines that are retrofitted with a CARB Level 3 Verified Diesel Emissions
Control Strategy (VDECS). Acceptable options for reducing emissions
include the use of late model engines, low-emission diesel products,
alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, after-treatment products, add-on
devices such as particulate filters, and/or other options as such are available.
13. In conformance with the ECR/C Area Plan Program EIR Biological Resources section,
the following measure shall be implemented by the construction contractor:
Nesting Birds: If vegetation removal were to occur during the February 1 through
August 31 bird nesting period, construction would be required to comply with applicable
regulations in the California Fish and Game Code (Section 3503, 3513, or 3800), which
would protect nesting birds from construction disturbances and compliance would be
required
14. In conformance with the ECR/C Area Plan Program EIR Cultural Resources Section,
State Law, and General Plan policies, the following measures shall be implemented by
the construction contractor:
• In the event that potentially significant cultural resources are discovered, work shall
halt in the area until a qualified archeologist can assess the significance of the find,
and if, necessary, develop appropriate treatment measures in consultant with the
City and other appropriate agencies and interested parties.
325
5
• In the event that archaeological resources are uncovered, require the preparation of
resource mitigation and monitoring program by a qualified archaeologist, in
accordance with State law and General Plan Policy 7.5-I-5.
• In the event that human remains or Native American origin are discovered during
project construction, the project would be required to comply with State laws
relating to the disposal of Native American burials.
In addition, in conformance with the Civic Center Supplemental EIR, the following are
included as Conditions of Approval, as they provide more detail about implementation
of State law.
• An archaeologist approved by the City and meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for Archeology shall conduct a preconstruction meeting for all
construction workers who will be disturbing the ground on the eastern project site.
The preconstruction meeting shall cover archaeological and tribal cultural resources
sensitivity, safety, and next steps if a resource is identified, and shall be conducted
on the first day of construction.
• If deposits of prehistoric or historic period archaeological resources are
encountered during project construction on the project site, all work within 50 feet
will be halted until an archaeologist can evaluate the findings and make
recommendations. Prehistoric materials can include flaked-stone tools (e.g.,
projectile points, knives, choppers) or obsidian, chert, or quartzite toolmaking
debris; culturally darkened soil (i.e., midden soil often containing heat-affected
rock, ash, and charcoal, shellfish remains, and cultural materials); and stone milling
equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, handstones). Historic period materials might
include wood, stone, or concrete footings, walls, and other structural remains;
debris-filled wells or privies; and deposits of wood, metal, glass, ceramics, and
other refuse. The City shall consider the mitigation recommendations and agree on
implementation of the measure(s) that are feasible and appropriate. Such measures
may include avoidance, preservation in place, excavation, documentation, curation,
or other appropriate measures. After the measures have been put into place,
construction activities may resume.
• If deposits of paleontological resources are encountered during project
construction on the project site, all work within 50 feet will be halted until a
qualified paleontologist can evaluate the findings and make recommendations.
Work will not commence until significance of the find has been determined and
the find has been evaluated.
326
6
To clarify the above Conditions of Approval, the following implementation measures
are required, which provide additional detail about how to meet the State law
requirements:
• Site monitoring by a qualified archaeologist which shall be governed by a written
Archaeological Monitoring Agreement (AMA),
• Recordation of archaeological prehistoric shell midden deposit, submitted to the
Northwest Information Center (NWIC) to California Historical Resources
Information System (CHRIS) standards,
• Submittal of a final report of the site monitoring and impact mitigation efforts to
the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) of the CHRIS.
15. Prior to issuance of any building or construction permits for landscaping improvements,
the applicant shall submit final landscaping and irrigation plans for review and approval
by the City’s Landscape Architect. The plans shall include documentation of compliance
with SSFMC § 20.300.007 “Landscaping”, including Water Efficient Landscaping and
Irrigation calculations.
16. Landscaped areas in the project area may contain trees defined as protected by the
South San Francisco Tree Preservation Ordinance, Title 13, Chapter 13.30. Any
removal or pruning of protected trees shall comply with the Tree Preservation
Ordinance and obtain a permit for any tree removals or alterations of protected trees,
and avoid tree roots during trenching for utilities.
17. Prior to issuance of any building permits for vertical construction, the developer shall
revise the development plans to address the Design Review Board comments from the
meeting of December 19, 2017 subject to review and approval by the Chief Planner or
designee:
• Add visual interest into the pedestrian entry aisle to create a sense of arrival to the
site and building.
18. Prior to issuance of any building permits for vertical construction, the developer shall
include in the development plans the following Climate Action Plan requirements,
subject to review and approval by the Chief Planner or designee:
• Install conduit to accommodate wiring for solar.
• Use of high-albedo surfaces and technologies as appropriate, as identified in the
voluntary CALGreen standards.
• Implement the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. Establish a variable-
speed pump exchange for water features
i. Restrict hours of irrigation to occur between 3:00 AM and two hours
after sunrise
ii. Install irrigation controllers with rains sensors
327
7
iii. Landscape with native, water-efficient plants
iv. Install drip irrigation systems
v. Reduce impervious surfaces to the maximum extent practical
19. The applicant will comply with all green building measures included in the GreenPoint
scorecard, prepared by Krantz Consultants. A certified GreenPoint rater will be on-site
during the appropriate times during the construction process, to verify compliance.
20. Install street lighting along the sidewalk frontage on El Camino Real, consistent with the
City’s Grand Boulevard Initiative plans, and on Chestnut Avenue per City specifications
and spacing requirements. Lighting options shall be shared with Planning Division staff
for review and approval during the Building Permit process.
21. Install street furniture, trash receptacles, and bicycle racks along the sidewalk frontages
on El Camino Real and Chestnut Avenue, and along the Centennial Way Trail, per City
specifications and spacing requirements. All street furniture, trash receptacles and bicycle
rack options shall be shared with the Planning Division for review and approval during
the Building Permit process.
22. The applicant shall install three-inch diameter, PVC conduit along the project frontage, in
the right-of-way, if any trenching is to take place. Conduit shall have a pull rope or tape.
A #8 stranded trace wire will be installed in the conduit or other trace wire system
approved by the City.
23. All landscaping and fitness equipment installed within the public right-of-way shall be
maintained by the property owner.
24. Applicant shall submit final design of the publicly accessible open space and recreation
areas to the City’s landscape architect for review and approval.
25. If any improvements or construction occur within the BART right-of-way, the applicant
shall work with the City and BART to obtain all applicable permits from BART.
26. The applicant shall obtain approval from Caltrans for all improvements within the
Caltrans right-of-way.
27. The applicant shall submit final designs of all off-site improvements for City review and
approval.
28. Applicant shall comply with all restrictions required by the PG&E easement. All
construction and maintenance on-site must comply with PG&E’s safety requirements for
work around the pipeline easement.
29. All parking areas are to be maintained free and clear of litter and storage and shall
remain clear for parking at all times. No outdoor storage of materials or personal
items is permitted.
328
8
30. The applicant is responsible for maintaining site security prior to, and throughout the
construction process. This includes installation of appropriate fencing, lighting,
remote monitors, or on-site security personnel as needed.
31. All equipment (either roof, building, or ground-mounted) shall be screened from view
through the use of integral architectural elements, such as enclosures or roof screens,
and landscape screening or shall be incorporated inside the exterior building wall.
Equipment enclosures and/or roof screens shall be painted to match the building. Prior
to issuance of a building permit the applicant shall submit plans showing utility
locations, stand-pipes, equipment enclosures, landscape screens, and/or roof screens for
review and approval by the Chief Planner.
32. No signs are included in this permit application. Prior to installation of any signage,
the applicant shall submit an appropriate sign application per Chapter 20.360 of the
Zoning Ordinance for review and approval.
33. Prior to issuance of any building or construction permits for the construction of public
improvements, the final design for all public improvements shall be reviewed and
approved by the City Engineer and Chief Planner.
34. Prior to issuance of any building or construction permits for grading improvements, the
applicant shall submit final grading plans for review and approval by the City Engineer
and Chief Planner.
35. The applicant is responsible for providing site signage during construction, containing
contact information for questions from the public regarding the construction.
36. Prior to the issuance of any building or construction permits, the applicant shall contact
the South San Francisco Scavenger Company to properly size any required trash
enclosures and work with staff to locate the trash enclosure in accordance with the
zoning ordinance, SSFMC 20.300.014. An approval letter from South San Francisco
Scavenger shall be provided to the Chief Planner.
37. After the building permits are approved, but before beginning construction, the applicant
shall hold a preconstruction conference with City Planning, Building, and Engineering
staff and other interested parties. The developer shall arrange for the attendance of the
construction manager, contractor, and all relevant subcontractors.
38. The applicant shall submit a Parking and Traffic Control Plan for construction with the
application for Building Permit, for review and approval by the Chief Planner and City
Engineer.
39. The applicant shall provide a large-scale mockup of a section of a representative
exterior wall that shows the cladding materials and finishes, windows, trim, and any
other architectural features of the building to fully illustrate typical building
fenestration. A site inspection by Planning Division staff will be required prior to
329
9
proceeding with exterior construction. Upon inspection and approval, the applicant
may remove the mock-up wall.
40. The Final Parcel Map shall comply with all applicable requirements of SSFMC Title
19 (Subdivisions) and Title 20 (Zoning Ordinance), to be reviewed and filed by the
Engineering Division.
41. Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy for residential uses, the applicant shall pay
any applicable childcare fees in accordance with South San Francisco Municipal Code
Chapter 20.115. This fee is subject to annual adjustment, and currently is assessed at
$1,851.00 per high density residential unit. Based on the plans dated February 16, 2018,
the childcare impact fee estimate for the residential units is:
Residential: $1,851 x 172= $318,372
42. Prior to issuance of a building permit for non-residential uses, the applicant shall pay any
applicable childcare fees in accordance with South San Francisco Municipal Code
Chapter 20.115. This fee is subject to annual adjustment, and presently is assessed at
$0.68 per gross square foot of commercial and retail uses. Based on the plans dated
February 16, 2018, the childcare impact fee estimate for the non-residential uses is:
Commercial: .68 x 10,900= $7,412
43. The applicant submitted a complete application July 5, 2017, and therefore shall pay the
Parkland Acquisition Fee and Parkland Construction Fee that was in effect as of that date.
The fee shall be paid prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy, and shall be
calculated as follows, per South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 8.67:
Acquisition Fee: # of Units x Avg. Residents x Ac. Required Per Unit x Market Value of
Land x Discount Rate
172 x 1.78 x .003 x 3,000,000 x .5 = $1,377,720
Construction Fee: # of Units x Avg. Residents x Ac. Required Per Unit x Construction
Cost x Discount Rate
172 x 1.78 x .003 x 981,520 x .5 = $450,629
330
10
44. Upon the date of final inspection or issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the
development, whichever is earlier, the applicant shall pay applicable bicycle and
pedestrian impact fees in accordance with South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter
8.68. Based on the plans dated February 16, 2018, the bicycle and pedestrian impact fee
estimate for the project is:
Residential: Average Daily Trips (ADT)/unit x #of Units x Cost per ADT
6.7 x 25.31 x 172=$29,167
Commercial: ADT/1,000 sq. ft. x sq. ft. x $25.31
14.40 x 10.9 x 25.31 = $3,973
45. The Sewer Capacity Charge shall be imposed and paid prior to issuance of a building
permit for the residential portion of the project. For the commercial portion of the project,
the Sewer Capacity Charge shall be imposed and paid prior to issuance of a building
permit, except that the Water Quality Control Plant Superintendent, or designee, may
allow for payment at a later date, provided than in no case shall a final certificate of
occupancy be issued prior to payment of the applicable Sewer Capacity Charge. Based on
the plans dated February 16, 2018, the Sewer Capacity Charge estimate is $468,589.87,
which includes a $101,703.58 discount for the previous car wash use on site.
46. The El Camino Real/Chestnut Area Plan contemplates roadway improvements and
maintenance that will benefit the entire ECR/C Plan area, and thus, will indirectly benefit
the Project. According to the Plan, these improvements shall be financed in a variety of
ways, including by the City’s Capital Improvement Program, Development Impact Fees,
Developer Contributions, Redevelopment and Tax Increment Financing, City
Contributions, and special financing districts such as a community facilities district
(“CFD”). The City is in the process of studying whether a CFD would be appropriate to
fund Plan Area roadway improvements and maintenance, and if so the appropriate rate
and method of apportioning the tax. Because this Project precedes the study regarding
potential formation of a CFD, the City has determined that an equivalent fair share
contribution for the Project for Plan Area roadway improvements is a payment of
$500,000 and the installation of high-visibility crosswalks at the El
Camino/Westborough/Chestnut intersection along the southern, eastern and western legs,
subject to Caltrans approval and within the public right-of-way. The applicant’s fair share
contribution shall be as follows:
• Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, applicant shall pay $500,000 to
the City and shall also install high-visibility crosswalks in the El Camino
Westborough Chestnut intersection along the southern, eastern and western legs,
subject to City Engineer and Caltrans approval. If the City forms a CFD, the
Project shall not be included within the boundaries of a CFD to finance future
331
11
roadway improvements within the Plan Area because the applicant shall have
already contributed its fair share.
Planning Division contact: Adena Friedman, (650) 877-8535
332
12
Engineering Division requirements shall be as follows:
General
1. The Conditions for Approval are general conditions that apply to your proposed project,
and are based on the set of plans dated February 16, 2018. Any and all improvements
stated below are at no cost to the City. All applicable City of South San Francisco
engineering permits, including associated fees and deposits, are to be paid by the
Applicant. Various Engineering permit applications and pertinent reference materials
may be found on the City website at: http://www.ssf.net/351/Engineering-Permits
Mapping
2. All applicable mapping shall be done and recorded in the San Mateo County prior to the
Building Permit issuance for vertical construction. The Parcel Map need not be recorded
prior to issuance of permits for non-vertical construction.
3. All Easements within the property shall be recorded in the San Mateo County prior to the
Building Permit issuance for vertical construction.
Permits
4. A Grading Permit is required if 50 cubic yards or more of soil is exported and/or
imported. The Grading Permit requires several documents to be submitted for the City’s
review and approval, as set forth in the South San Francisco Municipal Code.
5. A Hauling Permit may be required if hauling of earth to and from the site is performed
prior to approval of a Grading Permit.
6. An Encroachment Permit is required for any work to be done within public right-of-way.
Right Of Way
7. All building projections above and/or within the public right-of-way may be allowed but
will require a Revocable Encroachment Permit.
Storm Water
8. At the time of Building Permit application, the Developer shall provide storm
water/hydrology/hydraulic/C3 calculations.
9. At the time of Building Permit application, submit the proposed grease trap plans to
verify compliance with regulations, per SSF Water Quality Control Plant (WQCP).
10. The design of new structures shall provide for the protection of the existing box culvert
located at the southern side of the property. No proposed structure shall encroach into the
333
13
designated easement. Construction drawings shall show this existing box culvert with
elevation and distances to the proposed structure. This box culvert shall be protected at
all times during and after construction. The applicant’s geotechnical engineer and
structural engineer shall provide recommendations for stability and construction methods
during the design process.
11. Developer shall install a manhole at the property line and a properly sized lateral as it
connects into the City sanitary sewer main. Applicant will provide connection details for
City review and approval with the project improvement plans.
12. Developer shall install, at minimum, sewer pipes sized in accordance with the results of
the applicant’s sewer study, dated December, 2017.
13. Developer shall relocate the existing sewer connection of the adjacent property (Burger
King) that will be affected by the development, per the preliminary utility plan included
in the project plan set.
14. Developer shall ensure that all adjacent curb returns are ADA-compliant. Turning radius
templates shall be provided if curb returns is revised.
15. All adjacent sidewalk, curb and gutter shall be rebuilt to City standard. This includes
connections to Centennial Way Trail at Chestnut Avenue.
16. Developer shall ensure that any proposed trees and planting locations in the public right
of way do not interfere with underground utilities or the joint trench. Developer will be
required to install root barrier measures to prevent the sidewalk from uplift. The
maintenance and repair of sidewalk caused by trees shall be the sole responsibility of the
developer.
Streetlights
17. Streetlights installed pursuant to this project shall conform to the Grand Boulevard
Initiative design.
Traffic
18. Traffic upgrades may be required for the project as identified in the traffic study, and will
be subject to City review and direction. This may include those items listed in the traffic
study prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, dated January 5, 2018, relocation
of traffic controller cabinets, upgrading the APS push buttons, etc.
19. The developer shall coordinate all garbage related facilities with Scavenger and submit
the approval letter prior to receiving building permits.
334
14
Utilities
20. Utility poles and their appurtenances within public right-of-way shall be undergrounded
in substantial compliance with the plans dated February 16, 2018.
21. The Developer shall submit utility coordination documentation to the City, which
highlights notification of work to be performed, response(s) from each utility owner
(including existing utility plans from each owner), and proposed utility plans.
Caltrans
22. Developer shall coordinate all improvements along El Camino Real with Caltrans District
4. City must receive Caltrans approval of all utilities (Sewer, water, storm and joint
trench alignments) in ECR.
23. All improvements along the El Camino Real frontage will require an Encroachment
Permit from Caltrans.
24. Frontage improvements installed on El Camino Real as part of this project shall conform
to the Grand Boulevard Initiative design.
Engineering Division Contact: Ray Towne, (650) 829-6652
335
15
Water Quality Conditions shall be as follows:
The following items must be included in the plans or are requirements of the Stormwater and/or
Pretreatment programs and must be completed prior to the issuance of a building permit:
1. Sign and have engineer wet stamp forms for Low Impact Development.
2. Complete required forms for Low Impact Development.
Forms must be on 8.5in X 11in paper and signed and wet stamped by a professional
engineer. Calculations must be submitted with this package.
Use required forms for completing documents, as old forms are no longer sufficient. A
completed copy must also be emailed to andrew.wemmer@ssf.net
3. Prior to issuance of building permits for vertical construction, complete required Operation
and Maintenance (O&M) agreements.
Use required forms for completing documents. This must be on 8.5in X 11in paper. A
finished copy must also be emailed to andrew.wemmer@ssf.net
Do not sign the agreement, as the city will need to review prior to signature. Prepare packet
and submit with an address to send for signature.
4. Submit flow calculations and related math for LID. This must be on 8.5in X 11in paper.
5. Do not use gravel bags for erosion control in the street. Drains in street must have inlet and
throat protection of a material that is not susceptible to brakeage from vehicular traffic.
6. Install a front trench drain that separates approach from garage and garage floor drains to an
oil water separator. Floor drains in the garage shall be connected to the oil water separator.
Minimum size 750 gallons.
7. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the project must be submitted. Drawings
must note that erosion control shall be in effect all year long.
8. A copy of the state approved NOI (Construction General Permit) must be submitted prior to
grading permit issuance.
Water Quality Contact: Andrew Wemmer, (650) 829-3840
336
16
Fire Department Conditions shall be as follows:
1. The access at the east side of the property does not have the code required access;
applicant shall submit an Alternative Means and Methods Request with fire plan check
and permit.
2. Install fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13/SSFFD requirements under separate fire plan
check and permit for overhead and underground.
3. Fire sprinkler system shall be central station monitored per California Fire Code section
1003.3.
4. Install a standpipe system per NFPA 14/SSFFD requirements under separate fire plan
check and permit.
5. Install exterior listed horn/strobe alarm device, not a bell.
6. Elevator shall not contain shunt-trips.
7. At least one elevator shall be sized for an 80” x 28” gurney and shall be in accordance
with the CFC.
8. Fire alarm plans shall be provided during construction documentation, per NFPA 72 and
the City of South San Francisco Municipal Code.
9. Provide fire extinguishers throughout the building.
10. All no-parking space curbs to be painted red to local Fire Code Specifications.
11. Access road shall have all weather driving capabilities and support the imposed load of
75,000 pounds.
12. Road gradient and vehicle turning widths shall not exceed maximum allowed by
engineering department.
13. Provide a secondary means of access to the rear of the building; applicant will submit an
Alternative Means and Methods Request with fire plan check and permit submittal.
14. Provide fire flow in accordance with California Fire Code Appendix BB.
15. Applicant will provide 3 perimeter hydrants along the frontage roads of the building.
16. The fire hydrants shall have a minimum fire flow of 3,500 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure
for duration of 4 hours, per approval by Fire Department.
17. All buildings shall provide premise identification in accordance with CFC Section 505.
337
17
18. Provide Knox key box for each building with access keys to entry doors,
electrical/mechanical rooms, elevators, and others to be determined.
19. The minimum road width is 20 feet per the California Fire Code.
20. Local Fire Code and vehicle specifications and templates available at
http://www.ssf.net/depts/fire/prevention/fire_permits.asp
21. All buildings shall have Emergency Responder Radio Coverage throughout in
compliance with Section 510 of the California Fire Code.
22. The new residential portions of the construction will be assessed an adopted Public
Safety Impact Fee, to be paid upon the date of final inspection or issuance of the
certificate of occupancy of the residential units, whichever is earlier. The amount for high
density residential is $563 per unit for the Police and Fire Departments. Based on the
plans dated February 16, 2018, the estimated public safety impact fee for the residential
units is:
$563 x 172 = $96,836
23. The new commercial portions of the construction will be assessed an adopted Public
Safety Impact Fee, to be paid upon the issuance of building permits for the commercial
portions of the project. The amount for Office/R & D is $0.13 per square foot for the
Police Department and $0.31 per square foot for the Fire Department. Based on the plans
dated February 16, 2018, the estimated public safety impact fee for the commercial space
is:
.44 x 10,900 = $4,796
Fire Department Contact: Craig Lustenberger, (650) 829-6645
338
18
Police Department Conditions shall be as follows:
1. The applicant shall install and maintain a system allowing first responders to enter into the
building(s) by means of a code to be entered into a keypad or similar input device. A
permanent code shall be issued to the Police Department. Physical keys or electronic access
cards will not satisfy this requirement. Please note this is separate from the Fire Department’s
“Knoxbox” requirement.
2. Any exterior double door entrances shall only have one exterior handle, which should be on
the right door (from a person’s perspective from the outside). This is to prevent the malicious
locking/chaining of the doors from the outside. This requirement shall also apply to interior
double doors to shared common areas. The interior opening mechanism for the
aforementioned doors shall be of a design that prevents the same malicious locking/chaining.
3. The landing at the lowest level of service staircases, such as those in the garage area or fire
escapes, shall have some mechanism, such as fencing, to prevent access and prevent people
from loitering or concealing themselves in that area.
4. All exterior doorways shall be illuminated during darkness by a white light source that has
full cut-off and is of pedestrian scale. All interior common and service areas, such as the
garage, bicycle storage area, fire escapes, etc, shall be illuminated at all times with a white
light source that is controlled by a tamperproof switch or a switch located in an inaccessible
location to passers-by.
5. Any exterior bicycle racks installed shall be of an inverted “U” design, or other design that
allows two different locking points on each bicycle.
6. The mature height of all shrubbery shall be no higher than two feet, if so, it shall be
maintained at a maximum height of two feet, and tree canopies shall be no lower than six feet
above grade.
7. The applicant shall install and maintain a camera surveillance system that conforms to the
technical specifications of South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 8.66.050 Minimum
technological standards, (Ord. 1515, 2016). The video surveillance cameras will be used as a
crime deterrent and assist with the identification and apprehension of criminals if a crime is
committed on the property. Enough cameras shall be installed to provide adequate coverage
for the intended space. Cameras shall be placed minimally in the following locations:
• All exteriors entrances/exits
• Garage parking area
• Bicycle storage area
339
19
• Main lobby of building
• Lobby of sales/leasing offices
• Loading docks
8. Any leasing or sales offices within the building shall be alarmed with a central station
Monitored silent intruder alarm system.
Police Department Contact: Sgt. Mike Rudis, (650) 829-7260
340
20
STANDARD CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS FOR COMMERCIAL,
INDUSTRIAL, MIXED USE, AND MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS
(Revised to address the project scope for 988 El Camino Real:
P17-0060: UP17-0013, DR17-0049, PM17-0004, TDM 17-0006)
Entitlement and Permit Status
1. Unless the use has commenced or related building permits have been issued within two
(2) years of the date this permit is granted, this permit will automatically expire on
that date. A one-year permit extension may be granted in accordance with provisions
of the SSFMC Chapter 20.450 (“Common Procedures”). The Vesting Tentative
Parcel Map may be extended in accordance SFFMC Chapter 19.50 (“Vesting
Tentative Maps).
2. The permit shall not be effective for any purpose until the property owner or a
duly authorized representative files an affidavit, prior to the issuance of a building
permit, stating that the property owner is aware of, and accepts, all of the
conditions of the permit.
3. The permit shall be subject to revocation if the project is not operated in compliance
with the conditions of approval.
4. Minor changes or deviations from the conditions of approval of the permit may be
approved by the Chief Planner and major changes require approval of the Planning
Commission, or final approval body of the City, per SSFMC Chapter 20.450
(“Common Procedures”).
5. Neither the granting of this permit nor any conditions attached thereto shall
authorize, require or permit anything contrary to, or in conflict with any ordinances
specifically named therein.
6. Prior to construction, all required building permits shall be obtained from the
City’s Building Division.
7. All conditions of the permit shall be completely fulfilled to the satisfaction of the
affected City Departments and Planning and Building Divisions prior to issuance of a
certificate of occupancy of any building.
Lighting, Signs, and Trash Areas
8. All exterior lights shall be installed in such a manner that is consistent with SSFMC
Chapter 20.300 (“Lot and Development Standards”), and there shall be no
illumination on adjacent properties or streets which might be considered either
341
21
objectionable by adjacent property owners or hazardous to motorists.
9. No additional signs, flags, pennants or banners shall be installed or erected on the
site without prior approval, as required by SSFMC Chapter 20.360 (“Signs”).
10. Adequate trash areas within the garage shall be provided as required by SSFMC
Chapter 20.300 (“Lot and Development Standards”). Interior trash handling area must
be covered, enclosed and must drain to sanitary sewer. This must be shown on the
plans prior to issuance of a permit. If being installed in a food service facility the drain
must be connected to a grease interceptor prior to the connection to the sanitary sewer.
Landscaping, Construction, & Utilities
11. The construction and permitted use on the property shall be so conducted as to reduce
to a minimum any noise vibration or dust resulting from the operation.
12. A plan showing the location of all storm drains and sanitary sewers must be submitted.
13. All sewerage and waste disposal shall be only by means of an approved sanitary
system.
14. Prior to any on-site grading, a grading permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer.
15. All existing utility lines, underground cable conduits and structures which are not
proposed to be removed shall be shown on the improvement plans and their
disposition noted.
16. All landscape areas shall be watered via an automatic irrigation system which shall
be maintained in fully operable condition at all times, and which complies with
SSFMC Chapter 20.300 (“Lot and Development Standards”).
17. All planting areas shall be maintained by a qualified professional; the landscape shall
be kept on a regular fertilization and maintenance program and shall be maintained
weed free.
18. Plant materials shall be selectively pruned by a qualified arborist; no topping or
excessive cutting-back shall be permitted. Tree pruning shall allow the natural
branching structure to develop.
19. Plant materials shall be replaced when necessary with the same species
originally specified unless otherwise approved by the Chief Planner.
342
22
Parking Areas, Screening, & Drainage
20. All ducting for air conditioning, heating, blower systems, accessory mechanisms and
all other forms of mechanical or electrical equipment which are placed on or adjacent
to the building shall be screened from public view, in accordance with SSFMC
Chapter 20.300 (“Lot and Development Standards”).
21. All parking spaces, driveways, maneuvering aisles, turn-around areas and
landscaping areas shall be kept free of debris, litter and weeds at all times. Site,
structures, paving, landscaping, light standards, pavement markings and all other
facilities shall be permanently maintained.
22. All parking spaces, driveways, maneuvering aisles, and turn-around areas must drain
and be plumbed to the sanitary sewer.
23. The onsite stormwater catch basins are to be stenciled with the approved San
Mateo Countywide Stormwater Logo (No Dumping! Flows to Bay), as required
by SSFMC Chapter 14.04 (“Stormwater Management and Discharge Control”)
Public Safety
24. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of SSFMC Chapter 15.48 (“Minimum
Building Security Standards”). The Police Department reserves the right to make
additional security and safety conditions, if necessary, upon receipt of detailed/revised
building plans.
25. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of SSFMC Chapter 15.24 “California
Fire Code”. The Fire Department reserves the right to make additional safety
conditions, if necessary, upon receipt of detailed/revised building plans.
26. All fire sprinkler test and/or drain lines shall be connected to the sanitary sewer.
Revised March 2013
343
Transportation Demand Management
(TDM) Plan
Mixed-Use Development at 988 El Camino Real in South San Francisco, CA
Prepared for:
SummerHill Apartment Communities
December 15, 2017
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Hexagon Office: 4 North Second Street, Suite 400
San Jose, CA 95113
Hexagon Job Number:17TD07
Phone: 408.971.6100
344
988 El Camino Real – Transportation Demand Management Plan December 15, 2017
Table of Contents
1. Introduction and Project Description ............................................................................................... 1
2. Transportation Setting ..................................................................................................................... 4
3. Proposed TDM Measures ............................................................................................................. 11
List of Tables
Table 1 Proposed TDM Measures for 988 El Camino Real .............................................................. 12
Table 2 TDM Trip Reduction Goal for 988 El Camino Real .............................................................. 20
List of Figures
Figure 1 Site Location .......................................................................................................................... 2
Figure 2 Site Plan ................................................................................................................................. 3
Figure 3 Existing Transit Service ......................................................................................................... 9
Figure 4 Existing Bicycle Network ...................................................................................................... 10
345
988 El Camino Real – Transportation Demand Management Plan December 15, 2017
Page | 1
1.
Introduction and Project Description
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) is a combination of services, incentives, facilities, and
actions that reduce single-occupant vehicle (SOV) trips to help relieve traffic congestion, parking
demand, and air pollution. The purpose of TDM is to reduce the number of trips generated by new
development; promote more efficient utilization of existing transportation facilities, and ensure that new
developments are designed to maximize the potential for sustainable transportation usage. This TDM
Plan has been prepared for the mixed-use development at 988 El Camino Real in South San
Francisco, California to propose effective and appropriate TDM measures, based on the project’s size,
location, and land use.
Based on the site plan dated December 1, 2017, the proposed project consists of 172 apartment units
and 10,360 square feet (s.f.) of retail shops. The project would replace the existing full-service car
wash. Vehicular access to the project will be provided via one driveway on El Camino Real and one
driveway on Chestnut Avenue. The project site location and the surrounding study area are shown on
Figure 1. The site plan is shown on Figure 2. The project is located within the El Camino Real /
Chestnut Avenue Area Plan.
In accordance with City goals to reduce the number of vehicle trips into and out of El Camino Real /
Chestnut Avenue Area during peak commute hours, this TDM Plan seeks to reduce the number of peak
hour trips and auto dependency/vehicle ownership through a combination of appropriate measures to
promote alternative forms of transportation. This TDM plan is designed to achieve a 28% peak hour trip
reduction target established in the El Camino Real / Chestnut Avenue Area Plan Update Traffic Impact
Analysis. At the request of the Community Development Director, reports will be provided regarding the
utilization and efficacy of the TDM program through both resident and employee surveys to determine
mode split and driveway counts to measure the number of peak hour vehicle trips actually generated by
the project.
Report Organization
The remainder of this report is divided into two chapters. Chapter 2 describes the transportation
facilities and services in the vicinity of the project site. Chapter 3 presents the TDM measures that will
be implemented for the proposed project, including the program for implementing and monitoring the
TDM plan.
346
988 El Camino Real - Transportaton Demand Management Plan
Figure 1
Site Location
= City of South San Francisco
= Site Location
LEGEND
E
l
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
W
O
r
a
n
g
e
A
v
e
Ch
e
s
t
n
u
t
A
v
e
F
a
i
r
w
a
y
D
r
Oak A
v
e
Arro
y
o
D
r
Comm
e
r
c
i
a
l
A
v
e
An
t
o
i
n
e
t
t
e
L
n
Westborough Blvd
South
w
ood
D
r
Ca
m
a
r
i
t
a
s
A
v
e
M
i
s
s
i
o
n
R
d
First S
t
347
988 El Camino Real - Transportation Demand Management Plan
Figure 2
Site Plan
18
'10
'
56
'
-
8
"
25'
6'
8'-9"
24
'
-
8
"
25
'
22'
15'
20'
10'
5'
7'5'
8
'
2
2
'
1
6
'
124'-9"40'-2"164'-6"
78
'
-
6
"
33'-5"
26
'
-
9
"
407'9
0
'
-
3
"
15
1
'
-
5
"
5
'
-
9
"
5
1
'
-
9
"
56
'
-
8
"
1
8
'
8'-6"
18
'
9'
30'
20
'
9
4
'
-
4
"
1
4
'
-
9
"
5'
56'
12'
10'
9'-8"
12
'
-
6
"
6'
-
1
0
"
17
'
-
6
"
5'
25'
Architecture + Planning
3rd SUBMITTAL, DECEMBER 1, 2017SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA # 20160986
988 EL CAMINO REAL
SummerHill Apartment Communities
777 S. California Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94304
CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS
www.cbandg.com
0204010 SP.2CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN
GROUND LEVEL
PROJECT SUMMARY
EXISTING ZONING ECR/C - MIXED USE HIGH DENSITY
SITE AREA 1.67 AC, 72,603 SF
COMMERCIAL AREA 10,915 SF GROSS (INCL. TRASH)
RESIDENTIAL AREA 167,400 SF
GROSS FLOOR AREA 178,315 SF
FLOOR AREA RATIO 2.5 FAR (3.0 MAX.)
TOTAL UNITS 172
DENSITY 103 DU/AC (110 DU/AC MAX.)
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
REQUIRED PROPOSED
BUILDING HEIGHT 120' MAX. 80', 6 STORIES +
2 LEVELS SUB-T
COMMERCIAL DEPTH 75' MIN. 56'
COMMERCIAL HEIGHT 15' MIN. 17.5'
(12' CEILING) (16' CEILING)
STREET WALL HEIGHT 25' - 35' ECR 31' ECR
40' - 50' CHEST. 41' CHESTNUT
YARDS (SETBACKS)
EL CAMINO REAL 0' FROM PL, 10' FROM PL,
18' FROM CURB 18' FROM CURB
CHESTNUT AVE 0' FROM PL, 15' FROM PL
15' FROM CURB 20' FROM CURB
INTERIOR SIDE 0' MIN. 5' MIN.
REAR 0' MIN. 14-9" MIN.,
50' AT PG&E ESMT.
BUILDING COVERAGE
AT GROUND LEVEL 90% MAX. 48,000 SF @ 66%
ABOVE 45' 80% MAX. 36,000 SF @ 50%
USABLE OPEN SPACE REQUIRED
150 SF / DU X 172 DU =25,800 SF REQUIRED
USABLE OPEN SPACE PROVIDED
PUBLIC OPEN SPACE 9,380 SF
10,100 SF (20' MIN. DIMENSION)
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE 6,350 SF (6' MIN. DIMENSION)
TOTAL USABLE O.S. 25,830 SF PROVIDED
ADDITIONAL AMENITIES / COMMON AREAS PROVIDED
FITNESS 1,315 SF
LOBBY/WIFI LOUNGE 2,835 SF
CLUB ROOM 1,075 SF
CYBER CAFE 350 SF
PARKING PROVIDED
SECURE RESIDENT 212 SPACES
FUTURE RESIDENT 4 SPACES (9' X 18')
VISITOR, OUTDOOR 8 SPACES
SUBTOTAL RES.224 SPACES @ 1.3 SPACES / UNIT
COMMERCIAL 32 SPACES (9' X 18')
COMMERCIAL, 3 SPACES
SUBTOTAL COMM. 35 SPACES @ 1 SPACE / 300 SF
TOTAL PARKING 259 SPACES PROVIDED (8 ADA)
@ 1.5 SPACES / UNIT
BIKE PARKING
LONG-TERM 43 SPACES REQUIRED @ 1 / 4 DU
65 SPACES PROVIDED (BIKE ROOMS)
+ 25 ADDITIONAL VERT. SPACES
SHORT-TERM 26 SPACES REQUIRED @ 10% AUTO
32 SPACES PROVIDED (BIKE RACKS)
348
988 El Camino Real – Transportation Demand Management Plan December 15, 2017
Page | 4
2.
Transportation Setting
Transportation facilities and services that support sustainable modes of transportation include
SamTrans bus routes, BART, Caltrain, shuttles, pedestrian facilities, and bicycle facilities. This chapter
describes the existing facilities and services near the 988 El Camino Real project site. Information on
the nearby roadway network is also included in order to provide a more comprehensive description of
the nearby transportation network.
Roadway Network
Regional access to the project site is provided by US 101, I- 380, I- 280 and SR 82/El Camino Real.
Local access to the project site is provided via Westborough Boulevard/ Chestnut Avenue and Mission
Road.
US 101 is a north-south freeway that extends through and beyond the Bay Area, connecting San
Francisco to San Jose. US 101 is eight lanes wide (four mixed-flow lanes in each direction) in the
vicinity of the project site. US 101 provides site access via a full interchange at I 380, and partial
interchanges at Produce Avenue, Grand Avenue and Sister Cities Boulevard.
I-280 is a north/south freeway that extends from San Francisco through San Mateo and Santa Clara
Counties. Near the project vicinity, I-280 is eight lanes wide. Regional access to the project site is
provided via an interchange with Westborough Boulevard.
I-380 is a six-lane east/west freeway that connects I-280 and US-101 within San Bruno. El Camino
Real provides access to I-380 via an interchange.
SR-82/El Camino Real is a six-lane north-south arterial with a raised center median within the project
area. El Camino Real extends northward to San Francisco where it changes designation to Mission
Street and San Jose Avenue, and southward through San Jose. El Camino Real provides direct access
to the project site via a right-in/right-out driveway.
Westborough Boulevard /Chestnut Avenue is a four-lane major arterial with a raised median west of
Mission Road. Chestnut Avenue begins at Hillside Boulevard and terminates at the intersection with El
Camino Real and becomes Westborough Boulevard. Westborough Boulevard/ Chestnut Avenue
provides direct access to the project site via one driveway on Chestnut Avenue that would provide
inbound only access.
349
988 El Camino Real – Transportation Demand Management Plan December 15, 2017
Page | 5
Mission Road is a four-lane roadway that is aligned mostly north-south in the vicinity of the site. Mission
Road extends north-south between El Camino Real and Chestnut Avenue. Mission Road provides
access to the project site via El Camino Real.
Arroyo Drive is a two-lane collector that extends between Junipero Serra Boulevard to the west and El
Camino Real to the east. Arroyo Drive provides access to the project via El Camino Real.
Camaritas Avenue is a north-south roadway which is classified as an “Other Street” in the City’s
General Plan. It is generally two lanes except between Arroyo Drive and Westborough Road, where it is
four lanes wide.
Existing Transit Service
Existing transit service to the study area is provided by SamTrans, BART and the shuttle operated by
SamTrans. The transit services are described below and shown on Figure 3.
SamTrans Bus Routes
Route ECR travels between the Daly City BART station and the Palo Alto Transit Center. Along the
route, it connects with the Daly City, Colma, South San Francisco, San Bruno and Millbrae BART
stations, the Millbrae and Redwood City Transit Centers and various Caltrain stations. On weekdays, it
operates with approximately 15-minute headways during peak hours and 30-minute headways from
4:00 AM to 2:00 AM. On the weekends, it operates with 15- to 30-minute headways from 5:00 AM to
2:00 AM. The closest bus stop is located near the El Camino Real and 1st Street intersection, about
500 feet from the project site.
Route 122 travels between Stonestown Shopping Center in San Francisco and the South San
Francisco BART station, providing service to the Colma BART Station, San Francisco State University
and many retail and medical centers along the way. On weekdays, it operates with approximately 20-
minute headways during the peak hours and approximately 30-minute headways for the rest of the day,
from 5:00 AM to 11:15 PM. It operates on weekends and holidays with 30-minute headways. In the
project vicinity, it travels on El Camino Real south of the South San Francisco BART Station and then
travels west on Arroyo Drive. The closest bus stop is located near the El Camino Real and Arroyo Drive
intersection, about 1,200 feet from the project site.
Route 131 travels between the Serramonte Center in Daly City and the intersection of Airport
Boulevard & Linden Avenue in South San Francisco. It also provides service to the South San
Francisco BART station. On weekdays, it operates with 15- to 20-minute headways during the peak
hours and approximately 15- to 30-minute headways for the rest of the day, from 5:00 AM to 11:00 PM.
It operates on weekdays with 30-minute headways. In the project vicinity, it travels on Grand Avenue,
Mission Road, and El Camino Real. The closest bus stop is located near the Chestnut Avenue and
Grand Avenue intersection, about 2,000 feet from the project site.
Route 37 travels through South San Francisco from the intersection of Grove Avenue and Hillside
Boulevard to Alta Loma Middle School. It provides service during school start and dismissal times at
Alta Loma Middle School. The service is only provided on school days and operates one morning and
one afternoon bus from 7:59 to 8:20 AM and 3:35 to 3:59 PM, respectively. In the project vicinity, it
travels on El Camino Real between Arroyo Drive and Orange Avenue.
Route 39 travels through South San Francisco from the intersection of Hazelwood Drive and
Northwood Drive to Alta Loma Middle School. It provides service during school start and dismissal
times at Alta Loma Middle School. The service is only provided on school days and operates one
350
988 El Camino Real – Transportation Demand Management Plan December 15, 2017
Page | 6
morning and one afternoon bus from 8:16 to 8:32 AM and 3:25 to 3:40 PM, respectively. In the project
vicinity, it travels on El Camino Real between Arroyo Drive and Orange Avenue.
Route 28 travels between the Serramonte Center in Daly City and South San Francisco High School.
Along the route, it connects with regional shopping centers in Daly City and South San Francisco. It
operates with 10-minute headways during the AM period and 6-minute headways during the PM period
except for Wednesdays. The service is only provided on school days. In the project vicinity, it travels on
Westborough Boulevard and then heads south on El Camino Real.
The bus stops for Routes 37, 39 and 28 are located near the El Camino Real/1st Street intersection,
about 500 feet from the project site, and on West Orange Ave near the West Orange Library, about
1,200 feet from the project site.
South City Shuttle
The South City shuttle is the City of South San Francisco’s free public shuttle service, which travels
around South San Francisco, with trips to local stores, senior center, libraries, city hall and parks. This
shuttle provides transit connections with SamTrans and BART. In the vicinity of the project site, the
shuttle stops at the bus stop near the El Camino Real and 1st Street intersection. The shuttle operates
between 7:30 AM and 6:30 PM on weekdays with 40 to 45-minute headways. This shuttle is wheelchair
accessible and can accommodate 2 bikes. The shuttle service is a pilot program of the City of South
San Francisco, funded in part by the San Mateo County Transportation Authority.
BART Service
Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) operates regional rail service in the Bay Area, connecting between San
Francisco International Airport, San Francisco to the north, and cities in the East Bay. The Richmond-
Daly City/Millbrae Line on weekdays provides service from 5:00 AM to 9:15 PM with typical headways
(frequency of service) of 15 minutes during peak and mid-day hours. The Pittsburg/Bay Point-SFO
Airport-Millbrae Line on weekdays provides service between 5:15 AM to 1:30 AM with typical headways
of 15 minute during peak and mid-day hours and 20 minutes headway after 8:00 PM. There are bicycle
racks and bicycle lockers available at the South San Francisco BART Station. This station has monthly
reserved, single day reserved and carpool parking. The South San Francisco BART station is located
less than a mile from the project site. The BART station is served by SamTrans Buses 37 and 122 and
the South City shuttle. Alternatively, project residents could access the BART station via the Centennial
Way trail, which provides a safe and easy pedestrian and bicycle connection to the BART station.
Caltrain
Caltrain provides commuter rail service between San Francisco and Gilroy. The project is located
approximately 2 miles from the South San Francisco Caltrain station, which is located at 590 Dubuque
Avenue, on the east side of US-101, immediately north of East Grand Avenue. The South San
Francisco Caltrain Station serves local and limited trains. Weekday peak commute headways are
between 20 and 60 minutes, with more frequent service for AM northbound and PM southbound trips.
Transfers between the Caltrain and BART system can occur at the Millbrae BART station. Residents
can access Caltrain via SamTrans bus routes.
East of US-101 Area Shuttles
Since no SamTrans bus service exists east of US-101 in South San Francisco, project residents who
work in the east of US-101 area must rely on supplementary shuttle services. The Commute.org, a
public agency representing 17 cities and the County of San Mateo, operates seven shuttles to the east
351
988 El Camino Real – Transportation Demand Management Plan December 15, 2017
Page | 7
of US-101 area from the Caltrain and BART stations. The following shuttles connect the South San
Francisco BART station to the east of US-101 area.
Oyster Point BART Shuttle
The Oyster Point BART shuttle provides service between the South San Francisco BART station and
the Oyster Point area office buildings with seven shuttles leaving from the South San Francisco BART
station every 30 minutes in the morning (6:40 AM – 9:40 AM) and eight shuttles arriving at the South
San Francisco BART station every 30 minutes in the evening (3:30 PM – 7:00 PM) Monday through
Friday.
Utah-Grand BART Shuttle
The Utah-Grand BART shuttle provides service between the South San Francisco BART Station and
the Utah-Grand area office buildings with eight shuttles leaving from the South San Francisco BART
station every 30 minutes in the morning (6:10 AM to 9:40 AM) and seven shuttles arriving at the South
San Francisco BART station every 30 minutes in the evening (3:30 PM – 6:30 PM) Monday through
Friday.
Genenbus
Genentech provides a comprehensive bus service for its employees (but not available to the general
public). Multiple routes serving 57 communities across the Bay Area provide direct access to the
Genentech campus. Also, as a “last mile” connection, shuttles opereate between both the South San
Francisco BART station and South San Francisco Caltrain station, serving the campus; these buses
operate every 30 minutes in the morning period (6:10 AM – 9:40 AM) and the evening period (3:30 PM
– 6:35 PM).
Existing Bicycle Facilities
Bicycle facilities include bike paths, bike lanes, and bike routes. Bike paths (Class I facilities) are
pathways, separate from roadways, which are designated for use by bicycles. Often, these pathways
also allow pedestrian access. Bike lanes (Class II facilities) are lanes on roadways designated for use
by bicycles with special lane markings, pavement legends, and signage. Bike routes (Class III) are
existing rights-of-way that accommodate bicycles but are not separate from the existing travel lanes.
Routes are typically designated only with signs. Existing bicycle facilities in the project study area are
shown on Figure 4.
The following bicycle facilities exist in the project study area.
Class I Bikeway (Multi-Use Path)
Centennial Way Trail is a bike path that extends from the South San Francisco BART station
to the San Bruno BART station. This path connects to Class III bike routes on Chestnut Avenue
and W. Orange Avenue in the immediate project vicinity.
Class II Bikeways (Bike Lanes)
Westborough Boulevard between I-280 and Camaritas Avenue/West Orange Avenue
Grand Avenue between Chestnut Avenue and Spruce Avenue
Mission Road north of McLellan Drive
Antoinette Lane between Chestnut Avenue and Centennial Way Trail
352
988 El Camino Real – Transportation Demand Management Plan December 15, 2017
Page | 8
Class III Bikeways (Bike Routes)
Camaritas Avenue -West Orange Avenue south of Arroyo Drive
Commercial Avenue between Chestnut Avenue and Lindon Avenue
Del Monte Avenue between Bryon Drive to Arroyo Drive
El Camino Real through the City of South San Francisco
Mission Road between McLellan Drive and Sequoia Avenue
Westborough Boulevard-Chestnut Avenue between Camaritas Avenue/West Orange Avenue
and Hillside Boulevard
Grand Avenue between Mission Road and Chestnut Avenue
Existing Pedestrian Facilities
Pedestrian facilities in the study area consist of sidewalks that are ADA (American with Disabilities Act)
compatible along most of the surrounding streets. Crosswalks with pedestrian signal heads are located
at all of the signalized intersections in the study area. There are a few gaps within the sidewalk network
in the project area. Most prominent is the lack of a sidewalk on the west side of El Camino Real from
BART Road to just north of Arroyo Drive. Overall, the existing pedestrian facilities provide adequate
connectivity between the site and all of the surrounding land uses in the area.
353
988 El Camino Real - Transportaton Demand Management Plan
Figure 3
Existing Transit Service
LEGEND
= City of South San Frencisco
= Site Location
= SamTrans School-day Only Routes
= SamTrans Routes Connecting to BART and Caltrain Stations
= SamTrans Routes Connecting to BART
= South City Shuttle
= BART
E
l
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Mi
s
s
i
o
n
R
d
Arroy
o
D
r
Ch
e
s
t
n
u
t
A
v
e
Holl
y
A
v
e
Grand
A
v
e
Mi
l
l
e
r
A
v
e
Ca
m
a
rita
s
A
v
e
W
O
r
a
n
g
e
A
v
e
We
s
t
b
o
r
o
u
g
h
B
l
v
d
Alt
a
L
o
m
a
D
r
Del
M
o
n
t
e
A
v
e
Ever
g
r
e
e
n
D
r
Fair
w
ay
D
r
Mc
L
e
l
l
a
n
D
r
Comm
ercial Ave
Oak A
v
e
Law
n
d
a
l
e
B
l
v
d
An
t
o
i
n
e
tte
L
n
First S
t
Missi
o
n
R
d
122
122
37
39
35
37
37
37
28
39
122
122
131
131
131
131
ECR
ECR
South
San Francisco
BART Station
354
988 El Camino Real - TransportaƟon Demand Management Plan
Figure 4
Existing Bicycle Network
E
l
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Mi
s
s
i
o
n
R
d
Arroy
o
D
r
Ch
e
s
t
n
u
t
A
v
e
Holl
y
A
v
e
Grand
A
v
e
Mi
l
l
e
r
A
v
e
Ca
m
a
rita
s
A
v
e
W
O
r
a
n
g
e
A
v
e
Westbor ough Blvd
Alt
a
L
o
m
a
D
r
Del
M
o
n
t
e
A
v
e
Ever
g
r
e
e
n
D
r
Fair
w
a
y
Dr
Mc
L
e
l
l
a
n
D
r
Comm
ercial Ave
Oak A
v
e
Law
n
d
a
l
e
B
l
v
d
A
n
t
o
i
n
e
t
t
e
L
n
First S
t
Missi
o
n
R
d
Cent
e
n
n
i
a
l
W
a
y
T
r
a
i
l
C
e
n
t
e
n
n
i
a
l
W
a
y
T
r
a
i
l
= City of South San Francisco
= Site Location
LEGEND
= Class II Bike Lanes
= Class III Bike Routes
= Class I Bike Paths
South
San Francisco
BART Station
355
988 El Camino Real – Transportation Demand Management Plan December 15, 2017
Page | 11
3.
Proposed TDM Measures
The TDM measures to be implemented for the 988 El Camino Real mixed-use project include design
features, programs, and services that promote sustainable modes of transportation and reduce the
roadway and parking demand that would be generated by the project. The El Camino Real/Chestnut
Avenue Area Plan discusses the City’s Municipal Code requirement for new development to implement
a transportation demand management (TDM) program to reduce the number of vehicle trips by
increasing access to and use of alternative modes of transportation, including transit, bicycling, and
walking. The Municipal Code requires a TDM Program for all nonresidential development expected to
generate 100 or more average daily trips or projects seeking density and floor area ratio (FAR) bonus.
The City’s Municipal Code does not apply to residential projects. Nevertheless, the proposed project
seeks increased density and bonus FAR as provided for under the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue
Area Plan and Zoning Ordinance. One way to achieve these incentives is by including a TDM Plan as
part of the project. Accordingly, the project is proposing this TDM Plan with the goal to reduce peak
hour trips from the development by 28% from ITE levels, consistent with the El Camino Real/Chestnut
Avenue Area Plan Transportation Impact Analysis.
Table 1 presents a summary of the measures proposed in this plan, along with an indication of who will
have primary responsibility for implementing each measure. All Phase 1 measures will be implemented
upon occupancy of the building. Phase 2 measures will be implemented if the project does not meet its
28% peak hour trip reduction goal. Both apartment residents and employees of the commercial uses
would be able to utilize the majority of the TDM measures listed. The project site is well suited to have a
successful TDM Plan based on its location near other retail and commercial development and its
access to bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities.
Post occupancy, it is recommended that the development submit an annual TDM Performance Report
to the City that identifies the TDM measures implemented during the year and the trip reduction,
compared to standard ITE rates (see Table 2).
TDM Administration and Promotion
Designated Transportation Coordinator
Experience with other TDM programs indicates that having a Transportation Coordinator who focuses
on transportation issues and who is responsible for implementing and managing the TDM program is
key to its success. The building owner or management will need to appoint an individual as the
Transportation Coordinator or TDM contact person, and that person’s name and contact information will
be provided to the City.
356
988 El Camino Real – Transportation Demand Management Plan December 15, 2017
Page | 12
Table 1
Proposed TDM Measures for 988 El Camino Real
Implementation
TDM Measure Phase Responsibility
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
Bike Parking 1 Building Developer
Bike Repair Hub 1 Trans.Coordinator
Resources (maps & info) 1 Trans.Coordinator
Carpool and Vanpool Programs
On-site Ridematching Assistance 1 Trans. Coordinator
511 Ridematching Assistance 1 Available to public
Carpool/Vanpool Incentives for New Users 1 Available to public
Carpool/Vanpool Program to Caltrain and BART stations 2 Building Developer
Transit Elements
Phase 1
$100 welcome transit pass 1 Trans.Coordinator
$35 per month, 3 months introductory Carpool/Bikeshare subsidy 1 Trans.Coordinator
Phase 2
Ongoing transit pass subsidy 2 Trans.Coordinator
Ongoing Carpool/Bikeshare subsidy 2 Trans.Coordinator
Emergency Ride Home Program
Reimburse Cost of emergency taxi rides for commercial employees 1 Tenant
Online Info Center
"Online Kiosk": website with info 1
Building Developer 1
Info Packets for New Residents and New Employees 1 Trans.Coordinator
Program Marketing, Administration, Monitoring and Reporting
Transportation Coordinator 1
Building Developer 1
Event promotions & publications 1 Trans. Coordinator
Annual count of vehicles entering and leaving site 1 Independent party
Annual Employee /Resident Survey 1 Trans. Coordinator
Annual reporting to City 1 Trans. Coordinator
Carshare Programs
Zipcar or similar car-share vehicle available in garage 1 Building Developer/Business Operator
Internet and Telecommuting
Fiber optic wiring to facilitate telecommuting 1 Building Developer
On-Site Amenities
Residential fitness center 1 Building Developer
Cyber Lounge 1 Building Developer
Electric Vehicle Charging Stations 1 Building Developer
Notes:
1.The building developer will have initial responsibility for creating an online kiosk and appointing the Transportation Coordinator. After
the building is occupied, the Transportation Coordinator will have ongoing responsibility for the online kiosk and various program
elements.
357
988 El Camino Real – Transportation Demand Management Plan December 15, 2017
Page | 13
The Transportation Coordinator’s responsibilities will include organizing and implementing the
promotional programs, updating information on the online information board/kiosk, providing trip
planning assistance and/or ride-matching assistance to residents and employees who are considering
an alternative mode for their commute and managing the annual driveway counts. The Transportation
Coordinator should maintain up-to-date transit schedules and route maps for SamTrans, BART,
Caltrain and community shuttles and be knowledgeable enough to answer resident’s TDM program-
related questions.
Promotional Programs
The Transportation Coordinator will need to undertake additional marketing activities to encourage
residents and employees to try an alternative mode to get to work. Although some marketing, such as
the online kiosk and distributing information welcome packets to new residents and new employees will
be conducted immediately, additional promotional activities might include email blasts of flyers,
brochures or other materials on commute alternatives, ridesharing incentive programs, and transit
benefits. SamTrans.com and 511.org can help provide some useful marketing materials.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
The site has quality access to bicycle and pedestrian routes through South San Francisco, connecting
the project to major destinations and transit stations. The presence of other commercial uses in the
vicinity of the project site will encourage residents to walk to the retail, entertainment, and commercial
areas nearby. It is expected that bicycle and pedestrian facilities that are included as part of the project
will be successful in reducing vehicle trips.
Bicycle Parking
Providing secure bicycle parking encourages bicycle
commuting and reduces daily vehicle trips. Based on the
site plan dated December 1, 2017, with a total of 259
parking spaces provided on site, the proposed project
would require 26 short-term bicycle parking spaces and 43
long term parking spaces (1/4 of 172 dwelling units).
The site plan shows that long-term bicycle parking would be
accommodated within two bike rooms on the ground level
with 65 horizontal spaces and 25 vertical spaces for
maximum space efficiency and to accommodate different
styles of bikes. The total number of long term bicycle parking that would be provided on site exceeds
the code by 47 spaces. The total number of short term bicycle spaces required by the code is 26
spaces (10% of 259 on-site vehicular spaces). The site plan shows a total of 32 short term bicycle
spaces. 18 short term bicycle parking spacing would be provided in front of the fitness center fronting El
Camino Real, 2 short term bicycle parking spaces will be provided outside the pedestrian tunnel on El
Camino Real and 12 short term bicycle parking spaces would be provided adjacent to the
pedestrian/bicycle pathway that connects to the Centennial Trail. Adequate short-term bicycle parking
would be provided on site.
This short term bicycle parking is available for guests and visitors to the project and Centennial Trail,
and is accessible to the public, and can also accommodate dockless Bike Share Program bikes.
Bicycle Resources
358
988 El Camino Real – Transportation Demand Management Plan December 15, 2017
Page | 14
As part of the information available in the “online kiosk” discussed in more detail below, resources
useful to cyclists will be included. For example, the local bikeways map will be posted for easy
reference. A map showing the safe routes to the public elementary school, middle school, and high
school that would serve the site’s families would also be posted.
The following resources are available to bicycle commuters through 511.org. These resources will be
noted on the project’s online information center to make tenants aware of them.
Free Bike Buddy matching
Bicycle maps
Bicycle safety tips
Information about taking bikes on public transit
Location and use of bike parking at transit stations
Information on Bike to Work Day
Tips on selecting a bike and commute gear
Links to bicycle organizations
Bicycle Repair Stands In Bike Storage Rooms
The project is proposing to provide bike repair stands/kiosks in the bicycle storage room in the parking
garage. The bicycle repair stands will include all the tools necessary to perform basic bike repairs and
maintenance, from changing a flat tire to adjusting brakes and derailleurs. Through the provision of
these repair stands, residents are encouraged to use their bicycles as an alternative mode of
transportation with the knowledge that the supplies needed to repair any maintenance issues are
available should they need them. Repair stations also provide a singular point where bicyclists can
share information on routes, commuting, and maintenance practices to help generate a stronger
community that is more engaged in bicycling as a mode of transportation.
Dockless Bike Sharing and Bike Sharing Station
The City of South San Francisco currently has a pilot program with dockless bikeshare programs: Lime
Bike and Spin Bike. Dockless Bikesharing Programs allow the user to bike to any destination and leave
the bike upon arrival. The 32-short term bicycle parking spaces can accommodate this program as
noted above. The project will provide a $35/month introductory subsidy for 3 months to each resident
upon move-in to be used for dockless bikeshare programs or carpool programs during peak hours. This
will be provided for the first 3 years of occupancy.
In addition, the Bay Area Bikeshare program is a network of unique commuter-style bikes that can be
checked out from and returned to self-service bike share stations for short trips. The idea behind bike
sharing is to make bikes available to transit and carshare users for the short journey between a transit
station and their destination. The building developer is interested in providing a bike share station on
site in partnership with the bike share program that may be offered at other locations in South San
Francisco in the future.
Phase 2 Measure
If the project does not achieve a 28% trip reduction during the peak hours, as a Phase 2 TDM measure,
the developer may increase the monthly subsidy until the desired trip-reduction goal is achieved.
359
988 El Camino Real – Transportation Demand Management Plan December 15, 2017
Page | 15
Pedestrian Facility Improvements
The site is currently well-served by pedestrian amenities including sidewalks and crosswalks with
pedestrian signal heads. Improvements to these existing facilities, including the widening of sidewalks
and the addition of planting strips along the project frontage to provide buffer between vehicles and
pedestrians by the development will encourage individuals to walk to nearby destinations.
The proposed development will include a direct pedestrian connection to the Centennial Way Trail. The
public sidewalks and trails will allow comfortable bicycle and pedestrian access from the surrounding
neighborhoods and the project’s proposed retail area and the outdoor fitness park along the eastern
boundary of the project site. The proposed public pedestrian and bicycle ways are shown on Figure 4.
The project is also proposing a new crosswalk and associated pedestrian improvements across
Chestnut Avenue at Centennial Way Trail and Antoinette Lane. This will provide direct pedestrian
access to the City’s future Community Civic Campus and Centennial Way Trail.
Carpool and Vanpool Programs
On-Site Ride Matching Assistance
The project will provide a community web portal that will facilitate on-site resident carpooling. The web
portal will match residents who live in the building who may be able to carpool or vanpool together.
Some residents who may be reluctant to reach out to find carpool partners via the 511 RideMatch
service may be more likely to find a carpool buddy within the project. The community web portal will be
administered by the Transportation Coordinator. Similarly, all employees at the retail space will also
receive information on the online web portal in their New Employee packet.
511 Ride Matching Assistance
The 511 RideMatch service provides an interactive, on-demand system that
helps commuters find carpools, vanpools or bicycle partners. This program
will be promoted through the online information center and in New Resident
and New Employee Information packets.
This free car and vanpool ride-matching service helps commuters find others
with similar routes and travel patterns with whom they may share a ride.
Registered users are provided with a list of other commuters near their
employment or residential Zip code along with the closest cross street, email,
phone number, and hours they are available to commute to and from work.
Participants are then able to select and contact others with whom they wish to
commute.
The service also provides a list of existing carpools and vanpools in their
residential area that may have vacancies. Ride-matching assistance is also
available through a number of peer-to-peer matching programs, such as
Zimride and TwoGo, which utilize social networks to match commuters.
Carpool/Vanpool Incentives for New Users
The 511 Regional Rideshare Program offers a number of incentive programs to encourage people to
try carpooling and vanpooling. Most of these programs are designed to reward someone for forming or
trying a carpool or vanpool, and provide an award or subsidy after the first three or six months of use.
360
988 El Camino Real – Transportation Demand Management Plan December 15, 2017
Page | 16
Vanpool Formation Incentive: The 511 Regional Rideshare Program provides up to $500 in
gas cards to new vanpools that meet certain eligibility requirements and complete three to six
consecutive months of operation. The gas cards are awarded on a first-come, first-served basis,
until funds are exhausted.
Vanpool Seat Subsidy: The 511 Regional Rideshare Program also offers a vanpool seat
subsidy in the form of gas cards. The seat subsidy will provide $100 per month, with a limit of
three months per van during the program year, to help cover the fare of a lost participant. The
gas cards will be offered to eligible vans on a first-come, first-served basis until the funds are
exhausted.
Discounted Tolls: The 511 Regional Rideshare Program offers free toll passage on seven of
the Bay Area’s bridges for vanpools with 11-15 people who register with 511. Additionally, the
program also offers toll discounts to carpools with three or more people (two people in a two-
seat vehicle) on eight of the Bay Area’s bridges during peak commute hours. The discounts vary
per bridge, but typically are half of the standard toll price. For example, the San Mateo –
Hayward Bridge has a standard toll of $5, but for a carpool of three people (two people in a two-
seat vehicle) the toll is only $2.50 Monday through Friday between 5-10 AM and 3-7 PM.
Ridematching with Scoop
Scoop is a carpool matching application that helps commuters to connect with carpoolers who share a
similar commute in trip planning. Scoop’s algorithm matches commuters based on route, predicted
traffic, and past feedback. AM and PM trips can be scheduled separately. Morning trips should be
scheduled by 9 p.m. the night before and afternoon and evening trips should be scheduled by 3.30 PM
the day of the trip. Trips can be scheduled up to a week in advance. Scoop lets commuters know their
carpool details well in advance so there’s zero stress. Scoop is providing guaranteed rides back home
in the evening for the commuters who commuted using the scoop app in the morning and are not able
to find a ridematch in the evening.
The project will provide each resident with a $35 subsidy per
month for 3 months that they can use to ride scoop or similar
carpool program during peak commute hours. This subsidy can
also be used for dockless bikeshare programs as previously
discussed. This will be provided for the first 3 years of building
occupancy.
Phase 2 Measure
If the project does not achieve a 28% trip reduction during peak hours, as a Phase 2 TDM measure, the
developer may offer an on-site carpool/vanpool program during weekday AM and PM commute hours
that would transfer residents to/from the project site to the South San Francisco BART and Caltrain
stations.
361
988 El Camino Real – Transportation Demand Management Plan December 15, 2017
Page | 17
Transit Elements
Subsidized Transit Passes
The developer will provide $100 welcome transit pass to all new residents
for the first three years following building occupancy. This will encourage
residents to explore transit options in the project vicinity and motivate
residents to use transit for commuting to work. The Transportation
Coordinator would be responsible for administering the program. Each
resident will be given a clipper card that can be used on various transit
systems like BART, Caltrans and SamTrans. Clipper is the all-in-one transit
card for the Bay Area and can be used on all Bay Area transit systems,
including Muni. The Clipper card can also be used as an access key to
Bikeshare by linking the card to Ford GoBike account.
For commercial employees, the property manager will require future
tenants, as part of the lease agreement, to subsidize transit fare for their
employees. Because of the modest size of the proposed commercial space,
it may be more cost effective for the tenants to reimburse their employees’ transit expenses rather than
participate in the SamTrans Way2Go program.
Phase 2 Measure
If the project does not achieve a 28% trip reduction during the peak hours, as a Phase 2 TDM measure,
the developer may increase the monthly subsidy until the desired trip-reduction goal is achieved.
Alternatively, discount transit passes could be offered through the SamTrans Way2Go program, which
allows companies and residential complexes to purchase annual unlimited-ride passes for all eligible
employees or residents.
Emergency Ride Home Program
For commercial employees, the property manager will require future tenants, as part of the lease
agreement, to offer an Emergency Ride Home program. An Emergency Ride Home program will
guarantee that employees need not worry about being stranded at work without a car in the event of
illness, family emergency or unexpected overtime if they use transit, carpool or vanpool. The
emergency ride home program will offer free rideshare service from work to home. By reassuring
commuters who do not drive alone that they can have timely and paid transportation in the event of an
emergency, this program removes one of the largest concerns expressed by most employees about
using alternative modes of transportation.
Future employees of the retail uses may choose to get reimbursed from the building developer for taxi,
Scoop, Uber, or Lyft rides home in the event of an emergency. For a project of this size, there is no
need to set up a separate contract with taxi or ride-sharing providers or add administrative burdens to
the program. An employee would, however, need to provide an explanation of the emergency, and a
limit on the number of rides that will be provided per employee per year is reasonable.
362
988 El Camino Real – Transportation Demand Management Plan December 15, 2017
Page | 18
Marketing Program for Alternative Travel Modes
“Online Kiosk”: An Online Information Center
Most TDM plans have traditionally included a requirement for a kiosk or bulletin board to be created for
posting information related to alternative travel modes. Experience often shows, however, that few
residents or employees look at these kiosks after an initial period of interest. This TDM Plan proposes
to establish an “online kiosk” with similar information that a resident or retail employee could access
from their home, their workplace, or anywhere else.
A key element of this TDM plan is to set up an attractive, up-to-date “online kiosk” with all of the site-
specific information about the transportation resources available to residents. The website will include
information about all the measures, services, and facilities discussed in this plan, including:
A summary of SamTrans buses, South City Shuttle, BART and Caltrain services and links to
further information about their routes and schedules.
A summary of the “welcome” trial transit passes offered to all residents and retail employees.
A local bikeways map, information about the bike lockers/secure bike storage areas on site and
those nearby, and information about the Bikeshare program.
Information about ridematching services (e.g., 511.org, Zimride, Scoop and TwoGo) and the
incentive programs available to carpools and vanpools.
Information related to a carshare program, including benefits and nearby locations.
A link to the many other resources available in the Bay Area, such as Dadnab, the 511 Carpool
Calculator, the 511 Transit Trip Planner, real-time traffic conditions, etc.
The building developer will have responsibility for contracting with someone to initially create the
website so that it is up and running as soon as residents move in. More specific information can be
added later to reflect any programs specific to certain groups of residents. The Transportation
Coordinator will be responsible for adding new information to the website (or providing it to the website
designer) and including the web address for the online kiosk so that the “online kiosk” remains current
and informative.
Information Packet for Residents and Employees
In addition to the online information center, the Transportation Coordinator will provide “hard copy”
information packets to all residents when they first move into the building and to all employees of the
commercial uses when they are first hired. Because all information will be available online, this packet
need not be a comprehensive stack of paper about all services available, which residents tend to
disregard anyway. Instead, the New Resident Packet and New Employee Packet will provide a quick
easy-to-read announcement of the most important features of the TDM program for
residents/employees to know about immediately.
In addition, the packets will include a message to residents that their building manager and/or owner
values alternative modes of transportation and takes their commitment to supporting alternative
transportation options seriously.
363
988 El Camino Real – Transportation Demand Management Plan December 15, 2017
Page | 19
Carshare Programs
One of the major impediments to using transit, bicycling, carpooling, or vanpooling to get to work is
residents’ and employees’ need to use a car occasionally for personal or business purposes. Car
sharing programs provide individuals with access to a vehicle when they need it at any time of day, so
they do not need to drive or own a car of their own. The developer will make provisions for up to 2
spaces in the resident parking garage for carsharing. However, the success of this program would
depend on the interest of the carsharing service providers.
Building Features to Facilitate Telecommuting
In an effort to decrease the number of trips residents have to make to and from work each week, the
developer proposes to install fiber optic wiring throughout the residential development to provide
residents access to high speed internet service, allowing them to work from home. This TDM measure
is meant to encourage telecommuting, whereby residents of the development who typically report to a
central office location, will be able to work at home one or more days per week. This TDM measure will
not be available to employees of the commercial uses on the site.
On-site Amenities
On-site amenities can be beneficial in reducing vehicle trips by offering activities and common retail
needs on site. The project will provide a fitness center and Wi-Fi lounge on the first floor that will be
open to all residents. Having a free fitness center on site will encourage residents to use the available
facilities rather than travel to a fitness center elsewhere. Fitness centers can often encourage
alternative modes of transportation by educating users of the additional benefits that can be obtained
by using active modes of transportation for other trips.
In addition, the retail space located on the ground floor will provide opportunities for residents to meet
some of their needs without traveling off-site. Including retail space will encourage residents to use the
on-site facilities rather than travelling elsewhere for the same needs. The project site is also surrounded
by retail uses. This will provide more opportunities to meet the necessities of residents without having
to travel far from the project site, and possibly without using a car.
Electric vehicle charging stations will also be included in the on-site amenities. The charging stations
will have two designated spaces in the residential parking area, with an additional seven spaces pre-
fitted for installation if necessary. Electric charging stations within multifamily developments allow
residents to charge their cars while asleep. The availability of electric charging station near their home
also enables residents to become prospective electric vehicle buyers.
Program Monitoring and Reporting
Applicants shall submit a final TDM Plan to the City, and shall be responsible for ensuring that the trip
reduction measures are successfully implemented and remain in substantial compliance with the El
Camino Real and Chestnut Avenue Area Plan. The trip reduction measures included in this TDM Plan
will be incorporated into the project.
It is anticipated that, after the project is constructed, an individual from the owner or property
management team within the project will be designated as the Transportation Coordinator and assume
responsibility for the ongoing TDM measures. When any ownership, management, or contact
364
988 El Camino Real – Transportation Demand Management Plan December 15, 2017
Page | 20
information changes, the City will be notified of the name, phone number, and email address of the
designated Transportation Coordinator.
Monitoring
Monitoring will help ensure that the implemented TDM measures are effective in reducing peak trips by
28% from ITE rates. In order to monitor progress towards this goal, vehicle counts will be conducted in
order to compare the actual peak hour vehicle trips to the number of peak hour trips estimated based
on the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ rates for these land uses (see Table 2).
Consistent with common traffic engineering data collection principles, trip generation will be monitored
by means of driveway counts at the project’s garage access points. The counts will be conducted one
day per year on a typical weekday (Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday) during the fall when schools
are in session. The project trips during the AM and PM peak hours of commute traffic will be extracted
from the daily driveway count. An annual survey would be administered to all residents and employees
of the businesses that occupy the commercial space of the project. The survey would provide
information on what modes residents and employees are using to travel to work, and what TDM
programs they have found most useful.
Table 2
TDM Trip Reduction Goal for 988 El Camino Real
The site TDM Coordinator will work with an independent consultant to obtain traffic count data and to
document the results in a TDM monitoring report. The annual monitoring report will be submitted to the
City by the TDM Coordinator. The data will be reviewed by the City to assess whether the goal of 28%
peak hour trip reduction is being fulfilled. This will be assessed by comparing the driveway counts to the
trip reduction target of 28% reduction from the ITE rates. If a 28% reduction in trips has not been
achieved, the building manager will need to implement Phase 2 TDM measures along with an
implementation schedule. The annual report to the City should also include a brief summary of the TDM
measures that were in place during the preceding year, with an explanation of any changes or new
programs. Program monitoring and reporting will be conducted for the first 3 years after full building
occupancy and afterwards by request of the Community Development Director.
Land Use Unit Rate In Out Total Rate In Out Total
Proposed Uses
Multi-Family Housing1 172 DU 0.51 18 71 89 0.62 73 39 112
Retail 2 10,360 s.f. 0.96 6 4 10 3.71 18 20 38
Primary Project Trips 24 75 99 91 59 150
28% TDM Reduction 3 (7) (21) (28) (26) (17) (43)
TDM Goal: Net Project Trips 17 54 71 65 42 107
Notes:
1. Based on Fitted Curved Equation for Apartments (220) land use, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 9th Edition.
2. Based on average trip generation rates for Shopping Center (820) land use, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Gener ation, 9th Edition.
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Size
3. The ECR/C Supplementary Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) Traffic Impact Analysis calculated a 28% trip reduction rate for the plan area due to
proximity to transit and the incorporation of Travel Demand Management (TDM) plans by development projects in the specific plan.
365
NEW HOME RATING SYSTEM, VERSION 7.0
Po
i
n
t
s
Ta
r
g
e
t
e
d
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
En
e
r
g
y
IA
Q
/
H
e
a
l
t
h
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
Wa
t
e
r
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
l
e
Pa
r
t
y
Bl
u
e
p
r
i
n
t
P
a
g
e
No
.
CALGreen
Yes CALGreen Res (REQUIRED)4 1 1 1 1
A. SITE
A2. Job Site Construction Waste Diversion
Yes A2.1 75% C&D Waste Diversion (Including Alternative Daily Cover)2 2
Yes A2.2 65% C&D Waste Diversion (Excluding Alternative Daily Cover)2 2
A6. Stormwater Control: Prescriptive Path
Yes A6.2 Filtration and/or Bio-Retention Features 1 1
Yes A6.3 Non-Leaching Roofing Materials 1 1
B. FOUNDATION
Yes B3. Foundation Drainage System 2 2
B5. Structural Pest Controls
Yes B5.2 Plant Trunks, Bases, or Stems at Least 36 Inches from the Foundation 1 1
C. LANDSCAPE
20.62%Enter the landscape area percentage
Yes C2. Three Inches of Mulch in Planting Beds 1 1
C3. Resource Efficient Landscapes
Yes C3.1 No Invasive Species Listed by Cal-IPC 1 1
C4. Minimal Turf in Landscape
Yes C4.1 No Turf on Slopes Exceeding 10% and No Overhead Sprinklers Installed in
Areas Less Than Eight Feet Wide 2 2
≤10% C4.2 Turf on a Small Percentage of Landscaped Area 2 2
Yes C6. High-Efficiency Irrigation System 2 2
Yes C7. One Inch of Compost in the Top Six to Twelve Inches of Soil 2 2
Yes C10. Submeter or Dedicated Meter for Landscape Irrigation 2 2
D1. Optimal Value Engineering
Yes D1.2 Non-Load Bearing Door and Window Headers Sized for Load 1 1
D10. Structural Pest and Rot Controls
Yes D10.1 All Wood Located At Least 12 Inches Above the Soil 1 1
E. EXTERIOR
Yes E2. Flashing Installation Third-Party Verified 2 2
Yes E4. Durable and Non-Combustible Cladding Materials 1 1
E5. Durable Roofing Materials
Yes E5.1 Durable and Fire Resistant Roofing Materials or Assembly 1 1
Yes E5.2 Roofing Warranty for Shingle Roofing Y R R R R R
G. PLUMBING
G1. Efficient Distribution of Domestic Hot Water
Yes G1.1 Insulated Hot Water Pipes 1 1
G2. Install Water-Efficient Fixtures
Yes G2.1 WaterSense Showerheads 1.8 gpm with Matching Compensation Valve 2 2
Yes G2.4 Urinals with Flush Rate of ≤ 0.1 Gallons/Flush 1 1
Yes G6. Submeter Water for Tenants 2 2
D. STRUCTURAL FRAME AND BUILDING ENVELOPE
Blueprint Scoresheet
988 El Camino Real
Krantz Consultants rv'd 1701003
Possible Points
H. HEATING, VENTILATION, AND AIR CONDITIONING
36
6
Yes H4. ENERGY STAR® Bathroom Fans Per HVI Standards with Air Flow Verified 1 1
H6. Whole House Mechanical Ventilation Practices to Improve Indoor Air Quality
Yes H6.1 Meet ASHRAE Standard 62.2-2010 Ventilation Residential Standards Y R R R R R
I. RENEWABLE ENERGY
Yes I2. Preparation for Future Photovoltaic Installation 1 1
J5. Building Performance Exceeds Title 24 Part 6
Option 1: Compliance Over
Title 24 J5.1 Home Outperforms Title 24 0 30+
K. FINISHES
Yes K3. Low-VOC Caulks and Adhesives 1 1
L. FLOORING
≥75%L2. Low-Emitting Flooring Meets CDPH 2010 Standard Method—Residential 3 3
Yes M1. ENERGY STAR® Dishwasher 1 1
<25 cubic feet M3. Size-Efficient ENERGY STAR Refrigerator 1 2
M5. Lighting Efficiency
Yes M5.1 High-Efficacy Lighting 2 2
Yes M5.2 Lighting System Designed to IESNA Footcandle Standards or Designed
by Lighting Consultant 22
Tier 1 M6. Electric Vehicle Charging Stations and Infrastructure
Yes M8. Gearless Elevator
N. COMMUNITY
N1. Smart Development
Yes N1.1 Infill Site 2 1 1
>35 N1.3 Conserve Resources by Increasing Density 4 2 2
N1.5 Home Size Efficiency 9 9
762 Enter the area of the home, in square feet
2 Enter the number of bedrooms
N2. Home(s)/Development Located Near Transit
Yes N2.2. Within 1/2 mile of a Major Transit Stop 2 2
N3. Pedestrian and Bicycle Access
N3.1 Pedestrian Access to Services Within 1/2 Mile of Community Services 2 2
10 Enter the number of Tier 1 services
4 Enter the number of Tier 2 services
Yes N3.2 Connection to Pedestrian Pathways 1 1
Yes N3.5 Bicycle Storage for Residents 1 1
Yes N3.6 Bicycle Storage for Non-Residents 1 1
1.5 spaces per unit N3.7 Reduced Parking Capacity 1 2
N4. Outdoor Gathering Places
Yes N4.1 Public or Semi-Public Outdoor Gathering Places for Residents 1 1
Yes N4.2 Public Outdoor Gathering Places with Direct Access to Tier 1 Community
Services 11
N5. Social Interaction
Yes N5.1 Residence Entries with Views to Callers 1 1
Yes N5.2 Entrances Visible from Street and/or Other Front Doors 1 1
Yes N5.3 Porches Oriented to Street and Public Space 1 1
N6. Passive Solar Design
Yes N6.2 Cooling Load 2 2
N7. Adaptable Building
Yes N7.2 Full-Function Independent Rental Unit 0 1
Yes N9.2 Community Location 2 1 1
O. OTHER
Yes O1. GreenPoint Rated Checklist in Blueprints Y R R R R R
Yes O2. Pre-Construction Kickoff Meeting with Rater and Subcontractors 2 0.5 1 0.5
M. APPLIANCES AND LIGHTING
P. DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
J. BUILDING PERFORMANCE AND TESTING
36
7
P1. Acoustics: Noise and Vibration Control 11 1
4 Enter the number of Tier 1 practices
2 Enter the number of Tier 2 practices
P3. Commissioning
Yes P3.1 Design Phase 211
Summary Community Energy IAQ/Health Resources Water
Total Available Points in Specific Categories 359.5 46 95.5 70 94 54
Minimum Points Required in Specific Categories 50 2 25 6 6 6
Total Points Targeted 88 16.5 14.5 8.5 28 20.5
36
8
988 El Camino Real: Development Consistency Checklist 1
Project Address: 988 ECR Zoning: ECR/C-MXH
Additional Notes/ Comments
Standard (per Sub-District)ECR/C-MXH Additional Standards
Minimum Lot Size (sq. ft.)20,000
Minimum Lot Width (sq. ft.)50
Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
Minimum FAR
.6 exclusive of areas devoted to
parking, of which a minimum of
.3 FAR shall be active uses
The requirement for a minimum 0.3 FAR of Active uses does not
apply to projects where 30% of the units are restricted and
affordable to low- or low-moderate income households or in the
ECR/C-MXM sub-district along El Camino Real
Maximum FAR 2 Exclusive of structured parking
Maximum FAR with Incentive Program 3
Exclusive of structured parking, A. Increased Density, FAR and/or
Height. An increase in FAR, density, and height may be achieved for
buildings through a combination of the following, subject to
Conditional Use Permit approval by the City Council:
1. 0.5 FAR, up to 30 units per acre and/or 20 feet of height for
the incorporation of Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
measures specified in Chapter 20.400, Transportation Demand
Management.
2. 0.5 FAR, up to 30 units per acre and/or 20 feet of height for
the following subject to Planning Commission approval:
a. Projects that include high quality, innovative design and
product type, and maximum provisions for pedestrian and bicycle
use.
b. Provision of Off-Site Improvements. This may include off-site
amenities and/or infrastructure (other than standards requirements
and improvements) such as funding for public safety facilities,
libraries, senior centers, community meeting rooms, child care or
recreation, or new or enhanced public spaces.
c. Provision of green building measures over and above the
applicable green building compliance threshold required pursuant to
Title 15 (“Building and Construction”) of the South San Francisco
Municipal Code.Yes 2.5
Submitted application for FAR increase of .5 per
incentives program, including all required
elements.
Residential Density (units per acre; included within FAR above)
Minimum Density n/a
Maximum Density 80 See below 103
Maximum Density with Incentive Program. Does not include
density bonuses allowed per Chapter 20.390 Bonus Residential
Density 110 See A (above)Yes 103
Submitted application for density increase from
80 to 103 du / ac per incentives program,
including all required elements.
Standard DTC Additional Standards
Height (ft)
Minimum Building Height
25, 40' along Chestnut Avenue
and BART right-of-way, south of
Oak Avenue See 20.270.004 (B). Heights and Building Stepbacks.Yes 80
Maximum Building Height 80/120 See 20.270.004 (A) Increased Density FAR and/or Height Yes 80
Minimum Ground Floor Height for non-residential uses 15; 12 min clearance
See 20.270.004 (B). Heights and Building Stepbacks., 1. Ground
Floor Height. The minimum ground floor height for buildings with
nonresidential uses at the ground level is a minimum of 15 feet, with
a minimum 12-foot clearance from floor to ceiling. Yes 17.5
Minimum Ground Floor Height (residential uses)12
See 20.270.004 (B). Heights and Building Stepbacks. In the ECR/C-
MXH and ECR/C-MXM sub-districts, the minimum ground floor
height shall be 12 feet for buildings containing ground floor
residential uses.n/a No ground floor residential uses.
Maximum Ground Floor Height (Residential uses)5
20.270.004 (B) (2): Finished Floor Height for Residential Uses. The
maximum finished floor height for ground floor residential uses is
five feet above grade.n/a No groud floor residential uses.
Yards (ft)
El Camino Real Frontage
At property line or 15' from
curb (whichever is greater)Yes 10' from PL, 18' from curb
BART Frontage ROW 0 n/a
All other street frontages
Property line or 15 from curb
(whichever is greater)Yes Chestnut: 15' from PL, 20 from curb,
Interior Side
0; 10 when abutting residential
district Yes 5-10'
Rear 0 Yes 15'min, 50' max at PGE easement
Maximum Lot Coverage (% of lot)90 See Ch. 20.040 Rules of Measurement Yes 66% at ground, 50% above 45'
Corner Build Area 30
Buildings must be located in accordance with the required setbacks
within 30 feet of every corner. Public plazas may be at the street
corner provided buildings are built to the edge of the public plaza.Yes Project design complies with building design and public plaza.
Maximum Tower Dimension (ft)125
The maximum dimension of the portion of a building above 80 feet
from finished grade shall not exceed 125 feet and must be separated
from another building by at least 30 feet.n/a
Maximum Separation between Towers (ft)30 See Above n/a
Standard ECR/C-MXH Additional Standards
Minimum Usable Open Space (sq. ft. per res. unit)150 See G Yes 150 per du, 25,813 provided
Minimum Public Open Space (% of site)
10, applicable to lots greater
than 15,000 SF Yes 9,413 (13%)
Minimum Amount of Landscaping (% of site)10 See Section 20.300.007 Landscaping Yes 10,817 (15%)
Yes TDM Plan submitted, 28% peak hour vehicle trip reduction goal.
Yes
Benefits package submitted that includes all of the required
elements of a, b, and c.
Yes 17'5, min 16' ceiling
n/a No ground floor residential uses.
Yes ECR: 31', Chestnut, 41'
City of SSF -Conformance Development Checklist for El Camino Real / Chestnut Area Plan Districts
Additional Development Standards
Lot, Density, and FAR Standards - ECR/C Are Planh Sub-Districts
Limitations: For qualifying affordable Senior Housing projects; and, for developments on corner parcels or lots greater than one acre.
Building Form and Location Standards – ECR/C Area Plan Sub-Districts
Open Space and Landscaping Standards ECR-C Sub Districts
A. Increased Density, FAR and/or Height. An increase in FAR, density, and height may be achieved for buildings through a combination of the following, subject to Conditional
Use Permit approval by the City Council:
1. 0.5 FAR, up to 30 units per acre and/or 20 feet of height for the incorporation of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures specified in Chapter
20.400, Transportation Demand Management, or as deemed appropriate by the Chief Planner for residential projects.
2. 0.5 FAR, up to 30 units per acre and/or 20 feet of height for the following subject to Planning Commission approval: a. Projects that include high quality,
innovative design and product type, and maximum provisions for pedestrian and bicycle use. b. Provision of Off-Site Improvements. This may include off-site
amenities and/or infrastructure (other than standards requirements and improvements) such as funding for public safety facilities, libraries, senior centers,
community meeting rooms, child care or recreation, or new or enhanced public spaces. c. Provision of green building measures over and above the applicable
green building compliance threshold required pursuant to Title 15 (“Building and Construction”) of the South San Francisco Municipal Code.
Proposal Compliance for Project (please
fill out Yes, No, or NA)Please stipulate how the proposal complies (i.e.
provide specific lot/parcel data, measurements, etc.)
B. Heights and Building Setbacks.
1. Ground Floor Height. The minimum ground floor height for buildings with nonresidential uses at the ground level is a minimum of 15 feet, with a minimum 12-
foot clearance from floor to ceiling. In the ECR/C-MXH and ECR/C-MXM sub-districts, the minimum ground floor height shall be 12 feet for buildings containing
ground floor residential uses.nonresidential uses at the ground level is 15 feet, with a minimum 12-foot clearance from floor to ceiling. For residential buildings, a
ground floor garage may be exempt from this requirement, subject to evaluation by the decision-making authority in the review process.
2. Finished Floor Height for Residential Uses. The maximum finished floor height for ground floor residential uses is five feet above grade.
3. Street Wall Height. The minimum height of the street wall is 25 feet and the maximum height of the street wall is 35 feet. Along Chestnut Avenue and the
BART right-of-way, south of Oak Avenue, the minimum height of the street wall is 40 feet and the maximum height of the street wall is 50 feet.
369
988 El Camino Real: Development Consistency Checklist 2
Project Address: 988 ECR Zoning: ECR/C-MXH
Additional Notes/ Comments
Standard (per Sub-District)ECR/C-MXH Additional Standards
City of SSF -Conformance Development Checklist for El Camino Real / Chestnut Area Plan Districts
Lot, Density, and FAR Standards - ECR/C Are Planh Sub-Districts
Proposal Compliance for Project (please
fill out Yes, No, or NA)Please stipulate how the proposal complies (i.e.
provide specific lot/parcel data, measurements, etc.)
Yes Project design complies.
Yes Project design complies.
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Complies
Complies
Complies
Complies
n/a
Yes
Project complies. Provides a range of private open space
(balconies and sundecks) and common open space (outdoor
fitness area, dog park, spa, sun deck, outdoor seating areas)
Yes Private open space design complines
Yes Common open space design complies
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes Project design complies.
Yes Project design complies, includes active uses.
Yes Project design complies with incorporation of active uses.
n/a
n/a
n/a
Average commercial depth of 56'8"
proposed.
The proposed commercial depth of 56’8” is appropriate, given
the site’s irregular size and site constraints, and will help to
provide active commercial street frontages on both El Camino
Real and Chestnut Avenue.
Yes Project design complies
Yes
n/a
Yes Project design complies.
Yes.
Project design complies, materials and colors reviewed through
DRB process.
Yes Project Design Complies
Yes
Yes Project Design Complies
Yes
Project Design Complies. Residential entrance is clearly
separated from retail / public entrances.
n/a
Yes
Proposed parking is consistent. Residential = 1.3 / unit,
Commercial = 1 space / 300 sq. ft.
Yes.Project complies. Included as a draft Condition of Approval.
F. Exterior Building Materials and Colors.
1. A unified palette of materials shall be used on all sides of buildings and structured parking.
2. Exterior materials shall be stone, brick, stucco, concrete block, painted wood clap-board, painted metal clapboard or other quality, durable materials approved by
the City as part of the project review.
G. Building Orientation and Entrances.
1. Buildings shall be oriented to face public streets and the BART right-of-way. Residential development adjacent to public spaces or connections shall be oriented facing
onto the public space.
2. Building entrances shall be emphasized with small entry plazas, vertical massing, and architectural elements such as awnings, arcades, or porticos.
3. Oak Avenue. A minimum of 65 percent of the frontage of a site along Oak Avenue shall be devoted to active uses.
4. Exceptions. The Chief Planner may approve a reduced frontage of 50 percent to allow for fire access, driveways, and for efficient site layout and site
configuration. Exceptions beyond that are subject to Planning Commission approval.
C. Depth of Required Commercial Frontage. The minimum average depth of the required commercial frontage shall be 75 feet, or 65 feet for parcels less than 100 feet in
depth. The Chief Planner may approve a reduced average depth of 65 feet, or 55 feet for parcels less than 100 feet in depth to allow for efficient site layout and site
configuration. Exceptions beyond that are subject to Planning Commission approval.
E. Blank Walls. No wall facing streets and the BART right-of-way may run in a continuous plane for more than 20 feet without an opening. Openings fulfilling this
requirement shall have transparent glazing and provide views into work areas, display areas, sales areas, lobbies, or similar active spaces, or into window displays that are
1. Exceptions.
a. The maximum length of the wall may be 40 feet if it includes approved artwork approved by the City through the design review process.
B. Required Active Frontage. Active uses shall be located along the building frontage along primary streets, or facing public open spaces or plazas, and should incorporate
ground-floor retail, civic uses, cultural uses, or other amenities with direct sidewalk access and some sidewalk visibility through use of transparent fenestration.
1. El Camino Real and Chestnut Avenue. A minimum of 65 percent of the frontage of a site along El Camino Real and Chestnut Avenue shall be devoted to active uses.
2. BART Right-of-Way South of Oak Avenue. A minimum of 75 percent of the frontage of a site along the BART right-of-way south of Oak shall be devoted to active
uses.
4. The building incorporates an alternative entrance design that creates a welcoming entry feature facing the street.
D. Required Side and Rear Yards for Residential Uses. In order to provide light and air for residential units, the following minimum setbacks apply to any building wall
containing windows and facing an interior side or rear yard. The following setbacks shall be provided:
1. Minimum Dimensions.
3. Entrances located at corners shall generally be located at a 45 degree angle to the corner and shall have a distinct architectural treatment to animate the
intersection and facilitate pedestrian flow around the corner. Different treatments may include angled or rounded corners, arches, and other archi-
tectural elements. All building and dwelling units located in the interior of a site shall have entrances from the sidewalk that are designed as an extension of the
public sidewalk and connect to a public sidewalk.
4. In residential mixed-use developments, entrances to residential units shall be physically separated from the entrances to the permitted commercial uses and
clearly marked with a physical feature such as a recess or projection incorporated into the building or appropriately scaled element applied to the façade.
5. All ground floor residential units shall have the primary entrance, either individual or shared, facing the public street, BART right-of-way, or a pedestrian
connection and shall incorporate a projection (e.g., porch or stoop) or recess at least 40 square feet in area, with a minimum depth of five feet. Alternative
designs that create a welcoming entry feature facing the street, such as a trellis or landscaped courtyard entry, may be approved by the Chief Planner or Design
Review Board.
H. Required Parking. Required parking for any use in ERC/C sub-districts shall be established by the Chief Planner based on the particular characteristics of the proposed
use and any other relevant data regarding parking demand. The Chief Planner may require the provision of parking studies or any other information at the applicant’s
cost as needed to assess parking demand for the proposed project. Where a Conditional Use Permit is required for the use, the Planning Commission will establish the
ultimate parking requirement during the Conditional Use Permit application process. Generally, parking shall not exceed two spaces per unit for residential uses and one
space per 300 square feet of commercial use.
1. Unbundling Parking from Residential Uses. Parking in excess of one space per unit may be sold or rented separate from the residential unit. All spaces shall be
reserved for residential tenants on the same site.
b. The maximum length of the blank wall may be 30 feet for retail establishments with a gross floor area of 25,000 square feet or greater.
1. For any wall containing windows, a setback of at least five feet shall be provided.
C. Build-to Line. Buildings shall be constructed at the required setback for at least 65 percent of linear street frontage. The area between the building and property line
shall be paved so that it functions as a wider public sidewalk. This requirement may be modified or waived by the Planning Commission if:
1. The established street wall along El Camino Real and Chestnut Avenue is not interrupted;
2. Substantial landscaping is located between the build-to line and ground floor residential units to soften visual impact of buildings;
3. Entry courtyards, plazas, entries, or outdoor eating and display areas are located between the build-to line and building, provided that the buildings are built
to the edge of the courtyard, plaza, or dining area; or
E. Corner Build Area. Buildings must be located in accordance with the required setbacks within 30 feet of every corner. Public plazas may be at the street corner provided
buildings are built to the edge of the public plaza.
F. Tower Dimension and Separation. The maximum dimension of the portion of a building above 80 feet from finished grade shall not exceed 125 feet and must be
separated from another building by at least 30 feet. Exceptions and modifications to dimensional standards of up to 10 percent may be granted by the Chief Planner, based on
the finding that adequate design features have been incorporated to create visual variety and void a large-scale, bulky or monolithic appearance. Exceptions beyond 10 percent
are subject to Planning Commission approval.space is required per residential unit and may be provided as common or private open space, or a combination. Private areas
typically consist of balconies, decks, patios, fenced yards, and other similar areas outside the residence. Common areas typically consist of landscaped areas, patios, swimming
pools, barbeque areas, playgrounds, turf, or other such improvements as are appropriate to enhance the outdoor environment of the development; these can be in the form of
courtyards at the ground level or terraces over parking podiums or on rooftops.
4. Front Building Stepback. A minimum of 50 percent of the street facing building frontage shall be stepped back within the area defined by a 75 degree angle
originating from the top of the street wall to a point 80 feet from the average level of the highest and lowest point of the property along the public street. The
Chief Planner may approve a reduced stepback percentage of 45 percent provided that a public plaza with a minimum depth of 25 feet, landscaping and seating
amenities is provided on the ground level at grade; or other comparable public amenities are provided. Exceptions beyond that are subject to Planning
Commission approval.
2. For any wall containing bedroom windows, a setback of at least 10 feet shall be provided.
3. For any wall containing living room or other primary room windows, a setback of at least 15 feet shall be provided.
20.270.005 Supplemental Regulations—ECR/C Area Plan
G. Residential Usable Open Space. A minimum of 150 square feet of usable open space is required per residential unit and may be provided as common or private open
space. Private areas typically consist of balconies, decks, patios, fenced yards, and other similar areas outside the residence. Common areas typically consist of landscaped areas,
patios, swimming pools, barbeque areas, playgrounds, turf, or other such improvements as are appropriate to enhance the outdoor environment of the development; these can
be in the form of courtyards at the ground level or terraces over parking podiums.
A. Building Bulk. The maximum lot coverage of the portion of a building above 45 feet to 80 feet from finished grade shall not exceed 80 percent of the lot area. Exceptions and
modifications to dimensional standards of up to 10 percent may be granted by the Chief Planner, based on the finding that adequate design features have been incorporated to
create visual variety and void a large-scale, bulky or monolithic appearance. Exceptions beyond 10 percent are subject to Planning Commission approval.
D. Building Transparency and Required Openings. A minimum of 60 percent of building façades facing streets and the BART right-of-way containing nonresidential uses
and a minimum of 70 percent of street facing building façades containing retail uses shall provide transparency in accordance with the following:
1. Comprised of clear, nonreflective windows that allow views of indoor space between two and 12 feet above the sidewalk.
2. Windows or portions of windows, located between the sidewalk and two feet above the sidewalk may be glazed.
a. Private Open Space. Private open space located on the ground level (e.g., yards, decks, patios) shall have no dimension less than 10 feet. Private open
space located above ground level (e.g., balconies) shall have no dimension less than six feet.
b. Common Open Space . Minimum dimension of 20 feet.
2. Usability. A surface shall be provided that allows convenient use for outdoor living and/or recreation. Such surface may be any practicable combination of lawn,
garden, flagstone, wood planking, concrete, or other serviceable, dust-free surfacing. Slope shall not exceed 10 percent.
a. Accessibility.
i. Private Open Space. The space shall be accessible to only one living unit by a doorway to a habitable room or hallway.
ii. Common Open Space. The space shall be accessible to the living units on the lot. It shall be served by any stairway or other access way
qualifying as an egress facility from a habitable room.
370
988 El Camino Real: Development Consistency Checklist 3
Project Address: 988 ECR Zoning: ECR/C-MXH
Additional Notes/ Comments
Standard (per Sub-District)ECR/C-MXH Additional Standards
City of SSF -Conformance Development Checklist for El Camino Real / Chestnut Area Plan Districts
Lot, Density, and FAR Standards - ECR/C Are Planh Sub-Districts
Proposal Compliance for Project (please
fill out Yes, No, or NA)Please stipulate how the proposal complies (i.e.
provide specific lot/parcel data, measurements, etc.)
n/a
Yes Project design complies
Exception for surface parking approx. 30'
from BART ROW.
The eleven commercial and visitor surface parking spaces will be
screened by trees and landscaping, which will adequately buffer
the pedestrian right-of-way. The area will be paved with
permeable pavers, which will assist with reducing surface runoff.
The PG&E easement also constrains the site in a way that
prevents this parking area from being included within the
structure. Project design complies.
3. The maximum height of a parking podium visible from El Camino Real is five feet from finished grade.n/a
Yes Project Complies
Yes
Project Complies. Provides a range of pedestrian amenities and
connections to transit and Centennial Way Trail, and is consistent
with the design standards.
Yes
Yes
Project design complies. All loading and service areas are located
interior to the building, and are screened from public view.
L. Pedestrian Access. On-site pedestrian circulation and access must be provided according to the following standards.
M. Truck Docks, Loading, and Service Areas. Truck docks, loading areas, and service areas must be located at the rear or interior side of buildings and be screened so as
not to be visible from public streets.
2. In-Lieu Fees. In the ECR/C Parking District, the City may establish a parking mitigation fund and require payment of a fee in lieu of providing required parking on-site
or off-site.
a. In-Lieu Fee Amount. The amount of the in-lieu fee shall be calculated and paid as set forth in a resolution of the City Council.
b. Use of Funds. In-lieu fees shall be used to fund and maintain shared parking facilities within the ECR/C Parking District.
I. Limitations on Location of Parking
1. Buildings shall be placed as close to the street, or public plaza or open space provided along street, as possible in compliance with the required setback, with parking
located either underground, behind a building, or on the interior side or rear of the site.
2. Above ground parking may not be located within 40 feet of a street facing property line or BART right-of-way. Exceptions may be granted with the approval of a
Conditional Use Permit when the following findings can be made:
a. The design incorporates habitable space built close to the public sidewalk to the maximum extent feasible.
b. The site is small and constrained such that underground parking or surface parking located more than 40 feet from the street frontage is not feasible.
J. Limitations on Curb Cuts. Curb cuts shall be minimized and located in the location least likely to impede pedestrian circulation. Curb cuts shall be located at least 10
feet from any intersection curb return or pedestrian crosswalk.
K. Maximum Block Length. 600 feet; block length of up to 800 feet is allowed when a mid-block connection with a minimum width of 30 feet is provided.
1. Internal Connections. A system of pedestrian walkways shall connect all buildings on a site to each other, to on-site automobile and bicycle parking areas, and to any
on-site open space areas or pedestrian amenities.
2. To Street and Open Space Network. Regular connections between on-site walkways and the public sidewalk, public open space, and other pedestrian areas shall be
provided.
3. To Neighbors. Direct and convenient access shall be provided from commercial and mixed-use projects to adjoining residential and commercial areas to the
maximum extent feasible while still providing for safety and security.
4. To Transit. Safe and convenient pedestrian connections shall be provided from transit stops to building entrances. Sidewalk “bulb-outs” or bus “pullouts” may be
required at potential bus stops.
5. Interior Pedestrian Walkway Design.
a. Walkways shall be a minimum of five feet wide, shall be hard-surfaced, and paved with permeable materials.
b. Where a required walkway crosses driveways, parking areas, or loading areas, it must be clearly identifiable through the use of a raised crosswalk, a different paving
material, or similar method.
c. Where a required walkway is parallel and adjacent to an auto travel lane, it must be raised or separated from the auto travel lane by a raised curb at least four inches
high, bollards, or other physical barrier.
371
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:18-114 Agenda Date:2/28/2018
Version:1 Item #:3.
Report regarding a proposed Zoning Text Amendment to the South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter
20.280 (“Downtown Station Area Specific Plan District”)to increase the Maximum Density with Incentives in
the Downtown Transit Core (DTC)Sub-District,associated General Plan amendment,Downtown Station Area
Specific Plan amendment,and Addendum to the previously certified Downtown Station Area Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report (Adena Friedman, Senior Planner)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council take the following actions:
1.Approve a resolution making findings and a determination that Project is fully within the scope of
environmental analysis in the previously certified 2015 Downtown Station Area Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report (EIR)(EIR11-0003),that the 2018 Addendum is the appropriate
environmental document for the project,and that no further environmental review is required per
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and
2.Adopt a resolution to approve a General Plan Amendment and Downtown Station Area Specific
Plan Amendment to increase the Maximum Density with Incentives in the Downtown Transit
Core (DTC) Sub-District; and
3.Introduce an ordinance amending Section 20.280 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code to
increase the Maximum Density with Incentives in the Downtown Transit Core (DTC)Sub-
District, and waive further reading.
BACKGROUND
The Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (DSASP),adopted in 2015,is a guide for future changes and
improvements in the Downtown.The DSASP area focuses on properties within walking distance (1/4 mile to
1/2 mile)of the reconfigured and improved Caltrain Station (currently under construction),to promote transit
ridership and reduce single-occupancy vehicle trips.The DSASP contains recommendations and guidelines
intended to improve livability in Downtown,provide transit-oriented development opportunities,and realize
community benefits for existing and future Downtown residents.The Downtown Transit Core (DTC)sub-
district of the DSASP is the area within 1/4 mile of the new Caltrain Station (illustrated in Attachment 1).The
DSASP envisions the DTC as a vibrant,mixed-use area,and it identifies the DTC as the most suitable location
for the highest intensity transit-oriented development in the Downtown,due to its proximity to the Caltrain
Station and the relative abundance of developable sites.
Section 20.280.004 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC)contains development regulations for
City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/18/2024Page 1 of 7
powered by Legistar™372
File #:18-114 Agenda Date:2/28/2018
Version:1 Item #:3.
Section 20.280.004 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC)contains development regulations for
the DSASP zoning districts.Currently,the development regulations for the DTC sub-district require a
minimum density of 80 dwelling units per acre (du/ac),with a base maximum density of 100 du/ac.Section
20.280.005 of the SSFMC (DSASP Additional Development Standards)contains a provision for increased
density with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit by City Council,if the public benefits offered as part of a
development application are demonstrated to be above and beyond the minimum required impact fees and other
requirements for a particular project.The maximum density with incentives in the DTC sub-district is 120
du/ac.
SSFMC Section 20.280.005(A)outlines the following preferences for public benefits to the Downtown
community and the City that may be considered as eligible to allow increased density and floor area ratio
(FAR), per the Maximum Density with Incentives Program:
a)Local Hire Program
b)Public art
c)Funding or construction of local streetscape enhancements as identified in the DSASP
d)Funding for enhanced public spaces
e)Funding for public safety facilities, community meeting rooms, child care or similar
f)Tenant space for local businesses or existing businesses in need of relocation
g)Provision of green building measures over and above the applicable green building compliance
threshold required pursuant to Title 15 (“Building and Construction”) of the SSFMC
h)Transit subsidy or other incentives for residents and/or employees
i)Other developer proposed incentives achieving a similar public benefit
Since adoption of the DSASP,seven multi-family residential projects have been entitled within the Plan area,
and there is an additional project in the entitlement pipeline.Of these projects,five of them are within the DTC
sub-district.However,only one applicant has opted to use the Maximum Density with Incentives Program,
resulting in few community benefits as originally envisioned under this section of the DSASP zoning.
Staff has evaluated the merits of increasing the Maximum Density with Incentives Program in the DTC from
120 du/ac to 180 du/ac,in order to incentivize community benefits.Increasing the density would allow
additional residential units to locate in sites that are most accessible to transit,Downtown amenities,and
employment uses east of 101.While this proposal would increase the Maximum Density with Incentives in the
DTC,all other current development standards (such as height,FAR,and parking requirements)would remain
the same.This proposal also recommends adding family-friendly housing (two-to three-bedroom units)as a
public benefit to the Maximum Density with Incentives program, in order to encourage a diverse housing stock.
Increasing the Maximum Density with Incentives in the DTC sub-district will require the following actions by
the City:
1.Approval of a Zoning Text Amendment for amending the Maximum Density with Incentives in the DTC
City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/18/2024Page 2 of 7
powered by Legistar™373
File #:18-114 Agenda Date:2/28/2018
Version:1 Item #:3.
sub-district, and adding family-friendly housing as a public benefit
2.Approval of amendments to Chapter 3 of the DSASP (Land Use and Urban Design)to reflect the
increased density
3.Approval of a General Plan Amendment for revisions to the Land Use Chapter and Housing Element to
reflect the increased density
4.California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)approval of an Addendum to the 2015 DSASP
Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
Amendments to the Zoning Code,General Plan,and DSASP are summarized in Attachment 2 to this staff
report and are fully detailed in the companion entitlements resolution and ordinance.
DISCUSSION
Development Feasibility Analysis
Staff contracted the consulting firm PlaceWorks to analyze the feasibility and implications of the proposed
maximum density increase and to complete the required CEQA analysis.PlaceWorks provided a memo
summarizing the land use and urban design implications (Attachment 3).The major findings of the memo are
outlined below:
·Based on the development pattern in Downtown,the current Maximum Density with Incentives
Program in the DTC of 120 du/ac suggests insufficient financial incentives to residential developers in
exchange for the cost of the community benefits.
·Site analysis indicates that to allow for adequate on-site parking,an increased density of 180 du/ac
could be achieved on larger development sites (minimum site area of 10,000 square feet (“sq.ft.”)and a
minimum dimension of 170 feet in one direction).There are four potential sites within the DTC that
meet these dimensions (illustrated in Figure 2 of Attachment 3).
o Assuming that each of these four sites was developed at 180 du/ac,development potential of
these sites would increase by a total of approximately 250 units (compared to a build-out at 100
du/ac).
o The development cap analyzed under the DSASP and the EIR would remain the same because
the number of total residential units permitted within the DSASP development envelope would
not increase.It is possible that buildout to the development cap included in the DSASP and the
EIR would be reached within a faster timeframe under this proposed amendment,after which
additional environmental review would be required (discussed further in the Environmental
Review section of this staff report, below).
·A development prototype analysis indicates that a development at 180 du/ac that meets DTC
development standards is feasible and could provide a range of unit types and sizes.Depending on site
configuration,these projects may meet the existing parking requirements or it may be necessary to
request a parking reduction.
Current Downtown Development Pattern
While Cadence Phase 1 is the only project to-date that has utilized the Maximum Density with Incentives
City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/18/2024Page 3 of 7
powered by Legistar™374
File #:18-114 Agenda Date:2/28/2018
Version:1 Item #:3.
While Cadence Phase 1 is the only project to-date that has utilized the Maximum Density with Incentives
Program,there are several projects in the Downtown that have been entitled above base densities,utilizing the
State Density Bonus Program.The 200 Linden project (135 du/ac)and the Rotary Miller Avenue Senior
Housing Community (144 du/ac)have achieved densities above the Maximum Density with Incentives
Program, with the provision of affordable housing.
Additionally,while the Cadence Phase 1 project (Parcels A and D on Airport Boulevard,currently under
construction)was entitled at an overall density of approximately 120 du/ac,the density for this project was
calculated over a larger development area which included Parcel B on Cypress Avenue and Parcel C on Miller
Avenue.The effective density of the units currently under construction is approximately 160 du/ac.Attachment
4,included for reference,illustrates development projects at different densities that are currently under
construction or in the development pipeline within the DTC sub-district.
Community Benefits
As part of the feasibility analysis for the proposed density increase,PlaceWorks reviewed community benefits
programs in other cities offering density bonuses.In addition to the community benefits currently included in
the SSFMC for the Maximum Density with Incentives Program,several cities also include family housing (two
-and three-bedroom units)as a community benefit.Currently,2.5 percent of the units that are in the DSASP
development pipeline are three-bedroom units.
Staff had initial concerns that the proposed density increase to 180 du/ac would result in multi-family
developments with primarily studios and one-bedroom apartments, in order to conform to all other zoning
standards. Ultimately, this could result in apartment buildings that would fail to keep pace with the millennial
residents who may require family-sized apartments within the next decade. This concern assumes that urban
living will continue to dominate housing preferences for residents aged 23 to 35 years old, at least in San Mateo
County where single family homes have an average median price of $1.25 million (San Mateo County Zillow
<https://www.zillow.com/san-mateo-county-ca/home-values/>).
PlaceWorks’ feasibility analysis suggests that a prototypical development of 180 du/ac could accommodate a
reasonable number of three-bedroom units (approximately five to eight percent). While this is a relatively small
percentage, it is higher than the current amount of three-bedroom units currently in the pipeline.
The Planning Commission considered the proposed density increase at the February 1, 2018 meeting. The
Commission supported the idea of encouraging and incentivizing more family units in the Downtown, and
introduced an addition to the zoning amendment to include family-friendly (two- and three-bedroom) units to
public benefits listed in Section 20.280.005(A). This direction is consistent with the City’s Housing Element
direction, which includes Program 5-5A, which states “Support a variety of housing unit designs, including
larger housing units that can accommodate large families.”
COMMUNITY OUTREACH
On Wednesday, December 6, 2017, the Planning Division hosted a community open house at the City Hall
Annex to discuss the proposed density increase with Downtown residents, merchants, property owners, and
members of the development community. Approximately 20 members of the public attended. Many of the
attendees supported the new development resulting from the DSASP, although some attendees expressed
City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/18/2024Page 4 of 7
powered by Legistar™375
File #:18-114 Agenda Date:2/28/2018
Version:1 Item #:3.
concerns about overcrowding and gentrification.
The following are some of the main discussion themes and comments from the meeting:
·Provide additional retail and restaurants on Grand Avenue.
·Focus on improving the pedestrian environment/streetscape.
·Address parking challenges in Downtown and the surrounding residential neighborhoods.
·There are existing overcrowding issues, which will be worse with additional development.
·Concern about displacement and gentrification in Downtown and surrounding neighborhoods.
·Concern that new development does not cater to existing residents and businesses.
While some of these are issues are stemming from the regional housing supply and affordability crisis,staff
believes that there are opportunities to address these concerns and issues through continued implementation and
review of the DSASP policies,and priority consideration as part of the project review and approval process.
Since DSASP adoption,119 affordable units have been entitled in high-density multi-family projects in the
Downtown.Over the next few months,the City will be considering amending inclusionary housing
requirements to require affordable units in multi-family residential rental developments,which could also
generate additional affordable units in the Downtown, and throughout the City.
PLANNING COMMISSION
As previously discussed,the Planning Commission considered this item at the February 1,2018 meeting.The
Commission recommended approval of increasing the Maximum Density with Incentives in the DTC from 120
du/ac to 180 du/ac,and also recommended adding a public benefit to the list in Section 20.280.005(A)to
encourage and incentivize family-friendly (two-and three-bedroom)units in projects seeking density and FAR
increases.The Zoning Text Amendment reflects the Planning Commission’s recommended addition.
Commissioners also expressed support for public benefits that provide long-lasting positive effects for the
community.
Members of the public also provided input on the density increase.One community member stated that the
projects that participate in the public benefits program should provide meaningful amenities and benefits to
Downtown residents and businesses,in exchange for additional density and FAR.Additionally,a representative
of the San Mateo County Health System supported the density increase,and outlined the Health System’s
priorities for public benefits as:local hire program,funding for public safety,community meeting rooms and
child care,and transit subsidies for residents and employees.The Planning Commission resolutions and draft
minutes are attached to this staff report (Attachments 5 and 6).
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
In January 2015,the City certified an EIR for the DSASP,State Clearinghouse (SCH)Number 2013102001.In
accordance with the CEQA Guidelines,the City has determined that an Addendum to the Certified EIR is the
appropriate environmental clearance for the proposed density increase since there are only minor technical
changes that do not alter any of the previous EIR assumptions and no new significant impacts are identified.
PlaceWorks prepared an EIR Addendum (attached to the associated CEQA Resolution),which reviews the
City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/18/2024Page 5 of 7
powered by Legistar™376
File #:18-114 Agenda Date:2/28/2018
Version:1 Item #:3.
PlaceWorks prepared an EIR Addendum (attached to the associated CEQA Resolution),which reviews the
changes related to the increased density proposal and examines whether,as a result of any changes or new
information,a subsequent EIR may be required.As discussed throughout the Addendum,the proposed
increased maximum density in the DTC sub-district would not result in a new impact or a substantial increase
in magnitude of the existing impacts.
The 2015 EIR evaluated a total of 2,861 residential units in the DSASP area.Roughly half of those units
(1,426)units existed in the study area at that time,which left a remaining 1,435 units to be built within the
DSASP.Since certification of the EIR,765 units have been entitled and/or constructed.This leaves a total of
670 additional units that could be built within the study area under the DSASP EIR.
The proposed increase to maximum density would not increase the development cap analyzed under the 2015
EIR.The remaining units to be built within the DSASP area would remain the same with the approval of the
Addendum.Future development projects in the DSASP area that propose additional residential development
beyond the development cap would require additional environmental review,if applicable and as required by
CEQA.To secure the necessary development permits,subsequent environmental review could be in the form of
an Exemption,Negative or Mitigated Negative Declaration,or a Subsequent EIR.Subsequent environmental
review may be tiered from the DSASP EIR,but the DSASP EIR and this Addendum are not intended to address
residential development beyond the residential cap.
FISCAL IMPACT
The proposed Zoning Text Amendment would have no fiscal impact on the City’s Operating Budget.
CONCLUSION
Increasing the Maximum Density with Incentives in the DTC sub-district from 120 du/ac to 180 du/ac may help
incentivize transit-oriented development in areas adjacent to the relocated and improved Caltrain station and
provide additional community benefits to existing and future Downtown residents and businesses.Amending
the list of public benefits to include family-friendly units may help to encourage a range of unit types and sizes
in the Downtown, proximate to transit, amenities, and employment uses.
Staff recommends that the City Council take the following actions:
1.Approve a resolution making findings and a determination that project is fully within the scope of
environmental analysis in the previously certified 2015 Downtown Station Area Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report (EIR)(EIR11-0003),that the 2018 Addendum is the appropriate
environmental document for the project,and that no further environmental review is required per the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and
2.Adopt a resolution to approve a General Plan Amendment and Downtown Station Area Specific Plan
Amendment to increase the Maximum Density with Incentives in the Downtown Transit Core (DTC)
Sub-District; and
City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/18/2024Page 6 of 7
powered by Legistar™377
File #:18-114 Agenda Date:2/28/2018
Version:1 Item #:3.
3.Introduce an ordinance amending Section 20.280 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code to
increase the Maximum Density with Incentives in the Downtown Transit Core (DTC) Sub-District.
Attachments:
1.DTC Sub-District Map
2.Summary of Proposed Amendments
3.DTC Analysis Memo (PlaceWorks, 2018)
4.Downtown Project Examples
5.Planning Commission Resolutions
6.Planning Commission Draft Minutes (February 1, 2018)
7.DTC Presentation
City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/18/2024Page 7 of 7
powered by Legistar™378
379
Draft Changes to City Documents to Increase the Maximum Density with Incentives in the
Downtown Transit Core (DTC) Sub-District
Zoning Ordinance
1. Revise Section 20.280.004 Maximum Density with Incentive Program
20.280.004 Development Standards
Tables 20.280.004-1 through 3 prescribe the development standards for the Downtown Station Area sub-
districts. Additional regulations are denoted in the right-hand column. Section numbers in this column
refer to other sections of this title, while individual letters refer to subsections that follow the tables, under
Section 20.280.005 “Additional Development Standards.”
Table 20.280.004-1
Lot, Density, and FAR Standards - Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Sub-Districts
Standard DTC GAC DRC TO/RD LCC LNC Additional Standards
Minimum Lot Size (sq. ft.) 5,000 5,000 5,000 10,000 5,000 5,000
Minimum Lot Width (sq. ft.) 50 50 50 50 50 50
Minimum Lot Depth (sq. ft.) n/a n/a 80 n/a 80 n/a
Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
Minimum FAR 2.0 1.5 n/a 1.5 n/a 2.0
Maximum FAR 6.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 n/a 3.0 Exclusive of structured
parking
Maximum FAR with
Incentive Program 8.0 4.0 3.25
(1) 3.5 n/a n/a Exclusive of structured
parking
Residential Density (units
per acre; included within
FAR above)
Minimum Density 80 14 40 n/a 20.1 40
Maximum Density 100 60 80 n/a 40 60
Maximum Density with
Incentive Program. Does
not include density
bonuses allowed per
Chapter 20.390 Bonus
Residential Density
120
180
(A)
80 (A) /
100 (2)(A)
100
(A) /
125
(1)(A)
n/a n/a 80
(A)
Limitations:
1. For qualifying affordable Senior Housing projects.
2. For developments on corner parcels or lots greater than one acre.
380
2. Revise Section 20.280.005(A), DSASP Additional Development Standards, Increased Density
and FAR Incentive Program, to include Family-friendly Units as a public benefit:
A. Increased Density and FAR Incentive Program. An increase to the maximum FAR or maximum
density as referenced in Table 20.280.004-1 may be permitted for buildings with the approval of a
Conditional Use Permit by the City Council through the satisfaction of a combination of the following
public benefits:
1. To be eligible for an increase to the maximum FAR or density incentives under this subsection, the
public benefits that are included as part of a development project must demonstrate a positive
contribution that is above and beyond the minimum required impact fees and other requirements of the
particular project. The following preferences for public benefits to the Downtown community and the City
may be considered as eligible to allow increased density and FAR standards for a project pursuant to this
subsection:
a) Local Hire Program;
b) Public art;
c) Funding or construction of local streetscape enhancements as identified in the Downtown Station
Area Specific Plan;
d) Funding for enhanced public spaces;
e) Funding for public safety facilities, community meeting rooms, child care or similar;
f) Tenant space for local businesses or existing businesses in need of relocation;
g) Provision of green building measures over and above the applicable green building compliance
threshold required pursuant to Title 15 (“Building and Construction”) of the South San Francisco
Municipal Code;
h) Transit subsidy or other incentives for residents and/or employees; and
i) Family-friendly (two- and three-bedroom units); and
j) Other developer proposed incentives achieving a similar public benefit.
2. For projects seeking either an increase to the maximum FAR or maximum density pursuant to this
subsection, the following shall apply:
a) Applicant shall submit financial evaluation and analysis, information, and evidence to allow for a
reasonable assessment of the value of the benefits offered relative to the incentives being
sought, including the proposed public benefits as outlined above.
b) Applicant shall provide an assessment of the economic and/or intrinsic value of the proposed
public benefit as compared with the economic value of the proposed development incentives
requested by the applicant. The City may request an independent third party review, by a
qualified appraisal expert, hired by the City at the applicant’s expense, to validate the valuation
submitted by the applicant. This requirement is not intended to imply a need for the applicant to
provide or disclose a complete project pro forma. Only the marginal costs of the proposed public
benefit and incentive are required to be disclosed in the analysis.
c) Applicant shall provide an explanation as to the way in which the proposed amenities will further
the City’s goals and objectives as outlined in the SSF Downtown Station Specific Plan, and
conformance of the proposed project with the General Plan, Specific Plan provisions and Zoning
Ordinance, and that a reasonable nexus exists between the public benefit provided and the
incentive granted.
381
General Plan
Chapter 2: Land Use Element
1. Table 2.2-1: Standards for Density and Development Intensity
Land Use
Designation
Minimum
Required FAR
Residential
Density (Units/
Acre)
Maximum
Permitted FAR
Maximum
Permitted with
Incentives and
Bonuses
Units/Net
Acre
FAR
(See
Table
2.2)
Downtown Transit
Core
2.0 80.1-100 6.0 120.0
180.00
2. Page 2-18: The Downtown Transit Core allows up to 100 dwelling units per acre; a minimum of
80 dwelling units per acre is required. A maximum of 120 180 dwelling units per acre would be
allowed for development meeting specified criteria. Ground level retail uses will be encouraged
throughout the area.
Housing Element
1. Table 4.1-1: Land Use Designation, South San Francisco General Plan, 2015
Land Use Designation Maximum Allowable Density
Downtown Transit Core 100 du/acre (up to 120 180 du/acre with Incentive
Program)
382
Downtown Station Area Specific Plan
1. Page 3-5: The Downtown Transit Core allows up to 100 dwelling units per acre; a minimum of 80
dwelling units per acre is required. A maximum of 120 180 dwelling units per acre would be
allowed for development meeting specified criteria. Ground level retail uses will be encouraged
throughout the area.
2. Page 3-8: Table 3.01: Standards for Density and Development Intensity
Land Use
Designation
Residential
Density du/net ac
Max FAR Maximum
Residential
Density with
Discretionary
Approval and
Incentive-Based
Bonuses 1
Maximum FAR
with Discretionary
Approval and
Incentive-based
Bonuses 1
Downtown Transit
Core
80 -100 6.0 120.0
180.00
8.0
1 Does not include density bonuses allowed per Chapter 20.390 Bonus Residential Density
383
MEMORANDUM
DATE January 5, 2018
TO Adena Friedman, Senior Planner
South San Francisco
FROM Bruce Brubaker and Pranjali Deokule
SUBJECT Downtown Transit Core Rezoning
Project Understanding
In 2015, the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (DSASP) identified the Downtown Transit Core (DTC) as a
sub-district close to the Caltrain Station to accommodate high density Transit Oriented Development (TOD).
The City of South San Francisco’s Title 20 Zoning’s Division III Specific and Area Plan Districts Chapter 20.280
Downtown Station Area Specific Plan District identifies the following sub-district:
Downtown Transit Core (DTC). The Downtown Transit Core sub-district is focused within a ¼ radius of a point
just east of US 101 at East Grand Avenue. This location corresponds to the planned extension of the Caltrain
Station and accompanying pedestrian/bicycle rail undercrossing. It is intended to provide sites for mixed-use
development at high intensities in proximity to the Caltrain Station. It encourages active ground floor uses and
high intensity development that will generate pedestrian traffic in the area. The Downtown Transit Core sub-
district flanks the Grand Avenue Core sub-district which will be the epicenter of Downtown commercial uses.
The Downtown Transit Core District will provide additional population and activities to support Grand Avenue
uses, increase Caltrain transit ridership, and provide housing with high amenity value for new residents.
Currently, the DTC allows for a base density of 100 dwelling units per acre, with a Maximum Density with
Incentives Program of 120 dwelling units per acre, and a maximum height of 85 feet for the base and the
Incentives Program. However, of the nine residential projects that have been entitled since the DSASP was
adopted, six residential projects are located within the DTC, and only one applicant has opted to use the
Maximum Density with Incentives Program, resulting in few community benefits per the DSASP incentive
program. Therefore, the City Staff is recommending increasing the Maximum Density with Incentives
allowance to 180 dwelling units per acre within the DTC, in order to achieve greater benefits. The
recommended increase in density is also a way to realize additional residential units in locations that are most
accessible to transit and amenities within the Downtown. This memo documents how this zoning text
amendment could affect development in the DTC, and potentially bring more community benefits to South
San Francisco.
As part of this analysis, PlaceWorks also analyzed density bonuses programs in other cities, and found that
cities are incentivizing the production of family housing (i.e. larger units), in order to provide transit-oriented
housing for a range of populations. South San Francisco may want to consider incentivizing the production of
2- and 3-bedroom units in the Downtown, in order to create more diverse housing opportunities adjacent to
transit and proximate to the large employers east of 101.
Development Standards for the Downtown Transit Core, and all of the DSASP districts, are as follows in table
20.280.004-1 along with the proposed new density for the DTC Maximum Density with Incentives Program.
384
January 5, 2018 | Page 2
MUNICIPAL CODE TABLE 20.280.004-1: LOT, DENSITY, AND FAR STANDARDS - DOWNTOWN
STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN SUB-DISTRICTS
STANDARD DTC GAC DRC TO/RD LCC LNC ADDITIONAL STANDARDS
Minimum Lot Size (sq. ft.) 5,000 5,000 5,000 10,000 5,000 5,000
Minimum Lot Width (sq. ft.) 50 50 50 50 50 50
Minimum Lot Depth (sq. ft.) n/a n/a 80 n/a 80 n/a
Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
Minimum FAR 2.0 1.5 n/a 1.5 n/a 2.0
Maximum FAR 6.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 n/a 3.0 Exclusive of structured
parking
Maximum FAR with Incentive
Program 8.0 4.0 3.25 (1) 3.5 n/a n/a Exclusive of structured
parking
Residential Density (units per
acre; included within FAR above)
Minimum Density 80 14 40 n/a 20.1 40
Maximum Density 100 60 80 n/a 40 60
Maximum Density with Incentive
Program. Does not include density
bonuses allowed per Chapter
20.390 Bonus Residential Density
120
180 (A)
80 (A) /
100
(2)(A)
100 (A)
/ 125
(1)(A) n/a n/a 80 (A)
Limitations:
1. For qualifying affordable Senior Housing projects.
2. For developments on corner parcels or lots greater than one acre.
Development and Entitlement Activity
Since the DSASP Adoption and EIR Certification, eight development projects totaling 765 units have been
constructed or entitled within the DSASP area, of which five were located in the DTC and three were in other
districts. Table 1 of this memo shows the number of units, acreage, dwelling/units per acre, type of units,
building heights, and parking spaces on each of the projects that are underway or constructed to date. The
average dwelling units/acre among all eight projects is 103 dwelling units per acre. Only one developer has
chosen to develop at the Maximum Density with Incentives Program of 120 units per acre. The average
acreage per development site is 1 acre. Of the total units entitled or constructed, 53 units are studios, 356 are
1-bedrooms, 336 are 2-bedrooms, and 19 are 3- bedrooms. Figure 1 shows the locations of the sites that have
been constructed or entitled within the DTC.
385
January 5, 2018 | Page 3
TABLE 1: DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS ENTITLED OR UNDER CONSTRUCTION
PROJECT
NAME
# OF
UNIT
S
ACRES DWELLIN
G UNITS/
ACRE
TYPE OF UNITS HEIGHT
(FEET)
PARKING
SPACES
ZONING
DISTRICT
NOTES
ST 1 BR 2 BR 3
BR
The Rotary
Miller
Avenue
Senior
Housing
81 0.56 144 5 75 1 0 65 39 DRC Senior Housing, all
affordable*
"Cadence"
Sares Regis
(Phase 1+
Phase 2)
272 2.34 117 42 101 121 8 72 363 DTC and
GAC
Utilized Density Bonus with
Incentives Program
418 (488)
Linden
Avenue
38 0.32 118 4 18 11 5 60 47 DTC State Density Bonus; 20%
Affordable*
255 Cypress
Avenue
46 0.46 99 2 21 22 0 60 61 GAC State Density Bonus; 20%
Affordable*
"Pinefino"
211 Airport
Boulevard
69 0.69 100 7 62 0 60 106 DTC
200 Linden
Avenue
97 0.72 135 22 70 5 85 109 DTC 97 residential, 12 retail
parking spaces; State
Density Bonus; 20%
Affordable*
150 Airport
Boulevard
157 1.57 100 112 45 0 85 183 DTC
840 Linden
Avenue
5 0.17 29 4 1 50 9 DHDR
Total Average Average Totals Average Total
765 1 103 53 356 336 19 64 917
* Utilized State Density Bonus 1
DSASP EIR Analysis
The DSASP’s Environmental Impact Report (EIR) studied a total of 2,861 units in proximity to the Caltrain
Station; roughly half of those units (1,426) units existed in the study area at the time of this analysis. This left
1,435 units to be built within the DSASP EIR’s study area under the certified EIR. Since certification of the EIR,
765 units have been entitled and/or constructed. This leaves a total of 670 additional units that can be built
within the study area without initiating new CEQA analysis. An EIR Addendum would be necessary if additional
units are planned within the DSASP, beyond what was originally analyzed.
1 State Density Bonus is offered to housing developments that provide affordable housing units that meet the criteria
stated in California Government Code section 65915. The percentage of density bonus is calculated based on the percentage of
affordable or low-income units provided.
386
January 5, 2018 | Page 4
387
January 5, 2018 | Page 5
Implications of a Density Increase
As stated in the DSASP, the intention of the DTC district is to provide high intensity mixed-use development
within ¼-mile of the Caltrain Station. Because only one developer has chosen the option to build at the
Maximum Density with Incentives Program of 120 dwelling units per acre it suggests that the incentives
program does not provide enough financial incentive, in exchange for the cost of the community benefits to
the developer. In order to provide more transit-oriented housing in the ¼-mile radius from the Caltrain Station
and increase benefits to the community, the maximum density could be considered to be increased to 180
dwelling units per acre. This higher density could be achieved on larger development sites with a minimum
area of 10,000 square feet and a minimum dimension of 170 feet in one direction for efficient parking.
Because the Type V wood construction over podium parking is the most financially feasible construction
method, a project including 5 stories of residential units above a 2-story parking podium is the best way to
achieve 180 units per acre given the existing parking and height requirements in the DTC district.
Our site analysis indicates that there are four potential sites within the DTC district that are not currently
entitled and are large enough to accommodate this type of development (see Figure 2). These sites are
speculative; they were identified because they had one or more of the following characteristics and were
adjacent to other such lots so could be acquired to result in a development site of an appropriate size to
develop at such a density:
» Vacant lots
» Surface parking lots
» 1-story buildings
Note that several of the sites with development potential at 180 dwelling units per acre would require
consolidation of multiple adjacent parcels that may currently be under separate ownership. There are other
sites that are greater than 10,000 square feet however they are less likely to redevelop at a density of 180
dwelling units per acre due to their dimensions and size limitations.
Figure 3 illustrates how a prototypical development project on a parcel with a minimum length of 170 feet can
accommodate 180 dwelling units per acre, a range of unit sizes, and the typical dimensions needed to provide
structured parking for those units. This parking provided in the prototypical development is the minimum
required by the Zoning Code, and may require underground parking or a parking reduction, in order to meet
the 180 dwelling units / acre density.
Table 2 below shows the development potential of each of these four development sites and compares it to
the number of units the site would accommodate without a zoning change. Rather than compare 120 dwelling
units/acre to the increased 180 dwelling units/acre, this analysis compares the maximum density that is
currently being pursued by the majority of recent downtown development applications, which is 100 dwelling
units per acre. This is a conservative approach, particularly since several of the recently entitled projects have
been approved at a higher density per the State’s affordable housing bonus program. The number of units
increases by a total of 252 units for the four sites, assuming a density of 180 dwelling units per acre, compared
to the current base density of 100 dwelling units per acre. It is important to note that the development
potential was analyzed assuming a higher density, but all other current development standards were assumed
to remain the same (including height and floor area ratio).
388
January 5, 2018 | Page 6
TABLE 2: OPPORTUNITY SITES IN THE DOWNTOWN TRANSIT CORE
SITES MAXIMUM
DENSITY*
MAXIMUM DENSITY
WITH REZONE
ACREAGE DWELLING UNITS
W/O REZONE
DWELLING UNITS
WITH REZONE
DIFFERENCE
Site 1 100 180 0.92 92 165 73
Site 2 100 180 0.74 74 133 59
Site 3 100 180 0.90 90 162 72
Site 4 100 180 0.60 60 108 48
Total Total Total
316 568 252
* This is the maximum density allowed in the DTC without the Incentive Program.
389
January 5, 2018 | Page 7
390
January 5, 2018 | Page 8
391
January 5, 2018 | Page 9
Additional Public Benefits
Since only 2.5% of units that are currently in the DSASP development pipeline are 3-bedroom units,
PlaceWorks looked at other cities’ approaches to increasing family housing in TOD areas. Family-friendly units
need to be larger and also affordable. The Center for Transit-Oriented Development wrote a guidebook for
cities to serve families and create “complete communities” when creating TOD. The guidebook states
development with larger units (3- and 4-bedroom units, as well as townhomes) are family-friendly, as is
providing low- and moderate-income units.2
There are several examples of cities that have addressed family-friendly TOD, either requiring or incentivizing
larger (2 or more bedroom units). Washington, DC has considered allowing an increase in height and FAR as
long as that 8 percent of the “bonus” area is three-bedroom units in order to order to keep more families in
the neighborhood.3 Washington DC does not have a precedent of specifying unit type in zoning, but in high
demand areas where housing supply doesn’t meet demand developers need incentives to build a mix of
housing types otherwise they will build what is in demand and most profitable (smaller units). The City is also
considering allowing other housing bonuses in neighborhoods lacking housing diversity, including allowing an
additional 1.0 FAR devoted to apartments with three or more bedrooms. This approach encourages a mix of
housing types and more housing overall.
The City of Portland has recently adopted an inclusionary housing program that incentivizes the production of
family housing (units with two or more bedrooms), by providing flexibility in the City’s affordable housing
requirements4. Portland provides an option that projects can satisfy the inclusionary housing requirements by
providing a certain number of units or bedrooms at the requisite affordability rate. The intent is to encourage
the creation of more family housing (units with 2 or more bedrooms) in multi-dwelling development.
In the Bay Area, the City of Emeryville considers family-friendly units (two or more bedrooms) as a community
benefit that is included in development bonus calculations. 5 For a project to qualify as family-friendly for the
development bonus program, it must provide at least five percent of total units with two or more bedrooms,
and one percent of total units with three or more bedrooms.
The research suggests that by adding unit types that would accommodate and appeal to families to the list of
eligible public benefits, development within the Downtown Transit Core (DTC) zone could provide a
considerable public benefit for South San Francisco. By incentivizing housing types that allow families to live
near the Caltrain Station, South San Francisco could create a “complete community” in downtown. The
prototypical development studied during this analysis suggests as many as 5 to 8 percent of the units in a 180
dwelling unit/acre site could feasibly be 3-bedroom units. While this is still a small percentage, it is higher than
the current 2.5% of 3-bedroom units currently in the pipeline.
2 https://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/home-and-family/livable-communities/2014-01/families-and-transit-oriented-development-
case-study.pdf, accessed November 17, 2017.
3 https://ggwash.org/view/37492/dc-proposes-an-incentive-for-three-bedroom-apartments, accessed November 17, 2017.
4 https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/article/621866, accessed November 17, 2017.
5 http://www.ci.emeryville.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/814, accessed November 17, 2017.
392
January 5, 2018 | Page 10
Required Amendments to the Zoning Code
Table 20.280.004-1 (Lot, Density, and FAR Standards - Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Sub-
Districts)would need to be amended to increase the maximum density with incentives in the DTC district
from 120 dwelling units / acre to 180 dwelling units / acre.
MUNICIPAL CODE TABLE 20.280.004-1: LOT, DENSITY, AND FAR STANDARDS - DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN SUB-DISTRICTS
Standard DTC GAC DRC TO/RD LCC LNC Additional
Standards
Minimum Lot Size (sq. ft.) 5,000 5,000 5,000 10,000 5,000 5,000
Minimum Lot Width (sq. ft.) 50 50 50 50 50 50
Minimum Lot Depth (sq. ft.) n/a n/a 80 n/a 80 n/a
Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
Minimum FAR 2.0 1.5 n/a 1.5 n/a 2.0
Maximum FAR 6.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 n/a 3.0
Exclusive of
structured
parking
Maximum FAR with Incentive
Program 8.0 4.0 3.25 (1) 3.5 n/a n/a
Exclusive of
structured
parking
Residential Density (units per acre;
included within FAR above)
Minimum Density 80 14 40 n/a 20.1 40
Maximum Density 100 60 80 n/a 40 60
Maximum Density with Incentive
Program. Does not include
density bonuses allowed per
Chapter 20.390 Bonus
Residential Density
120
180 (A)
80 (A) / 100
(2)(A)
100 (A) / 125
(1)(A) n/a n/a 80 (A)
Limitations:
1 For qualifying affordable Senior Housing projects.
2 For developments on corner parcels or lots greater than one acre.
393
January 5, 2018 | Page 11
Required Amendments to General Plan
If the density and public benefits changes in the Municipal Code are adopted, the following changes will be
required to be made to the General Plan’s Land Use Element and Housing Element.
LAND USE ELEMENT, CHAPTER 2
1. Table 2.2-1: Standards for Density and Development Intensity
Land Use
Designation
Minimum Required
FAR
Residential Density
(Units/ Acre)
Maximum
Permitted FAR
Maximum Permitted
with Incentives and
Bonuses
Units/Net
Acre
FAR
(See
Table
2.2)
Downtown Transit
Core
2.0 80.1-100 6.0 120.0
180.00
2. Page 2-18: The Downtown Transit Core allows up to 100 dwelling units per acre; a minimum of 80 dwelling
units per acre is required. A maximum of 120 180 dwelling units per acre would be allowed for
development meeting specified criteria. Ground level retail uses will be encouraged throughout the area.
HOUSING ELEMENT
1. Table 4.1-1: Downtown Transit Core 100 du/acre (up to 120 180 du/acre with Incentive Program)
Required Amendments to the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan
If the density and public benefits changes in the Municipal Code are adopted, the following changes will be
required to be made to the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan:
1. Page 3-5: The Downtown Transit Core allows up to 100 dwelling units per acre; a minimum of 80 dwelling
units per acre is required. A maximum of 120 180 dwelling units per acre would be allowed for
development meeting specified criteria. Ground level retail uses will be encouraged throughout the area.
2. Page 3-8: Table 3.01: Standards for Density and Development Intensity
Land Use
Designation
Residential Density
du/net ac
Max FAR Maximum
Residential Density
with Discretionary
Approval and
Incentive-Based
Bonuses 1
Maximum FAR with
Discretionary
Approval and
Incentive-based
Bonuses 1
Downtown Transit
Core
80 -100 6.0 120.0
180.00
8.0
394
View of Parcel A and D from project Gateway
Downtown Project Examples
P ER SP E C TIVE - BIR D'S EY E VIE W L O O KIN G N W
2 0 0 L I N D E N , S O U T H S A N F R A N C I S C O A 0 . 1 20 9 . 2 9 . 2 0 1 7
150 Airport Boulevard
Cadence Phase 1
Airport & Cypress
Under Construction
260 Rental Units
Density: Approx 160 du / ac
Height: 85’
200 Linden
Linden & Baden
Entitled Nov, 2017
97 For-sale Units &
Ground-floor retail
Density: Approx 135 du / ac
Height: 85’
150 Airport Blvd
Entitled January, 2017
157 Rental Units
Density: 100 du / ac
Height: 85’
395
RESOLUTION NO. 2817-2018
PLANNING COMMISSION, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL MAKE A DETERMINATION THAT THE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT
TO AMEND THE MAXIMUM DENSITY WITH INCENTIVES IN THE DOWNTOWN
TRANSIT CORE SUB-DISTRICT OF THE DOWNTOWN STATION AREA PLAN AND
ASSOCIATED GENERAL PLAN AND DOWNTOWN STATION AREA PLAN
AMENDMENTS ARE FULLY WITHIN THE SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL
ANALYSIS AS DESCRIBED IN THE DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
2015 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND THAT THE 2018 ADDENDUM IS
THE APPROPRIATE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FOR THE PROJECT
WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco (“City”) adopted the Downtown Station Area
Specific Plan (“DSASP”) in February 2015, to guide and facilitate future growth and transit-
oriented development on properties within a one-half mile radius of the reconfigured and
improved Caltrain Station, with a focus on revitalizing Downtown as a vibrant destination; and
WHEREAS, City staff and the City’s consultant, PlaceWorks, Inc., have prepared amendments
to the South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance (“Zoning Text Amendments”) to amend the
Maximum Density with Incentives in the Downtown Transit Core (“DTC”) Sub-District of the
DSASP from 120 dwelling units/acre to 180 dwelling units/acre, to encourage additional multi-
family development adjacent to transit and community benefits in the Downtown; and
WHEREAS, the revisions to the South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance requires amendments to
the South San Francisco General Plan (“General Plan Amendments”), and the Downtown Station
Area Specific Plan (“DSASP Amendments”) to ensure consistency between the revised Zoning
Ordinance and all other governing documents; and
WHEREAS, environmental analysis for the proposed Zoning Text Amendment was conducted,
which concluded that the environmental effects associated with implementation of the revised
density are fully within the scope of the environmental analysis conducted in the 2015
Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”), such that the Zoning Text Amendment does not meet the
criteria under California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines Sections 15164 or
15162 justifying preparation of a subsequent EIR and thus, an addendum is the appropriate
environmental document for the Project; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, City staff and PlaceWorks, Inc.
prepared an addendum to the 2015 EIR for the Project (“2018 Addendum”) (Exhibit A), which
along with the 2015 EIR (Exhibit B) is attached hereto and incorporated herein; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on February 1,
2018, at which time interested parties had the opportunity to be heard, to review the Zoning Text
396
Amendment as well as supporting documents, prior to the Planning Commission making its
decision on the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission exercised its independent judgment and analysis, and
considered all reports, recommendations and testimony before making a determination on the
Project.
NOW THEREFORE, based on the entirety of the record before it, which includes without
limitation, the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code §21000, et seq. and
the CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of Regulations §15000, et seq.; the South San
Francisco General Plan, and General Plan Environmental Impact Report; the South San
Francisco Municipal Code; 2015 EIR, and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Programs; and all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning
Commission’s duly noticed February 1, 2018 meeting; and any other evidence (within the
meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e) and §21082.2), the Planning Commission of the
City of S outh San Francisco hereby finds as follows:
A. General Findings
1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution.
2. The Exhibit A (2018 Addendum) and Exhibit B (2015 EIR) attached to this Resolution are
incorporated by reference and 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 Planning Manager.
B. CEQA Findings
1. The Planning Commission, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164, subsection (d), has
considered the 2018 Addendum prepared for the Project including the related environmental
analysis, along with the previously certified 2015 EIR.
2. Upon consideration of the 2018 Addendum, the Planning Commission finds that 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 EIR.
3. The Project will not create any new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts
as compared to those already identified and analyzed in the 2015 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. Nor are any new or additional mitigation measures
required to mitigate any impacts of the Project.
397
4. Accordingly, the Planning Commission finds that CEQA Guidelines section 15162 does not
require any further CEQA review, and that the 2018 Addendum, prepared pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines section 15164, is the appropriate environmental document for approval of the
Project.
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 2018
Addendum is the appropriate environmental document for approval of the Zoning Text
Amendment and no further environmental review is required.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its
passage and adoption.
* * * * * * *
I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the
City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting held on the 1st day of February, 2018 by the
following vote:
AYES: Chairperson Faria, Vice Chairperson Nagales, Commissioner Wong, Commissioner
Murphy, Commissioner Tzang
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS__ Commissioner Shihadeh ____________________
ABSENT:
Attest_/s/Sailesh Mehra__________
Secretary to the Planning Commission
398
RESOLUTION NO. 2818-2018
PLANNING COMMISSION, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CONSIDER AND
ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL
CODE CHAPTER 20.280 (“DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
DISTRICT”) TO MAKE CHANGES TO THE DOWNTOWN TRANSIT CORE SUB-
DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, INCREASING THE MAXIMUM DENSITY
WITH INCENTIVES FROM 120 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE TO 180 DWELLING
UNITS PER ACRE, AND ASSOCIATED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
WHEREAS, in January of 2015, the City Council for the City of South San Francisco considered
and adopted the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (“DSASP”) and associated Draft and
Final Environmental Impact Reports (“EIR”); and
WHEREAS, the Downtown Transit Core (“DTC”) Sub-District is identified in the DSASP as the
area within 1/4 mile of the Caltrain station that is the most suitable location for the highest
intensity transit-oriented development in the Downtown; and
WHEREAS, the DSASP contains provisions increased density and floor area ratio beyond the
maximum base density with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit by City Council under the
“Maximum Density with Incentives Program,” with the provision of public benefits
demonstrated to be above and beyond the minimum required impact fees and other requirements
of a particular project; and
WHEREAS, since the time of adoption, the City has approved entitlements for five multi-family
residential projects within the DTC Sub-District resulting in 633 new residential units; and
WHERAS, one of the projects in the DTC Sub-District has been approved for a higher density
under the “Maximum Density with Incentives Program,” resulting in few public benefits being
realized in the Downtown; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to incentivize the development of high-density residential housing
adjacent to transit and realize additional public benefits for residents; and
WHEREAS, the City and PlaceWorks, Inc. prepared a 2018 Addendum to the 2015 DSASP EIR
in accordance with the provision of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and
CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, by separate Resolution, the Planning Commission has made findings and
recommended approval of the 2018 Addendum as the appropriate environmental document for
the Project; and
399
WHEREAS, on February 1, 2018, the Planning Commission conducted a property noticed public
hearing to consider making a recommendation to the City Council on Zoning Text Amendments,
General Plan Amendments, and Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Amendments; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the record before it,
which includes without limitation, CEQA and CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of
Regulations § 15000, et seq.; the South San Francisco General Plan and General Plan EIR,
including all amendments and updates thereto; the South San Francisco Municipal Code; the
Downtown Station Area Specific Plan, prepared by BMS Design Group, dated February 2015;
the draft Zoning Text Amendments, prepared by City staff and PlaceWorks Inc; the draft
General Plan Amendments, prepared by City staff and PlaceWorks Inc; the draft Downtown
Station Area Specific Plan Amendments, prepared by City staff and PlaceWorks Inc.; the 2018
Addendum to the 2015 DSASP EIR; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part
of the Planning Commission meeting on February 1, 2018; and any other evidence (within the
meaning of Public Resources Code § 21080(e) and § 21082.2) (“Record”), the City of South San
Francisco Planning Commission hereby finds as follows:
SECTION 1 FINDINGS
I. General Findings
1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution.
2. The Record for these proceedings, and upon which this Resolution is based, includes without
limitation, Federal and State law; the California Environmental Quality Act (Public
Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq. (“CEQA”)) and the CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code
of Regulations § 15000, et seq.); the South San Francisco General Plan and General Plan
EIR, including all amendments and updates thereto; the South San Francisco Municipal
Code; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning
Commission meeting on February 1, 2018 and any other evidence (within the meaning of
Public Resources Code §21080(e) and §21082.2).
3. The refinements, clarifications, and/or corrections set forth in the Zoning Text Amendments,
General Plan Amendments, and Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Amendments are
minor in nature, the adoption of which would not result in any new significant environmental
effects or a substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified effects beyond
those disclosed and analyzed in the DSASP EIR, IS/MND prepared for the Zoning
Ordinance, or General Plan EIR. Nor do the refinements, clarifications, and/or corrections
constitute a change in the project or change in circumstances that would require additional
environmental review.
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 Chief Planner, Sailesh Mehra.
II. Zoning Text Amendment Findings
400
1. The proposed Zoning Text Amendment is consistent with the adopted General Plan because
the Zoning Text Amendment will reinforce the General Plan policies promoting high-density
residential development adjacent to transit. With minor revisions as a General Plan
Amendment, the Zoning Text Amendment will be consistent with the General Plan. None of
the revisions to the Zoning Ordinance will conflict with or impede achievement of any of the
goals, policies, or land use designations established in the General Plan.
2. The Zoning Text Amendment applies to property that is entirely suitable in terms of access,
size of parcel, relationship to similar or related uses, and other considerations as deemed
relevant by the Planning Commission and City Council because the proposed revisions will
further promote high-density development in close proximity to transit with the provision of
community benefits.
3. The proposed Zoning Text Amendment does not change any zoning districts as already
identified in the Zoning Ordinance and therefore will not be detrimental to the use of land in
any adjacent zone.
III. General Plan Amendment Findings
1. The proposed General Plan Amendment for the Project will modify the Land Use Chapter
Table 2.2-1 (“Standards for Density and Development Intensity”), and Housing Element
Table 4.1-1 (“Land Use Designation, South San Francisco General Plan, 2015) to reflect the
increased density in the Downtown Transit Core Land Use Designation per the Maximum
Density with Incentives. These amendments are intended as minor alterations to the General
Plan related to implementation of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan.
2. The proposed General Plan Amendment for the Project will require an amendment to other
plans that the City Council has adopted, namely the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan,
and this is being done in tandem through resolution to ensure internal consistency with all
City adopted documents.
3. The 2018 Addendum to the 2015 Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR is the
appropriate environmental clearance for the proposed density increase since the changes to
not alter any of the previous EIR assumptions and no new significant impacts are identified.
IV. Downtown Station Area Plan Amendment Findings
1. The DSASP Amendment will modify development regulations but otherwise keeps the
DSASP entirely intact and consistent with the previously adopted document in January of
2015. With minor revisions as a General Plan Amendment, the DSASP Amendment will be
consistent with the General Plan.
2. The DSASP Amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety,
convenience, or welfare of the City as it makes modifications to the Maximum Density with
Incentives Program in the Downtown Transit Core District, but does not amend any of the
401
other development standards or other districts within the Plan Area.
3. The DSASP Amendment area is physically suitable for the proposed land use designation(s)
and the anticipated development since the revision increases the Maximum Density with
Incentives Program in areas that are most accessible to transit, and does not amend any of the
other development standards.
SECTION II. AMENDMENTS.
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council introduce an Ordinance to adopt
the Zoning Text Amendment (Exhibit A); adopt the General Plan Amendment (Exhibit B); and
adopt the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Amendment (Exhibit C). All other sections,
subsections, tables, figures, graphics and text that are not amended by the proposed Amendments
and draft Ordinance attached shall remain in full force and effect.
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 an Ordinance amending the South
San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 20.280 attached as Exhibit A, adopt the General Plan
Amendment attached as Exhibit B, and adopt the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan
Amendment attached as Exhibit C.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall become effective immediately
upon its passage and adoption.
* * * * * * *
I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the
City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting held on the 1st day of February, 2018 by the
following vote:
AYES: Chairperson Faria, Vice Chairperson Nagales, Commissioner Wong, Commissioner
Murphy, Commissioner Tzang
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:__Commissioner Shihadeh____________________
ABSENT:
Attest_/s/Sailesh Mehra__________
Secretary to the Planning Commission
402
February 1, 2018 Minutes Page 1 of 7
The video recording of this Regular Planning Commission meeting can be found at http://www.ssf.net/1996/Planning-Commission
MINUTES
February 1, 2018
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION
CALL TO ORDER / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TIME: 7:00 P.M.
ROLL CALL / CHAIR COMMENTS PRESENT: Chairperson Faria, Vice Chairperson
Nagales, Commissioner Shihadeh, Murphy, Wong,
Tzang
ABSENT:
AGENDA REVIEW
CONSENT CALENDAR
PUBLIC HEARING
1. Summerhill Apartment Communities/applicant Public Hearing Opened: 7:04 P.M.
Louise A Petrocchi TR ET AL/owner
988 El Camino Real
P17-0060: UP17-0013, DR17-0049, PM17-0004 & TDM17-0006
Use Permit, Design Review, Vesting Tentative Parcel Map, and Transportation Demand Management Plan to
construct a new 6-story mixed-use building with 172 residential units and 10,900 square feet of retail space at
988 El Camino Real in the El Camino Real/Chestnut Mixed Use High Density (ECR/C-MXH) Zoning District in
accordance with Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code and determination that the environmental
effects of the proposed project were sufficiently analyzed under the El Camino Real / Chestnut Area Plan
Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR), per the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA).
Public Hearing Closed: 7:58 P.M.
Commission Discussion begins 00:00:00 in video recording
• Commissioner Tzang stated that he was excited for this project, but one thing caught his eye. The BART
right-of-way within 30ft of above-ground parking, he thought this parking could not be built within 40ft. He
asked staff to help him understand what the developer has done in addressing that, and if the City is
setting any precedents by accepting this? Have there been any examples of this and what will the impacts
be?
• Senior Planner Friedman replied that the area we are discussing has eleven surface visitor parking spots
that are located approximately 30ft from the BART right-of-way that includes Centennial Way Trail. This
requirement is for aesthetic reasons and for enhancing the pedestrian environment, not for BART services
or access. The reason the site is organized out this way, and these parking spaces can’t be enclosed is
due to the PG&E easement. It runs right through this area, and no structure can be located within the
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
• Planning Manager Mehra presented former Planning Commissioner Aris Ruiz with a plaque.
403
February 1, 2018 Minutes Page 2 of 7
easement. There can be no permanent structures on top of it, for safety and maintenance. The surface
parking is setback from the trail, with landscape around it. In terms of precedent staff would have to look at
the circumstances and recommendations would need to be made on a case by case basis, and make sure
that the design meets the Zoning code requirements.
• Commissioner Tzang replied that in other words the 40ft is a guideline and considered for frontage,
aesthetics, and with that in mind you don’t find the site design harming the rule in which it was made.
• Senior Planner Friedman replied that staff does support the design, and believes the developer is adding a
lot to the Centennial Trail with landscaping and access.
• Commissioner Murphy stated that she had a few questions with the TDM plan. She has no issues with the
Bike-Ped Programs proposed. Her questions are regarding the telecommuting and the incentives for the
residents. Is there a sunset date on these items?
• Elaine Breeze replied that they are setup for a minimum of 3yrs but will keep going if the project’s TDM
goals aren’t met. The TDM is somewhat organic, so if we find that something is not working we can make
changes.
• Commissioner Murphy asked if the onsite Transportation Coordinator is a standalone position, or is that
going to be a leasing officer?
• Elaine Breeze replied that it’s a Leasing Officer that has a specific training. It’s a mandate that people are
well trained to do these things now.
• Commissioner Murphy asked if the Wi-Fi will be available in the café are and the public areas?
• Elaine Breeze replied that Wi-Fi is available for free in all the public areas, you can sit in the courtyard next
to the spa and use it.
• Fred Bravo – South City Car Wash Owner – Read letter attached to the staff report.
• Teresa Benavides – resident – Lives on Oak Ave, close to the corner of Chestnut Ave and El Camino
Real. In looking at the design, she understands that there is a need for housing, but is concerned with
safety. The safety of having an entrance or exit on Chestnut Ave. Just coming here tonight the traffic backs
up in such a large quantity throughout the day. The report says they are reducing peak hour traffic by 28%,
yet the peak traffic is backed up and very unsafe. I’ve ridden my bike, I walk frequently, and drive regularly
through this intersection and it’s always congested from El Camino Real all the way back to Grand Ave, in
the morning and evening. By adding 172 units, you are not going to reduce that peak hour traffic. You are
going to have a lot more cars coming out in that peak hour traffic on Antoinette Lane and Chestnut Ave.
The cars exiting onto Chestnut Ave will have to access the second lane in order to go left, and now you are
talking about a bulb out for pedestrians. How are those people supposed to maneuver? I don’t think you
thought this out very well, and how dangerous this will be for pedestrians and other people that travel it
regularly. This isn’t even taking into consideration the very large municipal center that’s going in across the
street. I understand the housing and municipal center is needed but the traffic entering or exiting in that
intersection is a mistake and it is a bad mistake waiting to happen.
• Dave Mauro- IBEW Business Manager – I have maintained my family home for years in South San
Francisco, and agree with the previous speaker about Chestnut Ave. The project has a lot of great
amenities, and he just hopes that they don’t accept the amenities in lieu of the hardworking men and
women of the building trades in San Mateo County. He hopes their incentives don’t take away from them.
He personally represents the IBEW Electricians of San Mateo County. Summerhill is a pretty good
developer and South San Francisco is a blue collar town and we hope they’ll remember us when the
project comes to fruition. Hope they will take us into consideration for this project.
• Commissioner Wong asked if there were any thoughts, ideas, or preference for the commercial spaces?
• Elaine Breeze replied that they have had their retail partner working with them and what they would like to
have out there is a mix of quick food restaurants, and retail combination.
• Commissioner Wong asked if the sidewalks were 11ft wide?
• Elaine Breeze responded that they are 10ft, but there is spillover room on Chestnut Ave up to 17ft for
outdoor seating.
• Commissioner Wong inquired as to if it will be consistent across the street at the Civic Center Campus?
• Senior Planner Friedman responded yes, it will be consistent with the Grand Boulevard Initiative
• Commissioner Wong stated that the commercial parking will be towards the back of the bldg. We don’t
allow parking on the street?
• Senior Planner Friedman replied that no, all project parking will onsite.
• Commissioner Wong stated that he saw the project back in August at the Housing Subcommittee, and
404
February 1, 2018 Minutes Page 3 of 7
would like to know what are the changes that were made?
• Elaine Breeze responded that one of the major changes was in the circulation plan. We had two entrances
on El Camino Real, and none off of Chestnut Ave. We now have one entrance on El Camino, as far as
possible form the corner and one on Chestnut, which will reduce the need to make a u-turn. . We agree
with the speaker and only have in-bound on Chestnut Ave, there will not be people exiting onto Chestnut.
We redesigned the whole front entry and a by-product was the corner design, which wraps around the
entire building. The sidewalk went from 8ft to 10ft.
• Commissioner Wong stated he does remember what the corners looked like and it looks much better and
open.
• Chairperson Faria inquired about the driveway that was between the commercial spaces on El Camino
and if it will only be an entrance?
• Elaine Breeze replied that based on the Housing Subcommittee’s comments, that driveway was
eliminated, and is now a large pedestrian walkway.
• Vice-Chair Nagales stated he had questions about the traffic study. The level of service in the morning is
E, which is not acceptable, and the level service in the evening peak hours is D, which is acceptable.
There is a longer delay of traffic and one of the mitigation factors is to synchronize the stoplights.
• Senior Planner Friedman replied to that one of the improvements will be to rework the signal timing.
• Vice-Chair Nagales asked that once we do the mitigation factors it stays the same?
• Senior Planner Friedman replied that is correct, the delays will not get any worse.
• Vice-Chair Nagales stated that in the morning the average delay is 56 seconds and in the evening the
average delay is 52 seconds. So, you are still waiting about 1 minute. I am trying to picture traffic from
similar projects like 636 El Camino Real, that had about 109 units, and the Park Station by BART. Both are
comparable projects. The traffic at the Park Station is coming from Costco. The 636 El Camino Real traffic
is from the school. I need to be convinced a little more other than the TDM and queueing. What other
mitigation factors in the entire region are being used to reduce traffic?
• Senior Planner Friedman replied that her answer would be somewhat Holistic in terms of mixed-use
development in general and also just creating walkability in the districts including the Civic center, it’s a big
picture policy issue to improve the pedestrian environment and reduce the need for car trips
• Planning Manager Mehra stated that he just wanted to build on what Senior Planner Friedman said, and
that we have to look at that one project is not going to make or break traffic conditions or make them better
or worse. It’s really about giving residents options and providing multi-modal options.
• Matt Ruble, Senior Civil Engineer stated that traffic timing is a complex task because El Camino Real and
Chestnut is a Caltrans intersection, so all the timing is coordinated between the City and Caltrans, The City
has a goal of doing adaptive signals which will bring people down from 280 down to El Camino Real. This
project specifically the lights were last set back in 2015, and part of this project will donate funds to help
update them. This one project is not going to severely impact traffic delays compared to the existing
conditions.
• Vice-Chair Nagales stated that at the community meeting he noticed there was concern about people
being pushed out, and he noticed that all the units are market rate. There is a housing crisis of affordability,
and if a developer comes we should always be good stewards to the City. I’ve always pushed for below
market rates, because I think it’s always important to have that, so the community knows that if you want to
stay here you can, and have the ability to do it. So, I’m asking the developer if they would consider below
market rates to this project?
• Elaine Breeze replied that they appreciate affordable housing and the request, and in this entitlement the
Zoning Code does not require it, but it did require a host of other amenities that we provided, including
those being presented tonight, for which we’ve wholeheartedly provided and been committed to.
• Vice-Chair Nagales stated there was a question about the workers and having good skilled workers. Are
you considering having area standard wages for this project?
• Elaine Breeze replied that this is a privately funded project, so there would not be any public funds
involved; there is no prevailing wage requirement. It will be bid competitively and there will be both union
and non-union workers on this site.
• Commissioner Shihadeh asked if the parking ratio for this project is different for the commercial spaces
than in the Downtown Area.
• Senior Planner Friedman replied that yes, it is. In the Downtown the first 1,500sq ft of retail / restaurant
space does not need to provide parking. The first 1,500sq ft is exempt, and after that the requirement is
one space per 350sq ft. So, it is definitely a higher ratio over here.
405
February 1, 2018 Minutes Page 4 of 7
• Commissioner Shihadeh stated that his comment to the developer is that 35 spaces for 11,000 sq ft retail,
food and beverage isn’t adequate, given that we have no parking on El Camino Real.
• Elaine Breeze replied that he is correct. The maximum parking permitted is lower than most, so that is
what we talked about with our retail broker. We want to have quick food service but offset that with a
service retailer that has a low parking demand. We have to find a balance.
• Commissioner Shihadeh asked what they were doing about the PG&E easement
• Elaine Breeze stated that in the beginning when we were trying to sort out the easements and things were
potentially going to develop. We reached out and filed an application with PG&E and their land department
to talk about the gas line easement to make sure we were designing the project properly. After the
community meeting we submitted a formal request with a full plan set that was consistent with the plans
you have, requesting confirmation that we had met the requirements of the easement. PG&E responded in
writing, and it has been submitted to the City, acknowledging that they’ve conditionally accepted what
we’ve presented but we will continue re-submitting formal construction documents. It’s important to us as
well.
• Senior Planner Friedman wanted to add that the letter is part of the file and is public record, and there is a
draft Condition of Approval that requires compliance of the PG&E easement.
• Commissioner Wong stated that he really liked what the developer has done, especially with the
Centennial Trail. That area looks a lot better than it did. Housing is sorely needed. Traffic has been brought
up several times, and as you are going through the project maybe ask Samtrans to move their stops. Move
them closer to your property. You are the first big project in that area, which will hopefully be a big nice
area with the Civic Center project going in too. Being the first, you are dealing with a lot of the issues first.
The project looks really good, and commercial properties can really re-energize the area. Definitely keep
the traffic in mind.
• Commissioner Murphy asked what the construction schedule looked like, and what steps are they taking to
alleviate traffic during that time?
• Elaine Breeze replied that they anticipate a two phase construction process, because the utility
undergrounding actually has to happen first, and then building construction can start. The undergrounding
process will be about three to four months, and the actual construction of the project will be twenty-four
months. We will have a detailed construction and traffic plan with the City. We have already reached out to
the Civic Center team to coordinate.
• Vice-Chair Nagales stated to follow up on that, what about South City Car Wash in terms of timeline and
construction? He is concerned about the employees that are there, and that they are given enough notice
to what’s happening. He is still seeing hiring signs up, and is concerned that they are going to hire that
person and then let them go within two to three months.
• Elaine Breeze replied that the carwash participated in the community meeting, and they are interested in
staying open as long as they can, and we respect that. We have agreed that if we receive approval, to
allow them to remain open for an entire year from now, through the end of February 2019. We want to be
good neighbors.
• Chairperson Faria wanted to compliment Summerhill on their work, and working with the City and the
community.
Adopt a resolution making findings and recommending to the City Council that the Project is exempt
from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines sections 15332, 15168, and
15183, and per Public Resources Code section 21155.4; and approval of the entitlements request for
Project P17-0060 including Use Permit (UP17-0013), Design Review (DR17-0049), Transportation
Demand Management Plan (TDM17-0006), and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map (PM17-0004), subject to
the attached draft Conditions of Approval.
Commissioner Wong /Second – Commissioner Murphy Approved by roll call vote (5-0-1)
406
February 1, 2018 Minutes Page 5 of 7
2. City of South San Francisco/applicant Public Hearing Opened: 8:24 P.M.
City of South San Francisco/owner
Citywide
P11-0097: ZA18-0001& GPA18-0001
Zoning Text Amendment to amend the South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 20.280 (“Downtown
Station Area Specific Plan District”) to increase the Maximum Density with Incentives in the Downtown Transit
Core (DTC) Sub-District, associated General Plan amendment, Downtown Station Area Specific Plan
amendment, and Addendum to the previously certified Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Environmental
Impact Report
Public Hearing Closed: 8:49 P.M.
Commission Discussion begins 01:34:03 in video recording
• Eric O’Connell – Resident at 306 Miller- stated that he currently has a crane over his house, and is in the thick
of the Downtown developments. He attended the community meeting and is not clear on the fact that only one
development has used the incentives program and the others aren’t?
• Senior Planner Friedman replied that is correct. There is one project that has submitted an application for the
density bonus with incentives program and that’s the project that is located at the old Ford Building, which was
approved through City council with a benefits package. There have been a few others, 200 Linden, the Rotary
Project, which received the State density bonus for provision of affordable housing.
• Eric O’Connell stated that as a member of the public, that actually lives down there, it would be great to
actually get a sense of what those benefits are. When we went to the Cadence Phase 2 Open House the other
day, they stated they were changing the pipes, because it floods down there. That seems more like a City
responsibility. What are we really getting in return, other than giving developers carte blanche to build more?
• Vice-Chair Nagales stated that he was really concerned about this proposal until he read the Placeworks
memo. He was thinking that we really needed more family friendly units, and he read the next statement that
2.5 percent of units in downtown developments are considered family housing (2-3 bedrooms or larger). In the
memo it said we could add a benefit focusing on that, and he suggested to the Commission that they add that.
• Senior Planner Friedman replied that just to clarify this would be adding another bullet point to the incentives
list to recommend the family housing as a community benefit.
• Commissioner Wong asked about the 180 units
• Senior Planner Friedman replied that the current maximum base density in the Downtown Transit Core is 100
units per acre, 120 with incentives, and this proposal would be 180 with the incentives program .
• Commissioner Wong asked with the research the City has done, is that the correct number? Is that going to
entice developers? Is that the right balance between what’s right for our City and what’s right for the
developer?
• Senior Planner Friedman replied that one reason that 180 is the threshold is that it can be achieved without
increasing height, or FAR, or reducing open space requirements. The development could look the same at 180
dwelling units per acre as it does with 120 and potentially even 100 depending on design.
• Commissioner Wong replied that would entice developers to provide these community benefits.
• Planning Manager Mehra replied that is correct. If understanding the questions correctly, when you develop at
200 units to the acre, it changes the type of construction which is concrete or steel which is more expensive.
For a developer to maximize that type of construction, building heights would have to be higher, and the DTC
density upzone is not proposing that.
• Commissioner Wong replied that basically a number that won’t change the physical form of the overall project.
• Senior Planner Friedman replied that was correct. It could achieve more units and ideally more benefits
without changing the look and feel.
• Commissioner Wong stated that he knows that is a problem that we have had in the past, enticing a developer
to actually provide those community benefits as opposed to just saying forget it and I’m just going to build
what’s permitted by code.
• Ken Busch – Sares Regis – Bay Area has a housing crisis, and this area the DTC is perfect for housing. It is
close to the relocated Caltrans Station, close to businesses, the biotech community, and the Downtown area.
We are the ones that were able to benefit from the density bonus, if we had not been able to receive that with
the Cadence Phase 1 project, we would not have been able to offer the City the community benefits package.
• Heather Arata – San Mateo County Health – submitted a letter of support
• Commissioner Murphy stated that she would like to echo the sentiments of the community benefits being
offered. The bonuses that the developers get are long lasting, and feels that the benefits to the community
need to be too. Several of them are funding and that follow through isn’t on the developer, it’s on the City,
especially about Streetscape enhancement. Her concern is if we are allowing these developers to basically
407
February 1, 2018 Minutes Page 6 of 7
write a check to get these bonuses that they are seeking, if we have the ability and will to actually see them to
fruition, because it will be on the City to get these done. There’s another option to add to this list, and since
there is intense construction going on in the Downtown Core and Grand Ave on both sides, this is a great
opportunity to have a developer pay for a survey of our Historic Downtown Core.
• Senior Planner Friedman replied that we will be embarking on a General Plan Update and the survey will be
included in the scope of work.
• Vice-Chair Nagales stated that he would like to verify that the Commission is agreed upon his
recommendation to include family-friendly housing as a community benefit.
• City Attorney Rosenberg stated that you can see if the Commission has consensus or make a motion and add
that on and if it is seconded, then that is the recommendation.
• Vice-Chair Nagales stated that according to the Placeworks memo we have nine incentives for community
benefits, and there is the ability here where additional incentives would encourage developers to build family
friendly units, which means 2 to 3br units. Commissioner Wong asked if it would be a requirement not a
recommendation?
• City Attorney Rosenberg replied that tonight the Commission is making a recommendation to the Council on
this proposed Zoning Text Amendment. There are two actions before you, one is the Resolution finding that
this project is in compliance with CEQA, and one is recommending to the Council adopt the Zoning Text
Amendment as presented in the staff report. What he believes Vice- Chair Nagales’ recommendation is,
approve the ordinance, but also recommends including an additional item under public benefits, as family
friendly housing units.
Motion to recommend that the City Council make a determination that the Project is fully within the
scope of environmental analysis in the previously certified 2015 Downtown Station Area Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) (EIR11-0003), that the 2018 Addendum is the appropriate
environmental document for the project, and that no further environmental review is required per the
California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”); and
Commissioner Vice-Chair Nagales /Second – Commissioner Murphy Approved by roll call vote (5-1-0)
Motion to adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an ordinance amending
Section 20.280 (“Downtown Station Area Specific Plan District”) of the South San Francisco Municipal
Code to increase the Maximum Density with Incentives in the Downtown Transit Core (“DTC”) Sub-
District, adopt the associated General Plan Amendment, and adopt the associated Downtown Station
Area Specific Plan Amendment.
Commissioner Vice-Chair Nagales /Second – Commissioner Wong Approved by roll call vote (5-1-0)
ADMINISTRATIVE
2. Presentation by Deputy ECD Director Nell Selander on current Housing Policies.
3. Annual Planning Commission Reorganization
• Commissioner Murphy nominated Vice-Chair Nagales for Chair.
Motion to appoint Vice-Chair Nagales as Chair of the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Murphy / Second - Commissioner Shihadeh Approved by roll call vote (6-0-0)
• Commissioner Faria nominated Commissioner Murphy for Vice- Chair.
Motion to appoint Commissioner Murphy as Vice-Chair of the Planning Commisison.
Commissioner Faria / Second – Chairperson Nagales Approved by roll call vote (6-0-0)
4. Discussion and Designation of the Housing sub-committee of the Planning Commission
408
February 1, 2018 Minutes Page 7 of 7
• Chairperson Nagales appointed Commissioners Faria and Wong to the Housing Subcommittee with
Commissioner Shihadeh as the alternate.
ITEMS FROM STAFF
• Planning Manager Mehra presented outgoing Chairperson Norm Faria with a plaque for his service as Chair.
ITEMS FROM COMMISSION
ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC
None.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairperson Faria adjourned the meeting at 9:10 P.M.
Sailesh Mehra Mark Nagales, Chairperson
Secretary to the Planning Commission Planning Commission
City of South San Francisco City of South San Francisco
409
City Council Hearing
February 28, 2018
1 410
DTC District
New Caltrain
Station & Plaza
411
Table 20.280.004-1, DSASP Development Standards
Standard DTC
Min. Lot Size 5,000
Min. Lot Width 50
Min. Lot Depth n/a
Min. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 2.0
Max. FAR 6.0
Max. FAR with Incentives
Program 8.0
Min. Density 80
Max. Density 100
Max. Density with Incentives
Program 120 180
412
4
Additional Density and/or FAR through the provision
of public benefits:
a)Local hire program
b)Public art
c)Streetscape enhancements identified in DSASP
d)Enhanced public spaces
e)Public safety facilities, community spaces, child care, or similar
f)Tenant space for local businesses, or existing businesses in
need of relocation
g)Green building measures over SSFMC requirements
h)Transit subsidy or other incentives for residents / employees
i)Family-friendly (2- and 3-bedroom) residential units
j)Other developer proposed incentives achieving similar public
benefit
413
5 414
6
Project # UNITS DU /
AC
TYPE OF UNITS HEIGHT
(FEET)
PARK ING
SPAC ES NOTES ST 1 BR 2 BR 3
BR
Cadence 272 117 42 101 121 8 72 363
Density Bonus with
Incentives Program,
Effective Density 160
du/ac
418 Linden 38 118 4 18 11 5 60 47
State Density
Bonus; 20%
Affordable*
"Pinefino"
211
Airport
69 100 7 62 0 60 106 Base Density
200
Linden 97 135 22 70 5 85 109
State Density
Bonus; 20%
Affordable*
150
Airport 157 100 112 45 0 85 183 Base Density
415
Several potential sites in the
DTC could accommodate 180
du / ac
Parking would be dependent
on site configuration
One project in entitlement
pipeline
7 416
Open house: Wednesday,
December 6
Approximately 20 attendees
Generally supportive of
Downtown development
Community concerns / issues:
◦Overcrowding, gentrification,
parking, pedestrian environment
8 417
January 2015, City Council certified DSASP EIR
EIR Addendum findings:
◦Increasing the maximum density w/ incentives in
the DTC would not result in a new impact
◦Would not result in substantial increase in
magnitude of existing impacts
DSASP EIR & Addendum do not address / consider
residential development beyond the 1,435 unit cap
418
Planning Commission recommended approval on
February 1
Staff recommends that City Council take the following
actions:
◦Adopt a resolution making findings and a determination
that the project is within the scope of the previously
certified EIR, and that the 2018 Addendum is the
appropriate environmental document
◦Adopt a resolution approving General Plan and DSASP
amendments
◦Introduce an Ordinance for the Zoning Text Amendments
10 419
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:18-115 Agenda Date:2/28/2018
Version:1 Item #:3a.
Resolution making findings and a determination that the Zoning Text Amendment to amend the Maximum
Density with Incentives in the Downtown Transit Core Sub-District of the Downtown Station Area Plan and
associated General Plan and Downtown Station Area Specific Plan amendments are fully within the scope of
environmental analysis as described in the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan 2015 Environmental Impact
Report and that the 2018 Addendum is the appropriate environmental document for the project
WHEREAS,the City of South San Francisco (“City”)adopted the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan
(“DSASP”)in February 2015,to guide and facilitate future growth and transit-oriented development on
properties within a one-half mile radius of the reconfigured and improved Caltrain Station,with a focus on
revitalizing Downtown as a vibrant destination; and
WHEREAS,City staff and the City’s consultant,PlaceWorks,Inc.,have prepared amendments to the South San
Francisco Zoning Ordinance (“Zoning Text Amendments”)to amend the Maximum Density with Incentives in
the Downtown Transit Core (“DTC”)Sub-District of the DSASP from 120 dwelling units/acre to 180 dwelling
units/acre,to encourage additional multi-family development adjacent to transit and community benefits in the
Downtown; and
WHEREAS,the revisions to the South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance requires amendments to the South San
Francisco General Plan (“General Plan Amendments”),and the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan
(“DSASP Amendments”)to ensure consistency between the revised Zoning Ordinance and all other governing
documents; and
WHEREAS,environmental analysis for the proposed Zoning Text Amendment was conducted,which
concluded that the environmental effects associated with implementation of the revised density are fully within
the scope of the environmental analysis conducted in the 2015 Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”),such that
the Zoning Text Amendment does not meet the criteria under California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”)
Guidelines Sections 15164 or 15162 justifying preparation of a subsequent EIR and thus,an addendum is the
appropriate environmental document for the Project; and
WHEREAS,pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164,City staff and PlaceWorks,Inc.prepared an
addendum to the 2015 EIR for the Project (“2018 Addendum”)(Exhibit A),which along with the 2015 EIR
(Exhibit B) is attached hereto and incorporated herein; and
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission reviewed and recommended by resolution that the City Council make a
City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/18/2024Page 1 of 3
powered by Legistar™420
File #:18-115 Agenda Date:2/28/2018
Version:1 Item #:3a.
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission reviewed and recommended by resolution that the City Council make a
determination that the 2018 DSASP EIR Addendum is the appropriate environmental document for the
proposed density increase in the DTC sub-district at a public hearing on February 1, 2018; and
WHEREAS,the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on February 28,2018,at which time
interested parties had the opportunity to be heard,to review the Zoning Text Amendment as well as the
environmental analysis, prior to the City Council making its decision on the Project; and
WHEREAS,the City Council exercised its independent judgment and analysis,and considered all reports,
recommendations and testimony before making a determination on the Project.
NOW THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,based on the entirety of the record before it,which includes
without limitation,the California Environmental Quality Act,Public Resources Code §21000,et seq.and the
CEQA Guidelines,14 California Code of Regulations §15000,et seq.;the South San Francisco General Plan,
and General Plan Environmental Impact Report;the South San Francisco Municipal Code;2015 EIR,and
associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Programs;and all reports,minutes,and public testimony
submitted as part of the City Council’s duly noticed February 28,2018 meeting;and any other evidence (within
the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e)and §21082.2),the City Council of the City of South San
Francisco hereby finds as follows:
A.General Findings
1.The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution.
2.The Exhibit A (2018 Addendum)and Exhibit B (2015 EIR)attached to this resolution are incorporated
by reference and 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 Planning Manager.
B.CEQA Findings
1.The City Council,pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164,subsection (d),has considered the 2018
Addendum prepared for the Project including the related environmental analysis,along with the previously
certified 2015 EIR.
2.Upon consideration of the 2018 Addendum,the City Council finds that 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 EIR.
3.The Project will not create any new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts as
City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/18/2024Page 2 of 3
powered by Legistar™421
File #:18-115 Agenda Date:2/28/2018
Version:1 Item #:3a.
3.The Project will not create any new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts as
compared to those already identified and analyzed in the 2015 EIR.Further,the City Council 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.Nor are any new or
additional mitigation measures required to mitigate any impacts of the Project.
4.Accordingly,the City Council finds that per CEQA Guidelines section 15162 the Project does not
require any further CEQA review,and that the 2018 Addendum,prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
section 15164, is the appropriate environmental document for approval of the Project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby makes the
findings contained in this resolution,and determines that the 2018 Addendum is the appropriate environmental
document for approval of the Zoning Text Amendment and no further environmental review is required.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and
adoption.
*****
City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/18/2024Page 3 of 3
powered by Legistar™422
January 2018 | Addendum to Environmental Impact Report
SCH #201310200
DRAFT
Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR
Addendum
City of South San Francisco
Prepared for:
City of South San Francisco
Contact: Adena Friedman, Senior Planner
City of South San Francisco |
Economic & Community Development Department
PO Box 711 | South San Francisco, CA 94083-0711
(650) 877-8535
adena.friedman@ssf.net
Prepared by:
PlaceWorks
Contact: Terri McCracken, Associate Principal
1625 Shattuck Avenue, Suite 300
Berkeley, California 94709
(510) 848-3815
info@placeworks.com
www.placeworks.com
423
424
January 2018 Page 1
Section Page
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................ 3
1.1 BACKGROUND, PURPOSE, AND SCOPE ................................................................................................... 3
1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES ............................................................................................................. 3
2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................................................................... 5
2.1 LOCATION AND SETTING ......................................................................................................................... 5
2.2 STUDY AREA ............................................................................................................................................. 5
2.3 BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................................................... 5
2.4 PROPOSED CHANGES .............................................................................................................................. 6
3. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................ 15
3.1 AESTHETICS ............................................................................................................................................ 15
3.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES.......................................................................................... 16
3.3 AIR QUALITY ........................................................................................................................................... 17
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ....................................................................................................................... 23
3.5 CULTURAL & TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ....................................................................................... 25
3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ............................................................................................................................. 29
3.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ............................................................................................................. 31
3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ............................................................................................. 34
3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ...................................................................................................... 35
3.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING.................................................................................................................... 37
3.11 MINERAL RESOURCES ........................................................................................................................... 38
3.12 NOISE ..................................................................................................................................................... 39
3.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING ................................................................................................................ 42
3.14 PUBLIC SERVICES ................................................................................................................................... 43
3.15 RECREATION........................................................................................................................................... 44
3.16 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC .................................................................................................................. 45
3.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ......................................................................................................... 49
3.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ........................................................................................... 50
4. LIST OF PREPARERS ......................................................................................................................................... 53
425
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
Table of Contents
Page 2 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
426
January 2018 Page 3
1. Introduction
1.1 BACKGROUND, PURPOSE, AND SCOPE
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq. and the
State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Sections 15000 et. seq.), recognizes that between
the date an environmental document is completed and the date the project is fully implemented, one or
more of the following changes may occur: 1) the project may change; 2) the environmental setting in
which the project is located may change; 3) laws, regulations, or policies may change in ways that impact
the environment; and/or 4) previously unknown information can arise. Before proceeding with a project,
CEQA requires the lead agency to evaluate these changes to determine whether or not they affect the
conclusions in the environmental document.
This document is an Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Downtown Station Area
Specific Plan (DSASP), State Clearinghouse (SCH) No. 2013102001, certified on January 28, 2015. The
project analyzed in the 2015 EIR and adopted by the City of South San Francisco was the DSASP. Together
the DSASP and the 2015 EIR are considered the “Approved Project” and the “Certified EIR,” respectively.
The purpose of this Addendum is to analyze the impacts of the proposed modifications to the text and
buildout potential of the Approved Project, herein referred to as the Modified Project as required
pursuant to the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. The Modified Project does not
increase development potential beyond the boundaries analyzed in the Certified EIR. Pursuant to the
provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of San South San Francisco is the lead agency
charged with the responsibility of deciding whether or not to approve the proposed action.
1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES
Pursuant to Section 21166 of CEQA and Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, when an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no
subsequent EIR or negative declaration shall be prepared for the project unless the lead agency
determines that one or more of the following conditions are met:
Substantial project changes are proposed that will require major revisions of the previous EIR or
negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
Substantial changes would occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is
undertaken that require major revisions to the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the
involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified significant effects; or
427
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
1. Introduction
Page 4 PlaceWorks
New information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known with
the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified or the negative
declaration was adopted shows any 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 identified 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 proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives.
d) Mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in
the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the
environment, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measures or
alternatives.
Where none of the conditions specified in Section 15162 1 are present, the lead agency must determine
whether to prepare an Addendum or whether no further CEQA documentation is required (CEQA
Guidelines Section 15162[b]). An Addendum is appropriate where some minor technical changes or
additions to the previously certified EIR are necessary, but there are no new or substantially more severe
significant impacts (CEQA Guidelines Section 15164).
In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, the City has determined that an Addendum to the Certified EIR
is the appropriate environmental clearance for the Modified Project. This Addendum reviews the changes
proposed by the Modified Project and examines whether, as a result of any changes or new information, a
subsequent EIR may be required. This examination includes an analysis of the provisions of Section 21166
of CEQA and Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines and their applicability to the Modified Project.
This Addendum relies on the attached environmental analysis, which addresses environmental checklist
issues section by section. The checklist includes findings as to the physical environmental impact of the
Modified Project in comparison with the findings of the Certified EIR.
1 See also Section 15163 of the State CEQA Guidelines, which applies the requirements of Section 15162 to supplemental EIRs.
428
January 2018 Page 5
2. Project Description
2.1 LOCATION AND SETTING
South San Francisco is a city approximately 30 square miles in size on the San Francisco Peninsula. The city
lies at the northern end of San Mateo County, just 9 miles south of San Francisco. South San Francisco is
bordered by the cities of Brisbane, Colma, and Daly City to the north, Pacifica to the west, San Bruno and
the San Francisco International Airport (SFO) to the south, and the San Francisco Bay to the west. The city
is accessed by U.S. Highway 101 (US-101), Interstate 280, and State Route 82 (El Camino Real), all which
function as major north/south regional connectors.
2.2 STUDY AREA
The study area is the same area covered by the DSASP, which is defined by an approximate 0.5-mile radius
around the Downtown Caltrain station. The study area is located slightly north of the Airport Boulevard
and Grand Avenue intersection and below the US-101-elevated segment and the Grand Avenue overpass.
The study area excludes lower-density/hillside residential areas in the north and west where no change is
proposed or appropriate, and excludes areas east of US-101 where newer commercial uses suggest no
change is likely during the time period covered by the DSASP. The study area boundary includes the South
San Francisco Caltrain station and the majority of commercial and civic development in the City’s
Downtown neighborhood. A portion of the study area extends east of US-101, directly adjacent to the
Caltrain station, but excludes the majority of the existing office and industrial development east of US-
101. The study area is generally bound by Hillside Boulevard and Linden Avenue to the north, Gateway
Boulevard and Dubuque Avenue to the east, Railroad Avenue and Canal Street to the south, and Spruce
Avenue and Maple Avenue to the west.
2.3 BACKGROUND
2.3.1 Planning Process Leading to Approved Project
On January 28, 2015, the City of South San Francisco adopted the South San Francisco DSASP to guide the
City in its planning efforts to create a vibrant, transit-supportive, diverse Downtown, particularly the area
surrounding the City’s Caltrain commuter rail station. The process of preparing the DSASP occurred over a
30-month timeframe, starting in February 2012, with a draft made public in Summer 2014, and with
Planning Commission and Council consideration in Fall 2014. The DSASP was the result of a community-
based vision for the Downtown area of the City, centered on the South San Francisco Caltrain Station to
achieve an important City and regional goal of supporting transit ridership as part of a sustainable future.
429
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
2. Project Description
Page 6 PlaceWorks
The DSASP was prepared to guide future development in the portions of the City of South San Francisco
that lie within a 0.5-mile radius of the Caltrain Station. The DSASP identified sub-districts and established
the parameters for future development in each sub-district. The DSASP serves as a blueprint for future
change and improvements in the Downtown and adjoining areas. The Certified EIR contains an
assessment of the potential environmental impacts resulting from implementing the DSASP (Approved
Project).
2.3.2 Planning Process Leading to Proposed Modified Project
Under the Approved Project, the Downtown Transit Core (DTC) is the zoning sub-district close to the
Caltrain Station that was established to accommodate high density transit-oriented development (TOD).
Currently, the DTC allows for a maximum base density of 100 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) and includes
a Maximum Density with Incentives Program of 120 du/ac and a maximum height of 85 feet. There have
been eight large-scale residential projects that have been entitled since the Approved Project (i.e., DSASP)
was adopted, five were in the DTC district, and three are located in other districts. Of the five projects in
the DTC, only one project applicant has opted to use the Maximum Density with Incentives Program, two
project applicants opted to use the State Density Bonus with affordable housing, and the remaining two
project applicants opted not to apply for any density bonus, and proposed projects consistent with the
maximum base density. Because this entitlement pattern has resulted in few community benefits, a
zoning change was necessary to maximize the benefits, and encourage additional residential TOD. At a
Housing Standing Committee meeting on May 1, 2017, committee members supported making changes
to the Approved Project that would result in an increase in density in the DTC per the Maximum Density
with Incentives Program.
Under the proposed Modified Project, the Maximum Density with Incentives allowance would increase to
180 du/ac within the DTC as a way to realize additional residential units in locations that are most
accessible to transit and amenities within the Downtown, and to gain additional community benefits for
South San Francisco residents.
2.4 PROPOSED CHANGES
2.4.1 Summary of Proposed Changes
The proposed Modified Project consists of the following revisions to the Approved Project, which are
described in more detail below. In summary, the proposed Modified Project consists of changing the
density in the Downtown Core from 120 du/ac to 180 du/ac and associated text and buildout potential
revisions. The proposed changes to the Approved Project, which constitute the Modified Project, are
shown below in strikeout text to indicate deletions and in underlined text to signify additions.
430
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
2. Project Description
January 2018 Page 7
2.4.1.1 REQUIRED AMENDMENTS TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE
MUNICIPAL CODE TABLE 20.280.004-1: LOT, DENSITY, AND FAR STANDARDS - DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN SUB-DISTRICTS
Standard DTC GAC DRC TO/RD LCC LNC Additional
Standards
Minimum Lot Size (sq. ft.) 5,000 5,000 5,000 10,000 5,000 5,000
Minimum Lot Width (sq. ft.) 50 50 50 50 50 50
Minimum Lot Depth (sq. ft.) n/a n/a 80 n/a 80 n/a
Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
Minimum FAR 2.0 1.5 n/a 1.5 n/a 2.0
Maximum FAR 6.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 n/a 3.0
Exclusive of
structured
parking
Maximum FAR with Incentive
Program 8.0 4.0 3.25 (1) 3.5 n/a n/a
Exclusive of
structured
parking
Residential Density (units per acre;
included within FAR above)
Minimum Density 80 14 40 n/a 20.1 40
Maximum Density 100 60 80 n/a 40 60
Maximum Density with Incentive
Program. Does not include
density bonuses allowed per
Chapter 20.390 Bonus
Residential Density
120
180 (A)
80 (A) / 100
(2)(A)
100 (A) / 125
(1)(A) n/a n/a 80 (A)
Limitations:
1 For qualifying affordable Senior Housing projects.
2 For developments on corner parcels or lots greater than one acre.
2.4.1.2 REQUIRED AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN
If the density change in the Municipal Code is adopted, the following changes will be required to be made
to the General Plan’s Land Use Element and Housing Element.
Land Use Element
The Downtown Transit Core allows up to 100 dwelling units per acre; a minimum of 80 dwelling units per
acre is required. A maximum of 120 180 dwelling units per acre would be allowed for development
meeting specified criteria. Ground level retail uses will be encouraged throughout the area.
431
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
2. Project Description
Page 8 PlaceWorks
TABLE 2.2-1 STANDARDS FOR DENSITY AND DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY
Land Use Designation
Minimum
Required
FAR
Residential
Density
(unit/net acre)
Maximum
Permitted
FAR
Maximum Permitted with Incentives and
Bonuses
Units/Net Acre FAR (See Table 2.2-2)
Residential2,3
Low Density - up to 8.0 0.5 10.0 -
Medium Density - 8.1 – 18.0 1.0 22.5 -
High Density - 18.1 – 30.0 - 37.5 -
Downtown
Downtown Residential -
Low Density - 5.1 – 15.0 0.7 15.0 -
Medium Density - 15.1 – 25.0 1.25 31.3 -
High Density - 20.1 – 40.0 - 50.03 -
Downtown Transit Core 2.0 80.1 – 100.0 6.0 120.0 180.0 8.0
Grand Avenue Core 1.5 14.1 - 60.0 3.0 80.0/100.0 4.0
Linden Neighborhood Center 2.0 40.1 - 60.0 3.0 80.0 -
Downtown Residential Core - 40.1 - 80.0 3.0 100.0/125.04 3.254
Office - - 1.0 - 2.55
Commercial
Transit Office/R&D Core 1.5 - 1.5 - 2.5 - 3.5
Community Commercial - - 0.5 - -
Business Commercial6 - - 0.5 - 1.05
Hotel - - 1.2 - 2.0
Coastal Commercial6 - - - - -
Retail - - 0.5 - 1.0
Office - - 1.0 - 1.6
Hotel - - 1.6 - 2.2
Mixed Use
El Camino Real Mixed Use7 0.68 up to 60.09 2.510 up to 80.09 3.510
El Camino Real Mixed Use North,
High Intensity 0.611 up to 80 2.0 up to 110 up to 3.0
El Camino Real Mixed Use North,
Medium Intensity 0.611 up to 40 1.5 up to 60 up to 2.5
Industrial
Business and Technology Park - - 0.5 - 1.012
Mixed Industrial - - 0.4 - 0.613
Business Commercial6 - - 0.5 - 10.86
432
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
2. Project Description
January 2018 Page 9
TABLE 2.2-1 STANDARDS FOR DENSITY AND DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY
Land Use Designation
Minimum
Required
FAR
Residential
Density
(unit/net acre)
Maximum
Permitted
FAR
Maximum Permitted with Incentives and
Bonuses
Notes:
1 Including garages for residential development, but excluding parking structures for non-residential development, except for El Camino Real Mixed Use.
2 20 percent density bonus is available for development within ¼-mile of a fixed-guideway transit (CalTrain or BART station or City-designated ferry
terminal).
3 25 percent bonus is available for projects with affordable housing, housing for elderly residents with specific amenities designed for residents, or housing
that meets community design standards that may be specified in the Zoning Ordinance.
4 For qualifying affordable senior housing projects.
5 Required parking must be structured.
6 See Table 2.2-2. The Gateway Business Park Master Plan and the Oyster Point Specific Plan are permitted to develop up to a FAR of 1.25 with a TDM.
7 Frontage of a site along El Camino Real and other Arterial/Collector streets in the corridor is required to be devoted to active uses. Residential not
permitted at ground level along El Camino Real except on the east side of El Camino Real between First Street and West Orange Avenue, subject to
conditional use permit approval.
8 For sites larger than 20,000 square feet, the minimum FAR for all uses, exclusive of substantially above-grade structured parking, shall be 0.6, of which a
minimum 0.3 FAR shall be active uses. The requirement for a minimum 0.3 FAR of active uses does not apply to projects where 30% of the units are
restricted and affordable to low- or low-moderate-income households.
9 Included within FAR limit.
10 Includes residential and substantially above grade parking structures. Excludes surface parking.
11 A minimum 0.3 FAR of the required 0.6 shall be active uses. The requirement for a minimum 0.3 FAR of active uses does not apply to projects where 30%
of the units are restricted and affordable to low- or lowmoderate-income households.
12 Permitted for research and development uses with low employment intensity, or other uses providing structured parking.
13 Permitted for uses with low employment intensity, such as wholesaling, warehousing, and distribution
Housing Element
TABLE 4.1-1 LAND USE DESIGNATION, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN, 2015
Land Use Designation Maximum Allowable Density
Residential Low Density 8 du/acre
Residential Medium Density 18 du/acre
Residential High Density 30 du/acre
Downtown Residential Low Density 15 du/acre
Downtown Residential Medium Density 25 du/acre
Downtown Residential High Density 40 du/acre
Downtown Commercial No Maximum/Residential Allowed on Upper Floors
Transit Village Residential Medium Density 30 du/acre
Transit Village Residential High Density 50 du/acre
Transit Village Commercial 30 du/acre
Transit Village Retail 50 du/acre
El Camino Real Mixed Use
60 du/acre
(up to 80 du/acre with density bonus and
incentives)
Downtown Transit Core 100 du/acre
(up to 120 180 du/acre with Incentive Program)
433
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
2. Project Description
Page 10 PlaceWorks
TABLE 4.1-1 LAND USE DESIGNATION, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN, 2015
Land Use Designation Maximum Allowable Density
Grand Avenue Core 60 du/acre
(up to 100 du/acre with Incentive Program)
Downtown Residential Core 80 du/acre
(up to 125 du/acre with Incentive Program)
Linden Neighborhood Center 60 du/acre
(up to 80 du/acre with Incentive Program)
Linden Commercial Center 40 du/acre
Source: South San Francisco General Plan, 1999.
2.4.1.3 REQUIRED AMENDMENTS TO THE DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
If the density change in the Municipal Code is adopted, the following changes will be required to be made
to the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan.
The Downtown Transit Core allows up to 100 dwelling units per acre; a minimum of 80 dwelling units per
acre is required. A maximum of 120 180 dwelling units per acre would be allowed for development
meeting specified criteria. Ground level retail uses will be encouraged throughout the area.
TABLE 3.01 STANDARDS FOR DENSITY AND DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY
Land Use Designation
Residential
Density
du/net ac
Max FAR
Maximum Residential
Density with Discretionary
Approval and Incentive-
Based Bonuses1
Maximum FAR with
Discretionary
Approval and
Incentive-based
Bonuses1
Downtown
Downtown Transit Core 80 - 100 6.0 120 180 8.0
Grand Avenue Core 14 - 60 3.0 80/1002 4.0
Linden Commercial Corridor 20 - 40 - - -
Linden Neighborhood Center 40 - 60 3.0 80 -
Downtown Residential Core 40 - 80 3.0 100 3.253
Downtown High Density Residential 20 - 40 - - -
Eastern Neighborhood
Transit Office/R&D Core - 1.5 - 2.5 - 3.5
Notes
1 Does not include density bonuses allowed per Chapter 20.390 Bonus Residential Density
2 Corner properties/sites greater than 1/2 acre
3 For qualifying affordable senior housing projects
434
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
2. Project Description
January 2018 Page 11
2.4.1.4 BUILDOUT POTENTIAL
The Certified EIR included an evaluation of a total of 2,861 residential units2 in the DSASP area and
roughly half of those units (1,426) units existed in the study area at the time of the preparation of the
Certified EIR. This left a remaining 1,435 units to be built within the DSASP. Since certification of the EIR,
765 units have been entitled and/or constructed. This leaves a total of 670 additional units that could be
built within the study area under the Certified EIR.
The City prepared a preliminary analysis to evaluate which sites in the DTC have the potential to develop
at the 180 du/ac density. The analysis indicted that there are four potential sites within the DTC district
that are not currently entitled and are large enough to accommodate this type of development (see
Figure 1). These sites are speculative; they were identified because they had one or more of the following
characteristics and were adjacent to other such lots so could be acquired to result in a development site
of an appropriate size to develop at such a density:
Vacant lots
Surface parking lots
1-story buildings
Note that three of the four sites that have been identified with potential to redevelop at 180 du/ac would
require consolidation of multiple adjacent parcels, which may currently be under separate ownership.
There are other sites that are greater than 10,000 square feet, however they are less likely to redevelop at
a density of 180 du/ac due to their dimensions and size limitations. However, for a conservative analysis,
the maximum density across the four sites will be analyzed.
2 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (DSASP), State Clearinghouse (SCH) No.
2013102001, certified on January 28, 2015, page 4.5-11.
435
TAMARACK LN
MAPLE AVE
E G R A N D A V E
CYPRESS AVE
AIRPORT BLVD
MILLER AVE
LUX AVE
CALIFORNIA AVE
S LINDEN AVE
GRAND AVE
RAILROAD AVE
2ND LN
BADEN AVE
1ST LN
COMMERCIAL AVE
3RD LN
6TH LN
4TH LN
VILLAGE WY
VILLAGE WY
Figure 1
Development Possibilities in Downtown Transit Core
Source: City of South San Francisco, 2017; PlaceWorks, 2017.
2. Project Description
C I T Y O F S O U T H S A N F R A N C I S C O
D O W N T O W N S T A T I O N A R E A S P E C I F I C P L A N E I R A D D E N D U M
0 200 400100
Feet
Downtown Transit Core
Parcels > 10,000 s.f.
Parcels Already
Developed/Entitled
Likely to Redevelop
Parcels > 10,000 s.f.33101
SITE 3
0.9 acres
SITE 4
0.6 acres
SITE 2
0.74 acres
SITE 1
0.92 acres
436
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
2. Project Description
January 2018 Page 13
Table 1 below shows the development potential of each of these four development sites and compares it
to the number of units the site would accommodate without a zoning change. Rather than compare 120
du/ac to the increased 180 du/ac, this analysis takes a conservative (largest development potential)
approach and compares the maximum density that is currently being pursued by the majority of recent
downtown development applications, which is 100 du/ac. Therefore, the maximum number of units
would increase by a total of 252 units across the four sites, assuming the maximum density of 180 du/ac.
It is important to note that the development potential was analyzed assuming a higher density, but all
other current development standards remain the same (including height and floor area ratio).
TABLE 1 OPPORTUNITY SITES IN THE DOWNTOWN TRANSIT CORE
Sites Maximum
Density*
Maximum Density
With Rezone
Acreage Dwelling Units
w/o Rezone
Dwelling Units
with Rezone
Difference
Site 1 100 180 0.92 92 165 73
Site 2 100 180 0.74 74 133 59
Site 3 100 180 0.90 90 162 72
Site 4 100 180 0.60 60 108 48
Total 316 568 252
Notes:
*This is the maximum density allowed in the DTC without the Incentive Program.
This higher density could only be achieved on larger development sites. It is assumed that only sites with a
minimum area of 10,000 square feet and with a minimum dimension of 170 feet in one direction would
be able to reach the 180 du/ac maximum. Because the Type V wood construction over podium parking is
the most feasible construction method, a project including 5 stories of residential units above a 2-story
parking podium is the best way to achieve 180 du/ac given the existing parking and height requirements.
With the proposed density increase of 180 du/ac within the DTC, there is an increase of development
potential for 252 additional units on the four identified sites. The density increase would not increase the
1,435-unit DSASP development cap and the 670 units remaining to be built in the DSASP would remain
the same with the approval of the addendum. Future development in the DSASP that propose additional
residential development beyond the 1,435-unit DSASP development cap would require separate
environmental review, when applicable as required by CEQA, which could be in the form of an Exemption,
Negative or Mitigated Negative Declaration, or a Subsequent EIR, to secure the necessary development
permits. Subsequent environmental review may be tiered from the DSASP EIR, but the DSASP EIR and this
addendum are not intended to address residential development beyond the 1,435-unit cap.
437
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
2. Project Description
Page 14 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
438
January 2018 Page 15
3. Environmental Analysis
As detailed in Section 2.4, Proposed Changes, the Modified Project would predominantly consist of
increased density in the Downtown Core from 120 du/ac to 180 du/ac and associated text and buildout
potential revisions.
CEQA identifies and analyzes the significant effects on the environment, where “significant effect on the
environment” means a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in any of the physical
condition (CEQA Guidelines Section 15382). The proposed changes under the Modified Project, which
does not increase the development potential evaluated under the Certified EIR, are analyzed below.
3.1 AESTHETICS
3.1.1 Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
Would the proposed project:
Environmental Issues
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Significant
Effects
Less Than
Significant
Impacts/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of
an EIR/MND No Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista? x
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway?
x
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
x
d) Create a new source of substantial light
or glare which would adversely affect
day or nighttime views in the area?
x
439
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 16 PlaceWorks
Comments:
The proposed Modified Project would increase the maximum density in the DTC sub-district of the DSASP
planning area. Because there is no change in the height or FAR , implementing this proposed change would
not result in building heights beyond what is established in the Approved Project. General Plan
Implementing Policy 3.1-I-4 establishes a height overlay zones in the Municipal Code that do not maintain
separate height requirements tied to underlying land uses. The increased density and unchanged FAR
policy would not result in changed building heights. General Plan Guiding Policy 3.1-G-3 aims to promote
infill development, intensification, and reuse of currently underutilized sites. The increase in residential
density would satisfy the General Plan policy goal of intensification and would better utilize sites in the
DTC. Additionally, the Certified EIR found that aesthetic-related impacts of the DSASP would be less than
significant. The increase in residential density in the Downtown Transit Core of the DSASP would result in
changes at the policy level and does not include specific development proposals. For this reason, and due
to the project location (not in the viewshed of a scenic highway) and because no height increases would
occur, the proposed increase to density on the four designated sites in the DSASP under the Modified
Project have no impact on scenic vistas, scenic resources within a state scenic highway nor would it result
in new sources of light and glare beyond what was evaluated in the Certified EIR. Accordingly, the
Modified Project would not result in a new impact or a substantial increase in magnitude of the existing
impacts.
3.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
3.2.1 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Environmental Issues
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Significant
Effects
Less Than
Significant
Impacts/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of
an EIR/MND No Impact
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?
x
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
x
440
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
3. Environmental Analysis
January 2018 Page 17
Environmental Issues
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Significant
Effects
Less Than
Significant
Impacts/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of
an EIR/MND No Impact
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))?
x
d) Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?
x
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?
x
Comments:
The Certified EIR concluded that the DSASP would have no impact on agricultural and forestry resources.
The Modified Project would propose policy changes that would result in increased maximum residential
density in the DTC sub-district of the DSASP planning area that would not result in additional development
beyond what was analyzed in the Certified EIR. However, given that the City has no important farmland or
forestland, none of the proposed changes are applicable to agriculture or forest resources. Thus, no
impacts would occur.
3.3 AIR QUALITY
3.3.1 Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
Would the proposed project:
441
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 18 PlaceWorks
Environmental Issues
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Significant
Effects
Less Than
Significant
Impacts/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of
an EIR/MND No Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
x
b) Violate any air quality standard or
contribute substantially to an existing
or projected air quality violation?
x
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable
net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal
or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
x
d) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations? x
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people? x
Comments:
The proposed Modified Project will increase the maximum residential density in the DTC sub-district
within the DSASP planning area that was evaluated in the Certified EIR at a lower maximum density. The
proposed density increase would not generate additional units beyond what was evaluated in the
Certified EIR and the residential development cap would remain at 1,435 units. Accordingly, the proposed
changes from the Modified Project would not result in a new impact or a substantial increase in
magnitude of the existing impacts in relation to air quality.
Because the proposed Modified Project would not result in additional development beyond what was
analyzed in the Certified EIR, additional criteria air pollutant emissions due to construction and operation
are not expected. The proposed Modified Project would result in changes at the policy level that would
increase the density at the four sites and does not include specific development proposals. The proposed
Modified Project would not directly result in any criteria air pollutant emissions; however, the proposed
project could change the distribution of air pollutants, such as carbon monoxide (CO), at particular
intersections, but would result in a less-than-significant impact to localized CO concentrations because the
442
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
3. Environmental Analysis
January 2018 Page 19
traffic generated by the proposed project would not exceed the threshold 44,000 vehicles per hour.3
Additionally, as mentioned above, the Certified EIR is a programmatic document and does not assess
environmental impacts on a project-level. However, like the development potential of the Approved
Project, any applicable future developments would be subject to review on a project-by-project basis and
as applicable would require the same mitigation measures identified in the Certified EIR as follows:
MM4.2-1 Construction emissions for all future development under the Specific Plan shall be
quantified prior to the start of construction. For projects where construction emissions are
anticipated to exceed the most recent City-adopted thresholds, in addition to the BAAQMD Basic
Construction Mitigation Measures, construction activities shall implement the BAAQMD
Additional Construction Mitigation Measures to reduce construction emissions of criteria air
pollutants to below significance criteria. Mitigation reductions shall be quantified prior to the start
of construction to demonstrate that adequate measures have been identified to reduce project
emissions. The Additional Construction Mitigation Measures include the following:
1. All exposed surfaces shall be watered at a frequency adequate to maintain minimum soil
moisture of 12 percent. Moisture content can be verified by lab samples or moisture probe.
2. All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind
speeds exceed 20 mph.
3. Wind breaks (e.g., trees, fences) shall be installed on the windward side(s) of actively disturbed
areas of construction. Wind breaks should have at maximum 50 percent air porosity.
4. Vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast-germinating native grass seed) shall be planted in disturbed
areas as soon as possible and watered appropriately until vegetation is established.
5. The simultaneous occurrence of excavation, grading, and ground-disturbing construction
activities on the same area at any one time shall be limited. Activities shall be phased to reduce
the amount of disturbed surfaces at any one time.
6. All trucks and equipment, including their tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving the site.
7. Site accesses to a distance of 100 feet from the paved road shall be treated with a 6- to 12-inch
compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel.
8. Sandbags or other erosion control measures shall be installed to prevent silt runoff to public
roadways from sites with a slope greater than 1 percent.
3 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines May 2017, Page 3-3,
http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en, accessed January
4, 2018.
443
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 20 PlaceWorks
9. Minimizing the idling time of diesel powered construction equipment to two minutes.
10. The project shall develop a plan demonstrating that the off-road equipment (more than 50
horsepower) to be used in the construction project (i.e., owned, leased, and subcontractor
vehicles) would achieve a project wide fleet-average 20 percent NOX reduction and 45 percent
PM reduction compared to the most recent California ARB fleet average. Acceptable options for
reducing emissions include the use of late model engines, low-emission diesel products,
alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, after-treatment products, add-on devices such as
particulate filters, and/or other options as such become available.
11. Use low-ROG coatings beyond the local requirements (i.e., Regulation 8, Rule 3: Architectural
Coatings).
12. All construction equipment, diesel trucks, and generators shall be equipped with Best
Available Control Technology for emission reductions of NOX and PM.
13. All contractors shall use equipment that meets California ARB’s most recent certification
standard for off-road heavy-duty diesel engines.
MM4.2-2 Prior to issuance of a building permit for future development projects under the Specific
Plan, the applicant shall demonstrate implementation of recommended BAAQMD operational
mitigation measures as necessary to reduce operational emissions of criteria air pollutants to
below significance criteria. Operational emissions and mitigation reductions will be quantified
prior to issuance of the building permit to demonstrate that adequate measures have been
identified to reduce project emissions. The recommended measures include, but are not limited
to, any of the following:
1. Increase on-street parking fees.
2. Daily parking charge for employees.
3. Provide a parking “cash-out” incentive for employees who use alternative transportation to
commute.
4. Provide subsidized or free transit passes to employees.
5. Encourage alternative compressed work schedules and telecommuting.
6. Provide a ridesharing program.
MM4.2-3 Siting Sensitive Receptors near Potential TAC Source. A Health Risk Assessment (HRA)
shall be prepared by a qualified air quality professional for development of a project that would
444
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
3. Environmental Analysis
January 2018 Page 21
introduce new sensitive receptors in the study area within the siting distance for any use listed in
ARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook Table 1-1 (reproduced here as Table 4.2-11
[Recommendations on Siting New Sensitive Land Uses]). Sensitive receptors include day care
centers, schools, retirement homes, hospitals, medical patients in residential homes, or other
facilities that may house individuals with health conditions that would be adversely impacted by
changes in air quality. Such a project shall not be considered for approval until an HRA has been
completed and approved by the City. The methodology for the HRA shall follow the Office of
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and BAAQMD guidelines for the preparation of HRAs. If
a potentially significant health risk is identified, the HRA shall identify appropriate measures to
reduce the potential health risk to below a significant level or the sensitive receptor shall be sited
in another location.
TABLE 4.4.2-1 RECOMMENDATIONS ON SITING NEW SENSITIVE LAND USES
Source Category Advisory Recommendations
Freeways and High-
Traffic Roads
Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway, urban roads with
100,000 vehicles/day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles/day.
Distribution Centers
Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a distribution center (that
accommodates more than 100 trucks per day, more than 40 trucks with operating
transport refrigeration units (TRUs) per day, or where TRU unit operations exceed 300
hours per week).
Take into account the configuration of existing distribution centers and avoid locating
residences and other new sensitive land uses near entry and exit points.
Rail Yards
Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a major service and
maintenance rail yard.
Within 1 mile of a rail yard, consider possible siting limitations and mitigation
approaches.
Ports
Avoid siting new sensitive land uses immediately downwind of ports in the most heavily
impacted zones. Consult local air districts or the ARB on the status of pending analyses
of health risks.
Refineries Avoid siting new sensitive land uses immediately downwind of petroleum refineries.
Consult local air districts or the ARB on the status of pending analyses of health risks.
Chrome Platers Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a chrome plater.
Dry Cleaners Using
Perchloroethylene
Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of any dry cleaning operation. For
operations with two or more machines provide 500 feet. For operations with three or
more machines consult with the local air district.
Do not site new sensitive land uses in the same building with perchloroethylene dry
cleaning operations.
Gasoline Dispensing
Facilities
Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of a large gas station (defined as a
facility with a throughput of 3.6 million gallons per year or greater). A 50-foot separation
is recommended for typical gas dispensing facilities.
SOURCE: California Air Resources Board, Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (April 2005).
These recommendations are advisory. Land use agencies have to balance other considerations, including housing and transportation
needs, economic development priorities, and other quality of life issues.
Recommendations are based primarily on data showing that the air pollution exposures addressed here (i.e., localized) can be reduced as
much as 80% with the recommended separation.
The relative risk for these categories varies greatly. To determine the actual risk near a particular facility, a site-specific analysis would be
445
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 22 PlaceWorks
TABLE 4.4.2-1 RECOMMENDATIONS ON SITING NEW SENSITIVE LAND USES
Source Category Advisory Recommendations
required. Risk from diesel PM will decrease over time as cleaner technology phases in.
These recommendations are designed to fill a gap where information about existing facilities may not be readily available and are not
designed to substitute for more specific information if it exists.
The recommended distances take into account other factors in addition to the available health risk data.
Site-specific project design improvements may help reduce air pollution exposures and should also be considered when siting new
sensitive land uses.
This table does not imply that mixed residential and commercial development in general is incompatible. Rather it focuses on known
problems like dry cleaners using perchloroethylene that can be addressed with reasonable preventative actions.
MM4.2-4 Siting of New Toxic Air Contaminant Sources Near Sensitive Receptors. Prior to approval
of any project that includes potential sources of significant TAC emissions that is not subject to a
BAAQMD permit, that is proposed in a close proximity to a sensitive receptor, a Health Risk
Assessment (HRA) shall be prepared by a qualified air quality professional. The land uses listed in
ARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook Table 1-1 (reproduced above as Table 4.2-11
[Recommendations on Siting New Sensitive Land Uses]), shall be considered potentially significant
sources of TAC emissions. Such a proposed project will be considered in close proximity to a
sensitive receptor if it would be located within the siting distance outline for the use in Table 1-1
of the ARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook. Sensitive receptors include day care centers,
schools, retirement homes, hospitals, medical patients in residential homes, or other facilities that
may house individuals with health conditions that would be adversely impacted by changes in air
quality. Such a project shall not be considered for approval until an HRA has been completed and
approved by the City. The methodology for the HRA shall follow the Office of Environmental
Health Hazard Assessment and BAAQMD guidelines for the preparation of HRAs. If a potentially
significant health risk is identified, the HRA shall identify appropriate measures to reduce the
potential health risk to below a significant level, or the proposed facility shall be sited in another
location.
MM4.2-6 Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for new industrial land uses identified in
the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines or ARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook as a typical source of
odors, the applicant shall demonstrate implementation of best management practices to
minimize odors. Best management practices vary by industrial type. In all cases, exhaust vents
should be located as far from sensitive receptors as possible. Best management practices
recommended by the BAAQMD in the CEQA Guidelines shall be implemented as applicable, and
may include the following:
Vapor Recovery Systems
Injection of masking odorants into process streams
Thermal oxidation
446
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
3. Environmental Analysis
January 2018 Page 23
Carbon absorption
Scrubbers
Catalytic oxidation
MM4.4-2 Support Expansion of Public and Private Transit Programs to Reduce Employee
Commutes (1.2). Employers within the study area shall subscribe to the South San Francisco TDM
Ordinance such that a minimum of 39 percent of all employees are included. The South San
Francisco TDM Ordinance requires that all nonresidential developments producing 100 average
trips per day or more meet a 28 percent non-drive -alone peak hour requirement with fees
assessed for noncompliance.
MM4.4-3 Reduce Dependence on Autos through Smart Parking Policies (1.3). This measure would
implement Smart Parking Policies, such as shared parking, to reduce available parking by 10
percent. The Certified EIR determined that impacts would be significant and unavoidable with
implementation of mitigation measures. It should be noted that this programmatic significant and
unavoidable conclusion does not prevent a finding of less than significant at the project level for
future development under the DSASP.
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
3.4.1 Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
Would the proposed project:
Environmental Issues
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Significant
Effects
Less Than
Significant
Impacts/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of
an EIR/MND No Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
x
447
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 24 PlaceWorks
Environmental Issues
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Significant
Effects
Less Than
Significant
Impacts/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of
an EIR/MND No Impact
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on
any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or
by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
x
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands as defined
by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
x
d) Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
x
e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance?
x
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?
x
Comments:
The proposed Modified Project is a policy change to increase the maximum residential density within the
DTC sub-district of the DSASP. The proposed Modified Project would not change the study area
boundaries and would not change the size or extent of disturbed areas. As with the Approved Project, no
biological resources would be impacted by the proposed Modified Project. Accordingly, no impacts would
occur.
448
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
3. Environmental Analysis
January 2018 Page 25
3.5 CULTURAL & TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
3.5.1 Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
Would the proposed project:
Environmental Issues
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Significant
Effects
Less Than
Significant
Impacts/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of
an EIR/MND No Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of a historical
resource as defined in § 15064.5?
x
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
x
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature?
x
d) Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
x
449
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 26 PlaceWorks
Environmental Issues
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Significant
Effects
Less Than
Significant
Impacts/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of
an EIR/MND No Impact
e) 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:
• 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), or
• 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 Resource Code Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set
forth in subdivision (c) of the
Public Resource Code Section
5024.1 for the purposes of this
paragraph, the lead agency shall
consider the significance to a
California Native American tribe.
x
Comments:
The proposed Modified Project is a policy change that would not change the scale or location of overall
ground disturbing activities that could occur as a result of future projects in the DTC sub-district of the
DSASP. Thus, the Modified Project would not adversely impact historical, tribal and non-tribal
archaeological resources, or paleontological resources, as well as tribal and non-tribal human remains
beyond what was evaluated in the Certified EIR. For this reason and because the proposed density
increases are limited to sites already evaluated in the Certified EIR, the proposed Modified Project would
not result in a new impact or a substantial increase in magnitude of the existing impacts.
450
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
3. Environmental Analysis
January 2018 Page 27
The proposed Modified Project has the potential to increase maximum residential density within the DTC
sub-district of the DSASP planning area that was evaluated in the Certified EIR at a lower density. The
proposed density increase would not generate additional units beyond what was evaluated in the
Certified EIR and the residential development cap would remain unchanged. Accordingly, the proposed
changes from the Modified Project would not result in a new impact or a substantial increase in
magnitude of the existing impacts in relation to cultural or tribal cultural resources.
Because the proposed Modified Project would not result in additional development beyond what was
analyzed in the Certified EIR, demolition of potentially historic buildings, and the discovery of buried tribal
and non-tribal archeological resources, and paleontological resources is not expected. The proposed
Modified Project does not include specific development proposals. Thus, the proposed Modified Project
would not directly result in impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources. However, like the
development potential of the Approved Project, any applicable future developments in the DSASP project
area would be subject to review on a project-by-project basis and as applicable would require the same
mitigation measures identified in the Certified EIR as follows:
MM4.3-1 Prior to development activities that would demolish or otherwise physically affect
buildings or structures 45 years old or older, the project applicant shall retain a cultural resource
professional who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for
Architectural History to determine if the project would cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. The
investigation shall include, as determined appropriate by the cultural resource professional and
the City of South San Francisco, the appropriate archival research, including, if necessary, an
updated records search of the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) of the California Historical
Resources Information System and a pedestrian survey of the proposed development area to
determine if any significant historic-period resources would be adversely affected by the
proposed development. The results of the investigation shall be documented in a technical report
or memorandum that identifies and evaluates any historical resources within the development
area and includes recommendations and methods for eliminating or reducing impacts on
historical resources. The technical report or memorandum shall be submitted to the City of South
San Francisco for approval. As determined necessary by the City, environmental documentation
(e.g., CEQA documentation) prepared for future development within the project site shall
reference or incorporate the findings and recommendations of the technical report or
memorandum. The project applicant shall be responsible for implementing methods for
eliminating or reducing impacts on historical resources identified in the technical report or
memorandum.
MM4.3-2 Prior to any earth-disturbing activities (e.g., excavation, trenching, grading) that could
encounter previously undisturbed soils, the project applicant shall retain a City approved
451
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 28 PlaceWorks
archaeologist to determine if the project could result in a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. The
results of the cultural resources investigation shall be documented in a technical report or
memorandum that identifies and evaluates any archaeological resources within the development
area and includes recommendations and methods for avoiding impacts on archaeological
resources or reducing impacts to a less-than-significant level. The technical report or
memorandum shall be submitted to the City of South San Francisco for approval. The project
applicant shall be responsible for implementing methods for avoiding or reducing impacts on
archaeological resources identified in the technical report or memorandum. Projects under the
Specific Plan that would not encounter previously undisturbed soils and would therefore not be
required to retain an archaeologist shall demonstrate non-disturbance to the City through the
appropriate construction plans or geotechnical studies prior to any earth-disturbing activities.
Projects that would include any earth disturbance (disturbed or undisturbed soils) shall comply
with mitigation measure MM4.3-3.
MM4.3-3 If evidence of an archaeological site or other suspected historical resource as defined by
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, are discovered during any project-related earth-disturbing
activities (including projects that would not encounter undisturbed soils), all earth-disturbing
activity within 100 feet of the find shall be halted and the City of South San Francisco shall be
notified. The project applicant shall retain a City-approved archaeologist to assess the significance
of the find. Impacts to any significant resources shall be mitigated to a less-than-significant level
through methods determined adequate by the archaeologist as approved by the City.
MM4.3-4 Prior to start of construction, all construction personnel involved in ground-disturbing
activities and the supervision of such activities will undergo worker environmental awareness
training. The archaeological resources training components will be presented by a City-approved
cultural resources consultant. The training will describe the types of archaeological resources that
may be found in the proposed study area and how to recognize such resources; the protocols to
be followed if archaeological resources are found, including communication protocols; and the
laws relevant to the protection of archaeological resources and the associated penalties for
breaking these laws. Additionally, prior to construction, City-approved archaeological resources
consultants will meet with the applicant’s grading and excavation contractors to provide
comments and suggestions concerning monitoring plans and to discuss excavation and grading
plans.
MM4.3-5 Prior to any earth-disturbing activities (e.g., excavation, trenching, grading) that could
encounter undisturbed soils, the project applicant shall retain a professional paleontologist to
determine if the project could directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or
site or unique geologic feature. The results of the investigation shall be documented in a technical
452
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
3. Environmental Analysis
January 2018 Page 29
report or memorandum that identifies the paleontological sensitivity of the development area
and includes recommendations and methods for avoiding or reducing impacts to a less-than-
significant level for paleontological resources or unique geologic features. The technical report or
memorandum shall be submitted to the City for approval. The project applicant shall be
responsible for implementing methods for avoiding or reducing impacts on paleontological
resources or unique geologic features identified in the technical report or memorandum. Projects
that would not encounter undisturbed soils and would therefore not be required to retain a
paleontologist shall demonstrate non-disturbance to the City through the appropriate
construction plans or geotechnical studies prior to any earth-disturbing activities. Projects that
would include any earth disturbance (disturbed or undisturbed soils) shall comply with mitigation
measure MM4.3-6.
MM4.3-6 Should paleontological resources (i.e., fossil remains) or unique geologic features be
identified at a particular site during project construction, construction shall cease within 100 feet
of the find and the City of South San Francisco shall be notified. The project applicant shall retain
a City approved paleontologist to assess the significance of the find. Impacts to any significant
resources shall be mitigated to a less-than-significant level through methods determined
adequate by the paleontologist, and as approved by the City. In considering any suggested
mitigation proposed by the consulting paleontologist, the City of South San Francisco staff shall
determine whether avoidance is necessary and feasible in light of factors such as the nature of
the find, project design, costs, applicable regulations, policies and land use assumptions, and
other considerations. If avoidance is unnecessary or infeasible, other appropriate measures (e.g.,
monitoring and/or data recovery) shall be instituted.
3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
3.6.1 Impacts Associated with the Modified Project
Would the proposed project:
Environmental Issues
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Significant
Effects
Less Than
Significant
Impacts/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of
an EIR/MND No Impact
a) Expose people or structures to
potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving:
x
453
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 30 PlaceWorks
Environmental Issues
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Significant
Effects
Less Than
Significant
Impacts/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of
an EIR/MND No Impact
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.
x
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? x
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction? x
iv) Landslides? x
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil? x
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?
x
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined
in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building
Code (1994), creating substantial risks
to life or property?
x
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?
x
Comments:
The proposed policy revisions would increase the maximum residential density in the DTC sub-district of
the DSASP planning area and would not introduce new adverse physical impacts related to seismic ground
shaking, ground failure, liquefaction, landslides, soil erosion, or expansive soils compared to the Approved
Project. The Certified EIR concluded that, there would be a less-than-significant impact on geology and
soils as a result of implementation of the Approved Project. Like the Approved Project, the proposed
revisions under the Modified Project do not allow for additional density or amend land use designations in
geologically sensitive areas and future development would be required to comply with State and local
454
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
3. Environmental Analysis
January 2018 Page 31
regulations to minimize geology and soil related hazards. Because the Modified Project includes the sites
evaluated in the Certified EIR, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or a
substantial increase in magnitude of the existing impacts.
3.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
3.7.1 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Would the proposed project:
Environmental Issues
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Significant
Effects
Less Than
Significant
Impacts/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of
an EIR/MND No Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the
environment?
x
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy
or regulation adopted for the purpose
of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
x
Comments:
The proposed revisions would increase the maximum residential density in the DTC sub-district of the
DSASP planning area from 120 du/ac to 180 du/ac, but would not generate additional units beyond what
was evaluated in the Certified EIR. Accordingly, the proposed changes from the Modified Project would
not result in a new impact or a substantial increase in magnitude of the existing greenhouse gas emissions
impacts.
The proposed Modified Project would not result in additional development beyond what was analyzed in
the Certified EIR; therefore, additional GHG emissions from construction or operational activities,
including stationary and mobile sources are not expected. The proposed Modified Project does not
include specific development proposals. Thus, the proposed Modified Project would not directly generate
greenhouse gas emissions. However, like the development potential of the Approved Project, any
applicable future developments would be subject to review on a project-by-project basis and as applicable
would require the same mitigation measures identified in the Certified EIR as follows:
455
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 32 PlaceWorks
MM4.4-1 All construction projects shall incorporate, to the greatest extent feasible, the most
recent Best Management Practices for Greenhouse Gas Emissions as indicated by the BAAQMD.
Best Management Practices to reduce GHG emissions during construction may include, but are
not limited to:
Use of alternative-fueled (e.g., biodiesel, electric) construction vehicles/equipment of at
least
15 percent of the fleet
Using local building materials of at least 10 percent
Recycle at least 50 percent of construction waste or demolition materials
Note that above best management practices are subject to change over time. Bay Area Air Quality
Management District will post updates to this list at www.baaqmd.gov.
MM4.4-4 Expand the Use of Alternative-Fuel Vehicles (2.1). Nonresidential and residential land
uses can encourage the use of alternative-fueled vehicles by providing charging stations. In
support of this measure, development within the study area shall ensure that a minimum of 60
electric vehicle chargers are installed within nonresidential land uses and within the residential
units electric charging capabilities are available for a minimum of 200 vehicles.
MM4.4-5 Reduce Emissions from Off-Road Vehicles And Equipment (2.2). In support of this
measure, development within the study area shall ensure that a minimum of 25 percent of all
lawnmowers and leaf blowers acquired/used within the study area would be electric. This
requires that there be sufficient electrical outlets outside of all residential and nonresidential
units to encourage the use of non-gas-fueled lawn maintenance equipment.
MM4.4-6 Maximize Energy Efficiency in the Built Environment through Standards and the Plan
Review Process (3.1). All new development within the study area shall, at a minimum, comply
with the CALGreen Tier 1 standards and exceed 2013 Title 24 by a minimum of 10 percent.
MM4.4-7 Address Heat Island Issues and Expand the Urban Forest (3.4). At a minimum, 322,000
square feet of all new nonresidential development and 75 new residential units shall address heat
island effect issues by using high albedo surfaces and technologies identified in the voluntary
CALGreen Standards. This is in addition to the requirements of all new development to plant trees
in accordance with Zoning Code Chapter 13.30 with placement used to maximize building
shading.
MM4.4-8 Promote Energy Information Sharing and Educate the Community about Energy-
Efficient Behaviors and Construction (3.5). Develop as part of the Specific Plan an educational
information packet that will be distributed to residential and nonresidential land owners. These
456
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
3. Environmental Analysis
January 2018 Page 33
information packets shall detail potential behavioral changes that can be instituted to save energy,
such as unplugging appliances, air-drying clothes, and daylighting strategies.
MM4.4-9 Energy Reduction (4.1). In addition to complying with MM4.4-6, the development
within the study area shall include the use of solar panels such that a minimum of 35,000 square
feet of nonresidential land use roof space is converted to solar panels, 205 residential units are
equipped with solar hot water heaters, and the electricity of an additional 75 dwelling units is
offset by solar panel rays associated with the new residential development.
MM4.4-10 Water Reduction (6.1). Nonresidential and residential land uses shall reduce per capita
water consumption by 40 gallons per day. Measures to be implemented to reduce water
consumption may include, but are not limited to:
Limiting turf area in commercial and multi-family projects
Restricting hours of irrigation to between 3:00 a.m. and 2 hours after sunrise (suggestion to
be included in the energy information saving package)
Installing irrigation controllers with rain sensors
Landscaping with native, water-efficient plants
Installing drip irrigation systems
Reducing impervious surfaces
Installing high-efficiency, water-saving appliances
457
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 34 PlaceWorks
3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
3.8.1 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Would the proposed project:
Environmental Issues
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Significant
Effects
Less Than
Significant
Impacts/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of
an EIR/MND No Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
x
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?
x
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
x
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?
x
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?
x
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
x
g) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
x
458
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
3. Environmental Analysis
January 2018 Page 35
Environmental Issues
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Significant
Effects
Less Than
Significant
Impacts/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of
an EIR/MND No Impact
h) Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized
areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
x
Comments:
The proposed policy revisions would increase the residential density within the DTC sub-district of the
DSASP planning area and would not increase risks related to hazards or hazardous materials relative to the
Approved Project. Furthermore, the proposed Modified Project does not include any changes to land use
designations that would have the potential to result in a new or greater impact related to hazards or
hazardous materials from that evaluated in the Certified EIR. Like the Approved Project, the future
development allowed under the proposed Modified Project would be required to comply with State and
local regulations related to minimizing the effects of hazards and the release of hazardous materials.
Therefore, the Modified Project would not result in a new impact or a substantial increase in magnitude of
the existing impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials.
3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
3.9.1 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Would the proposed project:
Environmental Issues
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Significant
Effects
Less Than
Significant
Impacts/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of
an EIR/MND No Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements? x
459
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 36 PlaceWorks
Environmental Issues
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Significant
Effects
Less Than
Significant
Impacts/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of
an EIR/MND No Impact
b) Substantially deplete groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume
or a lowering of the local groundwater
table level (e.g., the production rate of
pre-existing nearby wells would drop to
a level which would not support existing
land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)??
x
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of
a stream or river, in a manner, which
would result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site?
x
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of
a stream or river, or substantially
increase the rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner, which would result
in flooding on- or off-site?
x
e) Create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned storm water drainage systems?
x
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water
quality? x
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood
hazard area as mapped on a federal
Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood
hazard delineation map?
x
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard
area structures which would impede or
redirect flood flows?
x
i) Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving flooding, including flooding as
a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
x
j) Expose people or structures to
inundation by seiche, tsunami, or
mudflow?
x
460
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
3. Environmental Analysis
January 2018 Page 37
Comments:
The policy changes of the proposed Modified Project would not generate additional units beyond what
was evaluated in the Certified EIR and the residential development cap would remain at 1,435 units;
therefore, additional impacts to water quality during construction with the clearing and grading of sites
resulting in the release of sediments, oil and grease, and other chemicals to receiving water bodies are
not expected. Additionally, the four identified infill sites with the potential for increased density under the
proposed Modified Project are located in already built-out areas of the city. Therefore, like the Approved
Project, potential future development under the proposed Modified Project would occur in areas already
covered with impervious surfaces and no additional runoff potential would occur. Like the Approved
Project, the future development allowed under the proposed Modified Project would be required to
comply with State and local regulations related to minimizing the effects of water pollutants and hazards
associated with hydrology and flooding. Accordingly, the proposed Modified Project would not result in
increased development that could have a potential adverse impact on the hydrology and water quality of
the project area. The increase in residential density within the DTC sub-district of the DSASP planning area
would not result in a new impact or a substantial increase in magnitude of the existing impacts with
respect to hydrology and water quality.
3.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING
3.10.1 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Would the proposed project:
Environmental Issues
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Significant
Effects
Less Than
Significant
Impacts/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of
an EIR/MND No Impact
a) Physically divide an established
community? x
b) Conflict with any applicable land use
plan, policy, or regulation of an agency
with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the
general plan, specific plan, local coastal
program, or zoning ordinance) adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
x
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
x
461
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 38 PlaceWorks
Comments:
The proposed increase in residential density within the DTC sub-district in the DSASP would occur on sites
that are already developed, and are zoned for residential development at a lower density (maximum of
120 du/ac compared to 180 du/ac). Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not involve
any structures, land use designations, or other features (e.g., freeways, railroad tracks) that would
physically divide an established community. The type of anticipated development associated with the
proposed Modified Project would be restricted to the existing urbanized environment where residential
uses are currently allowed. Additionally, the proposed Modified Project does not include any land use or
zoning changes that would re-designate land uses or zoning districts to another type of use. Therefore,
there would be no impacts regarding conflicts with applicable plans, policies, or regulations adopted for
the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. There is no adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Communities Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat
conservation plan that is applicable to the study area. Therefore, like the Approved Project, the proposed
Modified Project would not conflict with a habitat conservation plan. Accordingly, the proposed changes
to the Modified Project would not result in a new impact or a substantial increase in magnitude of the
existing impacts related to land use and planning.
3.11 MINERAL RESOURCES
3.11.1 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Would the proposed project:
Environmental Issues
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Significant
Effects
Less Than
Significant
Impacts/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of
an EIR/MND No Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would be
a value to the region and the residents
of the state?
x
b) Result in the loss of availability of a
locally important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land
use plan?
x
462
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
3. Environmental Analysis
January 2018 Page 39
Comments:
The Certified EIR concluded that the Approved Project would have no impact on mineral resources in the
City of South San Francisco. The Modified Project would propose policy changes that would result in
increased residential density in the DTC sub-district of the DSASP planning area that would not result in
additional development beyond what was analyzed in the Certified EIR. The proposed changes to the
residential density in the DTC of the DSASP would not expand the project boundary beyond what was
analyzed in the Certified EIR. Therefore, no new impacts to mineral resources would occur.
3.12 NOISE
3.12.1 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Would the proposed project result in:
Environmental Issues
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Significant
Effects
Less Than
Significant
Impacts/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of
an EIR/MND No Impact
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of
noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
x
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
x
c) A substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without
the project?
x
d) A substantial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
x
e) For a project located within an airport
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area
to excessive noise levels?
x
463
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 40 PlaceWorks
Environmental Issues
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Significant
Effects
Less Than
Significant
Impacts/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of
an EIR/MND No Impact
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project
expose people residing or working in
the project area to excessive noise
levels?
x
Comments:
The proposed Modified Project proposes a policy change that would increase the maximum residential
density from 120 du/ac to 180 du/ac in the DTC of the DSASP planning area. The proposed density
increase would not generate additional units beyond what was evaluated in the Certified EIR and the
residential development cap would remain. Therefore, the proposed changes from the Modified Project
would not result in a new impact or a substantial increase in magnitude of the existing impacts in relation
to noise.
The proposed Modified Project would result in changes at the policy level that would not increase
development potential. The proposed Modified Project does not include specific development proposals.
Thus, the proposed Modified Project would not directly generate noise from construction and operation.
However, like the development potential of the Approved Project, any applicable future developments
would be subject to review on a project-by-project basis and as applicable would require the same
mitigation measures identified in the Certified EIR as follows:
MM4.6-1 HVAC Mechanical Equipment Shielding. Prior to the approval of building permits for
nonresidential development, the applicant shall submit a design plan for the project
demonstrating that the noise level from operation of mechanical equipment will not exceed the
exterior noise level limits for a designated receiving land use category as specified in Noise
Ordinance Section 8.32.030. Noise control measures may include, but are not limited to, the
selection of quiet equipment, equipment setbacks, silencers, and/or acoustical louvers.
MM4.6-2 Site-Specific Acoustic Analysis—Nonresidential Development. Prior to the approval of
building permits for new non-residential land uses where exterior noise level exceeds 70 dBA
CNEL, an acoustical analysis shall be performed to determine appropriate noise reduction
measures such that exterior noise levels shall be reduced to be below 70 dBA CNEL, unless a
higher noise compatibility threshold (up to 75 dBA CNEL) has been determined appropriate by the
City of South San Francisco. The analysis shall detail the measures that will be implemented to
464
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
3. Environmental Analysis
January 2018 Page 41
ensure exterior noise levels are compatible with the proposed use. Measures that may be
implemented to ensure appropriate noise levels include, but are not limited to, setbacks to
separate the proposed nonresidential structure from the adjacent roadway, or construction of
noise barriers on site.
MM4.6-3 Site-Specific Acoustic Analysis—Multifamily Residences. Prior to the approval of building
permits for the following uses, an acoustical analysis shall be performed to ensure that interior
noise levels due to exterior noise sources shall be below 45 dBA CNEL:
Multifamily residences where exterior noise levels exceed 65 dBA CNEL or where noise
contours identified in the General Plan Noise Element project a CNEL between 65 and 70 dBA
Multifamily residential units that are located within the same building as commercial
development
Multifamily residential units located near a structure requiring an HVAC system
Building plans shall be available during design review and shall demonstrate the accurate
calculation of noise attenuation for habitable rooms. For these areas, it may be necessary for
the windows to be able to remain closed to ensure that interior noise levels meet the interior
standard of 45 dBA CNEL. Consequently, based on the results of the interior acoustical
analysis, the design for buildings in these areas may need to include a ventilation or air
conditioning system to provide a habitable interior environment with the windows closed.
Additionally, for new multifamily residences on properties where train horns and railroad
crossing warning signals are audible, the acoustical analysis shall ensure that interior noise
levels during crossing events do not exceed the Interior Noise Standards in Noise Ordinance
Section 8.32.040.
MM4.6-4 Construction Vibration. For all construction activities within the study area, the
construction contractor shall implement the following measures during construction:
a. The construction contractor shall provide, at least three weeks prior to the start of
construction activities, written notification to all residential units and nonresidential tenants
within 115 feet of the construction site informing them of the estimated start date and
duration of vibration generating construction activities.
b. Stationary sources, such as temporary generators, shall be located as far from off-site
receptors as possible.
c. Trucks shall be prohibited from idling along streets serving the construction site.
MM4.6-5 Rail Line Groundborne Vibration. Implement the current FTA and Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA) guidelines, where appropriate, to limit the extent of exposure that sensitive
uses may have to groundborne vibration from trains. Specifically, Category 1 uses (vibration-
sensitive equipment) within 300 feet from the rail line, Category 2 uses (residences and buildings
where people normally sleep) within 200 feet, and Category 3 uses (institutional land uses) within
465
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 42 PlaceWorks
155 feet of the rail line shall require a site-specific groundborne vibration analysis conducted by a
qualified groundborne vibration specialist in accordance with the current FTA and FRA guidelines
prior to obtaining a building permit. Vibration control measures deemed appropriate by the site-
specific groundborne vibration analysis to meet 65 VdB, 72 VdB, and 75 VdB respectively for
Category 1, Category 2, and Category 3 uses, shall be implemented by the project applicant and
approved by the City prior to receiving a building permit.
3.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING
3.13.1 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Would the proposed project:
Environmental Issues
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Significant
Effects
Less Than
Significant
Impacts/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of
an EIR/MND No Impact
a) Induce substantial population growth in
an area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses)
or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
x
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction
of replacement housing elsewhere?
x
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
x
Comments:
The proposed Modified Project would result in the addition of new units that would result in additional
population growth in the DTC of the DSASP; however, no housing units or people would be displaced as a
result of the Modified Project. The Modified Project would increase the maximum residential density from
120 du/ac to 180 du/ac within the DTC; however, the proposed density increase would not generate
additional units beyond what was evaluated in the Certified EIR and the residential development cap
would remain at 1,435 units. Accordingly, the proposed changes from the Modified Project would not
result in a new impact or a substantial increase in magnitude of the existing impacts in relation to
population and housing.
466
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
3. Environmental Analysis
January 2018 Page 43
3.14 PUBLIC SERVICES
3.14.1 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Would the proposed 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:
Environmental Issues
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Significant
Effects
Less Than
Significant
Impacts/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of
an EIR/MND No Impact
a) Fire protection? x
b) Police protection? x
c) Schools? x
d) Parks? x
e) Other public facilities? x
Comments:
The proposed increased maximum residential density in the DSASP’s DTC sub-district would not create
new development potential or other growth inducing opportunities to result in additional impacts to
public services, including fire protection, police protection, schools, and libraries. The Certified EIR
determined that the General Plan includes policies and strategies that ensure adequate provision of public
services. Therefore, no new demands for fire, police, school, parks, and libraries would result from the
changes. No impact would occur.
467
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 44 PlaceWorks
3.15 RECREATION
3.15.1 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Environmental Issues
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Significant
Effects
Less Than
Significant
Impacts/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of
an EIR/MND No Impact
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?
x
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?
x
Comments:
The Modified Project does not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities. The proposed Modified Project is a policy revision that would increase the
maximum residential density within the DTC sub-district, but would not change the residential
development cap established in the Certified EIR. The proposed changes would not create new
development potential or other growth inducing opportunities to result in additional impacts to the
existing recreational facilities. No impact would occur.
468
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
3. Environmental Analysis
January 2018 Page 45
3.16 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
3.16.1 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Would the proposed project:
Environmental Issues
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Significant
Effects
Less Than
Significant
Impacts/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of
an EIR/MND No Impact
a) Conflict with an applicable plan,
ordinance or policy establishing
measures of effectiveness for the
performance of the circulation system,
taking into account all modes of
transportation including mass transit
and non-motorized travel and relevant
components of the circulation system,
including but not limited to
intersections, streets, highways and
freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths,
and mass transit?
x
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion
management program, including, but
not limited to level of service standards
and travel demand measures, or other
standards established by the county
congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?
x
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic
levels or a change in location that
results in substantial safety risks?
x
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
x
e) Result in inadequate emergency
access? x
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs regarding public transit,
bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or
otherwise decrease the performance or
safety of such facilities?
x
469
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 46 PlaceWorks
Comments:
Like the Approved Project, because no increases in height are proposed as part of the Modified Project,
no changes change in air traffic patterns would occur. Similarly, like the Approved Project, the proposed
increases in density under the Modified Project do not include design features such as sharp curves or
dangerous intersections or incompatible uses that would increase hazards in the study area. Emergency
vehicles would continue to be able to use the roadways surrounding the project site and through the
project site, maintaining existing emergency access. Therefore, the proposed project would result in no
impacts related to air traffic, design hazards, or emergency vehicle access.
The proposed increase in residential density in the DTC sub-district of the DSASP planning area would not
create additional units and would not create a substantial amount of traffic beyond what was evaluated in
the Certified EIR. Therefore, the proposed changes under the Modified Project would not result in more
vehicular, transit, and external and internal walk/bike trips and additional impacts to the circulation
system than analyzed in the Certified EIR.
The proposed Modified Project would result in changes at the policy level that would not increase
development potential in the DSASP area, as the residential cap that was assumed in the Certified EIR
would still be in place. The Modified Project could potentially achieve the buildout potential at a faster
rate than development under the Approved Project due to higher density development; thus, the
proposed Modified Project would not directly increase overall vehicular trips. Increasing residential
density for certain sites in the DTC area could shift traffic patterns; however, the proposed Modified
Project does not include specific development proposals and, as stated above, the Certified EIR and the
2014 traffic study prepared for the DSASP EIR 4 are programmatic documents that analyze the DSASP
planning area as a whole rather than on a site-specific or project-level.
Future development proposals under the Approved Project and proposed Modified Project may be
subject to site-specific traffic impact analysis. Pursuant to General Plan Policy 2-I-8, the City is required to
develop and implement a standard method to evaluate the traffic impacts of individual developments.
Currently, the City does not have an adopted level of service calculation method or a traffic analysis
procedure. Therefore, it is difficult to ensure that impacts and appropriate mitigation measures are
identified and that developers pay their fair-share of the transportation system improvement costs.
Future development proposals under the Approved Project and proposed Modified Project may also be
subject to development impact fees to pay for improvements that can be demonstrated to serve new
residents and businesses (from new development). These fees may be combined with other funding
sources to fund a project that serves both new and existing residents or businesses. All of the required
City fees have existing nexus studies pursuant to State law; however, if new major improvement projects
4 Fehr & Peers, South San Francisco Station Area Land Use Plan: EIR Transportation Analysis assumptions (February 14 2014).
470
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
3. Environmental Analysis
January 2018 Page 47
are added to the anticipated uses of the fee, the nexus studies would be required to be updated to
allocate costs among new and existing development.
Additionally, like the development potential of the Approved Project, any applicable future developments
under the proposed Modified Project would be subject to review on a project-by-project basis and as
applicable would require the same mitigation measures identified in the Certified EIR as follows:
MM4.10-1 A signal timing adjustment to redistribute green time to better serve future vehicle
volumes would reduce delay at the intersection, and improve operations at #1 Miller
Avenue/Linden Avenue. This would cause the intersection to operate at an acceptable LOS D in
the PM peak hour.
MM4.10-2 Convert one westbound through lane to a second westbound left-turn lane, and
retime and optimize the traffic signal at E. Grand Avenue/Gateway Boulevard.
MM4.10-3 Modify the eastbound approach to include one left-turn pocket and one through-right
shared lane, and retime and optimize the traffic signal at Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard to
reallocate green time.
MM4.10-4 Add a southbound left-turn pocket by removing existing parking and retime and
optimize the traffic signal at Baden Avenue/Linden Avenue to reallocate green time to better
serve future volumes.
MM4.10-5 Modify the westbound approach to add a left-turn pocket, modifying the approach to
include three left-turn lanes, one through lane, and one right-turn lane, and optimize the traffic
signal at San Mateo Avenue/Airport Boulevard to reallocate green time to better serve future
volumes.
MM4.10-6 Include an additional westbound through lane, add a second southbound right-turn
pocket, and retime and optimize the traffic signal at South Airport Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard
to reallocate green time to better serve future traffic volumes.
MM4.10-7 A signal timing adjustment to redistribute green time to better serve future vehicle
volumes would reduce queuing at the southbound right-turn movement. This would cause the
intersection to operate at an acceptable LOS D and with acceptable queue lengths during the PM
peak hour.
MM4.10-8 Add a second off-ramp lane from northbound US-101 at Grand Avenue/Poletti Way to
increase capacity of the off-ramp to serve future demand.
471
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 48 PlaceWorks
MM4.10-9 Repurpose the eastbound and westbound approaches to include one left-turn pocket
and one through-right shared lane, and retime and optimize the traffic signals at Miller
Avenue/Linden Avenue. This lane modification would not require any additional right-of-way.
MM4.10-10 A signal timing adjustment to optimize cycle length and redistribute green time to
better serve future vehicle volumes would reduce delay at the intersection, and improve
operations at this intersection.
MM4.10-11 A signal timing adjustment to redistribute green time to better serve future vehicle
volumes would reduce delay at the intersection, and improve operations at this intersection. This
would cause the intersection to operate at an acceptable LOS D during the PM peak hour.
MM4.10-12 Construct an additional northbound right-turn lane, southbound left-turn lane,
southbound right-turn pocket, and retime and optimize the traffic signals at E. Grand
Avenue/Gateway Boulevard.
MM4.10-13 Convert the westbound approach to include one left-turn lane and one through-right
shared lane.
MM4.10-14 Modify the eastbound and westbound approach to each have one left-turn pocket
and one through-right shared lane, and retime and optimize the traffic signals at Grand
Avenue/Linden Avenue.
MM4.10-15 Modify the eastbound approach to include one left-turn pocket, one through lane,
and one right-turn pocket, and retime and optimize the traffic signals at Grand Avenue/Airport
Boulevard. This lane modification and signal timing adjustment would reduce vehicle delay at the
intersection, and improve operations at #10 Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard.
MM4.10-16 Retime and optimize the traffic signals at Baden Avenue/Linden Avenue.
MM4.10-17 Construct an additional westbound left-turn lane, provide a northbound right-turn
pocket, and retime and optimize the traffic signals at San Mateo Avenue/Airport Boulevard.
MM4.10-18 Construct an additional northbound left-turn lane, and retime and optimize the traffic
signals at So. Airport Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard.
MM4.10-19 Modify the eastbound approach to include two left-turn lanes, one through-left
shared lane, and one right-turn lane, and retime and optimize the traffic signal at US-101 NB/So.
Airport Boulevard Off Ramp/So. Airport Boulevard to reallocate green time to better serve future
volumes.
472
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
3. Environmental Analysis
January 2018 Page 49
3.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
3.17.1 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
Would the proposed project:
Environmental Issues
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Significant
Effects
Less Than
Significant
Impacts/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of
an EIR/MND No Impact
a) Exceed waste water treatment
requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board?
x
b) Require or result in the construction of
new water or waste water treatment
facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental
effects?
x
c) Require or result in the construction of
new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
x
d) Have sufficient water supplies available
to serve the project from existing
entitlements and resources or are new
or expanded entitlements needed?
x
e) Result in a determination by the waste
water treatment provider, which serves
or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project’s
projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
x
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate
the project’s solid waste disposal
needs?
x
g) Comply with federal, state, and local
statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?
x
473
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 50 PlaceWorks
Comments:
The Certified EIR determined that implementation of the Approved Project would result in less-than-
significant impacts related to utilities and service systems. The proposed Modified Project would increase
the maximum residential density in the DTC sub-district of the DSASP planning area and would not
generate additional units beyond what was evaluated in the Certified EIR. Because there is no new
development potential beyond what was already analyzed by the Certified EIR, the proposed increased
residential density in the DTC would not require or result in construction or expansion of any public
utilities beyond those required for the Approved Project. Therefore, demands on public utilities or other
infrastructure would not change measurably, no impact would occur, and the conclusion of the Certified
EIR would not change.
3.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Environmental Issues
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring
Major
EIR/MND
Revisions
New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Significant
Effects
Less Than
Significant
Impacts/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of
an EIR/MND No Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community, reduce
the number or restrict the range of a
rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or
prehistory?
x
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively
considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable
future projects.)
x
c) Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
x
474
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
3. Environmental Analysis
January 2018 Page 51
Comments:
The proposed increased residential density in the DTC of the DSASP under the proposed Modified Project
with regard to biological resources, cultural resources, and direct and indirect effects on human beings
would not change from the Approved Project. The proposed Modified Project would not increase the
Approved Project’s development density and boundaries. As discussed throughout this Addendum, the
proposed changes to the Modified Project would not result in a new impact or a substantial increase in
magnitude of the existing impacts.
475
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
3. Environmental Analysis
Page 52 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
476
January 2018 Page 53
4. List of Preparers
City of South San Francisco
Adena Friedman, Senior Planner
PlaceWorks
Bruce Brubaker, Principal
Rosie Dudley, Senior Associate
Pranjali Deokule, Project Urban Designer
Terri McCracken, Associate Principal
Jessica Setiawan, Associate
Nicole Vermillion, Associate Principal, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Fernando Sotelo, P.E., Senior Traffic Engineer
Bob Mantey, Manager, Noise, Vibration & Acoustics
477
DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
4. List of Preparers
Page 54 PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
478
Exhibit B
Link to Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR and Appendices:
http://weblink.ssf.net/weblink/0/doc/198023/Page1.aspx
479
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:18-116 Agenda Date:2/28/2018
Version:1 Item #:3b.
Resolution adopting a General Plan Amendment and Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Amendment to
increase the density in the Downtown Transit Core of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan
WHEREAS,in January of 2015,the City Council for the City of South San Francisco considered and adopted
the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (DSASP)and associated Draft and Final Environmental Impact
Reports (EIRs); and
WHEREAS,the Downtown Transit Core (DTC)Sub-District is identified in the DSASP as the area within one-
quarter mile of the Caltrain station that is the most suitable location for the highest intensity transit-oriented
development in the Downtown; and
WHEREAS,the DSASP contains provisions for increased density beyond the maximum base density with the
approval of a Conditional Use Permit by City Council per the “Maximum Density with Incentives Program”,
with the provision of public benefits demonstrated to be above and beyond the minimum required impact fees
and other requirements of a particular project; and
WHEREAS,since the time of adoption,the City has approved entitlements for seven multi-family residential
projects within the DTC Sub-District resulting in 765 new residential units; and
WHERAS,one of the projects in the DTC Sub-District has been approved for a higher density under the
“Maximum Density with Incentives Program”,resulting in few public benefits being realized in the Downtown
per this program; and
WHEREAS,the City desires to incentivize the development of high-density residential housing adjacent to
transit and realize additional public benefits for Downtown residents and businesses; and
WHEREAS,the City and PlaceWorks,Inc.prepared a 2018 Addendum to the 2015 DSASP EIR in accordance
with the provision of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS,by separate resolution,the City Council has made findings and approved the 2018 Addendum as
the appropriate environmental document; and
WHEREAS,on February 1,2018,the Planning Commission conducted a properly noticed public hearing and
recommended that the City Council approve the 2018 Addendum,General Plan Amendment,Downtown
City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/18/2024Page 1 of 4
powered by Legistar™480
File #:18-116 Agenda Date:2/28/2018
Version:1 Item #:3b.
recommended that the City Council approve the 2018 Addendum,General Plan Amendment,Downtown
Station Area Specific Plan Amendment, and Zoning Text Amendment; and
WHEREAS,on February 28,2018,the City Council conducted a properly noticed public hearing to consider
approving the Zoning Text Amendments,General Plan Amendments,and Downtown Station Area Specific Plan
Amendments.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the record before it,which includes
without limitation,CEQA and CEQA Guidelines,14 California Code of Regulations §15000,et seq.;the South
San Francisco General Plan and General Plan EIR,including all amendments and updates thereto;the South
San Francisco Municipal Code;the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan,prepared by BMS Design Group,
dated February 2015;the draft General Plan Amendments,prepared by City staff and PlaceWorks Inc;the draft
Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Amendments,prepared by City staff and PlaceWorks Inc.;the 2018
Addendum to the 2015 DSASP EIR,all reports,minutes,and public testimony submitted as part of the City
Council meeting of February 28,2018;and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code §
21080(e) and § 21082.2) (“Record”), the City of South San Francisco City Council hereby finds as follows:
SECTION 1 FINDINGS
I.General Findings
1.The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution.
2.The Record for these proceedings,and upon which this Resolution is based,includes without limitation,
Federal and State law;the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§21000,et seq.
(CEQA))and the CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations §15000,et seq.);the South San
Francisco General Plan and General Plan EIR,including all amendments and updates thereto;the South San
Francisco Municipal Code;all reports,minutes,and public testimony submitted as part of the City Council
meeting of February 28,2018 and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code
§21080(e) and §21082.2).
3.The refinements,clarifications,and/or corrections set forth in the Zoning Text Amendments,General
Plan Amendments,and Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Amendments are minor in nature,the
adoption of which would not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in
the severity of any previously identified effects beyond those disclosed and analyzed in the DSASP EIR,
IS/MND prepared for the Zoning Ordinance,General Plan EIR nor do the refinements,clarifications,and/or
corrections constitute a change in the project or change in circumstances that would require additional
environmental review.
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,
City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/18/2024Page 2 of 4
powered by Legistar™481
File #:18-116 Agenda Date:2/28/2018
Version:1 Item #:3b.
Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco,315 Maple Avenue,South San Francisco,CA 94080,
and in the custody of the Planning Manager, Sailesh Mehra.
II. General Plan Amendment Findings
1.The proposed General Plan Amendment for the Project will modify the Land Use Chapter Table 2.2-1
(“Standards for Density and Development Intensity”),and Housing Element Table 4.1-1 (“Land Use
Designation,South San Francisco General Plan,2015”)to reflect the increased density in the Downtown
Transit Core Land Use Designation per the Maximum Density with Incentives.These amendments are
intended as minor alterations to the General Plan related to implementation of the Downtown Station Area
Specific Plan.
2.The proposed General Plan Amendment for the Project will require an amendment to other plans that
the City Council has adopted,namely the DSASP,and this is being done in tandem through resolution to
ensure internal consistency with all City adopted documents.
3.The 2018 Addendum to the 2015 DSASP EIR is the appropriate environmental clearance for the
proposed density increase since the changes do not alter any of the previous EIR assumptions and no new
significant impacts are identified.
III. Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Amendment Findings
1.The DSASP Amendment will modify development regulations but otherwise keeps the DSASP entirely
intact and consistent with the previously adopted document in 2015.With minor revisions to the General
Plan through the associated General Plan Amendment,the DSASP Amendment will be consistent with the
General Plan.
2.The DSASP Amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest,health,safety,convenience,or
welfare of the City as it makes modifications to the Maximum Density with Incentives Program in the
Downtown Transit Core District,but does not amend any of the other development standards or other
districts within the Plan Area.
3.The DSASP Amendment area is physically suitable for the proposed land use designation(s)and the
anticipated development since the revision increases the Maximum Density with Incentives Program in
areas that are most accessible to transit, and does not amend any of the other development standards.
SECTION 2 AMENDMENTS
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby makes the
findings contained in this Resolution and adopts the General Plan Amendment attached as Exhibit A,and
adopts the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Amendment attached as Exhibit B.All other sections,
subsections,tables,figures,graphics and text that are not amended by the proposed Amendments attached shall
City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/18/2024Page 3 of 4
powered by Legistar™482
File #:18-116 Agenda Date:2/28/2018
Version:1 Item #:3b.
remain in full force and effect.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and
adoption.
*****
City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/18/2024Page 4 of 4
powered by Legistar™483
Exhibit A: General Plan Amendments
Chapter 2: Land Use Element
1.Table 2.2-1: Standards for Density and Development Intensity, pg. 2-7:
Land Use
Designation
Minimum
Required FAR
Residential
Density (Units/
Acre)
Maximum
Permitted FAR
Maximum
Permitted with
Incentives and
Bonuses
Units/Net
Acre
FAR
(See
Table
2.2)
Downtown Transit
Core
2.0 80.1-100 6.0 120.0
180.00
2.Page 2-18: The Downtown Transit Core allows up to 100 dwelling units per acre; a minimum of
80 dwelling units per acre is required. A maximum of 120 180 dwelling units per acre would be
allowed for development meeting specified criteria. Ground level retail uses will be encouraged
throughout the area.
Housing Element
1.Table 4.1-1: Land Use Designation, South San Francisco General Plan, 2015, pg. 48:
Land Use Designation Maximum Allowable Density
Downtown Transit Core 100 du/acre (up to 120 180 du/acre with Incentive
Program)
484
Land Use Element Proposed Amendments
485
2
2-1
LAND USE
This element of the General Plan outlines the framework that has guided land use
decision-making, provides the General Plan land use classification system, and
outlines citywide land use policies. Policies for each of the 14 individual sub-areas
that comprise the General Plan Planning Area are in Chapter 3: Planning Sub-
Areas.
Looking towards the bay from the western hillside. A wide variety of uses cover the city, from single-family residential
neighborhoods in the west side of the city to tall office buildings in the East of 101 area.
486
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN
2-2
2.1 CONSTANCY AND CHANGE
South San Francisco has a distinctive land use pattern that reflects the decision to
initially locate industrial areas east of supporting homes and businesses in order
to take advantage of topography and winds on Point San Bruno. Another devel-
opment trend that shaped the arrangement of uses was the extensive residential
development that occurred during the 1940s and 1950s, creating large areas almost
entirely developed with single-family housing. As a result, South San Francisco is
largely comprised of single-use areas, with industry in the eastern and southeastern
portions of the city, single-family homes to the north and west, commercial uses
along a few transportation corridors, and multifamily housing clustered in those
same corridors and on hillsides.
The city consists primarily of single-use areas, with industrial facilities and business parks concentrated in the East of 101 area and residential uses in the north
and west areas of the city. The view of San Bruno Mountain provides an aesthetic backdrop for the city.
487
2: LAND USE
2-3
MAGNITUDE AND DISTRIBUTION OF EXISTING USES
As part of the General Plan preparation process, an existing land use database for
the city was prepared and a land use analysis was performed.
South San Francisco’s City limits encompass 4,298 acres. Single-family residences
are the predominant land use, occupying 33 percent of the land (net, that is, exclu-
sive of streets, water, and other rights-of-way) in the city. Industrial uses, including
warehouses, manufacturing areas and business parks, comprise over a quarter of
South San Francisco’s area. The land use analysis also found that:
•Parks and open space occupy over 10 percent of the Planning Area, primarily
concentrated in Sign Hill Park and the California Golf and Country Club;
•Many of South San Francisco’s growing or highest priority land uses currently
occupy relatively little land. Business parks for high-technology research and
development (R&D) and manufacturing use occupy only 173 acres, or 14
percent of the land in the industrial classification. Commercial areas occupy
approximately eight percent. Hotels and motels can be found on only 37 acres,
or ten percent of the land in the commercial use classification.
•Only a handful of sites in South San Francisco—totaling 167 acres, or less than
four percent of land within the Planning Area—are vacant. About half of this
acreage is in Bay West Cove (formerly Shearwater) and Sierra Point - two large
sites at the northernmost tip of the city, with substantial soil contamination
and under remediation for the past several years. The majority of the remain-
ing vacant land comprises sites, such as in Westborough, that have steep slopes.
Thus, virtually all growth in the city will result from redevelopment or inten-
sification; and
•Development that is approved or under review includes 1,150 housing units
and 3.4 million square feet of non-residential space.
The new condos on El Camino Real are an intensification
of uses around the South San Francisco Bart Station.
Some older industrial sites in Lindenville are gradually
being converted to offices and business and technology
parks; industrial uses in selected areas of the city will
continue to meet regional needs.
488
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN
2-4
CONSTANCY AND CHANGE
With all land in the east of U.S. 101 area (East of 101 area) and some western
parts of the city unsuitable for residential development because of aircraft opera-
tions at the San Francisco International Airport (SFO) and established residential
neighborhoods in much of the rest of the city, the General Plan attempts to balance
regional growth objectives with conservation of residential and industrial neigh-
borhoods. Development is targeted in centers and corridors to fulfill the City’s ob-
jectives of enhancing quality of life and economic vitality; ensure that established
areas are not unduly impacted; and to support the extraordinary regional invest-
ments in transit represented by extension of BART to the city. Neighborhood-scale
issues such as the character of new development and better linkages between and
within neighborhoods are also explored in this and other plan elements.
2.2 LAND USE FRAMEWORK
The land use framework of the General Plan is guided by several key principles:
• Conservation of the existing land use character of the city’s residential neigh-
borhoods.
• Promotion of Downtown as the focus of activity, including through increased
residential opportunities. Policies that promote development standards that
build on Downtown’s traditional urban pattern are identified.
• Integration of land use with planned BART extension, by providing a new
transit-oriented village around the South San Francisco BART station, to take
advantage of regional access that will result from extension of BART to the city.
• Provision of selected areas in the city where industrial uses, many of which
fulfill a regional objective and are related to the SFO, can continue and expand.
• Encouragement of mixed-use redevelopment along principal corridors, such
as El Camino Real and South Spruce Avenue.
• Encouragement of a new mixed-use neighborhood center at Linden Avenue/
Hillside Boulevard to increase accessibility of Paradise Valley/Terrabay resi-
dents to convenience shopping.
Vacant site in the foreground is the BART right-of-way in the
city - the San Bruno Residence Inn is in the background. The
General Plan proposes a linear park with a bike path along the
right-of-way as BART will run underground. Sites in the city
near the San Bruno Bart Station are allowed higher development
intensities under the General Plan to support transit ridership.
489
2: LAND USE
2-5
• Designation of new Business and Technology Park district to provide opportu-
nities for continued evolution of the city’s economy, from manufacturing and
warehousing/distribution to high technology and biotechnology.
• Encouragement of employee serving amenities to provide identity and cater to
the lunchtime and quality of life needs of the growing employment base in the
East of 101 area.
• Provisions of a new live/work overlay district adjacent to downtown to provide a
broader mix of housing opportunities and promote small-business and multime-
dia incubation.
• Designation of a new Business Commercial district, that will include hotels
principally serving airport clientele, and regional commercial uses clustered
along Dubuque Avenue, Oyster Point, South Airport and Gateway boulevards.
GENERAL PLAN DIAGRAM
The principles outlined on the previous page are represented in the General Plan
Diagram (Figure 2-1). The Diagram designates the proposed general location, dis-
tribution, and extent of land uses. As required by State law, land use classifications,
shown as color/graphic patterns, letter designations, or labels the Diagram, specify
a range for housing density and building intensity for each type of designated land
use. These density/intensity standards allow circulation and public facility needs
to be determined; they also reflect the environmental carrying-capacity limitations
established by other elements of the General Plan. The Diagram is a graphic repre-
sentation of policies contained in the General Plan; it is to be used and interpreted
only in conjunction with the text and other figures contained in the General Plan.
The legend of the General Plan Diagram abbreviates the land use classifications
described below, which represent an adopted part of the General Plan.
Uses on sites less than two acres in size are generally not depicted on the Diagram.
The interpretation of consistency with the General Plan on sites less than two acres
in size will be done through the Zoning Ordinance and the Zoning Map.
490
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN
2-6
1/4
MileRa di u s
1 /4 M i l e R adius
1 /2 M i le R adius
Encourage developmentsin this area to include
employee-oriented ancillary orcentralized commercial services
Interchange/Inter section Study Area
P r o p osed
Existi n g
Low Density Residential
Medium Densit y R esidential
Hi gh Density Residential
Downtown Low Density R esidential
Downtown Medium Densit y Residential
Downtown Hi gh Density Residential
Downtown Commercial
Communit y Commercial
Business Commercial
Coastal Commercial
e
Mi xed Industr ial
Business and Technology Park
Tr ansportation Center
Pu blic
Park and Recreation
Open Space
Loft Ov erlay District
Existing Regional/Art erial/Collector
Prop osed Street
South SanFranciscoHigh School
SpruceSchool
ParkwayHeightsMiddleSchool
MartinSchool
HillsideSchool
WestboroughMiddle School
SerraVistaSchool(closed)
El CaminoHigh School
PonderosaSchool
SouthwoodSchool
SunshineGardens School
Alta LomaMiddle School
Fox RidgeSchool(closed)
Buri BuriSchool City Hall
Orange MemorialPark
Oyster P oint Marina/Park
Marina
Marina
LosCerritosSchool
C ol m a
San Br uno
P a ci c a
S a n F r a n c is co
I n tern a tio n a l
Ai r po rt
San Bruno Mountain
County Park
San
Fr ancisco
Bay
California Golf
and Country Club
Sign HillPark
San Bruno Canal
Hillsi
d
e
Blvd
Ch
e
s
n
u
t
Ave
Grand Ave
Sp
r
u
c
e
Ave
Sister Cities
Blvd
B ays h o re
Blv d
O yster Po int Blvd
Gateway
B l v d
S
o
u
t
h
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
B
l
v
d
Lin
d
e
n
Ave
SanMateo
Ave
E
l
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
al
Orange
Ave
ElCa
mino
Real
H i c ke y B l v d
J
u
n
i
p
e
r
o
S
e
r
r
a
B
l
v
d
S
k
yli
n
e
B
lv
d
S
k
y
l
i
n
e
B
l
v
d
Gellert
Blvd
C
alla
n
Blv
d
Air
p
o
r
t
Blv
d
Missio
n
R
d
W e s t b o r ough
Blvd
INTERSTATE 280
De
l
Mo
n
t
e
Ave
F elipe
A v e
A l t a Mesa Dr
Arr oyo
Dr
Carter Dr
G reendale Dr
Gal
w
a
y
Dr
Sha
n
n
o
n
Dr
D
onegalAve
Appian
Way
A v alo n D r
A lta V ista D r
N o rth w o o d D r
Rockw ood
D r
W ild w o o d D r
A
l
i
d
a
W
a
y
W
e
s
tOrange Ave
H
u
n
ti
n
g
t
o
n
A
v
e
Victory
Ave
Lo
w
r
i
e
Ave
U.S
.H
IG
HW
AY
101
U t a h A v e
Mitchell Ave
East
Grand Ave
EastGrand
Ave
Ha
r
b
o
r
Way
Gra nd vi e w Dr
Eccles
Ave
For bes
Ave
L i t t l e field
Ave
Hillside
Blvd
Schoo
l
St
Armour
Ave
Lind
e
n
Ave
Map
l
e
Ave
Mag
n
o
l
i
a
Ave
Park
Way
Miller Ave
Baden AveCommercial
AveRailroad Ave
Eucalyptus
Ave
Mill
e
r
Ave
Wil
l
o
w
Ave
Holly
Ave
Evergr
een
Dr
Crestw
oo
d
Dr
Morning
s
i
d
e
Ave
Miss
i
on
Rd
Clay A v e N
e
w
m
a
n
D
r
L
o
n
g
f
o
r
d
D
r
Arling
t
o
n
D r
D u v a l D r
Ser
r
a
Dr
Camaritas
Ave
L
o
m
a
Dr
C u e s t a Dr
P o n d er o sa
R d
Fairw
ay
D
r
A
S
t
B
S
tSouthwoodDr
H a z el w o o d D r
R
o
s
e
w
o
o
d
V
a
l
v
e
r
d
e
D
r
RegionalCommercial
CalT rainStation
San BrunoBARTStation
N oor
A v e Shaw Rd
Ma
p
l
e
Ave
StarliteSt
So.LindenAve
No.Canal Ave
Rya
n
Way
K ing Dr
11/40
MILES
1/2
10 Acres
2.5 Acres
W
exford
Ave
SouthSan F ranciscoBART
Figure 2-1
Land Use Diagram
El Camino Real Mixed Use
El Camino Real Mixed Use North, High Intensity
El Camino Real Mixed Use North, Medium Intensity
El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan
Downtown Residential Core
Downtown Transit Core
Downtown Station Area Plan
Transit Oce/R&D Core
Linden Neighborhood Center
Linden Commercial Corridor
Grand Avenue Core
1/4 Mile
R
a
d
i
u
s
StationCaltrain
Table 2.2-1: Standards for Density and Development Intensity
Land Use Designation Minimum Required FAR Residential Density (units/net acre)Maximum Permitted FAR1 Maximum Permitted with Incentives and Bonuses
Units/Net Acre FAR (See Table 2.2-2)
Residential2,3
Low Density -up to 8.0 0.5 10.0 -
Medium Density -8.1-18.0 1.0 22.5 -
High Density -18.1-30.0 -37.5 -
Downtown
Downtown Residential -
Low Density -5.1-15.0 0.7 15.0 -
Medium Density -15.1-25.0 1.25 31.3 -
High Density -20.1-40.0 -50.03 -
Downtown Transit Core 2.0 80.1-100.0 6.0 120.0 8.0
Grand Avenue Core 1.5 14.1-60.0 3.0 80.0/100.0 4.0
Linden Neighborhood Center 2.0 40.1-60.0 3.0 80.0 -
Downtown Residential Core -40.1-80.0 3.0 100.0/125.04 3.254
Office --1.0 -2.55
Commercial
Transit Office/R&D Core 1.5 -1.5-2.5 -3.5
Community Commercial --0.5 --
Business Commercial6 --0.5 -1.05
Hotel --1.2 -2.0
Coastal Commercial6 -----
Retail --0.5 -1.0
Office --1.0 -1.6
Hotel --1.6 -2.2
Mixed Use
El Camino Real Mixed Use7 0.68 up to 60.09 2.510 up to 80.09 3.510
El Camino Real Mixed Use North,
High Intensity
0.611 up to 80 2.0 up to 110 up to 3.0
El Camino Real Mixed Use North,
Medium Intensity
0.611 up to 40 1.5 up to 60 up to 2.5
Industrial
Business and Technology Park --0.5 -1.012
Mixed Industrial --0.4 -0.613
Business Commercial6 --0.5 -10.86
491
2: LAND USE
2-7
Table 2.2-1: Standards for Density and Development Intensity
Land Use Designation Minimum Required FAR Residential Density (units/net acre)Maximum Permitted FAR1 Maximum Permitted with Incentives and Bonuses
Units/Net Acre FAR (See Table 2.2-2)
Residential2,3
Low Density -up to 8.0 0.5 10.0 -
Medium Density -8.1-18.0 1.0 22.5 -
High Density -18.1-30.0 -37.5 -
Downtown
Downtown Residential -
Low Density -5.1-15.0 0.7 15.0 -
Medium Density -15.1-25.0 1.25 31.3 -
High Density -20.1-40.0 -50.03 -
Downtown Transit Core 2.0 80.1-100.0 6.0 120.0 8.0
Grand Avenue Core 1.5 14.1-60.0 3.0 80.0/100.0 4.0
Linden Neighborhood Center 2.0 40.1-60.0 3.0 80.0 -
Downtown Residential Core -40.1-80.0 3.0 100.0/125.04 3.254
Office --1.0 -2.55
Commercial
Transit Office/R&D Core 1.5 -1.5-2.5 -3.5
Community Commercial --0.5 --
Business Commercial6 --0.5 -1.05
Hotel --1.2 -2.0
Coastal Commercial6 -----
Retail --0.5 -1.0
Office --1.0 -1.6
Hotel --1.6 -2.2
Mixed Use
El Camino Real Mixed Use7 0.68 up to 60.09 2.510 up to 80.09 3.510
El Camino Real Mixed Use North,
High Intensity
0.611 up to 80 2.0 up to 110 up to 3.0
El Camino Real Mixed Use North,
Medium Intensity
0.611 up to 40 1.5 up to 60 up to 2.5
Industrial
Business and Technology Park --0.5 -1.012
Mixed Industrial --0.4 -0.613
Business Commercial6 --0.5 -10.86
180
492
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN
2-8
Amended by City Council Resolutions 19-2010, Adopted February 10, 2010; Resolution 31, 2010, adopted March 24, 2010; Resolution 47-2011, Adopted March 23, 2011; and Resolutions */-2011 and 99-2011, adopted July 27, 2011
1 Including garages for residential development, but excluding parking structures for non-residential development, except for El Camino Real Mixed Use.
2 20 percent density bonus is available for development within ¼-mile of a fixed-guideway transit (CalTrain or BART station or City-designated ferry terminal).
3 25 percent bonus is available for projects with affordable housing, housing for elderly residents with specific amenities designed for residents, or housing that meets community design standards that may be
specified in the Zoning Ordinance.
4 For qualifying affordable senior housing projects.
5 Required parking must be structured.
6 See Table 2.2-2. The Gateway Business Park Master Plan and the Oyster Point Specific Plan are permitted to develop up to a FAR of 1.25 with a TDM.
7 Frontage of a site along El Camino Real and other Arterial/Collector streets in the corridor is required to be devoted to active uses. Residential not permitted at ground level along El Camino Real except on the east
side of El Camino Real between First Street and West Orange Avenue, subject to conditional use permit approval.
8 For sites larger than 20,000 square feet, the minimum FAR for all uses, exclusive of substantially above-grade structured parking, shall be 0.6, of which a minimum 0.3 FAR shall be active uses. The requirement
for a minimum 0.3 FAR of active uses does not apply to projects where 30% of the units are restricted and affordable to low- or low-moderate-income households.
9 Included within FAR limit.
10 Includes residential and substantially above grade parking structures. Excludes surface parking.
11 A minimum 0.3 FAR of the required 0.6 shall be active uses. The requirement for a minimum 0.3 FAR of active uses does not apply to projects where 30% of the units are restricted and affordable to low- or low-
moderate-income households.
12 Permitted for research and development uses with low employment intensity, or other uses providing structured parking.
13 Permitted for uses with low employment intensity, such as wholesaling, warehousing, and distribution.
493
2: LAND USE
2-9
DENSITY/INTENSITY STANDARDS
The General Plan establishes density/intensity standards for each use classification.
Residential density is expressed as housing units per net acre. Maximum permit-
ted ratio of gross floor area to site area (FAR) is specified for non-residential uses.
FAR is a broad measure of building bulk that controls both visual prominence and
traffic generation. It can be clearly translated to a limit on building bulk in the Zon-
ing Ordinance and is independent of the type of use occupying the building. FAR
limitations are also shown for some residential land use classifications in order to
relate housing size to lot size; both housing density and FAR standards shall apply
in such instances. Building area devoted to structured or covered parking (if any)
is not included in FAR calculations for non-residential developments. However,
parking garages are included in the FAR limitations for residential uses.
The Zoning Ordinance could provide specific exceptions to the FAR limitations for
uses with low employment densities, such as research facilities, or low peak-hour
traffic generation, such as a hospital. In addition to density/intensity standards,
some land use classifications stipulate allowable building types (such as single-
family residential) as well.
The density/intensity standards do not imply that development projects will be
approved at the maximum density or intensity specified for each use. Zoning regu-
lations consistent with General Plan policies and/or site conditions may reduce
development potential within the stated ranges. Airport-related height limits also
restrict development, as shown in Figure 2-2. In addition, Figure 2-3 establishes
height limitations in specific areas, including Downtown, the El Camino Real Cor-
ridor, and near BART stations; these limitations shall apply to all uses, and land
use-based height limitations (in the Zoning Ordinance) shall not apply. For areas
outside the ones shown in Figure 2-3, height limitations shall be in accordance
with the use-based limitations specified in the Zoning Ordinance. These heights
are partly based on a viewshed analysis for the Planning Area, which revealed that
the south face of Sign Hill, the base of San Bruno Mountain, and the east face of
Point San Bruno Knoll, are visible from most areas of the city, as shown in Figure
2-4. Gross density standards and assumed averages for residential categories are
listed below.
494
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN
2-10
161 FT
2 1 1 F T261F T311FT361FT
35
040
045
0
50
0
55
0
1 6 1 F T
TR
A
N
S
I
T
I
O
N
A
L
SU
R
F
A
CE
SL
O
P
E
7
:
1
TRAN
S
I
T
I
O
N
A
L
SURF
ACESLOP
E
7
:
1
150
FT
C O N I C A L S U R F A C E
S L O P E 2 0 :1
He ight Limi t
Figure 2-2
Airport-Related Height Limitations
AP
P
R
OACH
SU
R
F
ACE
SL
O
P
E
4
0
:
1
161 FT
Hillside
Blvd
Chesnut
Ave
Grand
Ave
Spruce
Ave
Sister
Cities
Blvd
B ays h o r e
B lv d
Oyster Point Blvd
Gateway
B lv d
S
o
u
t
h
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
B
l
v
d
Lin
d
en
Ave
SanMateo
Ave
E
l
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
al
Orange
Ave
ElCamino
Real
H i c k e y B l v d
J
u
n
i
p
e
r
o
S
e
r
r
a
B
l
v
d
S
k
yli
n
e
B
lv
d
Gellert
Blvd
C
alla
n
Blv
d
Air
p
o
r
t
Blv
d
Mission
R
d
W e s t b o r o ugh Blvd
INTERSTATE 280
DelMonte
Ave
Felipe
Ave
Alta M e s a Dr
A rr o yo
D r
Carter Dr
Greendale Dr
G
a
l
w
a
y
Dr
Sha
n
n
o
n
Dr
D
onegalAve
Appian
Way
A v alo n D r
A lt a V is t a D r
N o rt h w o o d D r
Roc
k
w
ood
Dr
W ild w o o d D r
A
li
d
a
W
a
y
W
e
s
t
O
r
angeAve
H
u
n
t
i
n
g
t
o
n
A
v
e
Victory Ave
Lo
wrie
Ave
U.S
.H
IG
HWAY
101
U ta h
A v e
Shaw Rd
Mitchell Ave
East Grand Ave
EastGrand Ave
Ha
r
b
o
r
Wa
y
Grand vie w Dr
Eccles
Ave
Forbe s
Ave
L i t t l e field
Ave
Hi
l
l
s
i
d
e
Bl
v
d
S c h o o l S t
Ar
m
o
u
r
Ave
Lind
e
n
Ave
Maple
Ave
Magnolia
Ave
Park Way
Miller
Ave
Baden
AveCommercial
AveRailroad
Ave
Eucaly
ptus
Ave
Mill
e
r
Ave
Will
o
w
Ave
Holly
Ave
Evergreen
D r
C
re
st
w
o
o
d
D
r
Morningsid
e
Ave
Mission
Rd
Clay A v e N
e
w
m
a
n
D
r
L
o
n
g
f
o
r
d
D
r
Arlin
g
t
o
n
Dr
Duval
Dr
Serra
Dr
Cam
a
r
i
t
a
s
Ave
L
o
m
a
D
r
C u est a D r
P onde
r
osa
Rd
Fairway
D
r
A
S
t
B
S
t
H a z elw o o d D r
R
o
s
e
w
o
o
d
V
a
l
v
e
r
d
e
D
r
INTERSTATE 380
11/40
MILES
1/2
Source: S an Ma teo County Ai rport Land Use Plan
C olma
San Br uno
Pacica
Daly
Ci ty
San franc isco
Inter nat ion al
Air port
San Br uno Mount ain
County Pa rk
San
Fr ancisco
Bay
C alifor nia Golf
and Count ry Cl ub
Sign HillPark
San Bruno Canal
Colma Creek
2 0 0
100
10 0
100
100
100
200
200
200
300
300
300
3 0 0
400
40 0
400
3
00400
500
600
500
400
300
200
200
300400200
200
200
4 0 0
200
200
200
300
400
500
500
600
600
500
4 0 0
400500
400
5
0
0
6
0
0
6
0
0
600
600
400
5 0 0
7
0
0
7
0
0
7
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
100 1 0 0
500
6 0 0
700
500
600
700
800
900
1000
5 0 0
600
700400
300
3
0
0
2
0
0
300
400
400
500
400
300
600
400
500
600
700
700
600
500
400 3 0 0
600
500
400
300
200
495
2: LAND USE
2-11
Figure 2-3
Special Area Height Limitations
50 FT
Hillside
Blvd
Chesnut
Ave
Grand
Ave
Spruce
Ave
Sister
Cities
Blvd
B ays h o r e
B lv d
Oyster Point Blvd
Gateway
B lv d
S
o
u
t
h
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
B
l
v
d
Lin
d
en
Ave
SanMateo
Ave
E
l
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Orange
Ave
ElCamino
Real
H i c k e y B l v d
J
u
n
i
p
e
r
o
S
e
r
r
a
B
l
v
d
S
k
yli
n
e
B
lv
d
Gellert
Blvd
C
alla
n
Blv
d
Air
p
o
r
t
Blv
d
Mission
R
d
W e s t b o r o ugh Blvd
INTERSTATE 280
DelMonte
Ave
Felipe
Ave
Alta M e s a Dr
A rr oy o
D r
Carter Dr
G reendale Dr
G
a
l
w
a
y
Dr
Sha
n
n
o
n
Dr
D
onegalAve
Appian
Way
A v alo n D r
A lt a V is t a D r
N o r t h w o o d D r
Roc
k
w
ood
Dr
W ild w o o d D r
A
li
d
a
W
a
y
W
e
s
t
O
r
angeAve
H
u
n
t
i
n
g
t
o
n
A
v
e
Victory Ave
Lo
wrie
Ave
U.
S
.H
IG
HWAY
101
U ta h
A v e
Shaw Rd
Mitchell Ave
East Grand Ave
EastGrand
Ave
Ha
r
b
o
r
Wa
y
Grand vie w Dr
Eccles
Ave
Forbes
Ave
L i t t l e field
Ave
Hi
l
l
s
i
d
e
Bl
v
d
S c h o o l S t
Ar
m
o
u
r
Ave
Lind
e
n
Ave
Maple
Ave
Magnolia
Ave
Park Way
Miller
Ave
Baden
AveCommercial
AveRailroad
Ave
Eucaly
ptus
Ave
Mill
e
r
A
ve
Will
o
w
Ave
Holly
Ave
Evergreen
D r
C
re
st
w
o
o
d
D
r
Morningsid
e
Ave
Mission
Rd
Clay A v e N
e
w
m
a
n
D
r
L
o
n
g
f
o
r
d
D
r
Arlin
g
t
o
n
Dr
Duval
Dr
Se
r
r
a
Dr
Cam
a
r
i
t
a
s
Ave
L
o
m
a
D
r
C u e st a D r
P onde
r
osa
Rd
Fairway
Dr
A
S
t
B
S
t
H a z e lw o o d D r
R
o
s
e
w
o
o
d
V
a
l
v
e
r
d
e
D
r
INTERSTATE 380
11/40
MILES
1/2
C olma
San Br uno
Pa cica
Daly
Ci ty
San francisco
International
Airport
San Bruno Mountain
County Pa rk
San
Francisco
Bay
California Golf
and Country Club
Sign HillPark
San Bruno Canal
Colma Creek
2 0 0
100
10 0
100
100
100
200
200
200
300
30
0
30
0
3 0 0
400
40 0
400
3
00400
500
600
500
400
300
200
200
300400200
200
200
4 0 0
200
200
200
300
400
500
500
600
600
500
4 0 0
400500
400
5
0
0
6
0
0
6
0
0
600
600
400
5 0 0
7
0
0
7
0
0
7
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
100 1 0 0
500
600
700
500
600
700
800
900
1000
5 0 0
600
700400
300
3
0
0
2
00
300
400
400
500
400
300
600
400
500
600
700
700
600
500
400 3 0 0
600
500
400
300
200
80 FT
50 FT
50 80 FT
50 FT
80/120
FT
80/120 FT Base Height Limit/
Height Limit with Discretionary Approval
Height Limits
Note: Building height limitations for areas shown on this map shall be as
indicated here, regardless of the underlying use. For areas outside of the areas
shown on this map, building heights shall be in accordance with the
development regulations for the use in the City’s Zoning Ordinance.
For areas subject to airport-related height limitations, building heights
must be in accordance with the limits indicated in the most recently
adopted Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan.
50 FT
50 FT
50 FT
El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan
See Plan for Height Limitations
Downtown Station Area Plan
See Plan for Height Limitations
45 FT
50 FT
50 FT
65 FT
65 FT 85 FT
85 FT
FAA
60 FT
496
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN
2-12
Vi ewpoint
Vi sible from at least one viewpoint
Vi sible from two viewpoints
Vi sible from all viewpoints
Figure 2-4
Viewshed
Hillside
Blvd
Chesnut
Ave
Grand
Ave
Spruce
Ave
Sister
Cities
Blvd
B ays h o re
B lv d
Oyster Point Blvd
Gateway
B lv d
S
o
u
t
h
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
B
l
v
d
Lin
d
en
Ave
Sa
nMateo
AveE
l
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Orange
Ave
ElCamino
Real
H i c k e y B l v d
J
u
n
i
p
e
r
o
S
e
r
r
a
B
l
v
d
S
k
yli
n
e
B
lv
d
Gellert
B
l
v
d
C
alla
n
Blv
d
Airp
o
r
t
Blv
d
Missio
n
R
d
W e s t b orough
Bl v d
INTERSTATE 280
DelMonte
Ave
Felipe
Ave
A l t a Mesa
Dr
Arroyo
D r
C
arter
Dr
G r e endale Dr
Gal
w
a
y
Dr
Sha
n
n
o
n
Dr
D
onegalAve
Appian
Way
A v alo n D r
A lt a V is t a D r
N o r t h w o o d D r
Roc
k
w
ood
Dr
W ild w o o d D r
A
li
d
a
W
a
y
W
e
s
t
O
r
angeAve
H
u
n
t
i
n
g
t
o
n
A
v
e
Victory Ave
Lo
wrie
Ave
U.S
.H
IG
HWAY
101
U ta h A v e
Shaw Rd
Mitchell Ave
Ea s t Grand Ave
EastGrand Ave
Ha
r
b
o
r
Wa
y
GrandviewDr
Eccle
s
Ave
F o r b e s
Ave
L i t t l e field
Ave
Hi
l
l
s
i
d
e
Bl
v
d
S c h o o l S t
Ar
m
o
u
r
Ave
Lind
e
n
Ave
Maple
Ave
Magnolia
Ave
Park Way
Miller
Ave
Baden
AveCommercial AveRailroad
Ave
Eucaly
ptus
Ave
Mill
e
r
A
ve
Will
o
w
Ave
Holly
Ave
Evergreen
D r
C
re
st
w
o
od
D
r
Morningsid
e
Ave
Miss
i
o
n
Rd
Clay A v e N
e
w
m
a
n
D
r
L
o
n
g
f
o
r
d
D
r
Arlin
g
t
o
n
Dr
Duval
Dr
Serra
Dr
Cam
arita
s
Ave
L
o
m
a
D
r
Cues t a D r
P onde
r
osa
Rd
Fairway
Dr
A
S
t
B
S
t
H a z elw o o d D r
R
o
s
e
w
o
o
d
V
a
l
v
e
r
d
e
D
r
INTERSTATE 380
King Dr
11/40
MILES
1/2
Source: Dyett & Bhatia, derived from USGS Dig ital Elevation Mo del
C olma
San Br uno
Pa cica
Daly
Ci ty
San franc isco
Inter nat ion al
Ai rp or t
San Br uno Mount ain
County Pa rk
San
Fr ancisco
Bay
C alifor nia Golf
and Count ry Cl ub
Sign Hill
Pa rk
San Bruno Canal
Colma Creek
497
2: LAND USE
2-13
Table 2.2-2: Standards for Density and Development Intensity
Land Use Designation Minimum Floor Area
Ratio (FAR)
Base Floor Area Ratio
(FAR)
Incentive-based FAR Bonuses Available Total Maximum FAR
Maximum Attainable FAR with
Transportation Demand Management
(TDM) Program
Other Specified Design Standards1
Downtown Transit Core 2.0 6.0 8.01
Grand Avenue Core 1.5 3.0 4.01
Linden Neighborhood Center 2.0 3.0 -
Downtown Residential Core -3.0 3.258
Office -1.0 1.3 0.2 2.5
Transit Office/R&D Core 1.5 1.5-2.5 3.51
Business Commercial2 -0.5 0.4 0.1 1.0
El Camino Real Mixed Use3 0.64 2.55 0.5 0.5 3.55
El Camino Real Mixed Use North, High
Intensity
0.66 2.0 0.5 0.5 3.0
El Camino Real Mixed Use North,
Medium Intensity
0.66 1.5 0.5 0.5 2.5
Business & Technology Park -0.5 0.4 0.1 1.0
Hotels7 -1.2 0.6 0.2 2.0
Costal Commercial2 -
Retail -0.5 0.4 0.1 1.0
Office -1.0 0.5 0.1 1.6
Hotel -1.6 0.4 0.2 2.2
1 Discretionary; based on criteria established in the Zoning Ordinance and upon conditional use permit approval.
2 The Gateway Business Park Master Plan and the Oyster Point Specific Plan are permitted to develop up to a FAR of 1.25 with a TDM.
3 Frontage of a site along El Camino Real and other Arterial/Collector streets in the corridor is required to be devoted to active uses. Residential not permitted at ground floor level along El Camino Real,
except on the east side of El Camino Real between First Street and West Orange Avenue, subject to conditional use permit approval.
4 For sites larger than 20,000 square feet, the minimum FAR for all uses, exclusive of substantially above-grade structured parking, shall be 0.6, of which a minimum 0.3 FAR shall be active uses. The
requirement for a minimum 0.3 FAR of active uses does not apply to projects where 30% of the units are restricted and affordable to low- or low-moderate-income households.
5 Includes residential and substantially above-grade parking structures. Excludes surface parking.
6 A minimum 0.3 FAR of the required 0.6 shall be active uses. The requirement for a minimum 0.3 FAR of active uses does not apply to projects where 30% of the units are restricted and affordable to
low- or low-moderate-income households.
7 The Hotel FAR listed for Base, Maximum Attainable FAR with TDM, Other Specified Design Standards, and Total Maximum FAR is applicable for all hotels located in all General Plan designated areas that
permit hotel uses.
8 For qualifying affordable senior housing projects.
Amended by City Council Resolutions 19-2010, Adopted February 10, 2010,;Resolution 31, 2010, adopted March 24, 2010; and Resolution 47-2011, Adopted March 23, 2011
498
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN
2-14
CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
The classifications in this section represent adopted City policy. They are meant to
be broad enough to give the City flexibility in implementation, but clear enough
to provide sufficient direction to carry out the General Plan. The City’s Zoning
Ordinance contains more detailed provisions and standards. More than one zoning
district may be consistent with a single General Plan land use classification.
Residential
Three residential land use classifications are established for areas outside of Down-
town to provide for development of a full range of housing types (Downtown
residential land use classifications are included later in this section). Densities are
stated as number of housing units per net acre of developable land, excluding
areas subject to physical, environmental, or geological constraints, and areas dedi-
cated for creekside greenways or wetlands protection, provided that at least one
housing unit may be built on each existing legal parcel designated for residential
use. Development would be required within the density range (both maximum and
minimum) stipulated in the classification. Development standards established in
the Zoning Ordinance may limit attainment of maximum densities.
Second units permitted by local regulation, State-mandated density bonuses for
provision of affordable housing, and a 20 percent density bonus for residential
developments located within a 1/4-mile of a fixed-guideway transit (BART or Cal-
train) station are in addition to densities otherwise permitted.
Assumed average densities listed are used to calculate probable housing unit and
population holding capacity. Neither the averages nor the totals constitute General
Plan policy. Housing types (which are included here for illustrative purposes only,
and do not represent adopted City policy) are shown in Figure 2-5.
Low Density Residential
Single-family residential development with densities up to 8.0 units per net acre.
Typical lots would be 6,000 square feet, but the minimum would be 5,000 square
feet, and smaller lots (4,500 square feet or less) may be permitted in neighbor-
hoods meeting specified community design standards, subject to specific review
499
2: LAND USE
2-15
Lot Size
Dwelling Size
Number of
Floors
Density
(units/net acre)
Ty pical Density
Range for
Housing Type
General Plan
Land Use
Classicatio n
Housing TypeDetached
(front loaded)
Deta ched Zero-
Lot Line
(front loaded)
Deta ched
(front loaded)
Tow nhouse
(rear loaded)
Townhouse
(front loaded)
Residential Over
Parking And
Commercial Podium
6,000 sq. ft.
1,800 sq. ft.
2
7
8
Low Density
2,500 sq. ft.
1,200 sq. ft.
2
17
18
Medium Density
2,500 sq. ft.
1,400 sq. ft.
2
15
16
Medium Density
2,500 sq. ft.
1,400 sq. ft.
2
15
12-25
Medium Density
2,000 sq. ft.
1,200 sq. ft.
2.5
22
15-30
Downtown
Medium Density
-
1,200 sq. ft.
2-3 over podium
40
30+
Downtown
High Density
25
60
25
100
25 (50)
100
35
72
60
100
Figure 2-5
Illustrativ e Housing Type s
500
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN
2-16
requirements. This classification is mainly intended for detached single-family
dwellings, but attached single-family units may be permitted, provided each unit
has ground-floor living area and private outdoor open space. The Zoning Ordi-
nance may include a separate district for estate-type or zero-lot-line developments.
Medium Density Residential
Housing at densities from 8.1 to 18.0 units per net acre, with a minimum of 2,250
square feet of net area (i.e. exclusive of streets, parks and other public rights-of-
way) required per unit, and a minimum lot area of 6,750 square feet. Dwelling
types may include attached or detached single-family housing, duplexes, triplex-
es, fourplexes, townhouses, apartments, and condominiums. Multifamily housing
type is not permitted. (Amended by City Council Resolution 148-2000, Adopted
November 21, 2000)
High Density Residential
Residential development, with densities ranging from 18.1 to 30.0 units per net
acre. This designation would permit the full range of housing types, including
single-family attached development subject to standards in the Zoning Ordinance,
and is intended for specific areas where higher density may be appropriate.
This designation within the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, as it ap-
plies to the 4.5-acre former San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (PUC)
parcel between Mission Road and the Colma Creek canal, allows higher densities
than elsewhere in the city, reflecting the area’s close proximity to the South San
Francisco BART Station. Up to 120 units per acre are permitted and a minimum
density of 80 units per acre is required. A maximum of 180 units per acre may be
achieved for development meeting specified criteria. (Amended by Resolution 97-
2011 and 99-2011, Adopted July 27, 2011)
DOWNTOWN
Downtown Residential
In addition to housing type and density standards stipulated below, the Zoning
Ordinance may establish development standards and parking and other require-
ments for downtown residential development different from residential develop-
ment elsewhere in the City.
501
2: LAND USE
2-17
Three categories are included and are shown on the General Plan Diagram:
• Downtown Low Density Residential. Single-family (detached or attached) resi-
dential development with densities ranging from 5.1 to 15.0 units per net acre.
Multifamily development is not permitted.
• Downtown Medium Density Residential. Residential development at densities
ranging from 15.1 to 25.0 units per net acre. A full range of housing types is
permitted.
• Downtown High Density Residential. Residential development at densities
ranging from 25.1 to 40.0 units per net acre for lots equal to or greater than
H-acre (21,780 square feet) in area. For lots smaller than H acre, maximum
density shall be 30.0 units per acre.
A maximum of 25 percent density bonus may be approved for projects with afford-
able housing, housing for elderly residents with specific amenities designed for
residents, or housing that meets community design standards that may be specified
in the Zoning Ordinance. Maximum density with all bonuses shall not exceed 50
units per net acre.
Downtown Transit Core
This designation applies to the area that lies within a 1/4 mile, or a five-minute
walk, of the reconfigured Caltrain Station and undercrossing. It is bounded by Lux
Avenue on the north, Second Lane on the south, Union Pacific Railroad/Caltrain
tracks on the east, and properties on the west side of Linden Avenue on the west.
The Downtown Transit Core is envisioned to be a vibrant, mixed-use area. Due
to its proximity to the Caltrain Station and the relative abundance of developable
sites, the Downtown Transit Core is the area most suitable for the highest intensi-
ties of new development in the Downtown area. These higher intensities will help
to support transit ridership since residential units will be within a short walk of the
station. High-density housing will also provide the pedestrian activity needed to
support downtown businesses and will increase activity day and night, add street
life and improve safety. As the Downtown Transit Core area evolves, it will en-
hance the image of the Downtown and frame Grand Avenue—the centerpiece of
the Downtown.
502
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN
2-18
The Downtown Transit Core allows up to 100 dwelling units per acre; a minimum
of 80 dwelling units per acre is required. A maximum of 120 180 dwelling units
per acre would be allowed for development meeting specified criteria. Ground
level retail uses will be encouraged throughout the area.
Grand Avenue Core
Grand Avenue will remain the historic retail center of the City. The Grand Avenue
district extends from Airport Boulevard on the east to Spruce Avenue on the west.
With a few exceptions, the district includes properties directly fronting on Grand
Avenue. At the east end, Grand Avenue and Airport Boulevard form an important
gateway to the City and the historic core; at the west end, the district transitions to
the residential Downtown Neighborhood described in the General Plan. Historically
interesting buildings will be retained wherever possible. New mixed-use develop-
ment of underutilized properties will be encouraged but guidelines will limit build-
ing heights directly along Grand Avenue in order to respect the historic character
of some existing buildings and to create a comfortable pedestrian environment. Off
Grand Avenue, on the rear portions of Grand-facing lots, taller allowable heights
will help accommodate new residential uses and increase development opportuni-
ties.
The Grand Avenue Core allows up to 60 dwelling units per acre and requires a mini-
mum of 14 units per acre. If meeting specified criteria, residential densities can be
up to 80 dwelling units per acre or 100 units per acre on corner sites or site over 1/2
acre in size. Retail is required on the ground floor.
Downtown Residential Core
Outside of the Grand Avenue Core and the Downtown Transit Core areas, the
remaining areas lying between Tamarack Lane and Second Lane are designated
Downtown Residential Core. This designation is intended to encourage somewhat
higher densities than what is currently allowed but will still be compatible in scale
with the remaining Downtown residential districts: Downtown High Density Resi-
dential and Downtown Medium Density Residential. The areas encompassed by
this new designation are within two blocks of the Grand Avenue Core. With new
residential development, these will become more active, pedestrian-oriented streets
with day and night activity which will promote safety. The added residents will be
important to the success of Grand Avenue businesses.
503
2: LAND USE
2-19
The Downtown Residential Core designation allows up to 80 dwelling units per
acre with a minimum of 40 units per acre. Densities up to 100 units per acre are
allowed if specific criteria are met and public benefits are provided. Affordable
senrior housing projects may be allowed up to 125 units per acre.
Linden Neighborhood Center
The Linden Neighborhood Center is defined as the properties fronting Linden Av-
enue between California Avenue and Ninth Lane. The large zone of residential
uses that lie north of Miller Avenue up to Armour Avenue and west of Maple have
limited neighborhood amenities that can help to meet daily needs; in addition, there
is little public open space available in this area. The current small collection of
retail uses along Linden Avenue between California and Juniper Avenues provide
a starting point for a more robust neighborhood center that will be walkable for the
surrounding residential areas and can be a supplement to the more citywide desti-
nations that will locate along Grand Avenue.
Retail/commercial uses are required at ground level within this zone. The Linden
Neighborhood Center designation allows up to 60 dwelling units per acre with a
minimum of 40 units per acre. Densities up to 80 units per acre are allowed if spe-
cific criteria are met.
Linden Commercial Corridor
The Linden Commercial Corridor includes the properties fronting Linden Avenue
from California Avenue to Sixth Lane and from Second Lane to Railroad Avenue.
Linden Avenue throughout its length has historically been a location for a variety of
commercial uses and today many of these remain and serve as resources for local
residents and businesses. This designation apples to areas of Linden Avenue south
of Aspen Avenue that do not otherwise fall into the Downtown Residential Core,
Downtown Transit Core, or Grand Avenue Core districts.
Commercial and mixed uses will continue to be allowed and encouraged on prop-
erties within this corridor. While not required, commercial uses will provide op-
portunities for local services for adjoining residential neighborhoods. As with other
mixed use locations, improvements to the sidewalks and streetscape will be en-
couraged to provide additional pedestrian amenities and accessibility especially
for local residents.
504
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN
2-20
Retail use will be encouraged at ground level in this corridor. Other requirements
of the Downtown High Density Residential district will pertain: 20.1-40 dwelling
units per acre.
OFFICE
This designation is intended to provide sites for administrative, financial, busi-
ness, professional, medical and public offices in locations proximate to BART or
CalTrain stations. Support commercial uses are permitted, subject to limitations
established in the Zoning Ordinance. Site planning and building design shall en-
sure pedestrian comfort, and streets shall be fronted by active uses. The maximum
Floor Area Ratio is 1.0, but increases may be permitted up to a total FAR of 2.5 for
development meeting specific transportation demand management (TDM), struc-
tured parking, off-site improvement, or specific design standards criteria. These
bonus standards are shown in Table 2.2-2. The Planning Commission, at its discre-
tion, may permit increase of base FAR in specific instances where existing build-
ings are rehabilitated for office use and are unable meet the structured parking or
specified design standard criteria. However, the maximums (with incentives, is
stipulated in Table 2.2-2) shall not be exceeded.
COMMERCIAL
Transit Office / R&D Core
The Transit Office/R&D area is bounded on the north by East Grand Avenue, on
the east by Gateway Boulevard, on the south by South Airport Boulevard, and on
the west by Industrial Way and the US 101 right-of-way. It is currently a mix of
parking lots and low scale service and light industrial uses. This urban employ-
ment district would be characterized by a walkable street pattern, more like Down-
town than the suburban-style developments that dominate much of the East of 101
area. With the extension of the Caltrain Station and construction of the pedestrian/
bicycle underpass, this area will be well connected to the Downtown, providing an
opportunity for a significant number of workers to easily access downtown ameni-
ties.
Taller buildings are suitable here in conformance with the FAA height limitations.
The area would lend itself to corporate office, hotels, and other major facilities due
to its high visibility from US 101 and proximity to San Francisco International
Airport, Downtown San Francisco and the various employment centers on the
505
2: LAND USE
2-21
Peninsula. Along the extension of Grand Avenue to the east beyond the rail tracks
undercrossing, limited retail and services may be feasible in the long run and to
provide amenities for nearby employees. The allowable development intensity in
the area would be 1.5 to 2.5 floor area ratio (FAR). A FAR up to 3.5 may be al-
lowed if specific criteria are met.
Community Commercial
This category includes shopping centers, such as Westborough, and major com-
mercial districts, such as El Camino Real, and regional centers along South Air-
port Boulevard. Retail and department stores, eating and drinking establishments,
commercial recreation, service stations, automobile sales and repair services, fi-
nancial, business and personal services, motels, educational and social services are
permitted. An “R” designation on the General Plan Diagram indicates that the site
is reserved for region-serving commercial uses. The maximum Floor Area Ratio is
0.5. Office uses are encouraged on the second and upper floors.
Business Commercial
This category is intended for business and professional offices, and visitor ser-
vice establishments, and retail. Permitted uses include for administrative, finan-
cial, business, professional, medical and public offices, research and development
facilites, and visitor-oriented and regional commercial activities. Regional com-
mercial centers, restaurants and related services are permitted subject to appropri-
ate standards. This category is intended for the emerging commercial and hotel
district along South Airport, Gateway, and Oyster Point boulevards, and South
Spruce corridor. The maximum Floor Area Ratio is 0.5, but increases may be per-
mitted up to a total FAR of 1.0 for uses such as research and development fa-
cilities, or for development meeting specific transportation demand management
(TDM), off-site improvement, or specific design standards. The Gateway Business
Park Master Planb area, comprising several parcels on 22.6 acres at the southeast
corner of Gateway Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard, is permitted to develop
up to a FAR of 1.25Maximum FAR for hotel developments shall be 1.2, with in-
creases to a maximum total FAR of 2.0 for development meeting specified criteria.
The Oyster Point Specific Plan regulates uses and development intensities within
the Specific Plan District. (Amended by City Council Resolution 19, 2010 adopted
February 10, 2010 and Resolution 47-2011, adopted March 23, 2011)
506
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN
2-22
Coastal Commercial
Business/professional services, office, convenience sales, restaurants, public mar-
ketplace, personal/repair services, limited retail, research and development facili-
ties, hotel/motel with a coastal orientation, recreational facilities, and marinas. Max-
imum FAR is 0.5 for retail, recreation facilities, research and development facilities,
marinas, and eating and drinking establishments, 1.0 for offices, and 1.6 for hotels.
All development will be subject to design review by the Planning Commission.
Uses and development intensities at Oyster Point will be regulated by the Oyster
Point Specific/Master Plan. (Amended by City Council Resolution 47-2011, ad-
opted March 23, 2011)
MIXED USE
El Camino Real Mixed Use
This designation is intended to accommodate high-intensity active uses and mixed-
use development in the South El Camino Real area. Retail and department stores;
eating and drinking establishments; hotels; commercial recreation; financial, busi-
ness, and personal services; residential; educational and social services; and office
uses are permitted.
The frontage of a site along El Camino Real and other Arterial/Collector streets
in the corridor is required to be devoted to active uses—uses that are accessible
to the general public and generate walk-in pedestrian clientele and contribute to a
high level of pedestrian activity. Uses that generate pedestrian activity include retail
shops, restaurants, bars, theaters and the performing arts, commercial recreation and
entertainment, personal and convenience services, hotels, banks, travel agencies,
child care services, libraries, museums and galleries.
For sites larger than 20,000 square feet, the minimum FAR for all uses, exclusive of
substantially above-grade structured parking, shall be 0.6, of which a minimum 0.3
FAR shall be active uses. The requirement for a minimum 0.3 FAR of active uses
does not apply to projects where 30% of the units are restricted and affordable to
low- or low-moderate-income households.
The maximum FAR for all uses, inclusive of housing and substantially above-grade
structured parking shall be 2.5, with increases to a maximum total FAR of 3.5 for
development meeting specified criteria.
507
2: LAND USE
2-23
Residential density is limited to 60 units per acre, with increases to a maximum
of 80 units per acre for development meeting specified criteria. For parcels on the
east side of El Camino Real, between First Street and West Orange Avenue, either
a mix of uses as permitted under this classification or residential use only (up to 40
units per acre) is permitted. (Mixed Use classification -Amended by City Council
Resolution 19-2010, adopted February 10, 2010)
El Camino Real Mixed Use North, High Intensity
This designation is intended to accommodate high-intensity active uses and mixed-
use development. Retail and department stores; eating and drinking establishments;
hotels; commercial recreation; financial, business, and personal services; residen-
tial; educational and social services; and office uses are permitted.
The minimum FAR for all uses, exclusive of structured parking, shall be 0.6, of
which a minimum 0.3 FAR shall be active uses. Active uses are those that are ac-
cessible to the general public, generate walk-in pedestrian clientele and contribute
to a high level of pedestrian activity. Such uses include retail shops, restaurants,
bars, theaters and the performing arts, commercial recreation and entertainment,
personal and convenience services, hotels, banks, travel agencies, childcare ser-
vices, libraries, museums, and galleries.
Within this designation, the ground floor frontage of a site along El Camino Real,
Chestnut Avenue and Oak Avenue is required to be devoted to active uses. The
maximum FAR for all uses, inclusive of residential but exclusive of structured
parking, shall be 2.0, with increases to a maximum total FAR of 3.0 for develop-
ment meeting specified criteria. Residential density (included within the overall
FAR) is limited to a maximum of 80 units per acre, with increases to a maximum of
110 units per acre for development meeting specified criteria.
(Section added by Resolution 97-2011 and 99-2011, Adopted July 27, 2011)
El Camino Real Mixed Use North, Medium Intensity
This designation is intended to accommodate high-intensity active uses and mixed-
use development. Retail and department stores; eating and drinking establishments;
hotels; commercial recreation; financial, business, and personal services; residen-
tial; educational and social services; and office uses are permitted.
508
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN
2-24
The minimum FAR for all uses, exclusive of structured parking, shall be 0.6, of
which a minimum 0.3 FAR shall be active uses. Active uses are those that are ac-
cessible to the general public, generate walk-in pedestrian clientele and contribute
to a high level of pedestrian activity. Such uses include retail shops, restaurants,
bars, theaters and the performing arts, commercial recreation and entertainment,
personal and convenience services, hotels, banks, travel agencies, childcare ser-
vices, libraries, museums, and galleries.
Within this designation, the maximum FAR for all uses, inclusive of residential
but exclusive of structured parking, shall be 1.5, with increases to a maximum
total FAR of 2.5 for development meeting specified criteria. Residential density
(included within the overall FAR) is limited to 40 units per acre, with increases to
a maximum of 60 units per acre for development meeting specified criteria.
(Section added by Resolution 97-2011 and 99-2011, Adopted July 27, 2011)
INDUSTRIAL AND RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Two categories are proposed: Business and Technology Park, for the East of 101
areas north of East Grand Avenue, and Mixed Industrial, for the areas south of East
Grand Avenue in East of 101 and Lindenville.
Business and Technology Park
This designation accommodates campus-like environments for corporate head-
quarters, research and development facilities, and offices. Permitted uses include
incubator-research facilities, testing, repairing, packaging, publishing and printing,
marinas, shoreline-oriented recreation, and offices, and research and development
facilities. Warehousing and distribution facilities and retail are permitted as ancil-
lary uses only. All development is subject to high design and landscape standards.
Maximum Floor Area Ratio is 0.5, but increases may be permitted, up to a total
FAR of 1.0 for uses such as research and development establishments, or for de-
velopment meeting specific transportation demand management (TDM), off-site
improvement, or specific design standards.
509
2: LAND USE
2-25
Mixed Industrial
This designation is intended to provide and protect industrial lands for a wide range
of manufacturing, industrial processing, general service, warehousing, storage and
distribution, and service commercial uses. Industries producing substantial amounts
of hazardous waste or odor and other pollutants are not permitted. Unrelated retail
and service commercial uses that could be more appropriately located elsewhere
in the city would not be permitted, except for offices, subject to appropriate stan-
dards. Small restaurants and convenience stores would be allowed as ancillary uses,
subject to appropriate standards. The maximum Floor Area Ratio is 0.4, with an in-
crease to a total FAR of 0.6 for development seeking an FAR bonus with TDM pro-
gram as specified in the Zoning Ordinance. In addition to development standards,
the Zoning Ordinance may include performance standards to minimize potential
environmental impacts.
PUBLIC/INSTITUTIONAL
To provide for schools, government offices, transit sites, airport, and other facilities
that have a unique public character. Religious facilities are not called out separately
on the General Plan Diagram, but are instead shown with designations on adjoining
sites; these facilities may be specifically delineated on the Zoning Map.
PARKS
Parks, recreation complexes, public golf courses, and greenways.
OPEN SPACE
This designation includes sites with environmental and/or safety constraints. In-
cluded are sites with slopes greater than 30 percent, sensitive habitats, wetlands,
creekways, areas subject to flooding, and power transmission line corridors. Where
otherwise not excluded by noise, aircraft safety or other environmental standards,
residential development is generally permitted at a density not to exceed one hous-
ing unit per 20 acres.
510
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN
2-26
Hillside
Blvd
Chesnut
Ave
Grand
Ave
Spruce
Ave
Sister
Cities
Blvd
B ays h o r e
B lv d
Oyster Point Blvd
Gateway
B l v d
S
o
u
t
h
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
B
l
v
d
Lin
d
en
Ave
SanMateo
Ave
E
l
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Orange
Ave
El
Camino
Real
H i c k e y B l v d
J
u
n
i
p
e
r
o
S
e
r
r
a
B
l
v
d
S
k
yli
n
e
B
lv
d
G
e
l
l
e
r
t
Blvd
C
alla
n
Blv
d
Air
p
o
r
t
Blv
d
Missio
n
R
d
W e s t b o r o u gh
Blvd
INTERSTATE 280
DelMonte
Ave
Felipe
Ave
Alta M esa Dr
A rr o yo
D r
Carter
D
r
G reendale Dr
Gal
w
ay
Dr
Sha
n
n
o
n
Dr
D
onegalAve
Appian
W
ay A v alo n D r A lt a V is t a D r
N o rt h w o o d D r
Roc
k
w
ood
Dr
W ild w o o d D r
A
li
d
a
W
a
y
W
e
s
t
O
range Ave
H
u
n
ti
n
g
t
o
n
A
v
e
Victory Ave
Lo
wrie
Ave
U.S
.H
IG
HWAY
101
U ta h A v e
Shaw Rd
Mitchell Ave
Eas
t
Grand
AveHa
r
b
o
r
Wa
y
Gran d vie w Dr
Eccles
Ave
F o r b e s
Ave
L it tl e field
Ave
Hi
l
l
s
i
d
e
Bl
v
d
S c h o o l S t
Ar
m
o
u
r
Ave
Lind
e
n
Ave
Maple
Ave
Magnolia
Ave
Park Way
Miller
Ave
Baden
AveCommercial
Ave
Railroad
Ave
Eucaly
ptus
Ave
Mill
e
r
Ave
Will
o
w
Ave
Holly
Ave
Evergreen
D r
C
re
st
w
ood
D
r
Morningsi
d
e
Ave
Miss
i
o
n
Rd
Clay A v e
N
e
w
m
a
n
D
r
L
o
n
g
f
o
r
d
D
r
Arlin
g
t
o
n
Dr
Duval
Dr
Se
r
r
a
Dr
Cam
a
r
i
t
a
s
Ave
L
o
m
a
D
r
C u e s t a Dr
P onde
r
osa
Rd
Fairway
Dr
A
S
t
B
S
t
H a z e lw o o d D r
R
o
s
e
w
o
o
d
V
a
l
v
e
r
d
e
D
r
INTERSTATE 380
King Dr
11/40
MILES
1/2
Source: Dyett & Bhatia
C olma
San Br uno
Pacica
Daly
Ci ty
San franc isco
Inter nat ion al
Air port
San Br uno Mount ain
County Pa rk
San
Fr ancisco
Bay
C alifor nia Golf
and Count ry Cl ub
Sign Hill
Pa rk
San Bruno Canal
Colma Creek
South Airport
Figure 2-6
Planning Sub-Areas
Planning Sub-Area
2 0 0
100
10 0
100
100
100
200
200
200
300
300
300
3 0 0
400
400
400
3
0
0400
500
600
500
400
300
200
200
300400200
200
200
4 0 0
200
200
200
300
400
500
500
600
600
500
4 0 0
40050
0
400
5
0
0
6
0
0
6
0
0
600
600
400
5 0 0
7
0
0
7
0
0
7
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
100 1 0 0
500
6 0 0
700
500
600
700
800
900
1000
5 0 0
600
700400
300
30
0
20
0
300
400
400
500
400
300
600
400
500
600
700
700
600
500
400 3 0 0
600
500
400
300
200
511
2: LAND USE
2-27
2.3 PLANNING SUB-AREAS
Land use information presented in the section that follows is presented by 14 sub-
areas, which have been collectively derived from analysis of land use and urban
design patterns and the need for focused planning efforts and activities. These sub-
areas are shown in Figure 2-6. In some cases, the City’s traditional neighborhood
planning areas that are used for park and schools planning were aggregated where
adjacent neighborhoods are very similar in terms of their land uses, age of devel-
opment, and current activity level. The East of 101 area, which comprises a single
City neighborhood planning area because there are no residents, is divided into
four subareas for presenting planning information. The areas are:
1.Avalon
2.Downtown
3.East of 101 area
4.El Camino Real
5.Gateway
6.Lindenville
7.Orange Park
8.Oyster Point
9.Paradise Valley/Terrabay
10.Sign Hill
11.South Airport
12.Sunshine Gardens
13.Westborough
14.Winston-Serra
Descriptions of these areas and detailed policies for each sub-area are included in
Chapter 3.
512
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN
2-28
2.4 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT
BUILDOUT
Development consistent with the General Plan resulting from application of as-
sumed average densities and intensities for the different land use classifications
to vacant and sites with potential redevelopment/intensification opportunities is
described in Table 2.4-1. The time at which full development (“buildout”) will oc-
cur is not specified in or anticipated by the Plan. Designation of a site for a certain
use does not necessarily mean that the site will be built/redeveloped with the des-
ignated use over the next 20 years, the horizon of the Plan.
Table 2.4-1 shows by each of the 14 sub-areas described in Section 2.3:
• Projects with current development approvals. This includes about 1,150 hous-
ing units, more than half have been proposed in Terrabay, and about 3.4 mil-
lion square feet of non-residential floor space. Hotels, with about 1.1 million
square feet of space with approvals, and offices, with 0.9 million square feet of
approved space, represent the primary non-residential uses.
• Additional development under the General Plan. This results from application
of average assumed densities/intensities (shown on the table) to vacant sites
and sites/areas with potential redevelopment/intensification opportunities.
Potential residential increases include 2,4701 housing units, concentrated
mainly in El Camino Real, Sunshine Gardens, and Downtown. Potential non-
residential development includes 12 million square feet of new space; with an
expected decrease of 3.3 million square of industrial space, the net increase
will be 8.7 million square feet. About 5.9 million square feet (56 percent) of
this net increase is expected to be in the four East of 101 sub-areas (East of 101
area, Gateway, Oyster Point, and South Airport). (Amended by City Council
Resolution 19-2010, adopted February 10, 2010)
• Combined approved development and additional development. This reflects
the total of the two above categories, and represents the expected General Plan
buildout. Buildout will result in an increase of 3,620 housing units and 12 mil-
lion square feet of non-residential space to the city’s current inventory of an esti-
mated 19,400 housing units and 18.1 million square feet of non-residential space.
Amended by City Council Resolution 19-2010, adopted February 10, 2010)
Population and Employment; 1997 and Buildout
57,600
39,100
69,810
78,500
‐
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
1997 Buildout
513
2: LAND USE
2-29
Amended by City Council Resolution 19-2010, Adopted February 10, 2010; Resolution 47-2011, Adopted March 23, 2011; Resolutions 97-2011 and 99-2011, adopted July 27, 2011
Table 2.4-1
Land Use Changes and Intensification: Approved Development - revised to include the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (SASP)
Subarea
L
o
w
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
Me
d
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
Hi
g
h
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Mi
x
e
d
U
s
e
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Mi
x
e
d
U
s
e
N
o
r
t
h
,
(H
i
g
h
a
n
d
M
e
d
i
u
m
In
t
e
n
s
i
t
y
)
To
t
a
l
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
C
o
m
m
(H
o
t
e
l
s
)
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
C
o
m
m
(O
f
f
i
c
e
s
/
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
)
C
o
a
s
t
a
l
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
O
f
f
i
c
e
B
u
s
/
T
e
c
h
P
a
r
k
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Mi
x
e
d
U
s
e
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Mi
x
e
d
U
s
e
N
o
r
t
h
,
(H
i
g
h
a
n
d
M
e
d
i
u
m
In
t
e
n
s
i
t
y
)
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
S
A
S
P
:
Bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
S
A
S
P
:
In
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
S
A
S
P
:
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
S
A
S
P
:
Of
f
i
c
e
/
R
&
D
To
t
a
l
N
o
n
-
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Avalon - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - --
Downtown - - - - - --22,500 - - - - - - - - -22,500
East of 101 - - - - - --- - - - -170,000 202,800 - - -372,800
El Camino
North 180 30 - - - -210 - - - - - - -147,000 - -147,000
South - - - -110 -110 - - - - - - -13,000 5,000 -18,000
Gateway - - - - - --246,000 - - -516,000 176,000 - - - -938,000
Lindenville - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - --
Orange Park 150 - - - - -150 - - - -600 - - - - -600
Oyster Point - - - - - --497,500 - - - - 40,000 128,700 150,000 - -816,200
Paradise Valley/ Terra Ba 600 - - - - -600 300,000 - - -397,000 286,000 - 18,000 - -1,001,000
Sign Hill - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - --
South Airport - - - - - --73,000 - - - - - - - - -73,000
Sunshine Gardens - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - --
Westborough -130 - - - -130 - - - - - - - - - --
Winston-Serra 60 - - - - -60 - - - - - - - - - --
Total 990 160 - - -110 1,260 1,139,000 - - -913,600 672,000 331,500 328,000 - -3,389,100
RESIDENTIAL (housing units) NON-RESIDENTIAL (floor area in square feet)
Table 2.4-1
Land Use Changes and Intensification: Approved Development
Additional development under the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan is
projected for the El Camino Real subarea. Buildout will result in an increase of
1,455 residential units and 298,400 square feet of non-residential space. The plan-
ning horizon for the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan is 2030, which
exceeds the planning horizon of this General Plan. Table 2.4-1 shows additional de-
velopment in the City if full buildout of the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area
Plan occurs within the General Plan horizon. (Amended by City Council Resolu-
tions97-2011 and 99-2011, Adopted July 27, 2011)
514
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN
2-30
Amended by City Council Resolution 19-2010, Adopted February 10, 2010; Resolution 47-2011, Adopted March 23, 2011; Resolutions 97-2011 and 99-2011, adopted July 27, 2011
Table 2.4-1
Land Use Changes and Intensification: Additional Development Under the General Plan - revised to include the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (SASP)
Subarea L
o
w
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
@
7
un
i
t
s
/
a
c
r
e
(
n
e
t
)
Me
d
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
@
1
5
un
i
t
s
/
a
c
r
e
Hi
g
h
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
*
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
(I
n
t
e
n
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
)
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Mi
x
e
d
U
s
e
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Mi
x
e
d
U
s
e
N
o
r
t
h
,
(H
i
g
h
a
n
d
M
e
d
i
u
m
In
t
e
n
s
i
t
y
)
*
To
t
a
l
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
C
o
m
m
(H
o
t
e
l
s
)
@
0
.
9
F
A
R
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
C
o
m
m
(O
f
f
i
c
e
s
/
C
o
m
m
)
@
0.
5
F
A
R
C
o
a
s
t
a
l
C
o
m
m
@
0.
3
a
v
g
.
F
A
R
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
(I
n
t
e
n
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
)
O
f
f
i
c
e
@
1
.
2
a
v
g
.
FA
R
B
u
s
/
T
e
c
h
P
a
r
k
@
0.
5
a
v
g
.
F
A
R
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
@
0
.
5
5
FA
R
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
@
0
.
3
FA
R
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Mi
x
e
d
U
s
e
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Mi
x
e
d
U
s
e
N
o
r
t
h
,
(H
i
g
h
a
n
d
M
e
d
i
u
m
In
t
e
n
s
i
t
y
)
*
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
S
A
S
P
:
Bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
S
A
S
P
:
In
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
S
A
S
P
:
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
S
A
S
P
:
Of
f
i
c
e
/
R
&
D
To
t
a
l
N
o
n
-
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Avalon - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - --
Downtown - - -1,725 - -1,725 - 10,000 - 121,000 - - - - - -511,780 21,250 268,800 1,185,049 2,117,879
East of 101 - - -- - --- 246,000 59,000 - - 2,869,000 -1,867,000 104,500 - - - - - -1,411,500
El Camino ---
North - 10 940 - -1,035 1,985 - - - - 134,000 - - 145,000 - 294,400 - - - -573,400
South - - -- 730 -730 - - - - - - - - 283,900 - - - - -283,900
Gateway - - - - - --46,000 1,018,000 - - - - - - - - - - - -1,064,000
Lindenville - - 70 - - -70 126,000 281,000 - - 2,307,000 - -1,519,000 457,000 - - - - - -1,652,000
Orange Park - 50 80 - - -130 64,000 230,000 - - - - - 31,000 - - - - - -325,000
Oyster Point - - - - - -- -2,095,000 1,026,500 - - - -171,000 - - - - - - -2,950,500
Paradise Valley/ Terra Bay - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - --
Sign Hill 30 - - - - -30 - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
South Airport - - - - - --12,000 202,000 - - - - 216,000 - - - - - - -430,000
Sunshine Gardens 20 - 380 - - -400 - - - - - - - 8,000 - - - - - -8,000
Westborough -40 - - - -40 - - - - - - - 71,000 - - - - - -71,000
Winston-Serra 140 - - - - -140 - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
Total 190 100 1,470 1,725 730 1,035 5,250 248,000 4,082,000 1,085,500 121,000 2,441,000 2,869,000 -3,341,000 816,500 283,900 294,400 511,780 21,250 268,800 1,185,049 10,887,179
RESIDENTIAL (housing units) NON-RESIDENTIAL (floor area in square feet)
* The El Camino Real / Chestnut Avenue Area Plan is projected to accomodate 1,455 resdiential units and 298,400 square feet of non-residential uses. The planning horizon for the El Camino Real / Chestnut Avenue Area Plan is 2030, which exceeds the planning horizon of the General Plan; therefore Area Plan buildout
Table 2.4-1
Land Use Changes and Intensification: Additional Development under the General Plan
515
2: LAND USE
2-31
Table 2.4-1
Land Use Changes and Intensification: Combined Approved and Additional Development under the General Plan
Amended by City Council Resolution 19-2010, Adopted February 10, 2010; Resolution 47-2011, Adopted March 23, 2011; Resolutions 97-2011 and 99-2011, adopted July 27, 2011
Table 2.4-1
Land Use Changes and Intensification: Combined Approved and Additional Development Under the General Plan (General Plan Buildout) - revised to include the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (SASP)
Subarea
L
o
w
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
Me
d
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
Hi
g
h
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
*
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Mi
x
e
d
U
s
e
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Mi
x
e
d
U
s
e
N
o
r
t
h
,
(H
i
g
h
a
n
d
M
e
d
i
u
m
In
t
e
n
s
i
t
y
)
*
To
t
a
l
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
C
o
m
m
(H
o
t
e
l
s
)
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
C
o
m
m
(O
f
f
i
c
e
s
/
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
)
C
o
a
s
t
a
l
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
O
f
f
i
c
e
B
u
s
/
T
e
c
h
P
a
r
k
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Mi
x
e
d
U
s
e
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Mi
x
e
d
U
s
e
N
o
r
t
h
,
(H
i
g
h
a
n
d
M
e
d
i
u
m
In
t
e
n
s
i
t
y
)
*
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
S
A
S
P
:
Bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
S
A
S
P
:
In
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
S
A
S
P
:
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
S
A
S
P
:
Of
f
i
c
e
/
R
&
D
To
t
a
l
N
o
n
-
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Avalon - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - ---
Downtown - - -1,725 - -1,725 22,500 10,000 - 121,000 - - - - --511,780 21,250 268,800 1,185,049 2,140,379
East of 101 - - - - - -- - 246,000 59,000 - - 3,039,000 (1,664,200) 104,500 ------1,784,300
El Camino - -
North 180 40 940 -1,035 -2,195 - - - - 134,000 - - 292,000 - 298,400 ----724,400
South - - - -840 -840 - - - - - - - 13,000 288,900 -----301,900
Gateway - - - - - -- 292,000 1,018,000 - - 516,000 176,000 - - ------2,002,000
Lindenville - -70 - - -70 126,000 281,000 - - 2,307,000 - (1,519,000) 457,000 ------1,652,000
Orange Park 150 50 80 - - -280 64,000 230,000 - - 600 - - 31,000 ------325,600
Oyster Point - - - - - -- 497,500 2,095,000 1,026,500 - - 40,000 (42,300) 150,000 ------3,766,700
Paradise Valley/ Terra Ba 600 - - - - -600 300,000 - - - 397,000 286,000 - 18,000 ------1,001,000
Sign Hill 30 - - - - -30 - - - - - - - - -------
South Airport - - - - - -- 85,000 202,000 - - - - 216,000 - ------503,000
Sunshine Gardens 20 -380 - - -400 - - - - - - - 8,000 ------8,000
Westborough -170 - - - -170 - - - - - - - 71,000 ------71,000
Winston-Serra 200 - - - - -200 - - - - - - - - -------
Total 1,180 260 1,470 1,725 1,875 - 6,510 1,387,000 4,082,000 1,085,500 121,000 3,354,600 3,541,000 (3,009,500) 1,144,500 288,900 298,400 511,780 21,250 268,800 1,185,049 14,280,279
RESIDENTIAL (housing units) NON-RESIDENTIAL (floor area in square feet)
* The El Camino Real / Chestnut Avenue Area Plan is projected to accomodate 1,455 resdiential units and 298,400 square feet of non-residential uses. The planning horizon for the El Camino Real / Chestnut Avenue Area Plan is 2030, which exceeds the planning horizon of the General Plan; therefore Area Plan buildout
may or may not occur within the General Plan Horizon.
516
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN
2-32
BUILDOUT POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT
Population
South San Francisco, at buildout, will accommodate a population of approximately
69,810, an increase of 18 percent over the estimated 1998 population of 59,200.
Table 2.4-2 shows the current and projected populations for South San Francis-
co. If buildout were to occur over 20 years, South San Francisco will moderately
increase its share of the San Mateo County population from 8.3 percent to 8.7
percent. Population growth rate over the plan horizon will be much slower than
growth experienced by the city over the last ten years. The chart on the following
page shows a graphic depiction of South San Francisco’s historical and projected
population growth as well as its share of the County population. (Amended by City
Council Resolution 19-2010, adopted February 10, 2010)
The El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan will accommodate a population
of approximately 4,800. If full buildout of the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue
Area Plan is to occur within the General Plan horizon, population will increase to
74,600, which would be an increase of 21 percent over the estimated 1998 popu-
lation of 59,200. This would increase the city’s share of the San Mateo County
population from 8.3 percent to 9.3 percent. (Amended by City Council Resolu-
tions97-2011 and 99-2011, Adopted July 27, 2011)
Table 2.4-2
Buildout Population
1990 1998 1990-1998 Buildout 1990-2020 2010 2035 2010-2035
Population Population Share of
County
Annual
Growth Rate
Population Share of
County
Annual
Growth Rate
Population Population Share of
County
Annual
Growth Rate
South San Francisco
(with El Camino Real/
Chestnut Avenue Area
Plan)
54,312 59,208 8.3%1.0%74,600 9.3%1.1%
(with Downtown
Station Area Specific
Plan)
63,632 67,880 8%0.33%
San Mateo County 649,623 715,382 100%1.2%798,600 100%0.5%718,451 833,209 100%4%
Amended by City Council Resolution 19-2010, Adopted February 10, 2010; Resolution 47-2011, Adopted March 23, 2011; Resolutions 97-2011 and 99-2011, adopted July 27, 2011
517
2: LAND USE
2-33
Employment
While non-residential building space in South San Francisco will increase from an
estimated current 18.1 million square feet to 30.1 million square feet at buildout (an
increase of 66 percent), the General Plan at buildout will accommodate an employ-
ment increase from 39,100 currently to as much as 77,900 at buildout (an increase
of 99 percent; including construction and at-home workers), primarily as sites with
low-intensity warehousing and distribution uses (with an estimated average 960
square feet per employee in South San Francisco) are succeeded by higher inten-
sity office, retail, and other similar uses. This level of employment attainment will
likely take place over a time-period that may extend beyond 20 years. Table 2.4-3
shows existing and buildout employment by broad land use categories. (Amended
by City Council Resolution 19-2010, adopted February 10, 2010 and 47-2011, ad-
opted March 23, 2011)
Amended by City Council Resolution 19-2010, Adopted February 10, 2010; Resolution 47-2011, Adopted March 23, 2011; Resolutions 97-2011 and 99-2011, adopted July 27, 2011
Table 2.4-3
Existing and Buildout Employment by Land Use, 1997-Buildout; revised to include the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (SASP)
Land Use
Estimated
1997
Employment
Increase to
Buildout
Buildout
Employment
Increased
Employment
with
Downtown
SASP
New Buildout
with
Downtown
SASP
Commercial/ Retail 10,400 3,200 13,600 936 14,536
Hotels/ Visitor Services 1,800 3,900 5,700 5,700
Office + Bus. Park (inc. Medical)5,700 29,600 35,300 35,300
El Camino Real Mixed Use North (High and M -600 600 600
Warehouse/Mixed Industrial 13,400 -3,200 10,200 25 10,225
Public and Schools 1,500 - 1,500 1,500
Construction and Miscellaneious 2,500 1,800 4,300 4,300
Others (including at home workers)3,800 3,200 7,000 7,000
Office/R&D 1,439 1,439
Total 39,100 38,000 78,200 2,400 80,600
518
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN
2-34
REVISED BUILDOUT & GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
In 2001, the City Council adopted the General Plan Amendment and Transportation
Demand Management Ordinance, which incorporates a revision to the approved
land use buildout in the East of 101 area. The Amendment includes the following
conclusions:
•Total buildout will nearly double from existing development: 12.82 million
square feet in 2001 to 23.32 million square feet in 2020, due mainly to the
increase in Office and Office/R&D development. The revised East of 101 area
buildout assumes a 0.9 FAR for new Office development.
•The Amendment anticipates that the East of 101 area will support an addi-
tional six million square feet, over the buildout that is projected in the South
San Francisco General Plan (1999). The additional development was based on
the major projects lists (2000-2001), the Gateway and Genentech development
plans, and determining the likely properties that would convert from industrial
to Office/R&D by 2020.
•Employment in the East of 101 area will increase by 2.4 times, from 21,654 to
52,880. This increase is due to both increases in floor space in the East of 101
area and due to Office and Office/R&D uses having a much higher employ-
ment intensity that industrial development. The projected employment is
based on Commercial at 400 square feet/employee, Office/R&D at 450 square
feet/employee, Office at 375 square feet/employee, Hotel at 420 square feet/
employee and Industrial at 955 square feet/employee. (Resolution 98-2001,
Adopted September 26, 2001)
JOBS/HOUSING BALANCE
Where once the residential and commercial portion of South San Francisco was a
company town for the “beef trust” packers on Point San Bruno, improved transpor-
tation access and extensive growth in the 1940s-1960s turned South San Francisco
into a commuter suburb. Today only 23 percent of employed residents work in the
city, despite a surplus of jobs, indicating regional jobs-housing inter-dependencies.
As Table 2.4-4 shows, the city has continued to add jobs at a faster rate than popula-
tion for the last 15 years, and in 1995, there were 13,610 more jobs than employed
residents in the city. In contrast, San Mateo County has a slight overall shortage of
519
2: LAND USE
2-35
Jobs/Employed Residents Balance
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
Estimated 1997
Employment
Buildout Buildout (with El Camino
Real/Chestnut Avenue
Area Plan)
Buildout in 2035 (with
Downtown SASP)
Jobs
Employed Residents
1.4
Jobs/Employed
Residents
2.2
Jobs/Employed
Residents
2.0
Jobs/Employed
Residents
2.0
Jobs/Employed
Residents
Jobs/Employed Residents Balance
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
Estimated 1997
Employment
BuildoutBuildout (with El Camino
Real/Chestnut Avenue
Area Plan)
Buildout in 2035 (with
Downtown SASP)
Jobs
Employed Residents
1.4
Jobs/Employed
Residents
2.2
Jobs/Employed
Residents
2.0
Jobs/Employed
Residents
2.0
Jobs/Employed
Residents
Amended by City Council Resolution 19-2010, Adopted February 10, 2010; Resolution 47-2011, Adopted March 23, 2011; Resolutions
97-2011 and 99-2011, adopted July 27, 2011
Table 2.4-4
Jobs/Housing Balance revised to include Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (SASP)
Estimated 1997
Employment Buildout
Buildout (with El
Camino
Real/Chestnut
Avenue Area Plan)
Buildout in 2035
(with Downtown
SASP)
Jobs 39,100 77,900 78,500 82,748
Employed Residents 27,900 35,400 39,300 41,374
Jobs/Employed Residents 1.4 2.2 2 2
Jobs/Employed Residents Balance
520
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN
2-36
jobs; however, during the last 15 years, the overall jobs/employed residents ratio
in San Mateo County has crept closer to balance.
Given that much of the land in the city—including all of the East of 101 area—
is not suited for residential development, it is unlikely that a balance between
jobs and housing can be attained. However, continued job growth in the city will
promote a greater regional balance between jobs and housing. As an inner Bay
Area community well served by all modes of transit—including air and rail, and
in the near future BART and ferry service—employment growth in the city will
support regional transit as well. Nonetheless, availability of housing in South San
Francisco serves not only regional interest, but is imperative to attracting high-
technology and biotechnology jobs that the city seeks. Increased residential de-
velopment within the city will help partly alleviate traffic impacts resulting from
job growth, and provide residential opportunities to those that work in the city but
live elsewhere. Thus, the General Plan seeks to maximize residential development
opportunities on infill sites.
2.5 DETAILED PLANS AND COORDINATION WITH OTHER JURISDICTIONS
AREA AND SPECIFIC PLANS
In addition to policies articulated in the General Plan, area, specific, and redevel-
opment plans direct planning in certain parts of the city. Figure 2-6 2-7 shows area,
specific, and redevelopment plan areas. These include:
•The East of 101 Area Plan, which applies to all parts of the city east of U.S. 101
and includes a Design Element and policies;
•Specific master plans for key development areas, including Genentech, Oyster
Point, Terrabay, Bay West Cove (formerly Shearwater), Sierra Point; and
•Redevelopment plans for many of the areas with the greatest potential for
change, including Gateway, Downtown/Central and the El Camino Real
Corridor.
•El Camino Real / Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, adopted 2011 (Amended by
City Council Resolution (97-2011, adopted July 27, 2011)
•Downtown Station Area Specific Plan
521
2: LAND USE
2-37
Hillsi
d
e
Blvd
Chesnut
Ave
Grand
Ave
Spruce
Ave
Sister Cities
Blvd
B aysh o r e
B lv d
Oyster Po int Blvd
Gateway
B l v d
S
o
u
t
h
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
B
l
v
d
Lin
d
e
n
Ave
SanMateo
Ave
E
l
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Orange
Ave
ElCamino
Real
Hi c k e y B l v d
J
u
n
i
p
e
r
o
S
e
r
r
a
B
l
v
d
S
k
y
l
i
n
e
B
l
v
d
Gellert
B
l
v
d
C
alla
n
Blv
d
Air
p
o
r
t
Blv
d
Missio
n
R
d
W e s t b o r o ugh Blvd
IN
T
E
R
S
TATE
28
0
Del
M
on
t
e
Ave
Felipe
Ave
A l t a Mesa
Dr
A rr o yo
D r
Carter
D
r
Greendale Dr
G
a
l
w
a
y
Dr
Sha
n
n
o
n
Dr
D
onegalAve
Appian
Way
A valon
D r
Alta Vista
Dr
N or thw ood
Dr
R ockw ood
D r
W ildw ood
D r
A
li
d
a
W
a
y
W
e
s
t
O
r
a
n
g
e
A
v
e
H
u
n
t
i
n
g
t
o
n
A
v
e
Victory
Ave
Lo
w
r
i
e
Av
e
U
.
S
.
H
I
G
H
W
A
Y
1
0
1
U tah
A ve
Shaw Rd
Mitchell Ave
E.G r and
Ave
EastGrand Ave
Ha
r
b
o
r
Wa
y
Gran d v i e w Dr
Ecc
l
e
s
Ave
Forbes
A v e
L i t t l e field
Ave
Hills
i
d
e
Blvd
Schoo
l
St
Ar
m
o
u
r
Ave
Lind
e
n
Ave
Ma
p
l
e
Ave
Ma
g
n
o
l
i
a
Ave
Park Way
Miller
Ave
Baden
AveCommer
cial
Ave
Railroad
Ave
Eu
c
a
l
y
p
t
u
s
Ave
Miller
Av
e
Will
o
w
Ave
Holly
Ave
Evergr
een
D r
Cr
est
w
oo
d
Dr
Morningside
Ave
Missi
on
Rd
Clay A v e N
e
w
m
a
n
D
r
L
o
n
g
f
o
r
d
D
r
Arlin
g
t
o
n
Dr
Duval
Dr
Se
r
r
a
Dr
Cam
a
r
i
t
a
s
Ave
L
o
m
a
D
r
Cu e s t a Dr
P onde
r
osa
Rd
A
S
t
B
S
t
Hazel w ood
D r
R
o
s
e
w
o
o
d
V
a
l
v
e
r
d
e
D
r
INTE
R
S
TA TE 38
0
I
N
T
E
R
S
T
A
T
E
2
8
0
King Dr
F
u
t
u
r
e
B
A
R
T
Li
n
e
East of 101
Oyster Po int
Te rra Bay
11/40
MILES
1/2
Source: Ci ty of South San Fr ancisco
Specic Plan Area
East of 101 Area Plan
Re development Area
Figure 2-7
Specific and Area Plans
and Redevelopment Areas
C olma
San Br uno
Pacica
Daly
Ci ty
San Franc isco
Internat ion al
Airport
San Br uno Mount ain
County Pa rk
San
Fr ancisco
Bay
Califor nia Golf
and Count ry Cl ub
Sign HillPark
San Bruno Canal
Colma Creek
2 0 0
100
1 0 0
100
100
100
200
200
200
300
300
300
3 0 0
400
4 0 0
400
3
0
0400
500
600
500
400
300
200
200
300400200
200
200
400
200
200
200
300
400
500
500
600
600
500
4 0 0
400500
400
5
0
06
0
0
6
0
0
600
600
400
5 0 0
7
0
0
7
0
0
70
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
100 1 0 0
500
6 0 0
700
500
600
700
800
900
1000
50 0
600
700400
300
30
0
20
0
300
400
400
500
400
300
600
400
500
600
700
700
60
0
500
4 0 0 300
600
500
400
300
200
Gateway
Shearwater
Downtown/
Central
El Camino
Downtown/
Central
Downtown/
Central
Downtown/
Central
Gateway
El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan
Downtown Station Area Plan
522
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN
2-38
These plans will continue to play key roles in shaping areas of their geographic
concern. Certain aspects of some of these plans may need to be modified to ensure
consistency with the 1999 General Plan.
PLANS AND PROGRAMS IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS
External impacts from land uses and activities in surrounding cities and jurisdic-
tions influence development in South San Francisco as well. By and large, none of
the surrounding cities have planned uses that are likely to have a direct physical
impact on South San Francisco. In its General Plan, the City of Brisbane outlines
a development strategy for its bayside parcels similar to South San Francisco’s
strategies in the East of 101 area, potentially affecting South San Francisco’s fu-
ture development potential. If this development occurs, Brisbane could compete
with South San Francisco for office space or potentially increase traffic in the area;
however, Brisbane still needs to overcome major infrastructure and environmental
constraints before this development is likely to begin. San Bruno is planning for a
mix of office and hotel uses for the West Division property, one-quarter mile south
along El Camino Real, that is currently being used by the U.S. Navy, but will be
vacated soon. Impacts of this are likely to be localized.
San Francisco International Airport has major direct and indirect influences on
South San Francisco’s land use and economic prospects. Airport-imposed height
restrictions and noise limit land use options in some parts of the city (see Figure
2-2). However, a greater impact could stem from airport expansion, fueling growth
in airport-supportive or -dependent uses such as freight forwarding, and the result-
ing demand for housing and other services in South San Francisco.
Noteworthy plans and programs of other agencies that influence or place limita-
tions on development in South San Francisco include:
•The 100-foot strip of bayshore, inland of the mean high tide line, for which the
Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) establishes policy;
•The area around and including the Terrabay project, which is within the San
Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan Area; and
•The area constrained by the Federal Aviation Administration Part 77 height
limits, primarily East of 101 area, in Lindenville, and in the Country Club Park
area.
523
2: LAND USE
2-39
2.6 LAND USE POLICIES
Because land use policies for each of the planning sub-areas are spelled out in
Chapter 3, policies here focus on citywide issues and those of a programmatic
nature.
GUIDING POLICIES
2-G-1 Preserve the scale and character of established neighborhoods, and
protect residents from changes in non-residential areas.
Protection of residential neighborhoods is a General Plan theme. While
some parts of the city are expected to undergo change over time, the Gen-
eral Plan seeks to ensure that existing residential neighborhoods are fully
protected from changes elsewhere.
2-G-2 Maintain a balanced land use program that provides opportunities for
continued economic growth, and building intensities that reflect South
San Francisco’s prominent inner bay location and excellent regional
access.
2-G-3 Provide land use designations that maximize benefits of increased
accessibility that will result from BART extension to the city and adja-
cent locations.
Locating uses that can support transit ridership and providing high devel-
opment intensities around transit stations is not just in South San Fran-
cisco’s best interest, but a regional interest as well.
2-G-4 Provide for continued operation of older industrial and service com-
mercial businesses at specific locations.
The City recognizes that many existing manufacturing and warehousing
and distribution uses perform a regional function as well, and seeks to
maintain these as conforming uses in specific locations.
2-G-5 Maintain Downtown as the City’s physical and symbolic center, and a
focus of residential, commercial, and entertainment activities.
2-G-6 Maximize opportunities for residential development, including through
infill and redevelopment, without impacting existing neighborhoods or
creating conflicts with industrial operations.
San Bruno residences on the left and South San Francisco
industrial uses on the right share Tanforan Avenue.
Increased buffers between industrial and residential uses
would reduce land use conflicts, including large trucks
parking on residential streets.
524
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN
2-40
2-G-7 Encourage mixed-use residential, retail, and office development in
centers where they would support transit, in locations where they
would provide increased access to neighborhoods that currently lack
such facilities, and in corridors where such developments can help to
foster identity and vitality.
2-G-8 Provide incentives to maximize community orientation of new develop-
ment, and to promote alternative transportation modes.
2-G-9 Facilitate development of childcare centers and homes in all areas,
and encourage inclusion of childcare centers in non-residential devel-
opments.
IMPLEMENTING POLICIES
2-I-1 Update the City’s Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations con-
tained in the Municipal Code for consistency with the General Plan.
A complete revamping of the Zoning Ordinance will be necessary, includ-
ing:
• Establishment of new base districts;
• Establishment of new overlay districts, including for coastal zones,
environmental protection and review processes, selected mixed-
use areas (such as the Loft Overlay District), and transit-oriented
development centers;
• New development regulations that reflect policy direction contained
throughout the Plan; and
• Minimum and maximum development intensities as stipulated in the
Land Use Classifications.
This policy is especially critical given the limited land available for resi-
dential development. Approval of developments at lower than stipulated
densities should be accomplished by map amendment to the General Plan,
not by providing exemptions from stipulated densities.
2-I-2 Establish height limitations for specific areas as delineated on Figure
2-3. For these specific areas, do not regulate heights separately by
The Village, a residential development near Downtown.
Permitting ground units in single-family residential areas
would provide additional housing opportunities without
building new housing units.
525
2: LAND USE
2-41
underlying base district uses.
These are areas that are central from a community perspective or areas
where change is expected. The intent is to provide to achieve unified de-
velopment regardless of underlying uses. For building heights East of 101
area, also see Section 3.5: East of 101 area.
2-I-3 Undertake planned development for unique projects or as a means to
achieve high community design standards, not to circumvent develop-
ment intensity standards.
While in recent years established development intensities have been con-
straints to achieving prevailing intensities in the region, and even in the
city, necessitating the need for planned developments, intensities estab-
lished in this General Plan reflect development that is appropriate given
both the local and the regional context. This should obviate the need for
planned developments merely as a tool to achieve higher than otherwise
attainable standards.
2-I-4 Require all new developments seeking an FAR bonus set forth in Table
2.2-2 to achieve a progressively higher alternative mode usage.
The requirements of the TDM Program are detailed in the Zoning
Ordinance. (Amended by City Council Resolution 98-2001, Adopted
September 26, 2001)
The requirements of the TDM program for projects seeking an FAR
bonus are based on the percentage trip reduction that is achieved.
2-I-4a Establish design requirements to achieve an FAR bonus as set forth in
Table 2.2-2. (Amended by City Council Resolution 98-2001, Adopted
September 26, 2001)
2-I-5 Examine the potential for establishing performance-based standards
for industrial development to minimize resulting impacts.
These would address issues such as noise, glare, odor, air quality, and
screening of parking and loading areas. Establishment of these is espe-
cially critical where industrial uses come in contact with other uses, such
as the Mayfair, Orange Park, and downtown neighborhoods near Linden-
ville.
2-I-6 Undertake a comprehensive review of the parking standards and
526
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN
2-42
establish criteria for reduced parking for mixed-use developments,
for development that meets specified TDM criteria, and Medium- and
High-Density Residential development.
Differing standards could also be established for downtown and specific
transit-centered areas, such as within 1/4-mile of BART and CalTrain, and
ferry terminal.
2-I-7 Establish a comprehensive design standards and guidelines strategy.
Standards are items that can be mapped or measured and are manda-
tory. Guidelines are suggestions and may also provide the basis for de-
sign review by the Planning Commission and/or the basis for awarding
design bonuses, as established by policy 2-I-4.
Current city efforts in this area are uneven. While the City has residential
design guidelines in place, these do not address issues such as garage
domination of streets, or the introverted or gated nature of some recent
developments. Also, while some other adjacent cities (such as Brisbane)
have design guidelines in place for warehousing and distribution uses,
South San Francisco does not have such guidelines and standards.
Because new development is expected only in targeted areas, instead of
trying to prepare all encompassing citywide guidelines, efforts may prob-
ably be better directed at standards/guidelines focused on specific geo-
graphic areas. These could include:
• Lindenville. A simple strategy would be to extend guidelines for
industrial development that apply to the East of 101 area to Linden-
ville as well;
• Downtown;
• El Camino Real Corridor; and
• The two (South San Francisco and San Bruno) BART station areas.
Policies outlined in Chapter 3 for each of these areas would provide a
starting point.
2-I-8 As part of establishment of design guidelines and standards, and
Design standards for warehousing and industrial uses
would reduce the adverse impacts of these uses on the
community, such as the presence of trash dumpsters on
Tanforan Avenue, and screening of parking and loading
areas.
527
2: LAND USE
2-43
design review, improve the community orientation of new develop-
ment.
A community orientation calls for greater attention to the relationship be-
tween residences, streets and shared spaces, and does not require sacrifice
of privacy or amenities. Specific steps could include:
• Not permitting gated developments;
• Allowing sound walls only along freeway and arterial streets, as established in Chapter 4: Transportation; and
• Requiring parking in all non-industrial and business and technol-ogy park areas to be tucked behind buildings.
2-I-9 Ensure that any design and development standards and guidelines
that are adopted reflect the unique patterns and characteristics of
individual neighborhoods.
Examples of urban patterns in South San Francisco that deviate from con-
temporary practice that would not be permitted under current standards
are several and include: Southwood Center, one of the few examples of a
shopping center outside of downtown built to the street edge; residential
developments in downtown built to the street edge which would be pro-
scribed under current standards; and small-lot subdivisions such as in the
“Town of Baden” subdivision, built before the City was incorporated.
Several tools are available to structure the Zoning Ordinance to be respon-
sive to the city’s urban fabric rather than imposing a unified set of stan-
dards, including: community character based districts; special districts
(base or overlay) targeted at areas with unique development characteris-
tics, as well as performance-based standards that allow flexibility. These
options will need to be explored as part of the Zoning Ordinance update
(Policy 2-I-1).
2-I-10 Establish regulations to permit second units in single-family residen-
tial developments in accordance with State law.
Requirements for this are spelled out in California Government Code Sec-
tion 65852.
528
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN
2-44
2-I-11 Undertake a comprehensive update of the City’s Sign Ordinance.
Efforts need to be focused primarily in two areas: downtown and El Cami-
no Real Corridor. See also policies for signage for the business areas East
of 101 in Section 3.5: East of 101 area. Unified sign programs should be
required for multi-tenant projects.
2-I-12 Undertake comprehensive efforts to promote development of childcare
facilities. Efforts should include:
• Permitting childcare centers in all districts;
• Developing criteria for incentives for childcare facilities, as part of bonuses for specified TDM programs (Policy 2-I-5);
• Exploring the feasibility of assisting child care providers and de-velopers to identify and develop potential sites; and
• Preparing a childcare start-up guide.
Regulations would also need to be in accordance with criteria for family
day care homes established in Chapter 3.4 and Chapter 3.6, Division 2 of
the California Health and Safety Code.
2-I-13 As part of development review in environmentally sensitive areas
(see Figure 7-2 in Chapter 7), require specific environmental studies
and/or review as stipulated in Section 7.1: Habitat and Biological
Resources Conservation.
In addition to ensuring that development is environmentally sensitive, this
would facilitate development review approval by allowing development
to tier off the General Plan environmental review, and not undertake all
encompassing environmental reviews, except where otherwise necessary
or appropriate.
2-I-14 Establish a Geographic Information System (GIS) based land use
planning and information system.
In addition to the more common development tracking system, this system
can be designed to provide clear direction regarding plan implementation.
2-I-15 As part of the General Plan Annual Report, monitor the rate and den-
529
2: LAND USE
2-45
sity/intensity of residential, commercial, and industrial development,
and site availability for future development.
The monitoring program should include a database linked to the city’s
GIS.
2-I-16 Work with San Mateo County to resolve issues relating to land use
conflicts in the unincorporated “islands”.
Churches and other institutional land uses in the unincorporated Country
Club park subdivision have been creating conflicts with surrounding resi-
dential areas. Parking, noise and traffic within City limits are exacerbated
by the concentration of churches in this small area. Policy 3.6-I-4 stipu-
lates that if this area were to incorporate, it would be as a whole, with in-
frastructure improvements funded by the County or by property owners.
2-I-17 Steep hillside areas in excess of a 30 percent grade should be retained
in their natural state. Development of hillside sites should follow exist-
ing contours to the greatest extent possible. Grading should be kept to
a minimum.
Most of the level properties in the City have been developed. Many of
the remaining vacant properties contain steep slopes which exceed 30
percent grade. Many of these steep slopes are visually prominent and
Residential Land
Use Category
Low Density
Medium Density
High Density
Maximum
Benchmark Density
(Units/Net Acre)
8
18
30
Comparable
Zoning District
R-1
R-2
R-3
530
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN
2-46
have unstable conditions. Such slopes should, therefore, be substantially
preserved in the natural state.
2-I-18 Senior Citizen housing projects may be allowed to be constructed to
a maximum density of 50 units/acres and off-street parking may be
provided at a ratio lower than that which is otherwise required.
2-I-19 The benchmark density (units per net acre of land) shall be the number
of dwelling units proposed on a specific site for each 43,560 square
feet of raw land exclusive of land allocated for public streets and sub-
merged land. When the average slope of a site is between 20 percent
and 30 percent, the City may reduce the net density of a residential
project up to fifty percent of the benchmark density in order to discour-
age grading and destruction of natural hillside environment.
2-I-20 Initiate a nexus analysis with the intent of creating a revenue source
or improvements to be used to provide new child care facilities and
programs.
2-I-21 Initiate a study to increase provision of public art throughout the com-
munity through imposition of either on-site improvements or in-lieu
fees.
2-I-22 Require that all future development conforms with the relevant
height, aircraft noise, and safety policies and compatibility criteria
contained in the most recently adopted version of the San Mateo
County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan for the environs of San
Francisco International Airport. (Amended by City Council Resolution
19-2010, Adopted February 10, 2010)
531
Housing Element Proposed Amendment
532
47
So
u
t
h
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
1
4
So
ut
h
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
1
4
4 Housing Constraints
Section 65583(a)(4) of the California Government Code states that the Housing Element must
analyze “potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or
development of housing for all income levels, including land use controls, building codes and their
enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, and local
processing and permit procedures.” Where constraints are identified, the City is required to take
action to mitigate or remove them.
In addition to government constraints, this section assesses other factors that may constrain the
production of affordable housing in South San Francisco. These include infrastructure
availability, environmental features, economic and financing constraints, and public opinion
regarding affordable housing development.
4.1 Government Constraints
Government regulations affect housing costs, standards and allowable densities for development,
and exacting fees for the use of land or the construction of homes. With respect to the housing
market, the increased costs associated with such requirements are often passed on to consumers
in the form of higher home prices and rents. Potential regulatory constraints include local land
use policies (as defined in a community’s general plan), zoning regulations and their
accompanying development standards, subdivision regulations, urban limit lines, and
development impact and building permit fees. Lengthy approval and processing times also may
be regulatory constraints.
GENERAL PLAN
The South San Francisco General Plan was last comprehensively updated in 1999 and has been
amended since to incorporate the 2001 BART Transit Village Plan, the 2007-2014 Housing
Element Update, the 2010 South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment, and the 2011 El
Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, which allowed residential land use through mixed-use
development. In early 2015, the General Plan was amended to incorporate the Downtown Station
Area Specific Plan (DSASP).
As required by State law, the General Plan includes a land use map indicating the allowable uses
and densities at various locations in the City. Listed below are the primary residential land use
designations in addition to commercial land use designations that allow residential development.
Under existing designations, the City permits the construction of a range of housing types,
including opportunities for higher density housing up to 100 dwelling units per acre.
533
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
April 2015
48
Table 4.1-1: Land Use Designation, South San Francisco General Plan, 2015
Land Use Designation Maximum Allowable Density
Residential Low Density
Residential Medium Density
Residential High Density
Downtown Residential Low Density
Downtown Residential Medium Density
Downtown Residential High Density
Downtown Commercial
Transit Village Residential Medium Density
Transit Village Residential High Density
Transit Village Commercial
Transit Village Retail
El Camino Real Mixed Use
Downtown Transit Core
Grand Avenue Core
Downtown Residential Core
Linden Neighborhood Center
Linden Commercial Center
8 du/acre
18 du/acre
30 du/acre
15 du/acre
25 du/acre
40 du/acre
No Maximum/Residential Allowed on Upper Floors
30 du/acre
50 du/acre
30 du/acre
50 du/acre
60 du/acre
(up to 80 du/acre with density bonus and incentives)
100 du/acre
(up to 120 180 du/acre with Incentive Program)
60 du/acre
(up to 100 du/acre with Incentive Program)
80 du/acre
(up to 125 du/acre with Incentive Program)
60 du/acre
(up to 80 du/acre with Incentive Program)
40 du/acre
Source: South San Francisco General Plan, 1999.
The General Plan includes a range of policies to encourage and support a variety of housing
opportunities in the City. Several key policies are discussed below.
In order to balance community interests and assure continued support for medium- and high-
density housing in South San Francisco, the City established Policy 2-G-1, which calls for the
preservation of “the scale and character of established neighborhoods” and the protection of
“residents from changes in non-residential areas.” Consistent with this policy, the General Plan
Land Use map designates medium-and high-density residential areas along major transit
corridors and in the downtown area to avoid conflicts with existing neighborhoods. The City’s
political leadership credits this policy with facilitating recent multi-family housing development
with minimal opposition from neighborhood or other interest groups.
Policy 2-G-6 calls for the maximization of “opportunities for residential development, including
through infill and redevelopment, without impacting existing neighborhoods or creating conflicts
with industrial operations.” Policy 2-G-7 calls for the encouragement of “mixed-use residential,
retail, and office development in centers where they would support transit, in locations where
they would provide increased access to neighborhoods that currently lack such facilities, and in
534
Housing Constraints
49
corridors where such developments can help to foster identity and vitality.” The City has worked
to realize these policies in recent years with several key developments along El Camino Real in the
Transit Village area. The City continues to encourage development of high density housing near
transit with the adoption (February 2015) of the DSASP, partially funded by the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC). The major goals of the plan are to:
• Revitalize downtown South San Francisco - encourage the retention of existing and local
business while also promoting new improvements to bring a focus back to the historic
downtown;
• Promotes new residential development downtown-primarily on underutilized or vacant
parcels, while retaining the existing land use and density standards for residential
neighborhoods outside of the Downtown Core; and
• Improving pedestrian and bicycle connections to Caltrain as well as the Downtown with
the East Employment area.
The General Plan contains very few policies addressing the siting or design of housing. Those
policies that do exist include Policy 2-I-2, which establishes height limits within the downtown
and along major commercial corridors. These height limits range from 50 to 80 feet and are
consistent with residential development of 30 dwelling units per acre and higher and are not
considered an impediment to housing development. However, with the adoption of the DSASP in
February 2015, the height limits in downtown have increased to promote higher densities. Policy
2-I-19 limits the allowable density of housing development on steep slopes by up to 50 percent
compared to existing land use designations to prevent excessive grading. While this policy does
work to limit the amount of housing development, it applies to a relatively small area of the city
(only parcels with a slope greater than 20 percent) and provides some certainty as the minimum
amount of housing development that will be allowed on steep sites, consistent with the General
Plan. Finally, Policy 2-1-18 specifically allows for senior housing development in the City to be at
a density of up to 50 dwelling units per acre regardless of underlying land use designations and
allows for reduced parking standards to be applied to this type of development. With the adoption
of the DSASP, qualifying affordable senior housing will be allowed densities limits in excess of 50
dwelling units per acre to upwards of 125 dwelling units per acre.
Based on a review of the General Plan and discussion with key stakeholders, including developers,
the General Plan is not an obstacle to housing development and is supportive of the development
of a range of housing types, including substantial opportunities for medium- and-high density
residential development. The General Plan does not constitute an obstacle to housing
development for farm workers, seniors, large families, female-headed households, persons with
disabilities, persons needing emergency shelter, those needing supportive and transitional
housing, and those needing factory-built housing.
535
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
April 2015
50
ZONING ORDINANCE
The City updated the Zoning Ordinance in 2010 to ensure that current standards and guidelines
support the implementation of the General Plan, including the 2010 Housing Element Update.
Shown below is a list of existing districts that allow housing development, along with existing
development standards.
The City’s main residential districts are the Single Family Districts in RL-1.3, RL-5, RL-6, and RL-
8; Medium Density Residential Districts in RM-10, RM-15, and RM-17.5; and Multiple Family
Residential Districts in RH-30 and RH-35. Residential development is also allowed the Transit
Village (TV-C, TC-R, TV-RM, and TV-RH) Districts, El Camino Real Mixed Use District
(ECRMX), and Downtown Districts (DC, DMX, DRL, DRM, and DRH), as well as in the
Commercial Mixed Use (CMX) District. The district that corresponds with the adopted El
Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan – El Camino Real/Chestnut District – includes three
districts that allow mixed-use residential development (ECR/C-RH, ECR/C-MXM, ECR/MXH).
There are five districts that correspond to the DSASP area and permit residential development
(DTC, GAC, DRC, LCC, and LNC). The Parks and Recreation (PR) and Open Space (O-S)
districts cover a very small portion of the city, and are intended for the preservation of open-space
and/or the rural character of certain unincorporated areas; residential development is not allowed
in these districts.
The Zoning Ordinance does not constrain or unreasonably limit the types of housing that can be
developed in South San Francisco. It supports populations with special housing needs by
permitting many supportive and transitional residential uses across many zones. These uses
include multiple-unit developments, group residences, residential care facilities, mobile homes,
elder and long-term care facilities, family day care, and shelters. These uses are supported in
Medium Density Residential Districts, Multiple Family Residential Districts, Transit Village
Districts, Downtown Districts, DSASP Districts, the El Camino Real/Chestnut Districts, and the
El Camino Real Mixed Use District.
Table 4.1-2 shows the various residential uses permitted in the city and lists whether they are
permitted (P) or permitted subject to a conditional use permit (C) or minor use permit (MUP).
This table is followed by a narrative discussion of each residential use and its permitting
requirements.
The Zoning Ordinance does not impede housing development and enables development of a wide
range of housing types, including substantial opportunities for medium- and-high density
residential development. The Zoning Ordinance is not an obstacle to housing development for
farm workers, seniors, large families, female-headed households, persons with disabilities, persons
needing emergency shelter, those needing supportive and transitional housing, and those needing
factory-built housing.
536
51
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
C
o
n
s
t
r
a
i
n
t
s
Table 4.1-2: Residential Uses and Zoning Districts
P=Permitted Use; C=Conditionally Permitted Use; MUP=Use Permitted with Minor Use Permit
Use
Classification
RL-
1.3
RL-
5,6,
and 8
RM-
10, 15,
and
17.5
RH-30
and 35 DC DMX DRL DRM DRH TV-C TC-R
TV-
RM
TV-
RH ECRMX CMX
ECR/C-
MXH
ECR/C-
MXM
ECR/C-
RH DTC GAC DRC LCC LNC
Single-Unit Dwelling
Single Unit
Detached
P P P P - - P P C - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Second
Unit
P P P P - - P P P - - - - - P - - - - - - - -
Single Unit
Semi-
Attached
- C P P - - P P P - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Single-Unit
Attached
- - P P - MUP1 P P P - - P P P1 C P1 P P - - - - -
Multiple-Unit Residential
Duplex - - P P - MUP1 P P P P1 P1 P P - C - - - - - - - -
Multi Unit - - P1 P C1 P/
MUP1
P P P P1 P1 P P P1 P1 P1 P P P P P P P
Senior
Citizen
Residential
C C C MUP C1 P/
MUP1
P P P P1 P1 P P P1 P1 P1 P P P - P P P
Elderly and
Long-term
Care
- C C C - - - - - - - C C P1 C C1 C C - - - - -
537
52
So
u
t
h
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
Ap
r
i
l
2
0
1
5
Table 4.1-2: Residential Uses and Zoning Districts
P=Permitted Use; C=Conditionally Permitted Use; MUP=Use Permitted with Minor Use Permit
Use
Classification
RL-
1.3
RL-
5,6,
and 8
RM-
10, 15,
and
17.5
RH-30
and 35 DC DMX DRL DRM DRH TV-C TC-R
TV-
RM
TV-
RH ECRMX CMX
ECR/C-
MXH
ECR/C-
MXM
ECR/C-
RH DTC GAC DRC LCC LNC
Domestic
Violence
Shelter
- - P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 - - - - MUP1 MUP1 - - - - - P1 - -
Family Day Care Home
Large P P P P MU
P1
MUP P P P - - P P - P - - - - - P - -
Small P P P P - P P P P - - P P P1 P P1 P P P - P P P
Group
Residential
- - - MUP - MUP - - C P1 P1 - C MUP1 MUP1 - - - - - C - -
Mobile Home
Park
- C C C - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Residential Care Facilities
General - - C C MU
P1
C C C C P1 P1 P P C1 C - C C C1 - C1 - -
Limited P1 P1 P1 P1 - C1 P1 P1 P1 C - - C C1 C1 P1 P P C1 - C1 - -
Senior - - C MUP C1 MUP C C MUP - - C C P1 P1 - C C MUP1 - MUP1 C1 C1
Notes:
1. Subject to additional regulations in Zoning Ordinance.
538
Housing Constraints
53
Single-Unit Dwelling. A dwelling unit designed for occupancy by one household, and located on
a separate lot from any other unit (except second living units, where permitted). This
classification includes individual manufactured housing units installed on a foundation system
pursuant to Section 18551 of the California Health and Safety Code. The Zoning Ordinance
permits various types of single-unit dwellings in the RL-1.3, RL-5, RL-6, RL-8, RM-10, RM-15,
RM-17.5, RH-30, RH-35, ECR/C-RH, ECR/C-MXH, ECR/C-MXM, DRL, and DRM zones.
Detached. A single-unit dwelling, on a single lot, within which all rooms are internally
accessible and that is not attached to any other dwelling unit.
Attached. A single-unit dwelling on a single lot that is attached through common vertical
walls to one or more dwellings on abutting lots. An attached single-unit dwelling is
sometimes called a “townhouse.”
Semi-Attached. A single-unit dwelling with only the garage wall abutting, or in common
with, the garage of the dwelling unit on the adjacent lot.
Multiple-Unit Residential. Two or more dwelling units on a single lot. Multi-unit development
types include townhouses, single-unit groups, garden apartments, senior citizen residential
developments, multi-story apartment buildings, and transitional residential development. The
Zoning Ordinance permits multiple-unit developments in the RM-10, RM-15, RM-17.5, RH-30,
RH-35, DRL, DRM, DRH, DTC, GAC, DRC, LCC, LNC, TV-C, TC-R, TV-RM, TV-RH, CMX,
ECRMX, ECR/C-RH, ECR/C-MXH, and ECR/C-MXM zones.
Duplex. A single building on a separate lot that contains two dwelling units or two single-
unit dwellings on a single lot. This use is distinguished from a Second Dwelling Unit,
which is an Accessory residential unit as defined by State law and this ordinance.
Multi-Unit. Three or more dwelling units on a site or lot. Types of multiple family
dwellings include townhouses, garden apartments, senior housing developments, and
multi-story apartment buildings.
Senior Citizen Residential. A multi-unit development in which individual units are
occupied exclusively by one or more persons 62 years of age or older.
Caretaker Unit. A dwelling unit occupied by employees or caretakers of the primary use on the
site. Caretaker units are conditionally permitted in the employment district MI.
Domestic Violence Shelter. A facility where victims of domestic violence or sexual abuse are
provided temporary housing, food, and other specialized services in compliance with California
Welfare and Institutions Code Section 18290 et seq. The Zoning Ordinance permits domestic
violence shelters in the RM-10, RM-15, RM-17.5, RH-30, RH-35, DC, DMX, DRL, DRM, DRH,
and DRC zones.
Elderly and Long-term Care. Establishment that provides 24-hour medical, convalescent or
chronic care to individuals who, by reason of advanced age, chronic illness or infirmity, are
unable to care for themselves. The facility is licensed as a skilled nursing facility, and includes but
is not limited to, rest homes and convalescent hospitals, but not Residential Care, Hospitals, or
539
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
April 2015
54
Clinics. These facilities are permitted in the ECRMX zone and permitted conditionally in the RL-
5, RL-6, RL-8, RM-10, RM-15, RM-17.5, RH-30, RH-35, TV-RM, TV-RH, ECR/C-RH, ECR/C-
MXH, and ECR/C-MXM zones.
Family Day Care. A day-care facility licensed by the State of California that is located in a single-
unit residence or other dwelling unit where an occupant of the residence provides care and
supervision for children under the age of 18 for periods of less than 24 hours a day. These
facilities are permitted in the RL-1.3, RL-5, RL-6, RL-8, RM-10, RM-15, RM-17.5, RH-30, RH-35,
DRL, DRM, DRH, DTC, DRC, LCC, LNC, TV-RM, TV-RH, CMX, ECR/C-RH, ECR/C-MXH,
and ECR/C-MXM zones.
Small. A facility that provides care for 8 or fewer children, including children under the
age of 10 who reside at the home.
Large. A facility that provides care for 7 to 14 children, including children under the age
of 10 who reside at the home.
Group Residential. Shared living quarters without separate kitchen or bathroom facilities for
each room or unit, offered for rent for permanent or semi-transient residents on a weekly or
longer basis. This classification includes rooming and boarding houses, dormitories and other
types of organizational housing, private residential clubs, and residential hotels intended for long-
term occupancy (30 days or more) but excludes Hotels and Motels, and Residential Care
Facilities. The Zoning Ordinance permits these facilities in the TV-C and TC-R zones, and
conditionally permits them in the DRH, DRC, and TV-RH zones.
Organizational Housing. A residential facility operated by a membership organization
for its members and not open to the general public that typically provides individual
sleeping quarters together with common dining and living areas. This use type includes
fraternity and sorority houses, convents, student dormitories and similar residential
accommodations.
Mobile Home Parks. A development designed and occupied by mobile homes including
development with facilities and amenities used in common by occupants who rent, lease, or own
spaces for mobile homes through a subdivision, cooperative, condominium or other form of
resident ownership. Mobile home parks are only conditionally permitted in the RL-5, RL-6, RL-8,
RM-10, RM-15, RM-17.5, RH-30, and RH-35 zones.
Residential Care Facilities. Facilities that are licensed by the State of California to provide
permanent living accommodations and 24-hour primarily non-medical care and supervision for
persons in need of personal services, supervision, protection, or assistance for sustaining the
activities of daily living. Living accommodations are shared living quarters with or without
separate kitchen or bathroom facilities for each room or unit. This classification includes facilities
that are operated for profit as well as those operated by public or not-for- profit institutions,
including hospices, nursing homes, convalescent facilities, and group homes for minors, persons
with disabilities, and people in recovery from alcohol or drug additions (supportive housing).
This category excludes transitional housing and community social service facilities. The Zoning
Ordinance permits general residential care facilities in the TV-C, TC-R, TV-RM, and TV-RH
zones and conditionally permits them in the RM-10, RM-15, RM-17.5, RH-30, RH-35, DMX,
540
Housing Constraints
55
DRL, DRM, DRH, ECRMX, CMX, ECR/C-MXM, ECR/C-RH, DTC, and DRC zones. Limited
residential care facilities are permitted in the RL-1.3, RL-5, RL-6, RL-8, RM-10, RM-15, RM-17.5,
RH-30, RH-35, DRL, DRM, DRH, ECR/C-RH, ECR/C-MXH, and ECR/C-MXM zones; they are
conditionally permitted in the DMX, DTC, DRC, TV-C, TC-RH, ECRMX, and CMX zones.
Senior residential care facilities are permitted in the CMX and ECRMX zones and conditionally
permitted in the RM-10, RM-15, 4M-17.5, DC, DRL, DRM, TV-RM, TV-RH, ECR/C-MXM,
ECR/C-RH, LCC and LNC zones.
Residential Care, General. A facility that requires a State license or is licensed by the
State to provide 24-hour primarily non-medical care and supervision for more than 6
persons in need of personal services, supervision, protection, or assistance for sustaining
the activities of daily living. Living accommodations are shared living quarters with or
without separate kitchen or bathroom facilities for each room or unit. This classification
includes facilities that are operated for profit as well as those operated by public or not-
for-profit institutions, including hospices. This category excludes transitional residential,
foster family homes and any facilities supervised by or under contract with the State
Department of Corrections.
Residential Care, Limited. A facility that requires a State license or is State licensed and
provide 24-hour non-medical care and supervision for 6 or fewer persons in need of
personal services, supervision, protection, or assistance for sustaining the activities of
daily living, excluding the licensee or members of the licensee’s family or persons
employed as facility staff. Living accommodations are shared living quarters with or
without separate kitchen or bathroom facilities for each room or unit. This classification
includes facilities that are operated for profit as well as those operated by public or not-
for-profit institutions, including hospices. Residential care facilities for 6 or fewer persons
are considered a single-unit residential use.
Residential Care, Senior. A housing arrangement chosen voluntarily by the resident, the
resident's guardian, conservator or other responsible person; where residents are 60 years
of age or older and where varying levels of care and supervision are provided as agreed to
at time of admission or as determined necessary at subsequent times of reappraisal. Any
younger residents must have needs compatible with other residents, as provided in
Health & Safety Code § 1569.316 or a successor statute. This classification includes
continuing care retirement communities and lifecare communities licensed for residential
care by the State of California.
Second Unit. A dwelling unit providing complete independent living facilities for one or more
persons that is located on a lot with another primary, single-unit dwelling. A second unit may be
within the same structure as the primary unit, in an attached structure, or in a separate structure
on the same lot. Second units are permitted in the RL-1.3, RL-5, RL-6, RL-8, RM-10, RM-15, RM-
17.5, RH-30, RH-35, DRL, DRM, DRH, and CMX zones.
Table 4.1-3 below shows the residential development standards for each district, including
minimum and maximum density of units per acre. Based on a review of applicable development
standards, including building heights, lot coverage standards, maximum FARs and setbacks, it is
feasible for developers to achieve maximum allowable residential densities within each district,
while complying with other applicable development standards.
541
56
56
So
u
t
h
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
Ap
r
i
l
2
0
1
5
Table 4.1-3: Zoning and Development Standards, City of South San Francisco, 2014
Height and Bulk Setbacks Lot Size
District
Maximum
Building
Height (ft)
Maximum
Lot Coverage
(%)
Maximum
Residential FAR
Minimum
Front Yard
(ft)
Minimum
Interior
Side Yard
(ft)
Minimum
Street
Side Yard
(ft)
Minimum
Rear Yard
(ft)
Minimum
Lot Area
(sqft)
Minimum
Lot Width
(ft)
Minimum
Density
(Units per
Acre)
Maximum
Density
(Units per
Acre)
Minimum
Site Area per
Dwelling Unit
(sqft)
RL-1.3 30 40
0.5 or to
allow 2,000 sq
ft, whichever
is greater 20 10 10 20 32,600 120 (none) 1.3 32,600
RL-5 28 50
0.5 or to
allow 2,000 sq
ft, whichever
is greater 15 5 10 20 5,000 50 (none) 5 8,710
RL-6 28 50
0.5 or to
allow 2,000 sq
ft, whichever
is greater 15 5 10 20 5,000 50 (none) 6 7,260
RL-8 28 50
0.5 or to
allow 2,000 sq
ft, whichever
is greater 15 5 10 20 5,000 50 (none) 8 5,445
RM-10 35 50
0.5 or to
allow 2,000 sq
ft, whichever
is greater 15 5 10 20 5,000 50 (none) 10 4,360
RM-15 35 50
0.5 or to
allow 2,000 sq
ft, whichever
is greater 15 5 10 20 5,000 50 (none) 15 2,904
542
57
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
C
o
n
s
t
r
a
i
n
t
s
Table 4.1-3: Zoning and Development Standards, City of South San Francisco, 2014
Height and Bulk Setbacks Lot Size
District
Maximum
Building
Height (ft)
Maximum
Lot Coverage
(%)
Maximum
Residential FAR
Minimum
Front Yard
(ft)
Minimum
Interior
Side Yard
(ft)
Minimum
Street
Side Yard
(ft)
Minimum
Rear Yard
(ft)
Minimum
Lot Area
(sqft)
Minimum
Lot Width
(ft)
Minimum
Density
(Units per
Acre)
Maximum
Density
(Units per
Acre)
Minimum
Site Area per
Dwelling Unit
(sqft)
RM-17.5 35 50
0.5 or to
allow 2,000 sq
ft, whichever
is greater 15 5 10 20 5,000 50 (none) 17.5 2,500
RH-30 50 65
1.0 or to
allow 2,000 sq
ft, whichever
is greater 15 5-10 10 10-15 5,000 50 (none) 30 1,452
RH-35 50 65
1.0 or to
allow 2,000 sq
ft, whichever
is greater 15 5-10 10 10-15 5,000 50 (none) 35 1,090
DC 60 100 3.0 0 0-10 0 0-10 5,000 50 14.1 (none) (none)
DMX 50 50 (none) 0 0-10 0 0-10 5,000 50 14.1 40 (none)
DRL 23 80
0.7 or to
allow 2,000 sq
ft., whichever
is great 15 5 0 20 5,000 50 5.1 15 (none)
DRM 35 90 1.25 15 5 10 20 5,000 50 15.1 25 (none)
DRH 50 90 (none) 15 5-10 10 10-15 5,000 50 20.1 40 (none)
TV-C 25-55 100 (none) 0-16 0 0 6 10,000 (none) (none) 30 1,000
TV-R 55 100 (none) 0-16 0 0 6 5,000 (none) (none) 50 1,000
TV-RM 23-35 75 (none) 0-16 5 10 6 5,000 (none) (none) 30 1,500
TV-RH 45-55 75 (none) 0-16 5 10 6 5,000 (none) (none) 50 1,000
543
58
58
So
u
t
h
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
Ap
r
i
l
2
0
1
5
Table 4.1-3: Zoning and Development Standards, City of South San Francisco, 2014
Height and Bulk Setbacks Lot Size
District
Maximum
Building
Height (ft)
Maximum
Lot Coverage
(%)
Maximum
Residential FAR
Minimum
Front Yard
(ft)
Minimum
Interior
Side Yard
(ft)
Minimum
Street
Side Yard
(ft)
Minimum
Rear Yard
(ft)
Minimum
Lot Area
(sqft)
Minimum
Lot Width
(ft)
Minimum
Density
(Units per
Acre)
Maximum
Density
(Units per
Acre)
Minimum
Site Area per
Dwelling Unit
(sqft)
ECRMX 80-120 90 2.5-3.5 12 0-10 10 15 20,000 50 (none) 60-80 (none)
CMX 50 50 (none) 10 0-10 10 0-10 15,000 50
1,432; 2,000
on lots
30; 21.8
on lots
less than
10,000 sqft
1,452; 2,000
on lots less
than 10,000
ECR/C-
MXH (varies) 90 (none) 0-15 0-10 0-10 0 20,000 50 (none) 80 (none)
ECR/C-
MXM (varies) 90 (none) 0-15 0-10 0-10 0 20,000 50 (none) 40 (none)
ECR/C-
RH (varies) 90 (none) 0-10 10 10 0 20,000 50 80 120 (none)
DTC 85 100 8.0 (varies) 0-10 (varies) 0-10 5,000 50 80 100 (none)
GAC 45-65 100 4.0 (none) 0 (none) 0 5,000 50 14 60 (none)
DRC 65 90 3.25 (varies) 0-10 (varies) 20 5,000 50 40 80 (none)
LCC 50 75 (none) (none) (none) (none) (none) 5,000 50 20.1 40 (none)
LNC 50 90 (none) (none) (none) (none) (none) 5,000 50 40 60 (none)
O-S 30 25 (none) 20 10 10 0-10 43,560 (none) (none)
1 per 20
acres (none)
Note:
1. Densities expressed are as-of-right. Does not include the maximum density that may be achieved with incentive or bonus programs.
Source: City of South San Francisco, 2014.
544
Housing Constraints
59
PARKING
Developers and other key stakeholders identified the City’s multi-family parking standard as an
obstacle to housing development. The Zoning Ordinance includes the following parking
requirements in Table 4.1-4 for residential uses in all zones except Downtown districts, which are
shown in Table 4.1-5.
Table 4.1-4: Residential Parking Requirements
Residential Use Parking Requirement
Single Unit, Detached or Attached
Less than 2,500 square feet
and less than 5 bedrooms
2 spaces per dwelling unit General Requirements for all Single-unit
Residential Parking:
At least one space must be within a garage.
A carport shall not be substituted for a
required garage except for existing dwellings
on lots adjacent to a lane.
2,500 to 2,999 square feet or
5 bedrooms
3 spaces per dwelling unit
3,000 square feet or more or
more than 5 bedrooms
4 spaces per dwelling unit
Second Unit 1 space for each
Multi-unit Residential
Studio and less than 500 sq ft 1 space per unit General Requirements for all Multi-unit
Residential Parking:
One covered space shall be designated for
each unit.
One additional guest parking space must be
provided for every 4 units for projects
greater than 10 units.
One-bedroom or 500 to 800
sq ft
1.5 spaces per unit
Two-bedroom or 801 to
1,100 sq ft
1.8 spaces per unit
Three or more bedrooms
and 1,101 sq ft or larger
2 plus an additional 0.5 space
for each additional sleeping
room over 3
Small Family Day Care None in addition to what is required for the residential use.
Large Family Day Care 1 per employee plus an area for loading and unloading children, on or off-site.
(Required spaces and the residential driveway for the primary residential use
may be counted toward meeting these requirements).
Elderly and Long Term Care 1 for every 7 residents plus 1 for each live-in caregiver. Facilities serving more
than 15 residents shall also provide 1 space for each caregiver, employee, and
doctor on-site at any one time.
Group Residential 2 spaces for the owner-manager plus 1 for every 5 beds and 1 for each non-
resident employee.
Mobile Home Park 2 on-site spaces for each dwelling unit. At least one required space must be in
a carport or garage.
Residential Care, Limited None in addition to what is required for the residential use.
Residential Care, General 2 spaces for the owner-manager plus 1 for every 5 beds and 1 for each non-
resident employee.
Residential Care, Senior 1 for every 7 residents plus 1 for each live-in caregiver. Facilities serving more
than 15 residents shall also provide 1 space for each caregiver, employee, and
doctor on-site at any one time.
545
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
April 2015
60
Table 4.1-5: Downtown District Residential Parking Requirements
Residential Use Parking Requirement
Single Unit, Detached or Attached
Less than 900 sq ft and less
than 3 bedrooms
1 space per dwelling unit, 2
spaces maximum per unit
General Requirements for all Single-
unit Residential Parking:
For new construction, required
parking up to 2 spaces must be
within a garage. For existing
development, all existing garage
spaces, up to a maximum of two
spaces, must be maintained.
A carport shall not be substituted
for a required garage except for
existing dwellings on lots adjacent to
a lane.
900 to 2,500 sq ft or 3 or 4
bedrooms
2 spaces per dwelling unit,
minimum and maximum per
unit
2,501 sq ft or more or more
than 4 bedrooms
3 spaces per dwelling unit,
minimum and maximum per
unit
Second Unit 1 space for each.
Multi-unit Residential
Studio and less than 500 sq ft 1 space per unit maximum General Requirements for all Multi-
unit Residential Parking:
One covered space shall be
designated for each unit.
One-bedroom or 500 to 800
sq ft
1 space minimum, 1.5
spaces maximum per unit
Two-bedroom or 801 to 1,100
sq ft
1.5 spaces minimum, 1.8
spaces maximum per unit
Three or more bedrooms and
1,101 sq ft or larger
1.5 spacies minimum, 2
spaces maximum per unit
According to the 2010 Zoning Ordinance, the parking requirement may be reduced through a
Conditional Use Permit, if it meets the criteria for approval, including reduced parking demand
as evaluated by a parking demand study. The Zoning Ordinance allows for a reduced parking
requirement for any land use except residential single-unit and duplex development; if any
portion of the lot is located within a quarter mile of a BART or CalTrain station, the number of
required parking spaces may be reduced by 25 percent of the normally required number of spaces
with Conditional Use Permit approval. This reduction does not apply in the TV or Downtown
districts. Additionally, under certain conditions and with a Conditional Use Permit, the provision
of a shared parking facility can result in a reduction of up to 50 percent of the number of parking
spaces normally required.
FEES AND EXACTIONS
The City charges residential developers fees for planning and construction services performed by
the City. Developers of new residential projects also pay various impact fees to finance
improvements to infrastructure and public facilities needed to serve new housing in the city.
In order to determine fees charged by the City of South San Francisco and other jurisdiction in
San Mateo County, the 21 Elements Working Group conducted a survey of all jurisdictions in the
County, asking that each provide fee information for the following three different developments:
546
Housing Constraints
61
• Development 1 - Single Family Infill: A new home on an empty lot in an existing
neighborhood, with no significant grading or other complicating factors. The two-story
home is 2,400 square feet with a 500 square foot garage, and it has four bedrooms and
three bathrooms.
• Development 2 - Single Family Home Development: A new development consisting of
50 units, each on their own lot, on an 8-acre parcel. There are three models of homes in
the development: Model A (20 units total) is 1,600 square feet and 2 stories tall, with 3
bedrooms and 2 bathrooms, as well as a 500 square foot garage; Model B (15 units total)
is 2,000 square feet and 2 stories tall, with 3 bedrooms and 2.5 bathrooms, as well as a 500
square foot garage; Model C (15 units) is 2,400 square feet and 2 stories tall, with 4
bedrooms and 3 bathrooms, as well as a 500 square foot garage. All units have HVAC
systems. The project would result in 98,000 total square feet of development, with public
streets and no sprinklers. It is estimated the development would generate 50 peak hour
trips.
The project is complicated by the fact that it requires a zoning change to planned
development zoning, a planned development permit, and a tentative map, all of medium
complexity. It would require significant grading work (10,000 CY), with Type 1
erosion/sediment control. The construction of public streets would cost about $1,300,000
in public improvements (no public landscaping or traffic signal work).
• Development 3 - Multi-family Development: A new development consisting of 96 units
in 16 buildings on 8 acres. There are three models of units in the development: Model A
(28 units) is 1,250 square feet and 2 stories, with 2 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms, as well as
a 500 square foot garage; Model B (34 units) is 1,500 square feet and 2 stories, and it has 3
bedrooms and 2 bathrooms, as well as a 500 square foot garage; Model C (34 units) is
1,750 square feet and 2 stories, with 3 bedrooms and 2.5 bathrooms, as well as a 500
square foot garage. All units have HVAC systems. It would result in a total of 145,000
square feet, without sprinklers, and generate 72 peak hour trips.
The project is complicated by the fact that it requires a zoning change to planned
development zoning, a planned development permit, and a tentative map, all of high
complexity. It would require significant grading work (5,000 CY) and Type 1
erosion/sediment control. On the existing public street frontage, $400,000 of frontage
improvements would be required, and $600,000 in private improvements would be
required for construction of new private streets. No public landscaping or traffic signal
work would be involved.
Fees for the City for each of these hypothetical developments are listed below in Table 4.1-6. As
shown, planning, construction, and impact fees would be nearly $17,000 per unit for a single
family unit as described above; approximately $390,000 for the development project with 50
single family homes; and approximately $369,000 for the multi-family development project with
96 units.
547
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
April 2015
62
Table 4.1-6: Planning, Construction, and Impact Fees, South San Francisco, 2014
Fees Development 1 –
Single Family Home
Development 2 – 50
Single Family Homes
Development 3 – 96 Multi-
Family Units
Entitlement Fees
Planned
Development
$0.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 + actual cost +
$2,000.00 deposit
Tentative
Subdivision Map
$0.00 $1,250.00 +
$800=$2,050
$3,200.00
General Plan
Amendment
$0.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
Fish and Game $0.00 $2,101.50 $2,101.50
Design Review $300.00 $0.00 $1,000.00
Legal Notice $300.00 $300.00 $300.00
Cat Ex $20.00 $0.00 $20.00
San Mateo
County CEQA
Handling Fee
$50.00 $50.00 $50.00
Entitlement Fee
Subtotal
$670.00 $9,801.50 $10,671.50
Construction Fees
CBSC (California
Building Standards
Commission)
$17.00 $637.00 $942.00
Energy PC
Residential In
$0.00 $9,279.60 $0.00
COM – Building
Fee
$0.00 $0.00 $97,247.00
General Plan
Maintenance Fee
$605.78 $23,872.80 $35,322.00
Microfilm
Commercial or
Residential
$149.58 $2,734.68 $4,862.35
PC Commercial In $1,944.48 $35,550.78 $63,210.55
Permit Program
Maintenance Fee
$25.00 $25.00 $25.00
RES – Building
Permit Fee
$2,991.50 $54,693.50 $0.00
Sewer Capacity
Charge Non-Res
per Fx U
$3,381.72 $158,004.00 $158,004.00
Sewer Capacity
Charge
Residential per Fx
$264.21 $13,210.50 $25,364.16
548
Housing Constraints
63
Table 4.1-6: Planning, Construction, and Impact Fees, South San Francisco, 2014
Fees Development 1 –
Single Family Home
Development 2 – 50
Single Family Homes
Development 3 – 96 Multi-
Family Units
U
SMIP Residential $0.00 $1,591.52 $2,354.80
State-Mandated
Training
$10.00 $10.00 $10.00
Valuation based
Electrical
$351.56 $2,640.63 $4,226.56
Valuation based
Mechanical
$250.00 $2,598.75 $437.50
Valuation Based
Plumping
$250.00 $2,598.75 $2,187.50
Waste
Management 1%
Fee – Residential
$19.44 $0.00 $0.00
Construction Fee
Subtotal
$10,260.27 $307,447.51 $394,193.42
Impact Fees
Schools $6,312.00 $257,740.00 $381,350.00
Public Safety Fee
(Police and Fire)2
$1,285.00 $40,500.00 $54,048.00
Childcare $0.00 $98,950.00 $178,368.00
Impact Fee Subtotal $7,597.00 $397,190.00 $613,766.00
Total $17,857.27 $704,637.51 $1,007,959.42
Notes:
1. In addition to the above fees, the City requires parkland dedication in accordance with Quimby Act and
requires the provision of affordable housing units on site through its inclusionary housing ordinance. Developers
have the option to pay in-lieu fees to avoid these exactions.
2. Per City Resolution 97-2012 Public Safety Fee, calculation assumes Development 1 is Low Density Residential
($1,285 per unit), Development 2 is Medium Density Residential ($810 per unit), and Development 3 is High
Density Residential ($563 per unit).
3. Does not include fees that may result because of Inclusionary Housing policy. The City is currently
considering adjusting the in-lieu fee calculation to encourage more use of the in-lieu fee; this may result in a
reduced in-lieu fee.
Source: City of South San Francisco, 2015; Dyett and Bhatia, 2015.
Compared to other jurisdictions in San Mateo County, South San Francisco’s fees were found to
be comparatively low, and they do not to pose a significant constraint to housing development in
the city.9
9 21 Elements Working Group, 2014.
549
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
April 2015
64
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING
Revised in 2010, Chapter 20.380 of the Zoning Ordinance details the City’s inclusionary housing
regulations. The City’s objective is to ensure that all residential development provides a range of
housing opportunities for all identifiable economic segments of the population, including low-
and moderate-income households. The inclusionary housing regulations require that all approved
residential development projects with four or more units have a minimum of 20 percent of the
units restricted to and affordable to low- and moderate-income households. Additionally, the City
requires that at least 20 percent of all new dwelling units are restricted to and affordable to low- or
moderate-income households. Development projects must provide affordable units on-site,
although under certain conditions, alternatives are provided to this requirement as a means of
providing affordable units in the City. Housing developments can pay an in-lieu fee as an
alternative to the requirement of constructing inclusionary units. These requirements apply to all
residential market-rate dwelling units that are newly constructed for sale as well as the conversion
of apartments to condominiums that will be for sale.
Although concerns exist that inclusionary housing may constrain production of market rate
homes, studies have shown evidence to the contrary. One school of thought is that the cost of an
inclusionary housing requirement must ultimately be borne by either (1) developers through a
lower return, (2) landowners through decreased land values, or (3) other homeowners through
higher market rate sale prices. Another significant body of research and analysis suggests that in
fact the cost of inclusionary housing and any other development fee “will always be split between
all players in the development process.”10 Some academics have pointed out that over the long
term, it is probable that landowners will bear most of the costs of inclusionary housing, not other
homeowners or the developer (Mallach 1984, Hagman 1982, Ellickson 1985).
The most definitive empirical study on inclusionary housing was completed in 2008 by the
Furman Center of New York University working for the Center for Housing Policy of the
National Housing Conference. Entitled “The Effects of Inclusionary Zoning on Local Housing
Markets: Lessons from the San Francisco, Washington DC and Suburban Boston Areas,” this
study measured the impact of inclusionary housing ordinances on median homes sale prices and
residential development activity in these three regions. While findings for the DC and Boston
regions were mixed, the study found definitive evidence that inclusionary ordinances do not lead
to higher home prices or a decrease in building activity in the Bay Area. This is attributed in large
part to the more flexible nature of the ordinances in the Bay Area region and to the number of
options that developers have to meet inclusionary requirements.
In addition to this study, a 2004 study on housing starts between 1981 and 2001 in communities
throughout California with and without inclusionary housing programs evidences that
inclusionary housing programs do not lead to a decline in housing production. In fact, the study
found that housing production actually increased after passage of local inclusionary housing
ordinances in cities as diverse as San Diego, Carlsbad, and Sacramento.11
10 W.A. Watkins. "Impact of Land Development Charges." Land Economics 75(3). 1999.
11 David Rosen. “Inclusionary Housing and Its Impact on Housing and Land Markets.” NHC Affordable Housing
Policy Review 1(3). 2004
550
Housing Constraints
65
In keeping with the Furman Center study findings cited above, the City of South San Francisco
recognizes the need for a financially feasible program that does not constrain production. In order
to ensure maximum flexibility so as not to constrain production, the City’s Zoning Ordinance
allows alternatives to constructing new affordable units on-site as a means of providing affordable
units in the City. If the City Council finds that new construction of affordable housing units
would be infeasible or present unreasonable hardship for a developer, an alternative may be
approved (for example, acquisition and rehabilitation of affordable units or the construction of
special needs housing projects or programs). Additionally, under certain circumstances,
developers may satisfy the affordable housing requirement with off-site combined inclusionary
housing projects or in-lieu fees. The City also offers a series of developer incentives, per State
Density Bonus Law, that help offset the added cost of the inclusionary units. Finally, the City’s
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance allows for developers to seek modification of the requirements
due to undue hardship. These policies are in line with recommendations in On Common Ground:
Joint Principles on Inclusionary Housing Policies, published by the Non-Profit Housing
Association of Northern California (NPH) and the Home Builders Association of Northern
California (HBA) in 2005. The report points to the need for flexible inclusionary housing
requirements, such as those established by South San Francisco, to allow for financially feasible
residential development.
PROCESSING AND PERMIT PROCEDURES
The entitlement process can impact housing production costs, with lengthy processing of
development applications adding to financing costs, in particular. The City has worked to
establish transparent and streamlined procedures for processing and permitting development
applications.
Explained below are the typical processing and permit procedures for a single family housing
development in a single family district and for a multi-family housing development in a multi-
family district.
Single Family Residential Procedure
For single family homes proposed in a residential district (RL-1.3, RL-5, RL-6, RL-8, RM-10, RM-
15, RM-17.5, RH-30, and RH-35) steps in the permit and approvals process are as listed below:
1. Pre-application meeting with staff (required)
2. Application submittal
3. Review of application by City staff
4. Design Review Board review/recommendation
5. Decision by Chief Planner
6. Appeal to Planning Commission (if applicable)
7. Building permit issuance
551
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
April 2015
66
As listed above, approvals for single family development in a single family district do not
generally require action by the Planning Commission or City Council. The process does, however,
require review by the Design Review Board (DRB), which makes a recommendation to the Chief
Planner to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the application.
Design review is required of all new construction in South San Francisco, including single family
residential, multi-family residential, and commercial development. For residential development
of three or fewer units, design review is limited to height, bulk, lot coverage, and general
compatibility with the neighborhood. If the DRB recommends approval of a project and the Chief
Planner approves the project, it may proceed without requiring any action by the Planning
Commission or City Council.
Design review applications submitted before the submittal deadline at the end of a given month
are generally heard during the Design review meeting scheduled for the following month.
Depending on the outcome of the Design Review Board meeting and the specific timing when an
application is submitted (whether toward the beginning or end of a month), the typical timeframe
for approval of a single family residential unit and issuance of building permits varies between
eight and 18 weeks.
Multi-Family Residential Procedure
For a typical multi-family housing development of 20 or more units proposed in a multi-family
district (RM-30, RM-35, TV-C, TV-R, TV-RM, TV-RH, DRC, and ECRMX) steps in the permit
and approvals process are as listed below:
1. Pre-application meeting with staff
2. Application submittal
3. Review of application by City staff
4. Design Review Board review/recommendation
5. Planning Commission Hearing
6. City Council Hearing (if applicable)
7. Building permit issuance
As listed above, approval of multi-family housing requires action by the Design Review Board to
recommend the project to the Planning Commission for approval, approval with conditions, or
denial. Design review may address any of the following topics: exterior design, materials, textures,
colors, means of illumination, landscaping, irrigation, height, shadow patterns, parking, access,
security, safety, and other usual on-site development elements.
Design review is typically completed within four weeks for simple projects and can take up to
twelve weeks if plans require revision. The submittal requirements are clearly delineated in an
application check list, with some latitude given to the Planning Division to waive certain
requirements for small projects or to add additional requirements, such as a shadow study where
taller development will be located adjacent to single-story residential uses.
552
Housing Constraints
67
Following the Design review process, the Planning Commission reviews the project. For smaller
projects not involving an affordable housing agreement or a development agreement, the
Planning Commission is the final decision making body for the development. However, more
typically in South San Francisco, larger scale multi-family housing developments require an
affordable housing agreement and/or utilize a development agreement, requiring action by the
City Council.
In total the typical approval time for a multi-family development application from the time the
application is submitted to the Planning Division until issuance of building permits is between 18
and 36 weeks, depending on the complexity of the project and the outcome of the design review
process and Planning Commission meeting.
Other Permit Processing Times and Procedures
Listed below are the typical processing times for various types of planning actions. Where
possible, when multiple planning approvals are required for a single project (e.g., a Zoning
Amendment and Conditional Use Permit), both approvals are considered together as part of the
same hearing, such that times listed below are not necessarily additive.
In general, South San Francisco’s processing and permit procedures are reasonable and
comparable to those in other San Mateo County communities. The permit process only increases
in complexity and duration when the circumstances of individual projects warrant extra
consideration on the part of local staff and officials. This is especially true of the environmental
review component of the process. However, the City has little flexibility to change this, since the
California Environmental Quality Act specifies procedures that local jurisdictions must observe in
reviewing the impacts of development projects.
553
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
April 2015
68
Table 4.1-7: Typical Application Processing Time, 2014
Typical Processing Time in weeks
(straight-forward proposal)
Typical Processing Time in weeks
(complicated proposal)
Permit/Procedure
Ministerial Review 1 2
Conditional Use Permit 6 12
Zoning Amendment 4 12
General Plan Amendment 34 72
Site Plan Review 2 3
Architectural/Design Review 4 12
Tract Maps 24 48
Parcel Maps 24 48
Initial Environmental Study 4 8
Environmental Impact Report 34 72
Specific Plan Amendment 4 12
Specific Plan 8 24
Precise Plan Amendment 6 12
Precise Plan 10 48
Master Plan 96 96
Developments
Single Family Unit 8 18
Second Unit 6 10
Subdivision 48 48
Multi-family less than 20 units 12 20
Multi-family more than 20 units 18 36
PUD 8 36
Source: City of South San Francisco, 2014.
554
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
C
o
n
s
t
r
a
i
n
t
s
69
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
C
o
n
s
t
r
a
i
n
t
s
69
Table 4.1-8: Typical Processing Procedures by Project Type, 2014
Subdivision Single Family Home Second Unit Multi-family < 20 Units Multi-family 20+ Unit+
Step 1 Pre-app meeting Pre-app meeting Pre-app meeting Pre-app meeting Pre-app meeting
Step 2 Application submittal Application submittal Application submittal Application submittal Application submittal
Step 3 Staff plan check/review Staff plan check/review Staff plan check/review Staff plan check/review Staff plan check/review
Step 4
Begin Environmental
Review Design Review Board2 Design Review Board2 Begin Environmental Review Begin Environmental Review
Step 5 Planning Commission Building Permit Building Permit Design Review Board Design Review Board
Step 6 City Council
Planning Commission Planning Commission
Step 7
City Council City Council
Step 8 Building Permit Building Permit
Notes:
1. A Use Permit may be required depending on the Zoning District. Use Permits are subject to Planning Commission review and approval.
2. Decisions of the DRB can be appealed to the Chief Planner and then to the Planning Commission.
Sources: City of South San Francisco, 2014.
555
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
April 2015
70
CODES AND ENFORCEMENT AND ON/OFF SITE IMPROVEMENT
STANDARDS
New construction in South San Francisco must comply with the California Building Codes
(2013). Thus, there are no extraordinary building regulations that would adversely affect the
ability to construct housing in the city.
The City requires that developers complete certain minimum site improvements in conjunction
with new housing development. Required on-site improvements include grading and installation
of water, sewer, storm drainage, gas, electricity, and cable utilities. Required off-site
improvements include curbs, gutters, sidewalks, full street sections, and street lighting.
Based on conversations with local developers, these site improvement standards are typical of
many communities, and do not adversely affect housing production in the city.
EFFORTS TO REMOVE CONSTRAINTS
As described above, current regulations, standards, and procedures in the City reflect several
efforts to accommodate all housing types and promote housing production, including the
following:
• Diverse housing and development types and uses allowed in the General Plan and Zoning
Ordinance;
• Provisions in the Zoning Ordinance to reduce the amount of parking required;
• Comparatively low fees and exactions for San Mateo County;
• Inclusionary housing regulations to provide a range of housing opportunities for all
identifiable economic segments of the population;
• Transparent and streamlined procedures for processing and permitting development
applications; and
• No extraordinary building regulations that would adversely affect housing production in
South San Francisco.
4.2 Housing for Persons with Disabilities
Consistent with State Law, the following section analyzes governmental constraints to housing for
persons with disabilities and describes ongoing and needed future actions to remove constraints
or provide reasonable accommodations for such housing.
STANDARDS AND PROCESSES
The City’s standards and processes are analyzed below, within several categories identified by
HCD as potential sources of constraints to housing for persons with disabilities.
Reasonable Accommodations. Both the Federal Fair Housing Act and the California Fair
Employment and Housing Act impose an affirmative duty on cities and counties to make
reasonable accommodations in their zoning and land use policies when such accommodations are
556
Housing Constraints
71
necessary to provide equal access to housing for persons with disabilities. Reasonable
accommodations refer to modifications or exemptions to particular policies that facilitate equal
access to housing. Examples include exemptions to setbacks for wheelchair access structures or
reductions to parking requirements.
ZONING AND LAND USE
The 2010 Zoning Ordinance included updates to Chapter 20.510 Waivers and Modifications, to
facilitate compliance with the Federal Fair Housing Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and
the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. It provides reasonable accommodation to
persons with disabilities seeking fair access to housing through modification of the application of
the City’s Zoning Ordinances. Chapter 20.510 allows the Chief Planner to grant relief from the
Zoning Ordinance’s dimensional requirements when necessary to provide access to housing. It
also allows the Planning Commission to grant exceptions and waivers when necessary to
accommodate religious uses protected by the Federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized
Persons Act of 2000. Below is a discussion of existing zoning and land use policies in the City
affecting the development of housing for persons with disabilities.
Provision for Group Homes. Consistent with State law, the City allows for Limited Residential
Care Facilities, which serve six persons or fewer, in all residential zoning districts, as well as DRL,
DRM, DRH, ECR/C-MXH, ECR/C-MXM, ECR/C-RH, districts, without a special use permit and
not subject to any special restrictions.1 These facilities are also conditionally permitted in the
DMX, TV-C, TC-RH, CMX, DTC, DRC, and ECRMX zones. The City also permits General
Residential Care Facilities serving six or more persons in the TV-C, TV-R, TV-RM, and TV-RH
districts. General Residential Care Facilities are conditionally permitted in all multi-family
districts, the ECRMX district, the DTC and DRC districts, and all Downtown districts except the
DC district. These are not subject to any minimum distance requirements in relationship to other
special needs housing nor subject to any other special land use requirements.
Broad Definition of Family. Consistent with State Law, the City’s Zoning Ordinance provides for
a broad definition of family as “one or more persons living together as a single nonprofit
housekeeping unit and sharing common living, sleeping, cooking and eating facilities. Members
of a ‘family’ need not be related by blood but are distinguished from a group occupying a hotel,
club, fraternity or sorority house.” (Section 20.630) This definition of family does not limit the
number of people living together in a household and does not require them to be related.
Reasonable Accommodation. The City’s Zoning Ordinance facilitates the development of
housing and residential parking spaces accessible to persons with disabilities by allowing waivers
and modifications to required dimensional requirements, such as encroachments into front, side,
and rear yards for wheelchair access structures. Section 20.330.111 establishes procedures for
private residential handicap parking, while Chapter 20.510 establishes the rules and procedures
for requests for reasonable accommodation to ensure access to housing.
1 A Limited Residential Care Facility is a facility that requires a State license or is State licensed and provides 24-hour
non-medical care and supervision for 6 or fewer persons in need of personal services, supervision, protection, or
assistance for sustaining the activities of daily living, excluding the licensee or members of the licensee’s family or
persons employed as facility staff. See SSFMC 20.080 and 20.630.002.
557
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
April 2015
72
BUILDING CODE AND PERMITTING
Uniform Building Code. In 2014, the City of South San Francisco adopted the 2013 California
Administrative Code and the 2013 California Building Code published by the International
Conference of Building Officials. In addition, the City adopted and implemented the 1997
Uniform Housing Code, which provides requirements for the conservation and rehabilitation of
housing. The City’s Building Code does not include any amendments to the California
Administrative Code, California Building Code, or Uniform Housing Code that might diminish
the ability to accommodate persons with disabilities.2
Site and Building Accessibility. The City complies with all State and federal standards and laws
pertaining to the accessibility of sites and buildings for disabled persons.
Permitting. The City does not require special permitting that could impede the development of
group homes for six people or fewer. As discussed above, Residential Care Facilities are permitted
uses in all residential zoning districts. Furthermore, there are no siting requirements or minimum
distances between facilities that apply to Residential Care Facilities or Group Care Facilities.
EFFORTS TO REMOVE CONSTRAINTS
As described above, current regulation standards and procedures in the City reflect several efforts
to accommodate housing for persons with disabilities, including the following:
• Provision for small group homes in all residential zones by right;
• Use of a broad definition of family;
• Provisions to allow encroachment into required setbacks for wheelchair access structures
and waivers and modifications to other dimensional requirements when necessary to
provide reasonable accommodation; and
• Provision of alternative parking requirements for special needs housing; and
• Implementation of the Uniform Building Code.
4.3 Non-Governmental Constraints
In addition to governmental constraints, there may be non-governmental factors that may
constrain the production of new housing. These could include market-related conditions such as
land and construction costs as well as public opinion toward new development.
CONSTRUCTION & LAND COSTS
Land costs in San Mateo County are high, due in part to the desirability of housing in the county
and because available land is in short supply. These costs vary both between and within
jurisdictions based on factors like the desirability of the location and the permitted density.
2 As a practical matter the City has been following the 2013 California Building Code in evaluating projects, which was
formally adopted in December 2013.
558
Housing Constraints
73
The following land costs are approximate, and derived from conversations with local developers.3
For a typical multi-family construction project in San Mateo County, land costs add
approximately $90,000 per unit. Land for a single family home often costs $400,000 or more per
lot.
Construction costs include both hard costs, such as labor and materials, and soft costs, such as
architectural and engineering services, development fees and insurance. For multi-family homes
in San Mateo County, hard costs account of 60-65 percent of the building cost and soft costs
average around 15-20 percent (the remaining 15-20 percent is land costs). For single family
homes, hard costs often are roughly 40 percent of the total cost, soft costs are 20 percent, and land
is 40 percent.
According to housing developers in San Mateo County, construction costs for multi-unit
buildings vary based on the form of parking (structured vs. surface) in addition to other
environmental factors such as topography, pre-existing structures, etc. For a larger, multi-unit
building, costs can vary from $185,000/unit to as high as $316,000/unit. The cost per square foot
ranges from $172-$200.
For the least expensive production single family homes, the cost of preparing the vacant land is
around $100,000/lot, and the cost of construction is approximately $145/sf. For more expensive,
custom homes, however, the construction costs can be higher than $435/sf. In general, soft costs
add another approximate third to the subtotal.
MORTGAGE FINANCING
Until mid-2008, home mortgage financing was readily available at attractive rates throughout San
Mateo County and California. Rates vary, but ranged around 6.25 percent to seven percent from
2006-2008 for a 30 year fixed rate loan (HSH Associates Financial Publishers). However, rates
have been as high as ten or 12 percent in the last decade.
As part of the aftermath of the subprime crisis in 2008, interest rates are very low. In San Mateo
County, rates range from 4.0-4.5 percent for a fixed-rate, 30-year mortgage. One remaining
challenge is that many mortgages in San Mateo County are for more than $417,000, meaning they
qualify as jumbo loans and often have higher interest rates.
The data in the table below is from the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) and represents
loan applications in 2012 for one- to four-unit properties, as well as manufactured homes, for the
metropolitan statistical area (MSA) and metropolitan division (MD) that includes South San
Francisco (MSA/MD: 41884 – San Francisco – San Mateo – Redwood City, CA). More than 65
percent of the loan applications were filed by households earning above a moderate income
(greater than 120 percent of AMI). Moderate income households (80-120 percent of AMI)
represented 18 percent of loan applicants, low income households (50-80 percent of AMI)
represent 12 percent, and very low income households (less than 50 percent of AMI) only 4
percent. Almost 75 percent of all loans were approved and accepted by the applicants, and 10
3 Source: 21 Elements Working Group, 2014.
559
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
April 2015
74
percent were denied. Above moderate-income households had the highest rates of approval of
any group. Loan approval rates have improved since the subprime crisis.
Table 4.3-1: Disposition of Applications for Conventional Home Purchase Loans, 2012
Income Level
Number of
Loan
Applications
Percentage
of All Loans
Percentage
of Loans
Originated
Percentage
of Loan
Applications
Denied
Percentage
Other1
Less than 50% AMI (Very
Low Income) 700 4% 57% 22% 21%
50-79% AMI (Low Income) 1,968 12% 67% 14% 20%
80-120% AMI (Moderate
Income) 3,017 18% 73% 11% 17%
120%+ 11,381 67% 76% 8% 16%
All 17,066 100% 74% 10% 17%
Notes:
1. Includes loans applications approved but not accepted, loan applications withdrawn, and incomplete files.
Source: HMDA Data, 2012 for San Francisco-San Mateo-Redwood City MSA.
CONSTRUCTION FINANCING
Construction loans for new housing are difficult to secure in the current market. In past years,
lenders would provide up to 80 percent of the cost of new construction (loan to value ratio). In
recent years, due to market conditions and government regulations, banks require larger
investments by the builder.
Due to federal and State budget cuts, affordable housing developers have had a much harder time
securing funding. Since 2009, the federal government has cut programs such as Community
Development Block Grant, HOME, and HOPE VI funding by 27-50 percent (ABAG).
Traditionally, these programs have been a large source of affordable housing funds. In addition to
federal cuts, the State dissolved Redevelopment Agencies in 2012, leaving San Mateo County with
a loss of $25.5 million in funds for affordable housing.4 However, some funding opportunities
remain from the federal and state governments, such as the federal Low Income Housing Tax
Credit program, which still provides an important source of funding for developers.
PUBLIC OPINION
In some communities, public opinion is a significant constraint to the production of higher
density and affordable housing. To date, housing developers, City staff, and elected officials do
not report significant public opposition to recent multi-family housing developments. As key to
this success, elected officials stress the need to continue to work with neighbors to address
concerns and the importance of the City’s policies to protect single family neighborhoods from
significant change, while finding opportunities for multi-family housing development along key
transit corridors and in the downtown area. In addition, city officials and developers can work to
4 Source: 21 Elements Working Group, 2014.
560
Housing Constraints
75
assuage these concerns by requiring design review, emphasizing management of new
developments, and engaging in public education to address myths about high density, low-
income, and supportive housing (HUD).5
4.4 Environmental & Infrastructure Constraints
South San Francisco is a largely developed community with sufficient infrastructure in place to
accommodate anticipated levels of development on most sites. A more detailed analysis of specific
sites is included in the review of Housing Opportunity sites. The City Engineer reports that there
are no significant issues related to the capacity of water, stormwater, or sewer systems that would
preclude future housing development as anticipated by the General Plan.
As a largely urbanized community, most housing sites in South San Francisco are infill in nature
and present few environmental issues. In recent years, developers of multi-family housing have
submitted Negative Declarations rather than EIRs for their projects, e.g., Park Station Lofts
development. An Environmental Impact Report was published to analyze the proposed
development under the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan, which contemplates a 25 percent
build out over a 20-year span.
Looking forward, certain sites in the downtown area are thought to have some level of
environmental contamination. Overall, such sites represent a small portion of the land available
for development in the City. These sites are discussed in more detail in the Housing Opportunity
sites section of this document.
4.5 Opportunities for Energy Conservation
Planning to maximize energy efficiency and the incorporation of energy conservation and green
building features can contribute to reduced housing costs for homeowners and renters. In
addition, these efforts promote sustainable community design, reduced dependence on vehicles,
and can significantly contribute to reducing greenhouse gases.
South San Francisco has been a leader in the promotion of green building techniques in new
residential construction and residential rehabilitation. The City renovated a formerly vacant
residential unit to transform it into a model demonstration project for green building materials
and techniques. This home is known as the Green X-Ray House and is used as an educational tool
for local homeowners and members of the local builders community to create healthier, more
energy-efficient homes.
At a minimum, new housing construction in South San Francisco must meet the standards
contained in Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations (Energy Efficiency Standards
for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings). These regulations were established in 1978 and
most recently updated in 2013 with amended standards going into effect in 2014. Energy
5 Ibid.
561
South San Francisco Housing Element Update
April 2015
76
efficiency requirements are enforced by local governments through the building permit process.
All new construction must comply with the standards in effect on the date a building permit
application is made.
The City funds various minor housing rehabilitations programs using CDBG funds. As part of
these rehabilitation projects the City incorporates green retrofit improvements including
insulated windows, roof insulation, tankless water heaters, and other weatherization techniques.
Currently the City provides funding to CID (Center of Independence for Individuals with
Disabilities), Rebuilding Together Peninsula, and El Concilio of San Mateo County.
The City adopted a Green Building Ordinance, in line with the State standards, in 2014. This
ordinance applies to residential development as well as non-residential development and requires
new homes or substantial remodels to be constructed using sustainable building practices to
reduce environmental impacts. In addition to the design and construction of individual buildings,
the development industry is becoming increasingly aware of opportunities for energy
conservation at the site planning level and even at the community planning level. New
developments are increasingly being planned so that building orientations will take advantage of
passive solar energy benefits. Larger scale land use planning is increasingly considering benefits of
compact urban form (i.e., higher densities) as a means to reduce auto dependency for
transportation, and the benefits of mixed-use land use patterns to make neighborhoods more self-
contained so that residents can walk or bicycle to places of work, shopping, or other services.
Compact urban development patterns are also necessary to improve the effectiveness of buses and
other forms of public transit. If effective public transit is available and convenient, energy will be
conserved through reduced auto use. In the future, the City will consider incorporating these
and/or other sustainable development principles into new developments that are planned within
South San Francisco.
In addition, the City adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) in February 2014, which supports
these ideas as well. The CAP includes a Program of Reduction Strategies that promote energy
conservation. It also includes implementation tools that will be used by the City to track
greenhouse gas reductions. A Development Review Checklist will be used on a project-by-project
basis to track project-level contributions to the CAP target including energy conservation.
562
Exhibit B:
Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Amendments
Chapter 3, Land Use and Urban Design
1.Page 3-5: The Downtown Transit Core allows up to 100 dwelling units per acre; a minimum of 80
dwelling units per acre is required. A maximum of 120 180 dwelling units per acre would be
allowed for development meeting specified criteria. Ground level retail uses will be encouraged
throughout the area.
2.Page 3-8: Table 3.01: Standards for Density and Development Intensity
Land Use
Designation
Residential
Density du/net ac
Max FAR Maximum
Residential
Density with
Discretionary
Approval and
Incentive-Based
Bonuses 1
Maximum FAR
with Discretionary
Approval and
Incentive-based
Bonuses 1
Downtown Transit
Core
80 -100 6.0 120.0
180.00
8.0
1 Does not include density bonuses allowed per Chapter 20.390 Bonus Residential Density
563
3.1February 2015
LAND USE & URBAN DESIGN3
LAND USE FRAMEWORK
The land use strategy for the Downtown Station Area is focused on encourag-
ing intensification of activity and uses in two key areas—the Downtown and
the Eastern Neighborhood; both are within a 1/2-mile radius of the Caltrain
Station and most of the Eastern Neighborhood is within 1/4-mile of this transit
resource. This intensification strategy will support long-term goals for South
San Francisco, articulated in the 1999 General Plan, of preserving the scale
and character of existing neighborhoods while maintaining and enhancing
the Downtown as the “physical and symbolic center” of the City. It is also
likely to increase transit ridership by bringing new residents and employees
within a short walk of the Caltrain Station.
Fundamental to the long-term success of this strategy are improvements to
the Caltrain Station, specifically extension of the Caltrain Station platforms
to the south and completion of a pedestrian/bicycle undercrossing, as al-
ready studied and planned but not funded. This improvement is essential to
ensuring convenient access to transit, improving the perception of safety at
the station, and increasing ridership.
Guiding Principle 1: Revitalize Downtown South San Francisco as a citywide
destination that is economically vital, diverse, active,
and that encompasses a variety of uses.
While the Downtown includes a mix of uses including civic, retail, service and
a range of residential types, it is not perceived as the dynamic “go to” desti-
nation for citywide residents and visitors. Increasing the range intensity of
available services and uses, which will increase pedestrian activity and the
perception of safety, are key components of the revitalization effort.
564
3.2 South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan
Francisco. Changes will not be made to current zoning or allowed land uses
alto lan owner will till e encorae to conier oe intenifi-
cation of uses where these are appropriate. Better connections and an im-
proved pedestrian environment will link these neighborhoods better with the
Downtown.
LU-7: Retain existing land use and density standards for residential
neighborhoods outside of the Downtown core.
Guiding Principle 4: Encourage redevelopment of the Eastern Neighborhood
between Gateway Boulevard, the East Grand Avenue
overcrossing and the US 101 corridor as a high intensity
oƥceȀƬD itrictǤ
The Eastern Neighborhood lies directly adjacent to the Caltrain Station. This
proiit oơer an opportnit to locate iǦintenit eploent eǡ
rather than the low-intensity light industrial, service and business commer-
cial uses that currently exist. These higher intensity uses will complement the
alrea ccel iotecǦoriente at o ͙͙͘ area an proie a inificant
potential altrain er ae witin a le tan fieǦinte wal o te tationǤ
ee worer will alo e witin a le tan fieǦinte wal o Downtown
Grand Avenue and its restaurants and other amenities.
LAND USE PLAN
The Land Use Plan illustrated in Figure 3.01 shows the new land uses pro-
posed for the plan area, as well as those that will remain unchanged. The
eneral Plan an e Plan will e oifie to reƪect te new einationǤ
The Zoning Ordinance will provide a detailed presentation of all uses allowed
in each land use designation and relevant regulations.
The land use pattern illustrated in the Land Use Plan has been designed to
et te raewor or accooatin te cane ientifie a eirale
by the community, that capitalize on the transit resources in the area, and
that balance the desire to protect the historic nature of Grand Avenue while
revitalizing the Downtown.
LU-1: Encourage the use of local workforce and local business sourcing for
development in the plan area that generates quality construction
and service jobs with career pathways, that provides job training
opportunities for the local workforce, and that pays area standard
wages for construction so that money in wages and materials used in the
construction of these developments is invested in the local economy.
LU-2: Encourage a mix of uses, activities and amenities throughout the
Downtown to assist in revitalization of the Downtown as a citywide and
regional destination.
LU-3: eire ron leel retail or oter actie ron ƪoor e in tre
eelopent alon
ran Aene an on e interectin treetȄ
inenǡ pre an aple AeneȄto enre actiit an italit in
the Downtown.
Guiding Principle 2: Increase development intensities in the Downtown to
grow the resident population and thus support a variety
of commercial and service uses.
Area or intenification are oce ͙Ȍ in proiit to te altrain Station
and 2) in the areas immediately surrounding Grand Avenue, east of Spruce
Avenue. Opportunities for increased residential densities in particular will
add to the activity and street life of the Downtown and support downtown
businesses.
LU-4: tali te iet intenit lan e witin Ψ ile o te altrain
Station. Here densities up to 120 dwelling units per acre will be
encouraged.
LU-5: Designate a high-density district north and south of Grand Avenue and
in proximity to the station and allow up to 80 dwelling units per acre.
LU-6: Maintain the scale of Grand Avenue itself by slightly lowering allowable
heights along its length to protect its historic character, while
encouraging a mix of uses with retail at the ground level.
Guiding Principle 3: Preserve and enhance the character of existing
downtown neighborhoods while continuing to
encorae oet intenification o e a crrentl
allowed.
The residential neighborhoods that surround the Downtown to the north,
west and south are important components of the character of South San
565
3.3February 2015
Land Use & Urban Design 3
1/4-mile radiu
s
1/2-mile radius
c
c
101
101
FOURTH LANE
SIXTH LANE
SEVENTH LANE
EIGHTH LANE
JUNIPER AVE
NINTH LANE
TAMARACK LANE
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
CE
D
A
R
P
L
.
LINDEN AVEN
U
E
BLV
D
.
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
WA
L
N
U
T
A
V
E
N
U
E
MA
G
N
O
L
I
A
A
V
E
N
U
E
SP
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
SP
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
HA
W
T
H
O
R
N
E
P
L
A
C
E
HI
C
K
O
R
Y
P
L
A
C
E
OL
I
V
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
SCHO
O
L
S
T
.
LERC
H
A
V
E
N
U
E
BEECH
A
V
E
N
U
E
GRAND AVENUE
E GRAND A
V
E
E GRAN
D
A
V
E
GRAND AVE
N
U
E
PO
L
E
T
T
I
W
A
Y
DU
B
U
Q
U
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
FO
R
B
E
S
B
L
V
D
H
A
R
B
O
R
W
A
Y
GA
T
E
W
A
Y
B
L
V
D
GA
T
E
W
A
Y
B
L
V
D
MILLER AVENUE
PA
L
M
A
V
E
N
U
E
EL
M
C
O
U
R
T
LUX AVENUE
VILLAGE WAY
CALIFORNIA AVENUE
PARK
W
A
Y
PINE AVENUE
ASPEN AVENUE
ARMOU
R
A
V
E
N
U
E
BADEN AVENUE
COMMERCIAL AVE
RAILROAD AVE
FIRST LANE
SECOND LANE
THIRD LANE
N CANAL STREET
S CANAL STREET
MAYFAIR AVENUE
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
S
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
B
L
V
D
MITCHELL
A
V
E
UTAH
A
V
E
CORPORATE D
R
I
V
E
H
E
MLOCK AVENUE
SPRUCE AVEN UE
S A I R P O R T .
HILLSIDE
Spruce School
Church
MartinSchool
Cypress & Pine Park
Sign Hill Park
Sister Cities Park
Paradise Valley Park
Para
d
i
s
e
V
a
l
l
e
y
Pock
e
t
P
a
r
k
PG&E
Irish Town Greens
Jack Drago
P
a
r
kTotlot
Mitchell Ave
Green Spot
PG&ESUBSTATION
Department of Public Works
Colma Cree
k
C
a
n
a
l
Colma Creek Canal
City Hall
Hillside Plaza
Lowe’sHome Improvement
South San FranciscoBusiness Center
GATEWAYNEIGHBORHOOD
EASTERNNEIGHBORHOOD
GATEWAYNEIGHBORHOOD
SIGN HILL
NEIGHBORHOOD
PARADISE VALLEY
NEIGHBORHOOD
DOWNTOWNNEIGHBORHOOD
LINDENVILLE
NEIGHBORHOOD
LEGEND
0 250 500 1000’
c
N
c
STUDY AREA BOUNDARY
RAILROAD TRACKS
LESS ACTIVE RAIL SPUR
EXISTING CALTRAIN STATION
PROPOSED CALTRAIN PLATFORM EXTENSION AND UNDER CROSSING
PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY
c
c
DOWNTOWNHD RESIDENTIAL
DOWNTOWNHD RESIDENTIAL
GRAND AVENUE CORE
DOWNTOWN TRANSIT CORE
DOWNTOWN TRANSIT CORE
GRAND AVENUE CORE
TRANSIT OFFICE/R&D CORE
DOWNTOWNRESIDENTIAL CORE
DOWNTOWNRESIDENTIAL CORE
LAND USE CONCEPT B
SEPTEMBER 17, 2013
LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
DOWNTOWN MEDIUM-DENSITY RES
DOWNTOWN HIGH-DENSITY RES
DOWNTOWN RESIDENTIAL CORE
DOWNTOWN TRANSIT CORE
GRAND AVENUE CORE
COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL
BUSINESS COMMERCIAL
BUSINESS COMMERCIAL/HIGH-DENSITY RES
COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL/MED-DENSITY RES
TRANSIT OFFICE/R&D CORE
MIXED INDUSTRIAL
TRANSPORTATION CENTER
OPEN SPACE
PUBLIC
PEDESTRIAN PRIORITY ZONE
LINDEN NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER
LINDEN COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR
1/4-mile radiu
s
1/2-mile radius
c
c
101
101
FOURTH LANE
SIXTH LANE
SEVENTH LANE
EIGHTH LANE
JUNIPER AVE
NINTH LANE
TAMARACK LANE
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
CE
D
A
R
P
L
.
LINDEN AVEN
U
E
BLV
D
.
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
WA
L
N
U
T
A
V
E
N
U
E
MA
G
N
O
L
I
A
A
V
E
N
U
E
SP
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
SP
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
HA
W
T
H
O
R
N
E
P
L
A
C
E
HI
C
K
O
R
Y
P
L
A
C
E
OL
I
V
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
SCHO
O
L
S
T
.
LERC
H
A
V
E
N
U
E
BEECH
A
V
E
N
U
E
GRAND AVENUE
E GRAND A
V
E
E GRAN
D
A
V
E
GRAND AVE
N
U
E
PO
L
E
T
T
I
W
A
Y
DU
B
U
Q
U
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
FO
R
B
E
S
B
L
V
D
H
A
R
B
O
R
W
A
Y
GA
T
E
W
A
Y
B
L
V
D
GA
T
E
W
A
Y
B
L
V
D
MILLER AVENUE
PA
L
M
A
V
E
N
U
E
EL
M
C
O
U
R
T
LUX AVENUE
VILLAGE WAY
CALIFORNIA AVENUE
PARK
W
A
Y
PINE AVENUE
ASPEN AVENUE
ARMOU
R
A
V
E
N
U
E
BADEN AVENUE
COMMERCIAL AVE
RAILROAD AVE
FIRST LANE
SECOND LANE
THIRD LANE
N CANAL STREET
S CANAL STREET
MAYFAIR AVENUE
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
S
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
B
L
V
D
MITCHELL
A
V
E
UTAH
A
V
E
CORPORATE D
R
I
V
E
H
E
MLOCK AVENUE
SPRUCE AVENUE
S A I R P O R T .
HILLSIDE
Spruce School
Church
MartinSchool
Cypress & Pine Park
Sign Hill Park
Sister Cities Park
Paradise Valley Park
Para
d
i
s
e
V
a
l
l
e
y
Pock
e
t
P
a
r
k
PG&E
Irish Town Greens
Jack Drago
P
a
r
kTotlot
Mitchell Ave
Green Spot
PG&ESUBSTATION
Department of Public Works
Colma Cree
k
C
a
n
a
l
Colma Creek Canal
City Hall
Hillside Plaza
Lowe’sHome Improvement
South San FranciscoBusiness Center
GATEWAYNEIGHBORHOOD
EASTERNNEIGHBORHOOD
GATEWAYNEIGHBORHOOD
SIGN HILL
NEIGHBORHOOD
PARADISE VALLEY
NEIGHBORHOOD
DOWNTOWNNEIGHBORHOOD
LINDENVILLE
NEIGHBORHOOD
LEGEND
0 250 500 1000’
c
N
c
STUDY AREA BOUNDARY
RAILROAD TRACKS
LESS ACTIVE RAIL SPUR
EXISTING CALTRAIN STATION
PROPOSED CALTRAIN PLATFORM EXTENSION AND UNDER CROSSING
PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY
c
c
DOWNTOWNHD RESIDENTIAL
DOWNTOWNHD RESIDENTIAL
GRAND AVENUE CORE
DOWNTOWN TRANSIT CORE
DOWNTOWN TRANSIT CORE
GRAND AVENUE CORE
TRANSIT OFFICE/R&D CORE
DOWNTOWNRESIDENTIAL CORE
DOWNTOWNRESIDENTIAL CORE
LAND USE CONCEPT B
SEPTEMBER 17, 2013
LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
DOWNTOWN MEDIUM-DENSITY RES
DOWNTOWN HIGH-DENSITY RES
DOWNTOWN RESIDENTIAL CORE
DOWNTOWN TRANSIT CORE
GRAND AVENUE CORE
COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL
BUSINESS COMMERCIAL
BUSINESS COMMERCIAL/HIGH-DENSITY RES
COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL/MED-DENSITY RES
TRANSIT OFFICE/R&D CORE
MIXED INDUSTRIAL
TRANSPORTATION CENTER
OPEN SPACE
PUBLIC
PEDESTRIAN PRIORITY ZONE
LINDEN NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER
LINDEN COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR
1/4-mile radiu
s
1/2-mile radius
c
c
101
101
FOURTH LANE
SIXTH LANE
SEVENTH LANE
EIGHTH LANE
JUNIPER AVE
NINTH LANE
TAMARACK LANE
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
CE
D
A
R
P
L
.
LINDEN AVEN
U
E
BLV
D
.
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
WA
L
N
U
T
A
V
E
N
U
E
MA
G
N
O
L
I
A
A
V
E
N
U
E
SP
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
SP
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
HA
W
T
H
O
R
N
E
P
L
A
C
E
HI
C
K
O
R
Y
P
L
A
C
E
OL
I
V
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
SCH
O
O
L
S
T
.
LERC
H
A
V
E
N
U
E
BEECH
A
V
E
N
U
E
GRAND AVENUE
E GRAND A
V
E
E GRAN
D
A
V
E
GRAND AVE
N
U
E
PO
L
E
T
T
I
W
A
Y
DU
B
U
Q
U
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
FO
R
B
E
S
B
L
V
D
H
A
R
B
O
R
W
A
Y
GA
T
E
W
A
Y
B
L
V
D
GA
T
E
W
A
Y
B
L
V
D
MILLER AVENUE
PA
L
M
A
V
E
N
U
E
EL
M
C
O
U
R
T
LUX AVENUE
VILLAGE WAY
CALIFORNIA AVENUE
PARK
W
A
Y
PINE AVENUE
ASPEN AVENUE
ARMOU
R
A
V
E
N
U
E
BADEN AVENUE
COMMERCIAL AVE
RAILROAD AVE
FIRST LANE
SECOND LANE
THIRD LANE
N CANAL STREET
S CANAL STREET
MAYFAIR AVENUE
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
S
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
B
L
V
D
MITCHELL A
V
E
UTAH
A
V
E
CORPORATE D
R
I
V
E
H
E
MLOCK AVENUE
SPRUCE AVENUE
S A I R P O R T .
HILLSIDE
Spruce School
Church
MartinSchool
Cypress & Pine Park
Sign Hill Park
Sister Cities Park
Paradise Valley Park
Para
d
i
s
e
V
a
l
l
e
y
Pock
e
t
P
a
r
k
PG&E
Irish Town Greens
Jack Drago
P
a
r
kTotlot
Mitchell Ave
Green Spot
PG&ESUBSTATION
Department of Public Works
Colma Cree
k
C
a
n
a
l
Colma Creek Canal
City Hall
Hillside Plaza
Lowe’sHome Improvement
South San FranciscoBusiness Center
GATEWAYNEIGHBORHOOD
EASTERNNEIGHBORHOOD
GATEWAYNEIGHBORHOOD
SIGN HILLNEIGHBORHOOD
PARADISE VALLEYNEIGHBORHOOD
DOWNTOWNNEIGHBORHOOD
LINDENVILLENEIGHBORHOOD
LEGEND
0 250 500 1000’
c
N
c
STUDY AREA BOUNDARY
RAILROAD TRACKS
LESS ACTIVE RAIL SPUR
EXISTING CALTRAIN STATION
PROPOSED CALTRAIN PLATFORM EXTENSION AND UNDER CROSSING
PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY
c
c
DOWNTOWNHD RESIDENTIAL
DOWNTOWNHD RESIDENTIAL
GRAND AVENUE CORE
DOWNTOWN TRANSIT CORE
DOWNTOWN TRANSIT CORE
GRAND AVENUE CORE
TRANSIT OFFICE/R&D CORE
DOWNTOWNRESIDENTIAL CORE
DOWNTOWNRESIDENTIAL CORE
LAND USE CONCEPT B
SEPTEMBER 17, 2013
LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
DOWNTOWN MEDIUM-DENSITY RES
DOWNTOWN HIGH-DENSITY RES
DOWNTOWN RESIDENTIAL CORE
DOWNTOWN TRANSIT CORE
GRAND AVENUE CORE
COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL
BUSINESS COMMERCIAL
BUSINESS COMMERCIAL/HIGH-DENSITY RES
COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL/MED-DENSITY RES
TRANSIT OFFICE/R&D CORE
MIXED INDUSTRIAL
TRANSPORTATION CENTER
OPEN SPACE
PUBLIC
PEDESTRIAN PRIORITY ZONE
LINDEN NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER
LINDEN COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR
1/4-mile radiu
s
1/2-mile radius
c
c
101
101
FOURTH LANE
SIXTH LANE
SEVENTH LANE
EIGHTH LANE
JUNIPER AVE
NINTH LANE
TAMARACK LANE
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
CE
D
A
R
P
L
.
LINDEN AVEN
U
E
BLV
D
.
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
WA
L
N
U
T
A
V
E
N
U
E
MA
G
N
O
L
I
A
A
V
E
N
U
E
SP
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
SP
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
HA
W
T
H
O
R
N
E
P
L
A
C
E
HI
C
K
O
R
Y
P
L
A
C
E
OL
I
V
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
SCH
O
O
L
S
T
.
LERC
H
A
V
E
N
U
E
BEECH
A
V
E
N
U
E
GRAND AVENUE
E GRAND A
V
E
E GRAN
D
A
V
E
GRAND AVE
N
U
E
PO
L
E
T
T
I
W
A
Y
DU
B
U
Q
U
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
FO
R
B
E
S
B
L
V
D
H
A
R
B
O
R
W
A
Y
GA
T
E
W
A
Y
B
L
V
D
GA
T
E
W
A
Y
B
L
V
D
MILLER AVENUE
PA
L
M
A
V
E
N
U
E
EL
M
C
O
U
R
T
LUX AVENUE
VILLAGE WAY
CALIFORNIA AVENUE
PARK
W
A
Y
PINE AVENUE
ASPEN AVENUE
ARMOU
R
A
V
E
N
U
E
BADEN AVENUE
COMMERCIAL AVE
RAILROAD AVE
FIRST LANE
SECOND LANE
THIRD LANE
N CANAL STREET
S CANAL STREET
MAYFAIR AVENUE
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
S
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
B
L
V
D
MITCHELL A
V
E
UTAH
A
V
E
CORPORATE D
R
I
V
E
H
E
MLOCK AVENUE
SPRUCE AVENUE
S A I R P O R T .
HILLSIDE
Spruce School
Church
MartinSchool
Cypress & Pine Park
Sign Hill Park
Sister Cities Park
Paradise Valley Park
Para
d
i
s
e
V
a
l
l
e
y
Pock
e
t
P
a
r
k
PG&E
Irish Town Greens
Jack Drago
P
a
r
kTotlot
Mitchell Ave
Green Spot
PG&ESUBSTATION
Department of Public Works
Colma Cree
k
C
a
n
a
l
Colma Creek Canal
City Hall
Hillside Plaza
Lowe’sHome Improvement
South San FranciscoBusiness Center
GATEWAY
NEIGHBORHOOD
EASTERN
NEIGHBORHOOD
GATEWAY
NEIGHBORHOOD
SIGN HILLNEIGHBORHOOD
PARADISE VALLEYNEIGHBORHOOD
DOWNTOWN
NEIGHBORHOOD
LINDENVILLENEIGHBORHOOD
LEGEND
0 250 500 1000’
c
N
c
STUDY AREA BOUNDARY
RAILROAD TRACKS
LESS ACTIVE RAIL SPUR
EXISTING CALTRAIN STATION
PROPOSED CALTRAIN PLATFORM EXTENSION AND UNDER CROSSING
PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY
c
c
DOWNTOWNHD RESIDENTIAL
DOWNTOWNHD RESIDENTIAL
GRAND AVENUE CORE
DOWNTOWN TRANSIT CORE
DOWNTOWN TRANSIT CORE
GRAND AVENUE CORE
TRANSIT OFFICE/R&D CORE
DOWNTOWNRESIDENTIAL CORE
DOWNTOWNRESIDENTIAL CORE
LAND USE CONCEPT B
SEPTEMBER 17, 2013
LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
DOWNTOWN MEDIUM-DENSITY RES
DOWNTOWN HIGH-DENSITY RES
DOWNTOWN RESIDENTIAL CORE
DOWNTOWN TRANSIT CORE
GRAND AVENUE CORE
COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL
BUSINESS COMMERCIAL
BUSINESS COMMERCIAL/HIGH-DENSITY RES
COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL/MED-DENSITY RES
TRANSIT OFFICE/R&D CORE
MIXED INDUSTRIAL
TRANSPORTATION CENTER
OPEN SPACE
PUBLIC
PEDESTRIAN PRIORITY ZONE
LINDEN NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER
LINDEN COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR
0’500 1000’250
N
Figure 3.01: Land Use Plan
566
3.4 South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan
Downtown
West of US 101, in the Downtown of South San Francisco, the intention of
te plan i to pport an encorae intenification o e wile repect-
ing the historic fabric, especially of Grand Avenue. The Downtown already
includes some restaurants and other services that are citywide attractions,
but there is not a critical mass of activity and of residents or employees to
keep the streets active and to support more amenities and services. South
San Francisco has an opportunity to attract workers who desire a more urban
lifestyle, with proximity to work and to amenities. Proximity to Caltrain and a
bikeable environment will make the Downtown attractive for these users and
will encourage other modes of travel.
Guiding Principle 5: Encourage variety in new housing development.
Diversity in housing type and occupancy will reinforce the character of the
Downtown an pport a rane o aenitie an ericeǤ c o toaǯ
oin in te Downtown i relatiel aơoraleǢ aintainin an enancin
te ppl o aơorale oin will enre a ealt an iere owntown
poplationǤ ơort to aoi iplaceent o eitin aơorale reiential
units will also be required.
LU-8: Encourage a mix of housing types including ownership, rental, family,
and senior housing, and also encourage provision of units accessible to
persons with disabilities.
LU-9: ncorae te proiion o aơorale oin in te Specific Plan areaǡ
worin wit nonǦprofit oin eeloper to ienti opportnit
sites with high Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) competitiveness,
and through inclusionary or in-lieu fee provisions.
LU-10: Spport reional an local eơort to eaine iplaceent o aơorale
housing and lower-income households and consider programs to
are ientifie oin neeǤ
LU-11: Promote the collaboration and coordination among the economic
development, workforce development, and planning departments to
aiie te econoic italit o Downtown an enefit or eitin
and future residents.
Guiding Principle 6: Retain existing residential neighborhoods that surround
the Downtown as currently planned, with no proposed
changes in zoning.
Guiding Principle 7: Focus public investments in the historic core of the City,
along Grand Avenue from Airport Boulevard to Spruce
Aeneǡ an on aoinin treetȄte Peetrian
Priorit oneȄto create an attractie peetrian
environment to support businesses Downtown.
The Pedestrian Priority Zone, which is discussed in more detail later in this
section, will be the focus of the most change in the Downtown in the foresee-
able future. Thus, it should also be the focus of public investments in pedes-
trian improvements as well as new mixed-use and residential development.
Guiding Principle 8: Focus increases in residential and mixed-use densities
witin Ψ ile o te altrain Station an in area
proximate to Grand Avenue to increase patronage of
Caltrain as well as Grand Avenue businesses.
Guiding Principle 9: Require pedestrian-oriented ground level retail and
service uses on Grand Avenue and in the neighborhood
center on Linden between California and Juniper
Avenues. Encourage ground level retail in other areas,
especially in the Downtown Transit Core.
The Downtown includes four sub-areas that will be the focus of change in the
future:
▪Downtown Transit Core
▪Grand Avenue Core
▪Downtown Residential Core
▪Linden Neighborhood Center
567
3.5February 2015
Land Use & Urban Design 3
Downtown Transit Core
This area lies within a 1/4 mile, or a five-minute walk, of the reconfigured Cal-
train Station and undercrossing. It is bounded by Lux Avenue on the north,
Second Lane on the south, Union Pacific Railroad/Caltrain tracks on the east,
and properties on the west side of Linden Avenue on the west.
The Downtown Transit Core is envisioned to be a vibrant, mixed-use area.
Due to its proximity to the Caltrain Station and the relative abundance of de-
velopable sites, the Downtown Transit Core is the area most suitable for the
highest intensities of new development in the Downtown area. These higher
intensities will help to support transit ridership since residential units will be
within a short walk of the station. High-density housing will also provide the
pedestrian activity needed to support downtown businesses and will increase
activity day and night, add street life and improve safety. As the Downtown
Transit Core area evolves, it will enhance the image of the Downtown and
frame Grand Avenue—the centerpiece of the Downtown.
The Downtown Transit Core allows up to 100 dwelling units per acre; a min-
imum of 80 dwelling units per acre is required. A maximum of 120 180 dwelling
units per acre would be allowed for development meeting specified criteria.
Ground level retail uses will be encouraged throughout the area.
Grand Avenue Core
Grand Avenue will remain the historic retail center of the City. The Grand Ave-
nue district extends from Airport Boulevard on the east to Spruce Avenue on
the west. With a few exceptions, the district includes properties directly front-
ing on Grand Avenue. At the east end, Grand Avenue and Airport Boulevard
form an important gateway to the City and the historic core; at the west end,
the district transitions to the residential Downtown Neighborhood described
in the General Plan. Historically interesting buildings will be retained wher-
ever possible. New mixed-use development of underutilized properties will
be encouraged but guidelines will limit building heights directly along Grand
Avenue in order to respect the historic character of some existing buildings
and to create a comfortable pedestrian environment. Off Grand Avenue, on
the rear portions of Grand-facing lots, taller allowable heights will help ac-
commodate new residential uses and increase development opportunities.
The Grand Avenue Core allows up to 60 dwelling units per acre and requires
a minimum of 14 units per acre. If meeting specified criteria, residential den-
sities can be up to 80 dwelling units per acre or 100 units per acre on corner
sites or site over 1/2 acre in size. Retail is required on the ground floor.
1/4-mile radiu
s
1/2-mileradius
c
c
101
101
FOURTH LANE
SIXTH LANE
SEVENTH
L
A
N
E
EIGHTH
L
A
N
E
JUNIPER
A
V
E
NINTH
L
A
N
E
TAMARACK LANE
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
CE
D
A
R
P
L
.
LINDEN
A
V
E
N
U
E
BLV
D
.
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
WA
L
N
U
T
A
V
E
N
U
E
MA
G
N
O
L
I
A
A
V
E
N
U
E
SP
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
SP
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
HA
W
T
H
O
R
N
E
P
L
A
C
E
HI
C
K
O
R
Y
P
L
A
C
E
OL
I
V
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
SCH
O
O
L
S
T
.
LERC
H
A
V
E
N
U
E
BEECH
A
V
E
N
U
E
GRAND AVENUE
E
G
R
A
N
D
A
V
E
E GRAN
D
A
V
E
GRAND AV
E
N
U
E
PO
L
E
T
T
I
W
A
Y
DU
B
U
Q
U
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
FO
R
B
E
S
B
L
V
D
H
A
R
B
O
R
W
A
Y
GA
T
E
W
A
Y
B
L
V
D
GA
T
E
W
A
Y
B
L
V
D
MILLER AVENUE
PA
L
M
A
V
E
N
U
E
EL
M
C
O
U
R
T
LUX AVENUE
VILLAGE WAY
CALIFORNIA AVENUE
PARK
W
A
Y
PINE
A
V
E
N
U
E
ASPEN
A
V
E
N
U
E
ARMOU
R
A
V
E
N
U
E
BADEN AVENUE
COMMERCIAL AVE
RAILROAD AVE
FIRST LANE
SECOND LANE
THIRD LANE
N CANAL STREET
S
C
A
N
A
L
S
T
R
E
E
T
MAYFAIR AVENUE
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
S
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
B
L
V
D
MITCHELL
A
V
E
UTAH
A
V
E
CORPORATE
D
R
I
V
E
H
E
MLOCKAVENUE
SP
R
U
C
E
AVEN UE
S A I R P O R T
.
HILLSIDE
Spruce School
Church
MartinSchool
Cypress & Pine Park
Sign Hill Park
Sister Cities Park
Paradise Valley Park
Para
d
i
s
e
V
a
l
l
e
y
Pock
e
t
P
a
r
k
PG&E
Irish Town Greens
Jack Drago
P
a
r
kTotlot
Mitchell Ave
Green Spot
PG&ESUBSTATION
Department of Public Works
Colma
C
r
e
e
k
C
a
n
a
l
Colma
C
r
e
e
k
C
a
n
a
l
City Hall
HillsidePlaza
Lowe’sHome Improvement
South San FranciscoBusiness Center
GATEWAYNEIGHBORHOOD
EASTERNNEIGHBORHOOD
GATEWAYNEIGHBORHOOD
SIGN HILLNEIGHBORHOOD
PARADISE VALLEYNEIGHBORHOOD
DOWNTOWN
NEIGHBORHOOD
LINDENVILLE
NEIGHBORHOOD
LEGEND
0250 500 1000’
c
N
c
STUDY AREA BOUNDARY
RAILROAD TRACKS
LESS ACTIVE RAIL SPUR
EXISTING CALTRAIN STATION
PROPOSED CALTRAIN PLATFORM EXTENSION AND UNDER CROSSING
PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY
GRAND AVENUE CORE
DOWNTOWN TRANSIT CORE
DOWNTOWN RESIDENTIAL
LINDEN NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER
EASTERN NEIGHBORHOOD
ZONES
1/4-mileradiu
s
1/2-mileradius
c
c
101
101
FOURTH LANE
SIXTH LANE
SEVENTH
L
A
N
E
EIGHTH
L
A
N
E
JUNIPER
A
V
E
NINTH
L
A
N
E
TAMARACK LANE
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
CE
D
A
R
P
L
.
LINDEN
A
V
E
N
U
E
BLV
D
.
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
WA
L
N
U
T
A
V
E
N
U
E
MA
G
N
O
L
I
A
A
V
E
N
U
E
SP
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
SP
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
HA
W
T
H
O
R
N
E
P
L
A
C
E
HI
C
K
O
R
Y
P
L
A
C
E
OL
I
V
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
SCH
O
O
L
S
T
.
LERC
H
A
V
E
N
U
E
BEECH
A
V
E
N
U
E
GRAND AVENUE
E
G
R
A
N
D
A
V
E
E GRAN
D
A
V
E
GRAND AV
E
N
U
E
PO
L
E
T
T
I
W
A
Y
DU
B
U
Q
U
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
FO
R
B
E
S
B
L
V
D
H
A
R
B
O
R
W
A
Y
GA
T
E
W
A
Y
B
L
V
D
GA
T
E
W
A
Y
B
L
V
D
MILLER AVENUE
PA
L
M
A
V
E
N
U
E
EL
M
C
O
U
R
T
LUX AVENUE
VILLAGE WAY
CALIFORNIA AVENUE
PARK
W
A
Y
PINE
A
V
E
N
U
E
ASPEN
A
V
E
N
U
E
ARMOU
R
A
V
E
N
U
E
BADEN AVENUE
COMMERCIAL AVE
RAILROAD AVE
FIRST LANE
SECOND LANE
THIRD LANE
N
C
A
N
A
L
S
T
R
E
E
T
S
C
A
N
A
L
S
T
R
E
E
T
MAYFAIR
A
V
E
N
U
E
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
S
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
B
L
V
D
MITCHELL
A
V
E
UTAH
A
V
E
CORPORATE
D
R
I
V
E
H
E
MLOCKAVENUE
SP
R
U
C
E
AVEN UE
S A I R P O R T
.
HILLSIDE
Spruce School
Church
MartinSchool
Cypress & Pine Park
Sign Hill Park
Sister Cities Park
Paradise Valley Park
Para
d
i
s
e
V
a
l
l
e
y
Pock
e
t
P
a
r
k
PG&E
Irish Town Greens
Jack Drago
P
a
r
kTotlot
Mitchell Ave
Green Spot
PG&ESUBSTATION
Department of Public Works
Colma
C
r
e
e
k
C
a
n
a
l
Colma
C
r
e
e
k
C
a
n
a
l
City Hall
Hillside
Plaza
Lowe’sHome Improvement
South San FranciscoBusiness Center
GATEWAYNEIGHBORHOOD
EASTERNNEIGHBORHOOD
GATEWAYNEIGHBORHOOD
SIGN HILL
NEIGHBORHOOD
PARADISE VALLEYNEIGHBORHOOD
DOWNTOWN
NEIGHBORHOOD
LINDENVILLE
NEIGHBORHOOD
LEGEND
0 250 500 1000’
c
N
c
STUDY AREA BOUNDARY
RAILROAD TRACKS
LESS ACTIVE RAIL SPUR
EXISTING CALTRAIN STATION
PROPOSED CALTRAIN PLATFORM EXTENSION AND UNDER CROSSING
PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY
GRAND AVENUE CORE
DOWNTOWN TRANSIT CORE
DOWNTOWN RESIDENTIAL
LINDEN NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER
EASTERN NEIGHBORHOOD
ZONES
568
3.6 South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan
Downtown eiential ore
Outside of the Grand Avenue Core and the Downtown Transit Core areas, the
remaining areas lying between Tamarack Lane and Second Lane are desig-
nated Downtown Residential Core. This designation is intended to encour-
age somewhat higher densities than what is currently allowed but will still
be compatible in scale with the remaining Downtown residential districts:
Downtown High Density Residential and Downtown Medium Density Res-
idential. The areas encompassed by this new designation are within two
blocks of the Grand Avenue Core. With new residential development, these
will become more active, pedestrian-oriented streets with day and night ac-
tivity which will promote safety. The added residents will be important to the
success of Grand Avenue businesses.
The Downtown Residential Core designation allows up to 80 dwelling units
per acre with a minimum of 40 units per acre. Densities up to 100 units per
acre are allowed with an Incentive Program if specific criteria are met and
public benefits are provided. Affordable Senior Housing projects may be al-
lowed up to 125 units per acre.
inen eioroo enter
The Linden Neighborhood Center is defined as the properties fronting Lin-
den Avenue between California Avenue and Ninth Lane. The large zone of
residential uses that lie north of Miller Avenue up to Armour Avenue and west
of Maple have limited neighborhood amenities that can help to meet daily
needs; in addition, there is little public open space available in this area. The
current small collection of retail uses along Linden Avenue between Califor-
nia and Juniper Avenues provide a starting point for a more robust neighbor-
hood center that will be walkable for the surrounding residential areas and
can be a supplement to the more citywide destinations that will locate along
Grand Avenue.
Retail/commercial uses would be required at ground level within this zone.
The Linden Neighborhood Center designation allows up to 60 dwelling units
per acre with a minimum of 40 units per acre. Densities up to 80 units per acre
are allowed if specific criteria are met.
1/4-mile radiu
s
1/2-mile radius
c
c
101
101
FOURTH LANE
SIXTH LANE
SEVENTH LANE
EIGHTH LANE
JUNIPER AVE
NINTH LANE
TAMARACK LANE
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
CE
D
A
R
P
L
.
LINDEN AVEN
U
E
BLV
D
.
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
WA
L
N
U
T
A
V
E
N
U
E
MA
G
N
O
L
I
A
A
V
E
N
U
E
SP
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
SP
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
HA
W
T
H
O
R
N
E
P
L
A
C
E
HI
C
K
O
R
Y
P
L
A
C
E
OL
I
V
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
SCH
O
O
L
S
T
.
LERC
H
A
V
E
N
U
E
BEECH
A
V
E
N
U
E
GRAND AVENUE
E GRAND A
V
E
E GRAN
D
A
V
E
GRAND AVE
N
U
E
PO
L
E
T
T
I
W
A
Y
DU
B
U
Q
U
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
FO
R
B
E
S
B
L
V
D
H
A
R
B
O
R
W
A
Y
GA
T
E
W
A
Y
B
L
V
D
GA
T
E
W
A
Y
B
L
V
D
MILLER AVENUE
PA
L
M
A
V
E
N
U
E
EL
M
C
O
U
R
T
LUX AVENUE
VILLAGE WAY
CALIFORNIA AVENUE
PARK
W
A
Y
PINE AVENUE
ASPEN AVENUE
ARMOU
R
A
V
E
N
U
E
BADEN AVENUE
COMMERCIAL AVE
RAILROAD AVE
FIRST LANE
SECOND LANE
THIRD LANE
N CANAL STREET
S CANAL STREET
MAYFAIR AVENUE
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
S
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
B
L
V
D
MITCHELL A
V
E
UTAH
A
V
E
CORPORATE D
R
I
V
E
H
E
MLOCK AVENUE
SPRUCE AVENUE
S A I R P O R T .
HILLSIDE
Spruce School
Church
MartinSchool
Cypress & Pine Park
Sign Hill Park
Sister Cities Park
Paradise Valley Park
Para
d
i
s
e
V
a
l
l
e
y
Pock
e
t
P
a
r
k
PG&E
Irish Town Greens
Jack Drago
P
a
r
kTotlot
Mitchell Ave
Green Spot
PG&ESUBSTATION
Department of Public Works
Colma Cree
k
C
a
n
a
l
Colma Creek Canal
City Hall
Hillside Plaza
Lowe’sHome Improvement
South San FranciscoBusiness Center
GATEWAYNEIGHBORHOOD
EASTERN
NEIGHBORHOOD
GATEWAY
NEIGHBORHOOD
SIGN HILLNEIGHBORHOOD
PARADISE VALLEYNEIGHBORHOOD
DOWNTOWNNEIGHBORHOOD
LINDENVILLENEIGHBORHOOD
LEGEND
02505001000’
c
N
c
STUDY AREA BOUNDARY
RAILROAD TRACKS
LESS ACTIVE RAIL SPUR
EXISTING CALTRAIN STATION
PROPOSED CALTRAIN PLATFORM EXTENSION AND UNDER CROSSING
PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY
GRAND AVENUE CORE
DOWNTOWN TRANSIT CORE
DOWNTOWN RESIDENTIAL
LINDEN NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER
EASTERN NEIGHBORHOOD
ZONES
1/4-mile radiu
s
1/2-mile radius
c
c
101
101
FOURTH LANE
SIXTH LANE
SEVENTH LANE
EIGHTH LANE
JUNIPER AVE
NINTH LANE
TAMARACK LANE
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
CE
D
A
R
P
L
.
LINDEN AVEN
U
E
BLV
D
.
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
WA
L
N
U
T
A
V
E
N
U
E
MA
G
N
O
L
I
A
A
V
E
N
U
E
SP
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
SP
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
HA
W
T
H
O
R
N
E
P
L
A
C
E
HI
C
K
O
R
Y
P
L
A
C
E
OL
I
V
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
SCH
O
O
L
S
T
.
LERC
H
A
V
E
N
U
E
BEECH
A
V
E
N
U
E
GRAND AVENUE
E GRAND A
V
E
E GRAN
D
A
V
E
GRAND AVE
N
U
E
PO
L
E
T
T
I
W
A
Y
DU
B
U
Q
U
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
FO
R
B
E
S
B
L
V
D
H
A
R
B
O
R
W
A
Y
GA
T
E
W
A
Y
B
L
V
D
GA
T
E
W
A
Y
B
L
V
D
MILLER AVENUE
PA
L
M
A
V
E
N
U
E
EL
M
C
O
U
R
T
LUX AVENUE
VILLAGE WAY
CALIFORNIA AVENUE
PARK
W
A
Y
PINE AVENUE
ASPEN AVENUE
ARMOU
R
A
V
E
N
U
E
BADEN AVENUE
COMMERCIAL AVE
RAILROAD AVE
FIRST LANE
SECOND LANE
THIRD LANE
N CANAL STREET
S CANAL STREET
MAYFAIR AVENUE
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
S
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
B
L
V
D
MITCHELL
A
V
E
UTAH
A
V
E
CORPORATE D
R
I
V
E
H
E
MLOCK AVENUE
SPRUCE AVEN UE
S A I R P O R T .
HILLSIDE
Spruce School
Church
MartinSchool
Cypress & Pine Park
Sign Hill Park
Sister Cities Park
Paradise Valley Park
Para
d
i
s
e
V
a
l
l
e
y
Pock
e
t
P
a
r
k
PG&E
Irish Town Greens
Jack Drago
P
a
r
kTotlot
Mitchell Ave
Green Spot
PG&ESUBSTATION
Department of Public Works
Colma Cree
k
C
a
n
a
l
Colma Creek Canal
City Hall
Hillside Plaza
Lowe’sHome Improvement
South San FranciscoBusiness Center
GATEWAYNEIGHBORHOOD
EASTERN
NEIGHBORHOOD
GATEWAYNEIGHBORHOOD
SIGN HILL
NEIGHBORHOOD
PARADISE VALLEYNEIGHBORHOOD
DOWNTOWNNEIGHBORHOOD
LINDENVILLENEIGHBORHOOD
LEGEND
0 250 500 1000’
c
N
c
STUDY AREA BOUNDARY
RAILROAD TRACKS
LESS ACTIVE RAIL SPUR
EXISTING CALTRAIN STATION
PROPOSED CALTRAIN PLATFORM EXTENSION AND UNDER CROSSING
PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY
GRAND AVENUE CORE
DOWNTOWN TRANSIT CORE
DOWNTOWN RESIDENTIAL
LINDEN NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER
EASTERN NEIGHBORHOOD
ZONES
569
3.7February 2015
Land Use & Urban Design 3
1/4-mile radiu
s
1/2-mile radius
c
c
101
101
FOURTH LANE
SIXTH LANE
SEVENTH LANE
EIGHTH LANE
JUNIPER AVE
NINTH LANE
TAMARACK LANE
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
CE
D
A
R
P
L
.
LINDEN AVEN
U
E
BLV
D
.
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
WA
L
N
U
T
A
V
E
N
U
E
MA
G
N
O
L
I
A
A
V
E
N
U
E
SP
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
SP
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
HA
W
T
H
O
R
N
E
P
L
A
C
E
HI
C
K
O
R
Y
P
L
A
C
E
OL
I
V
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
SCH
O
O
L
S
T
.
LERC
H
A
V
E
N
U
E
BEECH
A
V
E
N
U
E
GRAND AVENUE
E GRAND A
V
E
E GRAN
D
A
V
E
GRAND AVE
N
U
E
PO
L
E
T
T
I
W
A
Y
DU
B
U
Q
U
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
FO
R
B
E
S
B
L
V
D
H
A
R
B
O
R
W
A
Y
GA
T
E
W
A
Y
B
L
V
D
GA
T
E
W
A
Y
B
L
V
D
MILLER AVENUE
PA
L
M
A
V
E
N
U
E
EL
M
C
O
U
R
T
LUX AVENUE
VILLAGE WAY
CALIFORNIA AVENUE
PARK
W
A
Y
PINE AVENUE
ASPEN AVENUE
ARMOU
R
A
V
E
N
U
E
BADEN AVENUE
COMMERCIAL AVE
RAILROAD AVE
FIRST LANE
SECOND LANE
THIRD LANE
N CANAL STREET
S CANAL STREET
MAYFAIR AVENUE
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
S
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
B
L
V
D
MITCHELL
A
V
E
UTAH
A
V
E
CORPORATE D
R
I
V
E
H
E
MLOCK AVENUE
SPRUCE AVENUE
S A I R P O R T .
HILLSIDE
Spruce School
Church
MartinSchool
Cypress & Pine Park
Sign Hill Park
Sister Cities Park
Paradise Valley Park
Para
d
i
s
e
V
a
l
l
e
y
Pock
e
t
P
a
r
k
PG&E
Irish Town Greens
Jack Drago P
a
r
kTotlot
Mitchell Ave
Green Spot
PG&ESUBSTATION
Department of Public Works
Colma Cree
k
C
a
n
a
l
Colma Creek Canal
City Hall
Hillside
Plaza
Lowe’sHome Improvement
South San FranciscoBusiness Center
GATEWAYNEIGHBORHOOD
EASTERNNEIGHBORHOOD
GATEWAYNEIGHBORHOOD
SIGN HILLNEIGHBORHOOD
PARADISE VALLEYNEIGHBORHOOD
DOWNTOWNNEIGHBORHOOD
LINDENVILLE
NEIGHBORHOOD
LEGEND
02505001000’
c
N
c
STUDY AREA BOUNDARY
RAILROAD TRACKS
LESS ACTIVE RAIL SPUR
EXISTING CALTRAIN STATION
PROPOSED CALTRAIN PLATFORM EXTENSION AND UNDER CROSSING
PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY
GRAND AVENUE CORE
DOWNTOWN TRANSIT CORE
DOWNTOWN RESIDENTIAL
LINDEN NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER
EASTERN NEIGHBORHOOD
ZONES
Linden Commercial Corridor
The Linden Commercial Corridor includes the properties fronting Linden Av-
enue from California Avenue to Sixth Lane and from Second Lane to Railroad
Avenue. Linden Avenue throughout its length has historically been a location
for a variety of commercial uses and today many of these remain and serve
as resources for local residents and businesses. This designation applies to
areas of Linden Avenue south of Aspen Avenue that do not otherwise fall into
the Downtown Residential Core, Downtown Transit Core, or Grand Avenue
Core districts.
Commercial and mixed uses will continue to be allowed and encouraged on
properties within this corridor. While not required, commercial uses will pro-
vide opportunities for local services for adjoining residential neighborhoods.
As with other mixed use locations, improvements to the sidewalks and
streetscape will be encouraged to provide additional pedestrian amenities
and accessibility especially for local residents.
Retail use will be encouraged at ground level in this corridor. Other require-
ments of the Downtown High Density Residential district will pertain: 20.1-40
dwelling units per acre.
Eastern Neighborhood
The eastern part of the plan area, with proximity to Caltrain, regional high-
ways, San Francisco International Airport, San Francisco and Silicon Valley,
and a biotechnology innovation hub anchored by Genentech, is a highly suit-
able location for high-density employment. The location adjoining the Cal-
train Station suggests that a typical, suburban office park pattern, such as
found in other parts of the East of 101 area, would not be optimal here. In-
stead, a more urban, corporate office format such as found in the downtowns
of Palo Alto, Sunnyvale, San Mateo or San Francisco (although at significant-
ly lower densities) would be appropriate. The area provides a number of large
sites suitable for development; the PG&E substation site, however, is likely to
remain and development along its southern extent is likely precluded by the
presence of major overhead power lines.
Guiding Principle 10 Encourage high-density employment.
Guiding Principle 11: Enhance the few existing streets with a more fine-
grained pattern of vehicular and bicycle/pedestrian
routes to allow convenient circulation throughout the
area.
1/4-mile radiu
s
1/2-mile radius
c
c
101
101
FOURTH LANE
SIXTH LANE
SEVENTH LANE
EIGHTH LANE
JUNIPER AVE
NINTH LANE
TAMARACK LANE
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
CE
D
A
R
P
L
.
LINDEN AVEN
U
E
BLV
D
.
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
WA
L
N
U
T
A
V
E
N
U
E
MA
G
N
O
L
I
A
A
V
E
N
U
E
SP
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
SP
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
HA
W
T
H
O
R
N
E
P
L
A
C
E
HI
C
K
O
R
Y
P
L
A
C
E
OL
I
V
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
SCH
O
O
L
S
T
.
LERC
H
A
V
E
N
U
E
BEECH
A
V
E
N
U
E
GRAND AVENUE
E GRAND A
V
E
E GRAN
D
A
V
E
GRAND AVE
N
U
E
PO
L
E
T
T
I
W
A
Y
DU
B
U
Q
U
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
FO
R
B
E
S
B
L
V
D
H
A
R
B
O
R
W
A
Y
GA
T
E
W
A
Y
B
L
V
D
GA
T
E
W
A
Y
B
L
V
D
MILLER AVENUE
PA
L
M
A
V
E
N
U
E
EL
M
C
O
U
R
T
LUX AVENUE
VILLAGE WAY
CALIFORNIA AVENUE
PARK
W
A
Y
PINE AVENUE
ASPEN AVENUE
ARMOU
R
A
V
E
N
U
E
BADEN AVENUE
COMMERCIAL AVE
RAILROAD AVE
FIRST LANE
SECOND LANE
THIRD LANE
N CANAL STREET
S CANAL STREET
MAYFAIR AVENUE
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
S
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
B
L
V
D
MITCHELL A
V
E
UTAH
A
V
E
CORPORATE D
R
I
V
E
H
E
MLOCK AVENUE
SPRUCE AVENUE
S A I R P O R T .
HILLSIDE
Spruce School
Church
MartinSchool
Cypress & Pine Park
Sign Hill Park
Sister Cities Park
Paradise Valley Park
Para
d
i
s
e
V
a
l
l
e
y
Pock
e
t
P
a
r
k
PG&E
Irish Town Greens
Jack Drago
P
a
r
kTotlot
Mitchell Ave
Green Spot
PG&ESUBSTATION
Department of Public Works
Colma Cree
k
C
a
n
a
l
Colma Creek Canal
City Hall
Hillside Plaza
Lowe’sHome Improvement
South San FranciscoBusiness Center
GATEWAY
NEIGHBORHOOD
EASTERNNEIGHBORHOOD
GATEWAYNEIGHBORHOOD
SIGN HILLNEIGHBORHOOD
PARADISE VALLEYNEIGHBORHOOD
DOWNTOWNNEIGHBORHOOD
LINDENVILLENEIGHBORHOOD
LEGEND
0 250 500 1000’
c
N
c
STUDY AREA BOUNDARY
RAILROAD TRACKS
LESS ACTIVE RAIL SPUR
EXISTING CALTRAIN STATION
PROPOSED CALTRAIN PLATFORM EXTENSION AND UNDER CROSSING
PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY
GRAND AVENUE CORE
DOWNTOWN TRANSIT CORE
DOWNTOWN RESIDENTIAL
LINDEN NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER
EASTERN NEIGHBORHOOD
ZONES
570
3.8 South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan
ale ͛Ǥ͙͘ǣ Stanar or Denit an Deelopent ntenit
͙ Doe not incle enit one allowe per apter ͚͘Ǥ͛͘͡ on eiential Denit
͚ orner propertieȀite reater tan ΨΠ acre
͛ or aliin aơorale enior oin proect
Guiding Principle 12: Provide a direct connection from the planned pedestrian
and bicycle underpass of the tracks through the northern
part of the area along Grand Avenue to allow station
drop-off and shuttle pick-ups as well as direct bicycle
and pedestrian access to the station and to Downtown.
Guiding Principle 13: Allow retail uses along Grand Avenue to provide
amenities for the office population and a strong visual
and physical linkage to the Downtown to the west.
ranit ƥce Ȁ ƬD ore
The Transit Core Office/R&D District is bounded on the north by East Grand
Avenue, on the east by Gateway Boulevard, on the south by South Airport
Boulevard, and on the west by Industrial Way and the US 101 right-of-way.
It is currently a mix of parking lots and low scale service and light industrial
uses. This urban employment district would be characterized by a walkable
street pattern, more like Downtown than the suburban-style developments
that dominate much of the East of 101 area. With the extension of the Cal-
train Station and construction of the pedestrian/bicycle underpass, this area
will be well connected to the Downtown, providing an opportunity for a sig-
nificant number of workers to easily access downtown amenities.
an e Deination eiential
Density
Ȁnet ac
a A ai eiential Denit
wit Dicretionar Approal an
ncentieǦae one ͙
ai A wit
Dicretionar Approal an
ncentieǦae one ͙
Downtown
Downtown ranit ore ͘͠Ǧ͙͘͘͞Ǥ͙͚͘͘͠Ǥ͘
ran Aene ore ͙͜Ǧ͛͘͞Ǥ͘͘͠Ȁ͙͘͘ ͚͜Ǥ͘
inen oercial orrior ͚͘Ǧ͘͜---
inen eioroo enter ͘͜Ǧ͛͘͞Ǥ͘͘͠-
Downtown eiential ore ͘͜Ǧ͛͘͠Ǥ͙͛͘͘͘Ǥ͚͝ 3
Downtown i Denit eiential ͚͘Ǧ͘͜---
Eastern Neighborhood
ranit ƥceȀƬD ore -͙Ǥ͝Ǧ͚Ǥ͝-͛Ǥ͝
Taller buildings are suitable here in conformance with the FAA height limita-
tions; see Figure 5.01. The area would lend itself to corporate office, hotels,
and other major facilities due to its high visibility from US 101 and proximi-
ty to San Francisco International Airport, Downtown San Francisco and the
various employment centers on the Peninsula. Along the extension of Grand
Avenue to the east beyond the rail tracks undercrossing, limited retail and
services may be feasible in the long run and to provide amenities for nearby
employees. The allowable development intensity in the area would be 1.5 to
2.5 floor area ratio (FAR). A FAR up to 3.5 may be allowed if specific criteria
are met.
Other Districts
Other land use designations would remain in effect in the Downtown and ar-
eas surrounding the rail tracks and US 101. Residential areas north and south
of the Downtown core would remain as currently planned; existing land use
and zoning designations already allow modest land use intensifications. The
industrial and business commercial areas currently serve a variety of airport
and related uses; it is unlikely that there will be pressure for change in these
areas within the planning horizon.
180
571
3.9February 2015
Land Use & Urban Design 3
Table 3.02: Development Potential
Land Use Existing
Development (sf)
Additional Develop-
ment with Station
Area Plan (sf)
Residential 1,426 1,435
Downtown Commercial 602,643 -
Auto-Serving Commercial 54,664 -
Business Commercial 129,884 511,780
Hotel 285,165 -
Industrial 797,055 21,250
Commercial -268,800
Office/R&D -1,185,049
Institutional 150,142 -
Note: Assumes 25% of properties within the area, primarily those that are vacant
or significantly underutilized, will be developed within the horizon of this plan.
Development Potential
Development potential is determined by applying the land use, density and
intensity assumptions to land within each district. Because parcels are small,
some consolidation of sites will likely be required and this may take time to
occur. In addition, many properties are undoubtedly financially viable as they
currently exist and there will be little or no motivation for many property
owners to take any action.
For purposes of this plan and for use in assessing environmental impacts as-
sociated with the plan, it has been assumed that only 25% of parcels in the
plan area would be developed in the timeframe of this plan, approximately
20 years, and at an average of the allowable densities.
Assuming 25% of existing parcels—most likely those that are vacant or un-
derutilized—within the plan area redevelop over the life of this plan, as many
as 1,400 units of residential uses would be added. Combined with the existing
1,400 units, the plan area would support 2,800 units in proximity to the Cal-
train Station. Up to 1.2 million square feet of new office/R&D uses could be
added in the plan area, representing as many as 2,400 or more jobs added.
Table 3.02 shows the potential development. Several land uses, Transporta-
tion Center and Institutional, are not anticipated to change for purposes of
this estimate.
This Specific Plan provides for significant additional new housing over the
life of the plan and beyond with the highest densities located in immediate
proximity—less than a 1/4-mile walk—to the improved Caltrain Station. Res-
idential densities are respectful of the smaller scale character of Grand Ave-
nue and existing neighborhoods while allowing significant new development
opportunities.
An important component of feasibility, the cost of parking, is discussed in the
Circulation and Parking chapter that follows, but reducing required parking
and providing options for shared parking are anticipated to help ensure feasi-
bility of this scale of residential development in South San Francisco.
LAND USE AND DENSITY / INTENSITY
Table 3.01 displays the relevant standards for each of the land use designa-
tions noted in the preceding sections. These land uses apply to the locations
within the Specific Plan area where changes from existing policy will be ap-
plied in order to achieve the goals of the community and city leadership.
While the proposed intensities of development are greater than those that
occur in the Downtown and East of 101 areas today, they are consistent with
other recent planning efforts in South San Francisco. The El Camino Real/
Chestnut Avenue Area Plan encourages densities similar to these on sites in
proximity to the BART station. The intensities proposed for the Downtown
and Eastern Neighborhood are appropriate for a vital but reasonably-scaled
Downtown that can capitalize on transit availability and in so doing revitalize
and activate a distinctive downtown area.
572
3.10 South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan
c
c
101
101
FOURTH LANE
SIXTH LANE
SEVENTH LANE
EIGHTH LANEJUNIPER AVENINTH LANE
TAMARACK LANE
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
CYPRESS AVENUE
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
LINDEN AVENUE CEDAR PL.LINDEN AVENUEBLVD.
M
A
P
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
W
A
L
N
U
T
A
V
E
N
U
E
M
A
G
N
O
L
I
A
A
V
E
N
U
E
SPRUCE AVENUE
S
P
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
HAWTHORNE PLACE HICKORY PLACEOLIVE AVENUESCHOOL ST.LERCH AVENUEBEECH AVENUE
GRAND AVENUE
E GRAND A
V
E
E GRAN
D
A
V
E
GRAND AV
E
N
U
E
PO
L
E
T
T
I
W
A
Y
DU
B
U
Q
U
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
FO
R
B
E
S
B
L
V
D
H
A
R
B
O
R
W
A
Y
GA
T
E
W
A
Y
B
L
V
D
GA
T
E
W
A
Y
B
L
V
D
MILLER AVENUE
PA
L
M
A
V
E
N
U
E
E
L
M
C
O
U
R
T
LUX AVENUE
VILLAGE WAY
CALIFORNIA AVENUE
PARK
W
A
Y
PINE AVENUE
ASPEN AVENUE ARMOUR AVENUE
BADEN AVENUE
COMMERCIAL AVE
RAILROAD AVE
FIRST LANE
SECOND LANE
THIRD LANE
N CANAL STREET
S CANAL STREET
MAYFAIR AVENUE
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
AIRPORT BOULEVARD
S
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
B
L
V
D
MITCHELL
A
V
E
UTAH
A
V
E
CORPORATE DRI
V
E
HEMLOCK AVENUE
SPRUCE AVEN UE
S A I R P O R T .
HILLSIDE
Spruce
School
Church
MartinSchool Cypress & Pine ParkLindenGreen SpotLinden/HillsideGreen SpotSign Hill Park
Sister Cities Park
Paradise Valley ParkParadise Valley Pocket Park PG&E Irish Town Greens
Jack Drago
P
a
r
kTotlot
Mitchell Ave
Green Spot
PG&ESUBSTATION
Department of
Public Works
Colma Cre
e
k
C
a
n
a
l
Colma Creek Canal
City Hall
Hillside Plaza Lowe’sHome ImprovementSouth San FranciscoBusiness Center GATEWAYNEIGHBORHOOD
EASTERN
NEIGHBORHOOD
GATEWAYNEIGHBORHOODSIGN HILLNEIGHBORHOOD PARADISE VALLEYNEIGHBORHOOD
DOWNTOWN
NEIGHBORHOOD
LINDENVILLE
NEIGHBORHOOD
LEGEND
0250500 1000’
c
STUDY AREA BOUNDARYRAILROAD TRACKSLESS ACTIVE RAIL SPUR1/2 MILE RADIUS FROM STATIONEXISTING CALTRAIN STATIONPROPOSED CALTRAIN PLATFORM EXTENSION AND UNDER CROSSINGCOLMA CREEK CANALSCHOOLSPARK & RECREATION
PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYc
N
AIRPORT BLVD
SOUTH
MILLER
AVE
GRAND
AVE
SECTION KEY PLAN
draft NOVEMBER 8, 2012
0 125’250’500’
N
ire ͛Ǥ͚͘ǣ ocation o Street roǦSection
URBAN DESIGN
This section on urban design describes the components of the public urban
environment, the streets, sidewalks and other spaces that accommodate
daily movement and activity.
Street Layouts / Cross Sections
In the Downtown area the street pattern is well established and successful.
In the Eastern Neighborhood a new street layout will be required to serve the
employment uses. On all streets there are opportunities to improve access
and pedestrian movement. In several cases, particularly Grand Avenue, there
is the opportunity to significantly redefine the street and its character while
still supporting its traffic-carrying role.
The following pages illustrate existing conditions and proposed street lay-
outs for key downtown streets.
ran Aene
Grand Avenue is the “Main Street” of South San Francisco and has been so
since the City’s founding. In the last thirty years streetscape improvements
were made along Grand from Airport Boulevard to Spruce Avenue, but to-
day these improvements are dated and in need of renovation and/or replace-
ment. The sidewalks are 10 feet in width, a minimum scale for a retail street
that allows little room for sidewalk seating, displays or significant plantings
or furnishings.
In addition, the street is lined with angled parking. While this parking layout
maximizes parking spaces, it does so at the expense of sidewalk width and
also compromises the safety of bicyclists (drivers backing up have difficulty
seeing bicyclists who may be coming up the road).
Guiding Principle 14: Redesign Grand Avenue to accommodate wider
sidewalks and an improved streetscape that will better
support the retail environment of the Downtown.
Guiding Principle 15: Ensure that adequate on-street and off-street parking
remains on Grand Avenue and adjoining streets to
support existing and future retail uses in the Downtown.
As shown in the upper diagram in Figure 3.03, there are 163 existing parking
spaces on Grand Avenue (excluding bus stops and yellow delivery zones) be-
tween Airport Boulevard and Spruce Avenue. The lower diagram illustrates
how converting these angled spaces to parallel parking spaces would result
in the loss of 22 spaces or 13 percent of the total existing today. As discussed
in more detail in the Circulation and Parking section of this document, while
occupancy of parking spaces on Grand Avenue is high at peak times, there is
an ample supply of nearby parking on side streets and in the city’s parking
structure on Miller Avenue, which is only one block from the retail uses on
Grand Avenue.
As shown in Figure 3.04, with a reconfiguration of parking on Grand Avenue
to a parallel configuration, the sidewalks can be widened to 15 feet, which
allows inclusion of seating for cafes or restaurants and provides an ample
573
3.11February 2015
Land Use & Urban Design 3
136 5 8 72634 3 22 80 16368335 665466 5 1110
6 7 13
12
9 5 13 6 6 11 6 4 3 22 2
5 13 4 6 11 4 7 3 2 5 72
69 141
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
L
V
D
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
L
V
D
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
MILLER AVE
MILLER AVE
FOURTH LANE
THIRD LANE
THIRD LANE
BADEN AVE
BADEN AVE
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
CITY HALL
CITY HALL
550’
550’
700’
700’
460’
460’
220’
220’
500’
500’
WA
L
N
U
T
A
V
E
WA
L
N
U
T
A
V
E
SP
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
SP
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
FOURTH LANE
GARAGE
GARAGE
P P
PPP P
P P
P
P
P P
PPP P
P P
P
P
EXISTING PARKING CAPACITY WITH ANGLED PARKING
PARKING CAPACITY WITH PARALLEL PARKING
1” = 100’
1” = 100’
NOTE:
THIS IS A FEASIBILITY STUDY ONLY AND NOT A PROPOSED DESIGN.
THE PURPOSE OF THIS PRELIMINARY STUDY IS TO EVALUATE
EXISTING PARKING CONDITIONS ON GRAND AVENUE AND ANALYZE
THE POTENTIAL OF PARALLEL PARKING
80 16383NORTH CURRENT PARKING
SPACESSOUTH
72
69 141NORTH POTENTIAL PARKING
SPACESSOUTH
200100500
N
200100500
N
LEGEND
EXISTING BUS STOP
PARALLEL PARKINGEXISTING MID-BLOCK
CROSSWALK
ANGLED PARKING PARKING LOTP#
#
BMS DESIGN GROUP - FEHR & PEERS - BAE - BKF - ATKINS - MARTHA POTTS - OCTOBER 16 2012
GRAND AVENUE PARKING STUDY
136 5 8 72634 3 22 80 16368335 665466 5 1110
6 7 13
12
9 5 13 6 6 11 6 4 3 22 2
5 13 4 6 11 4 7 3 2 5 72
69 141
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
L
V
D
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
L
V
D
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
MILLER AVE
MILLER AVE
FOURTH LANE
THIRD LANE
THIRD LANE
BADEN AVE
BADEN AVE
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
CITY HALL
CITY HALL
550’
550’
700’
700’
460’
460’
220’
220’
500’
500’
WA
L
N
U
T
A
V
E
WA
L
N
U
T
A
V
E
SP
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
SP
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
FOURTH LANE
GARAGE
GARAGE
P P
PPP P
P P
P
P
P P
PPP P
P P
P
P
EXISTING PARKING CAPACITY WITH ANGLED PARKING
PARKING CAPACITY WITH PARALLEL PARKING
1” = 100’
1” = 100’
NOTE:
THIS IS A FEASIBILITY STUDY ONLY AND NOT A PROPOSED DESIGN.
THE PURPOSE OF THIS PRELIMINARY STUDY IS TO EVALUATE
EXISTING PARKING CONDITIONS ON GRAND AVENUE AND ANALYZE
THE POTENTIAL OF PARALLEL PARKING
80 16383NORTH CURRENT PARKING
SPACESSOUTH
72
69 141NORTH POTENTIAL PARKING
SPACESSOUTH
200100500
N
200100500
N
LEGEND
EXISTING BUS STOP
PARALLEL PARKINGEXISTING MID-BLOCK
CROSSWALK
ANGLED PARKING PARKING LOTP#
#
BMS DESIGN GROUP - FEHR & PEERS - BAE - BKF - ATKINS - MARTHA POTTS - OCTOBER 16 2012
GRAND AVENUE PARKING STUDY
136 5 8 72634 3 22 80 16368335 665466 5 1110
6 7 13
12
9 5 13 6 6 11 6 4 3 22 2
5 13 4 6 11 4 7 3 2 5 72
69 141
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
L
V
D
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
L
V
D
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
MILLER AVE
MILLER AVE
FOURTH LANE
THIRD LANE
THIRD LANE
BADEN AVE
BADEN AVE
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
CITY HALL
CITY HALL
550’
550’
700’
700’
460’
460’
220’
220’
500’
500’
WA
L
N
U
T
A
V
E
WA
L
N
U
T
A
V
E
SP
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
SP
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
FOURTH LANE
GARAGE
GARAGE
P P
PPP P
P P
P
P
P P
PPP P
P P
P
P
EXISTING PARKING CAPACITY WITH ANGLED PARKING
PARKING CAPACITY WITH PARALLEL PARKING
1” = 100’
1” = 100’
NOTE:
THIS IS A FEASIBILITY STUDY ONLY AND NOT A PROPOSED DESIGN.
THE PURPOSE OF THIS PRELIMINARY STUDY IS TO EVALUATE
EXISTING PARKING CONDITIONS ON GRAND AVENUE AND ANALYZE
THE POTENTIAL OF PARALLEL PARKING
80 16383NORTH CURRENT PARKING
SPACESSOUTH
72
69 141NORTH POTENTIAL PARKING
SPACESSOUTH
200100500
N
200100500
N
LEGEND
EXISTING BUS STOP
PARALLEL PARKINGEXISTING MID-BLOCK
CROSSWALK
ANGLED PARKING PARKING LOTP#
#
BMS DESIGN GROUP - FEHR & PEERS - BAE - BKF - ATKINS - MARTHA POTTS - OCTOBER 16 2012
GRAND AVENUE PARKING STUDY
Figure 3.03: Grand Avenue Parallel Parking Study
136 5 8 72634 3 22 80 16368335 665466 5 1110
6 7 13
12
9 5 13 6 6 11 6 4 3 22 2
5 13 4 6 11 4 7 3 2 5 72
69 141
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
L
V
D
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
L
V
D
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
MILLER AVE
MILLER AVE
FOURTH LANE
THIRD LANE
THIRD LANE
BADEN AVE
BADEN AVE
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
CITY HALL
CITY HALL
550’
550’
700’
700’
460’
460’
220’
220’
500’
500’
WA
L
N
U
T
A
V
E
WA
L
N
U
T
A
V
E
SP
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
SP
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
FOURTH LANE
GARAGE
GARAGE
P P
PPP P
P P
P
P
P P
PPP P
P P
P
P
EXISTING PARKING CAPACITY WITH ANGLED PARKING
PARKING CAPACITY WITH PARALLEL PARKING
1” = 100’
1” = 100’
NOTE:
THIS IS A FEASIBILITY STUDY ONLY AND NOT A PROPOSED DESIGN.
THE PURPOSE OF THIS PRELIMINARY STUDY IS TO EVALUATE
EXISTING PARKING CONDITIONS ON GRAND AVENUE AND ANALYZE
THE POTENTIAL OF PARALLEL PARKING
80 16383NORTH CURRENT PARKING
SPACESSOUTH
72
69 141NORTH POTENTIAL PARKING
SPACESSOUTH
200100500
N
200100500
N
LEGEND
EXISTING BUS STOP
PARALLEL PARKINGEXISTING MID-BLOCK
CROSSWALK
ANGLED PARKING PARKING LOTP#
#
BMS DESIGN GROUP - FEHR & PEERS - BAE - BKF - ATKINS - MARTHA POTTS - OCTOBER 16 2012
GRAND AVENUE PARKING STUDY
136 5 8 72634 3 22 80 16368335 665466 5 1110
6 7 13
12
9 5 13 6 6 11 6 4 3 22 2
5 13 4 6 11 4 7 3 2 5 72
69 141
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
L
V
D
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
L
V
D
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
MILLER AVE
MILLER AVE
FOURTH LANE
THIRD LANE
THIRD LANE
BADEN AVE
BADEN AVE
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
CITY HALL
CITY HALL
550’
550’
700’
700’
460’
460’
220’
220’
500’
500’
WA
L
N
U
T
A
V
E
WA
L
N
U
T
A
V
E
SP
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
SP
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
FOURTH LANE
GARAGE
GARAGE
P P
PPP P
P P
P
P
P P
PPP P
P P
P
P
EXISTING PARKING CAPACITY WITH ANGLED PARKING
PARKING CAPACITY WITH PARALLEL PARKING
1” = 100’
1” = 100’
NOTE:
THIS IS A FEASIBILITY STUDY ONLY AND NOT A PROPOSED DESIGN.
THE PURPOSE OF THIS PRELIMINARY STUDY IS TO EVALUATE
EXISTING PARKING CONDITIONS ON GRAND AVENUE AND ANALYZE
THE POTENTIAL OF PARALLEL PARKING
80 16383NORTH CURRENT PARKING
SPACESSOUTH
72
69 141NORTH POTENTIAL PARKING
SPACESSOUTH
200100500
N
200100500
N
LEGEND
EXISTING BUS STOP
PARALLEL PARKINGEXISTING MID-BLOCK
CROSSWALK
ANGLED PARKING PARKING LOTP#
#
BMS DESIGN GROUP - FEHR & PEERS - BAE - BKF - ATKINS - MARTHA POTTS - OCTOBER 16 2012
GRAND AVENUE PARKING STUDY
Note: This is a feasibility study and not a proposed design. Further technical
drawings and analysis should be undertaken.
574
3.12 South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan
walking zone and a roadside planting and furnishings zone. A bicycle lane
can alo e ae in eac irectionǤ i reconfiration o
ran Aene
will result in a greater area of the public right-of-way being devoted to pe-
destrians and bicycles. This will result in a more attractive street and a strong
retail environment while still providing visibility to motorists and convenient
on-street parking.
UD-1: Convert angled parking to parallel, ensuring continued provision of bus
stops, street crossings and appropriate curb radii as needed.
UD-2: Widen Grand Avenue sidewalks to at least 15 feet.
UD-3: Prepare and implement new streetscape designs for Grand Avenue
that will include new sidewalk paving, corner widenings (bulb-
outs), crosswalk treatments, new street furnishings (seating, trash
receptacles), and plantings.
UD-4: econfire
ran Aene roawa wit two trael laneǡ iccle laneǡ
and parallel parking.
Figure 3.04: Grand Avenue Comparative Cross-Sections: Angled vs. Parallel Parking
Existing conditions on Grand Avenue.
575
3.13February 2015
Land Use & Urban Design 3
Figure 3.06: Grand Avenue Existing Cross-Section Figure 3.07: Grand Avenue Proposed Cross-Section
Figure 3.05: Grand Avenue with Parallel Parking and Widened Sidewalks
576
3.14 South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan
ire ͛Ǥ͘͠ǣ Airport olear Sot o
ran Aene itin
ire ͛Ǥ͘͡ǣ Airport olear Sot o
ran Aene wit Propoe rn etriction an eian
577
3.15February 2015
Land Use & Urban Design 3
Figure 3.10: Miller and Baden Avenues Existing
Figure 3.11: Miller and Baden Avenues Proposed
Airport Boulevard
Airport Boulevard is a local and regional-serving street; it carries significant
regional truck and other traffic that is heading to the industrial areas or to
the Airport. The Circulation and Parking section of this document discusses a
key policy which will divert regional traffic, especially truck, from Airport and
other local streets to the freeway and points north or south. With this, certain
improvements can be made to Airport Boulevard. North of Grand Avenue
recent improvements have included a planted median and improved side-
walks. Due to the northbound freeway on-ramp, no crosswalk across Airport
Boulevard is possible north of Grand Avenue.
South of Grand Avenue fewer improvements exist today. The south east-west
crosswalk provides the only connection to East Grand Avenue and will be the
primary connector to the future pedestrian/bicycle undercrossing leading to
the lengthened Caltrain platforms and the Eastern Neighborhood. This cross-
ing needs special improvements to ensure that it is safe and convenient for
pedestrians.
UD-5: Reconfigure Airport Boulevard at and south of Grand Avenue to ensure
safe access across this busy intersection. Improvements will include a
reduction in travel lanes, a widened median supporting a pedestrian
refuge, and removal of the free right turn from Airport Boulevard to
East Grand Avenue coupled with an extended corner and sidewalk for
pedestrian safety.
UD-6: Coordinate timing and extent of improvements at the Airport
Boulevard and Grand Avenue intersection with improvements to Grand
Avenue and the Caltrain Station reconfiguration and pedestrian/bicycle
undercrossing.
Miller and Baden Avenues
Miller and Baden Avenues are important streets in the Downtown, with a mix
of uses, primarily residential, along their lengths. They provide access to the
Downtown and adjoining neighborhoods, but also take traffic west to oth-
er destinations and bring traffic from the west to the regional highway and
roadway network. Neither of these streets have the space to provide dedi-
cated bicycle lanes.
578
3.16 South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan
ire ͛Ǥ͙͚ǣ inen Aene itin
ire ͛Ǥ͙͛ǣ inen Aene Propoe
Miller Avenue and Baden Avenue west of Maple Avenue have similar condi-
tions and adjoining land uses. Here improvements will be oriented to pro-
viding an attractive pedestrian environment through a consistent use of tree
plantings and lighting.
Baden Avenue east of Maple has a tighter sidewalk configuration on the
south side. Here future development will be required to provide a widened
sidewalk for pedestrian comfort.
UD-7: Provide streetscape improvements on Miller and Baden Avenues
consistent with Figure 3.10 and 3.11, with adequate sidewalks and
appropriate streetscape improvements.
inen Aene
Linden Avenue is an important street that links neighborhoods with Grand
Avenue. It also has a scattering of neighborhood serving retail uses between
California and Aspen Avenues. Historic streetlights have already been in-
stalled on Linden, but other amenities are lacking.
Linden Avenue will act as an important connector for the neighborhoods to
the north of Downtown. In addition the neighborhood center already func-
tioning between California and Aspen Avenues can be reinforced with addi-
tional street and streetscape improvements. As discussed later in this chapter
a plaza can be provided on Linden Avenue by applying special paving through
the street cross-section. Periodic closures of the street could accommodate
special events or fairs.
As illustrated in Figures 3.12 and 3.13, the street should have a more con-
sistent streetscape treatment to emphasize its importance and to provide a
more attractive pedestrian environment.
UD-8: Provide pedestrian improvements on Linden Avenue including corner
bulbouts and crosswalk improvements where appropriate. Implement
the Linden Plaza through special paving and removable bollards;
improve streetscape as well.
579
3.17February 2015
Land Use & Urban Design 3
Downtown Lanes
The Downtown of South San Francisco is somewhat unique in having an ex-
tensive network of vehicular and pedestrian lanes. They generally run east-
west parallel to the adjoining streets and act as service alleys. Today, these
lanes are only minimally improved, but in the future could be attractive pe-
destrian walkways in addition to their service-related roles.
UD-9: Where feasible improve lanes in the Downtown, especially in the
pedestrian priority zone, to include special paving, street trees, and
other amenities while continuing to accommodate service and delivery
vehicles where needed.
There are also two pedestrian walkways that run north-south from Miller and
Baden Avenues to Grand Avenue, providing access to the retail uses on Grand
Avenue and reducing the distance a pedestrian is required to walk when ac-
cessing the retail environment from public parking. Additional north-south
walkways providing pedestrian access through the long downtown blocks
would help support the downtown retail businesses.
UD-10: Encourage property owners in the long blocks adjoining Grand Avenue
to provide well-designed north-south pedestrian walkways to facilitate
access to the downtown retail environment.
Examples of pedestrian walkways that can provide access to Grand Avenue destinations.
580
3.18 South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan
ran Aene in te atern eioroo
The street network that exists today in the Eastern Neighborhood is suitable
only for a light industrial area comprising low scale buildings and truck and
service vehicle traffic. There are only three primary streets in the area exist-
ing today: Sylvester Road, the primary street running north-south, and two
minor private roads, Associated Road and Baker Street. Gateway Boulevard,
a wide arterial, is on the east edge of the neighborhood, and Grand Avenue
lies at the top of Sylvester Road.
Guiding Principle 16: Improve the Eastern Neighborhood street network to
provide better vehicular connections and complete
pedestrian and bicycle access within the neighborhood,
and from the neighborhood to the Caltrain Station and
the Downtown.
East of the Caltrain Station, Grand Avenue will be the “Main Street” of the
Eastern Neighborhood. Providing a convenient connection to the Caltrain
Station and to the Downtown from the Eastern Neighborhood as well as the
employment uses to the east, it can provide retail and convenience services
as well. This street will need to have an appropriate scale and character to be
welcoming to pedestrians.
UD-11: Improve Grand Avenue to be pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly with a
scale similar to that of Grand Avenue in the Downtown (e.g., two travel
lanes, protected or buffered bicycle lanes, parallel parking, and wide
sidewalks).
UD-12: Create a comfortable pedestrian environment on Grand Avenue by
requiring ground level retail uses along much of the Grand Avenue
facades with minimal setbacks.
Sleter oa
Sylvester Road will be the primary north-south street serving the develop-
ment in the Eastern Neighborhood. While it will provide an address for many
buildings located in the area and will provide access to parking, it will also be
the pedestrian connection to Grand Avenue, the Caltrain Station, and Down-
town. It will need do be improved to provide adequate pedestrian and bicycle
access. In the long run, Sylvester Road should be extended to connect on the
south and/or east to Gateway Boulevard.
S P S
Street in te atern eiorooȄ
ran Aene ȋtopȌ an Sleter oa ȋottoȌȄwill
nee aor iproeent to e itale or ti tre eploent itrictǤ
581
3.19February 2015
Land Use & Urban Design 3
CROSS SECTIONS (MODIFY GRAND AVENUE
Downtown AND AIRPORT?
UD-13: Improve Sylvester Road to accommodate vehicular access to building
and parking while also providing bicycle lanes and minimum 10-foot
sidewalks. Provide improved crosswalks, including corner bulb-outs to
improve pedestrian crossing experience.
Other Eastern Neighborhood Streets
Additional access will be needed in the Eastern Neighborhood. A walkable
pattern of smaller block sizes and narrow streets or pedestrian-oriented
lanes would create a scale of development that would more resemble the
Downtown than the suburban pattern found throughout most of the East of
101 area. This pattern of block sizes and streets will be implemented by prop-
erty owners as individual parcels are developed.
Figure 3.14: Possible Future Configuration of Grand Avenue in the Eastern Neighbor-
hood (top) and Existing Conditions (bottom)
582
3.20 South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan
Peetrian nironent an Acceiilit proeent
The pedestrian environment includes sidewalks and open spaces that need
to not only be attractive and functional, but that must also be accessible to
persons of all abilities.
Figure 3.15 illustrates the types and locations of improvements needed in the
public environment, and delineates the Pedestrian Priority Zone. This zone
corresponds to the areas where the highest intensities of development will
occur in the future and where the corresponding highest levels of pedestrian
activity can be anticipated and will be encouraged.
iin Principle ͙͟ǣ Throughout the Specific Plan area, provide an attractive
public realm that is accessible to persons of all abilities,
including improved sidewalks, streetscapes, pedestrian
crossings, plazas and open spaces.
The Specific Plan area will require public streetscape investments to create
an attractive pedestrian environment, improve the sense of safety and se-
curity, and ensure accessibility to all. Some of these improvements will be
provided through development of individual parcels.
Among the design improvements to be provided are:
▪Increased sidewalk width
▪Pedestrian-scaled lighting
▪Street trees and planting
▪Street furniture and amenities
▪Wayfinding signage
▪Public art
Improvements that will enhance safety and accessibility include:
▪Sidewalk/curb bulb-outs and reduced crosswalk lengths
▪Mid-block crossings where needed
▪Pedestrian refuges
▪ADA compliant curb ramps
▪Traffic calming measures
▪Audible signals
These elements are described in the pages that follow. These elements pro-
vide opportunities for a more attractive streetscape that will support local
businesses by creating opportunities for sidewalk dining, outdoor displays,
and more interesting landscape plantings.
Grand Avenue is the centerpiece of this zone, extending not only through the
Downtown but also across the Caltrain tracks, via the new undercrossing, to
a redefined Eastern Neighborhood Grand Avenue “Main Street”.
iin Principle ͙͠ǣ Within the Pedestrian Priority Zone, implement
street and intersection improvements to create a
safe, attractive, and accessible environment for all
pedestrians.
Intersection Improvements
Intersection improvement such as corner bulb-outs, bollards, ramps and
amenities provide a higher degree of safety and accessibility by shortening
the street crossing distance and allowing wheelchair access. The added space
can accommodate plantings or other amenities.
UD-14 Within the Pedestrian Priority Zone ensure that intersection
improvements such as handicap ramps, corner bulb-outs, and improved
street crosswalks are made, with the intersections noted in Figure
3.15 receiving particular priority. Figure 3.16 illustrates how a typical
intersection along Grand Avenue might be improved.
UD-15 Coordinate improvements for pedestrian access on either side of
the Caltrain Station with improvements to the station itself, such as
extending the station platforms south and the pedestrian and bicycle
undercrossing.
UD-16 Corner extensions or bulb-outs are encouraged; these act to reduce the
distance between the sidewalk on either side of a crossing, making it
easier for the disabled or elderly to cross safely. These corner extensions
must include ramps and can also include street furnishings.
UD-17 Larger curb extensions can provide areas for additional street furnishings
or bus stops and shelters if buses operate by stopping in the travel lane.
UD-18 Consider use of special paving that can be used to delineate the
crosswalks for visibility; different materials will visually or with a
different feel, make the crosswalks more evident to motorists.
583
3.21February 2015
Land Use & Urban Design 3
Figure 3.15: Pedestrian Improvement Priority Locations
1/4-mile radiu
s
1/2-mile radius
c
c
101
101
FOURTH LANE
SIXTH LANE
SEVENTH LANE
EIGHTH LANE
JUNIPER AVE
NINTH LANE
TAMARACK LANE
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
CE
D
A
R
P
L
.
LINDEN AVE
N
U
E
BLV
D
.
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
WA
L
N
U
T
A
V
E
N
U
E
MA
G
N
O
L
I
A
A
V
E
N
U
E
SP
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
SP
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
HA
W
T
H
O
R
N
E
P
L
A
C
E
HI
C
K
O
R
Y
P
L
A
C
E
OL
I
V
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
SCH
O
O
L
S
T
.
LERC
H
A
V
E
N
U
E
BEECH
A
V
E
N
U
E
GRAND AVENUE
E GRAND A
V
E
E GRAN
D
A
V
E
GRAND AV
E
N
U
E
PO
L
E
T
T
I
W
A
Y
DU
B
U
Q
U
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
FO
R
B
E
S
B
L
V
D
H
A
R
B
O
R
W
A
Y
GA
T
E
W
A
Y
B
L
V
D
GA
T
E
W
A
Y
B
L
V
D
MILLER AVENUE
PA
L
M
A
V
E
N
U
E
EL
M
C
O
U
R
T
LUX AVENUE
VILLAGE WAY
CALIFORNIA AVENUE
PARK
W
A
Y
PINE AVENUE
ASPEN AVENUE
ARMOU
R
A
V
E
N
U
E
BADEN AVENUE
COMMERCIAL AVE
RAILROAD AVE
FIRST LANE
SECOND LANE
THIRD LANE
N CANAL STREET
S CANAL STREET
MAYFAIR AVENUE
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
S
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
B
L
V
D
MITCHELL A
V
E
UTAH
A
V
E
CORPORATE D
R
I
V
E
H
E
MLOCK AVENUE
SPRUCE AVEN UE
S A I R P O R T .
HILLSIDE
Spruce School
Church
MartinSchool
Cypress & Pine Park
Sign Hill Park
Sister Cities Park
Paradise Valley Park
Para
d
i
s
e
V
a
l
l
e
y
Pock
e
t
P
a
r
k
PG&E
Irish Town Greens
Jack Drago
P
a
r
kTotlot
Mitchell Ave
Green Spot
PG&ESUBSTATION
Department of Public Works
Colma Cree
k
C
a
n
a
l
Colma Creek Canal
City Hall
Hillside Plaza
Lowe’sHome Improvement
South San FranciscoBusiness Center
GATEWAYNEIGHBORHOOD
EASTERN
NEIGHBORHOOD
GATEWAYNEIGHBORHOOD
SIGN HILLNEIGHBORHOOD
PARADISE VALLEYNEIGHBORHOOD
DOWNTOWNNEIGHBORHOOD
LINDENVILLENEIGHBORHOOD
LEGEND
0 250 500 1000’
c
N
c
STUDY AREA BOUNDARY
RAILROAD TRACKS
LESS ACTIVE RAIL SPUR
EXISTING CALTRAIN STATION
PROPOSED CALTRAIN PLATFORM EXTENSION AND UNDER CROSSING
PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY
1/4-mile radiu
s
1/2-mile radius
c
c
101
101
FOURTH LANE
SIXTH LANE
SEVENTH LANE
EIGHTH LANE
JUNIPER AVE
NINTH LANE
TAMARACK LANE
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
CE
D
A
R
P
L
.
LINDEN AVE
N
U
E
BLV
D
.
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
WA
L
N
U
T
A
V
E
N
U
E
MA
G
N
O
L
I
A
A
V
E
N
U
E
SP
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
SP
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
HA
W
T
H
O
R
N
E
P
L
A
C
E
HI
C
K
O
R
Y
P
L
A
C
E
OL
I
V
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
SCH
O
O
L
S
T
.
LERC
H
A
V
E
N
U
E
BEECH
A
V
E
N
U
E
GRAND AVENUE
E GRAND A
V
E
E GRAN
D
A
V
E
GRAND AV
E
N
U
E
PO
L
E
T
T
I
W
A
Y
DU
B
U
Q
U
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
FO
R
B
E
S
B
L
V
D
H
A
R
B
O
R
W
A
Y
GA
T
E
W
A
Y
B
L
V
D
GA
T
E
W
A
Y
B
L
V
D
MILLER AVENUE
PA
L
M
A
V
E
N
U
E
EL
M
C
O
U
R
T
LUX AVENUE
VILLAGE WAY
CALIFORNIA AVENUE
PARK
W
A
Y
PINE AVENUE
ASPEN AVENUE
ARMOU
R
A
V
E
N
U
E
BADEN AVENUE
COMMERCIAL AVE
RAILROAD AVE
FIRST LANE
SECOND LANE
THIRD LANE
N CANAL STREET
S CANAL STREET
MAYFAIR AVENUE
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
S
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
B
L
V
D
MITCHELL A
V
E
UTAH
A
V
E
CORPORATE D
R
I
V
E
H
E
MLOCK AVENUE
SPRUCE AVEN UE
S A I R P O R T .
HILLSIDE
Spruce School
Church
MartinSchool
Cypress & Pine Park
Sign Hill Park
Sister Cities Park
Paradise Valley Park
Para
d
i
s
e
V
a
l
l
e
y
Pock
e
t
P
a
r
k
PG&E
Irish Town Greens
Jack Drago
P
a
r
kTotlot
Mitchell Ave
Green Spot
PG&ESUBSTATION
Department of Public Works
Colma Cree
k
C
a
n
a
l
Colma Creek Canal
City Hall
Hillside Plaza
Lowe’sHome Improvement
South San FranciscoBusiness Center
GATEWAYNEIGHBORHOOD
EASTERN
NEIGHBORHOOD
GATEWAYNEIGHBORHOOD
SIGN HILLNEIGHBORHOOD
PARADISE VALLEYNEIGHBORHOOD
DOWNTOWNNEIGHBORHOOD
LINDENVILLENEIGHBORHOOD
LEGEND
0 250 500 1000’
c
N
c
STUDY AREA BOUNDARY
RAILROAD TRACKS
LESS ACTIVE RAIL SPUR
EXISTING CALTRAIN STATION
PROPOSED CALTRAIN PLATFORM EXTENSION AND UNDER CROSSING
PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY
PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS
PEDESTRIAN PRIORITY ZONE
IMPROVED INTERSECTION
CRITICAL IMPROVED INTERSECTION
PLAZA OR ACCENT PAVING
PEDESTRIAN PRIORITY STREET & LANE
DOWNTOWN GATEWAY
draft November 8, 2012
EASTERN
NEIGHBORHOOD
0’500 1000’250
N 1/4-mile radiu
s
1/2-mile radius
c
c
101
101
FOURTH LANE
SIXTH LANE
SEVENTH LANE
EIGHTH LANE
JUNIPER AVE
NINTH LANE
TAMARACK LANE
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
CE
D
A
R
P
L
.
LINDEN AVEN
U
E
BLV
D
.
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
WA
L
N
U
T
A
V
E
N
U
E
MA
G
N
O
L
I
A
A
V
E
N
U
E
SP
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
SP
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
HA
W
T
H
O
R
N
E
P
L
A
C
E
HI
C
K
O
R
Y
P
L
A
C
E
OL
I
V
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
SCH
O
O
L
S
T
.
LERC
H
A
V
E
N
U
E
BEECH
A
V
E
N
U
E
GRAND AVENUE
E GRAND A
V
E
E GRAN
D
A
V
E
GRAND AV
E
N
U
E
PO
L
E
T
T
I
W
A
Y
DU
B
U
Q
U
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
FO
R
B
E
S
B
L
V
D
H
A
R
B
O
R
W
A
Y
GA
T
E
W
A
Y
B
L
V
D
GA
T
E
W
A
Y
B
L
V
D
MILLER AVENUE
PA
L
M
A
V
E
N
U
E
EL
M
C
O
U
R
T
LUX AVENUE
VILLAGE WAY
CALIFORNIA AVENUE
PARK
W
A
Y
PINE AVENUE
ASPEN AVENUE
ARMOU
R
A
V
E
N
U
E
BADEN AVENUE
COMMERCIAL AVE
RAILROAD AVE
FIRST LANE
SECOND LANE
THIRD LANE
N CANAL STREET
S CANAL STREET
MAYFAIR AVENUE
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
S
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
B
L
V
D
MITCHELL A
V
E
UTAH
A
V
E
CORPORATE D
R
I
V
E
H
E
MLOCK AVENUE
SPRUCE AVEN UE
S A I R P O R T .
HILLSIDE
Spruce School
Church
MartinSchool
Cypress & Pine Park
Sign Hill Park
Sister Cities Park
Paradise Valley Park
Para
d
i
s
e
V
a
l
l
e
y
Pock
e
t
P
a
r
k
PG&E
Irish Town Greens
Jack Drago
P
a
r
kTotlot
Mitchell Ave
Green Spot
PG&ESUBSTATION
Department of Public Works
Colma Cree
k
C
a
n
a
l
Colma Creek Canal
City Hall
Hillside Plaza
Lowe’sHome Improvement
South San FranciscoBusiness Center
GATEWAYNEIGHBORHOOD
EASTERNNEIGHBORHOOD
GATEWAYNEIGHBORHOOD
SIGN HILLNEIGHBORHOOD
PARADISE VALLEYNEIGHBORHOOD
DOWNTOWNNEIGHBORHOOD
LINDENVILLENEIGHBORHOOD
LEGEND
0 250 500 1000’
c
N
c
STUDY AREA BOUNDARY
RAILROAD TRACKS
LESS ACTIVE RAIL SPUR
EXISTING CALTRAIN STATION
PROPOSED CALTRAIN PLATFORM EXTENSION AND UNDER CROSSING
PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY
1/4-mile radiu
s
1/2-mile radius
c
c
101
101
FOURTH LANE
SIXTH LANE
SEVENTH LANE
EIGHTH LANE
JUNIPER AVE
NINTH LANE
TAMARACK LANE
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
CE
D
A
R
P
L
.
LINDEN AVEN
U
E
BLV
D
.
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
WA
L
N
U
T
A
V
E
N
U
E
MA
G
N
O
L
I
A
A
V
E
N
U
E
SP
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
SP
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
HA
W
T
H
O
R
N
E
P
L
A
C
E
HI
C
K
O
R
Y
P
L
A
C
E
OL
I
V
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
SCH
O
O
L
S
T
.
LERC
H
A
V
E
N
U
E
BEECH
A
V
E
N
U
E
GRAND AVENUE
E GRAND A
V
E
E GRAN
D
A
V
E
GRAND AV
E
N
U
E
PO
L
E
T
T
I
W
A
Y
DU
B
U
Q
U
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
FO
R
B
E
S
B
L
V
D
H
A
R
B
O
R
W
A
Y
GA
T
E
W
A
Y
B
L
V
D
GA
T
E
W
A
Y
B
L
V
D
MILLER AVENUE
PA
L
M
A
V
E
N
U
E
EL
M
C
O
U
R
T
LUX AVENUE
VILLAGE WAY
CALIFORNIA AVENUE
PARK
W
A
Y
PINE AVENUE
ASPEN AVENUE
ARMOU
R
A
V
E
N
U
E
BADEN AVENUE
COMMERCIAL AVE
RAILROAD AVE
FIRST LANE
SECOND LANE
THIRD LANE
N CANAL STREET
S CANAL STREET
MAYFAIR AVENUE
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
S
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
B
L
V
D
MITCHELL A
V
E
UTAH
A
V
E
CORPORATE D
R
I
V
E
H
E
MLOCK AVENUE
SPRUCE AVEN UE
S A I R P O R T .
HILLSIDE
Spruce School
Church
MartinSchool
Cypress & Pine Park
Sign Hill Park
Sister Cities Park
Paradise Valley Park
Para
d
i
s
e
V
a
l
l
e
y
Pock
e
t
P
a
r
k
PG&E
Irish Town Greens
Jack Drago
P
a
r
kTotlot
Mitchell Ave
Green Spot
PG&ESUBSTATION
Department of Public Works
Colma Cree
k
C
a
n
a
l
Colma Creek Canal
City Hall
Hillside Plaza
Lowe’sHome Improvement
South San FranciscoBusiness Center
GATEWAYNEIGHBORHOOD
EASTERNNEIGHBORHOOD
GATEWAYNEIGHBORHOOD
SIGN HILLNEIGHBORHOOD
PARADISE VALLEYNEIGHBORHOOD
DOWNTOWNNEIGHBORHOOD
LINDENVILLENEIGHBORHOOD
LEGEND
0 250 500 1000’
c
N
c
STUDY AREA BOUNDARY
RAILROAD TRACKS
LESS ACTIVE RAIL SPUR
EXISTING CALTRAIN STATION
PROPOSED CALTRAIN PLATFORM EXTENSION AND UNDER CROSSING
PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY
PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS
PEDESTRIAN PRIORITY ZONE
IMPROVED INTERSECTION
CRITICAL IMPROVED INTERSECTION
PLAZA OR ACCENT PAVING
PEDESTRIAN PRIORITY STREET & LANE
DOWNTOWN GATEWAY
draft November 8, 2012
EASTERNNEIGHBORHOOD 584
3.22 South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan
ire ͛Ǥ͙͞ǣ
ran Aene an inen Aene lltratie nterection proeent
BRICK PAVING IN CROSSWALKS
PROPOSED STREET TREES TO FILL IN STREETSCAPE
EXISTING PARALLEL PARKING
EXISTING STREET TREE (TYP)—PROTECT
SIDEWALK BULB-OUT (TYP)
BICYCLE LANE BOTH DIREC-TIONS
VEHICLE TRAVEL LANES
PROPOSED STREET TREE (TYP)
WIDENED SIDEWALK ON
GRAND AVENUE (TYP.)
PARALLEL PARKING BOTH
SIDES OF STREET
ADA RAMP—SEE SEPARATE
DRAWING FOR DETAILS
EXISTING DOUBLE ACORN STREET LIGHT
BUS STOP
GRAND AVE
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
585
3.23February 2015
Land Use & Urban Design 3
UD-19 Decorative elements can be added at intersections to also add safety.
Bollards, special paving and special lighting can all add to pedestrian
safety.
Significant intersection improvements will be required at Grand Avenue and
Airport Boulevard to provide access to the undercrossing and station plat-
forms. As shown in Figure 3.17, a wide median should be added at the inter-
section just south of Grand Avenue. This median would serve as a pedestrian
refuge on this heavily traveled street. In order to accommodate this medi-
an, the left turn lane currently providing westbound access to Grand Avenue
from Airport Boulevard would be eliminated.
On the right edge of Airport Boulevard at Grand Avenue, the currently exist-
ing free right turn lane providing access to the elevated East Grand Avenue
overcrossing would be restored to a tighter turn by extending the curb some-
what into the roadway. This will act to slow traffic making this right turn onto
East Grand Avenue.
UD-20 Continue to encourage Caltrain to prioritize implementation of station
improvements and an undercrossing to provide optimized access to the
station.
UD-21 Provide intersection improvements on the south side of Airport
Boulevard and Grand Avenue to facilitate safe pedestrian crossing of
this busy intersection. Improvements would include:
▪Lane modifications on Airport Boulevard to eliminate a left turn
onto Grand Avenue, creating space for a wide median to act as a
pedestrian refuge and gateway design improvement. This will also
serve to direct visitors to more readily find the downtown parking
garage by turning left onto Miller Avenue.
▪Lane modifications on Airport Boulevard to slow traffic turning right
onto East Grand Avenue and to extend the curb into the street right-
of-way to shorten the crossing distance.
▪Crosswalk improvements such as special paving and special signage
and lighting to highlight this important pedestrian crossing and
improve safety.
The pedestrian crossing at Grand Avenue and Airport Boulevard (looking west) is uninviting and lacking in any amenities.
586
3.24 South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan
altrain Station Acce
Improved access to the Caltrain Station is very important. This Specific Plan
fully endorses plans already developed for the reconfiguration of the station
that would include:
▪Extending the station platforms to the south to make them more readily
accessible from the alignment of Grand Avenue.
▪Construction of a pedestrian/bicycle undercrossing of the Caltrain tracks
that will provide access from both sides of the tracks and US 101 to the
station platform, and in the process will reconnect the two sides of the
corridor for convenient pedestrian and bicycle access.
Guiding Principle 19: Continue to work with Caltrain to ensure implementation
of the redesigned station and pedestrian/bicycle
undercrossing. This improvement is essential to the long
term revitalization of Downtown South San Francisco.
The design of the undercrossing must result in a convenient connection that
feels and is safe and comfortable for users of all abilities and ages.
UD-22 Design of the undercrossing must pay particular attention to
visibility and safety. The width of the undercrossing must be
generous to allow bicyclists and pedestrians to have separated,
distinct rights-of-way. The height of the space must be generous.
UD-23 The undercrossing must also be wide enough and of a configuration
that allows visibility through the entire undercrossing to a lighted
outdoor space at the other end. All areas of the undercrossing must
be visible to anyone approaching the space.
UD-24 Lighting inside the undercrossing must be sufficient to light all
areas, with no significant shadows, and to provide a comfortable
visual transition from outside to inside.
UD-25 Murals and other art installations can be used to create visual
interest and add lighting to the undercrossing entries and extent.
aple o an attractie peetrian an iccle nercroin in Palo AltoǤ
587
3.25February 2015
Land Use & Urban Design 3
Figure 3.17: Airport Blvd and Grand Avenue Intersection Improvements and Caltrain Station Plaza
0’20 40’10
N
BRICK PAVING IN CROSSWALKS
FREE RIGHT TURN LANE REMOVED
PEDESTRIAN LIGHT
PROPOSED CALTRAIN PLAZA
EXISTING MEDIAN WITH PROPOSED
TREES AND PLANTING
PROPOSED STREET TREE
PEDESTRIAN LIGHT
EXISTING STREET TREE (TYP)—PROTECT
BICYCLE LANE BOTH DIRECTIONS
PROPOSED BUS SHELTER
WIDENED PLANTED MEDIAN
WITH PROPOSED TREES
WIDENED SIDEWALK ON GRAND
AVENUE (TYP.)
EXISTING DOUBLE ACORN STREET LIGHT
GRAND AVE
EAST GRAND AVE
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
L
V
D
PROPOSED STREET TREES TO FILL IN STREETSCAPE
EXISTING PARALLEL PARKING
VEHICULAR + BIKE SHARROW
SIDEWALK BULB-OUT (TYP)
WIDENED PLANTED MEDIANWITH PROPOSED TREES
ADA RAMP—SEE SEPARATE DRAWING FOR DETAILS
101
588
3.26 South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan
Plic pen Space
The plan area has limited publicly-owned properties that offer sites for new
plazas, open space or parks. In both the Downtown and in the Eastern Neigh-
borhood there are innovative ways to provide important and needed public
space. There are several opportunities in the Downtown to provide new open
space.
iin Principle ͚͘ǣ Provide new open spaces within the Downtown to
accommodate special events or recurring activities such
as farmers markets.
City Hall Plaza
City Hall is the single most iconic building in the Downtown. It occupies a
dramatic site that is little changed from its origin. The park-like space that
surrounds the building slopes gently to Grand Avenue, with stairs leading
from the sidewalk to the front entrance to the building. City Hall provides a
dramatic centerpiece for a new City Hall Plaza.
iin Principle ͚͙ǣ Redesign the street block fronting City Hall to allow it to
function occasionally as a special event public plaza.
City Hall Plaza can be a special, flexible space that can be used for a variety of
events and activities. While it would function at most times as a normal block
along Grand Avenue, on special occasions the block could be closed tempo-
rarily to traffic and parking in order to host a special event.
The space would be created by taking the sidewalks and roadway between
Maple and Walnut Avenues and repaving with a similar treatment across the
entire width, creating in effect a large flexible space. Other modifications
might include wall seating at the front edge of the City Hall green park space,
special seating, and special lighting.
UD-26 Create a design concept for a public plaza in front of City Hall which
incorporates the existing roadway as well as adjoining sidewalks while
retaining travel lanes and on-street parking.
UD-27 Allow for occasional closures of the block for special occasions and
events, while ensuring access is maintained to businesses that occupy
the south side of Grand Avenue on the block between Maple and Walnut
Avenues.
UD-28 Provide flexibility for a wide range of activities and gatherings when
the block is closed to traffic, while still allowing for everyday use of the
green park spaces adjoining City Hall.
UD-29 Design of the plaza should be complementary to and consistent with
the design concept for the entire length of Grand Avenue, utilizing a
consistent material palette.
City Hall building facing Grand Avenue.
589
3.27February 2015
Land Use & Urban Design 3
0’1000 2000’500
N
1/4-mile radiu
s
1/2-mile radius
c
c
101
101
FOURTH LANE
SIXTH LANE
SEVENTH LANE
EIGHTH LANE
JUNIPER AVE
NINTH LANE
TAMARACK LANE
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
L
I
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
C
E
D
A
R
P
L
.
LINDEN AVE
N
U
E
BLVD.
M
A
P
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
WA
L
N
U
T
A
V
E
N
U
E
MA
G
N
O
L
I
A
A
V
E
N
U
E
S
P
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
S
P
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
HA
W
T
H
O
R
N
E
P
L
A
C
E
HI
C
K
O
R
Y
P
L
A
C
E
OL
I
V
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
SCH
O
O
L
S
T
.
LERC
H
A
V
E
N
U
E
BEECH
A
V
E
N
U
E
GRAND AVENUE
E GRAND A
V
E
E GRAN
D
A
V
E
GRAND AV
E
N
U
E
PO
L
E
T
T
I
W
A
Y
DU
B
U
Q
U
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
FO
R
B
E
S
B
L
V
D
H
A
R
B
O
R
W
A
Y
GA
T
E
W
A
Y
B
L
V
D
GA
T
E
W
A
Y
B
L
V
D
MILLER AVENUE
PA
L
M
A
V
E
N
U
E
E
L
M
C
O
U
R
T
LUX AVENUE
VILLAGE WAY
CALIFORNIA AVENUE
PARK
W
A
Y
PINE AVENUE
ASPEN AVENUE
ARMOU
R
A
V
E
N
U
E
BADEN AVENUE
COMMERCIAL AVE
RAILROAD AVE
FIRST LANE
SECOND LANE
THIRD LANE
N CANAL STREET
S CANAL STREET
MAYFAIR AVENUE
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
S
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
B
L
V
D
MITCHELL
A
V
E
UTAH
A
V
E
CORPORATE D
R
I
V
E
HEMLOCK AVENUE
SPRUCE AVEN UE
S A I R P O R T .
HILLSIDE
Spruce School
Church
Martin
School
Cypress & Pine Park
Sign Hill Park
Sister Cities Park
Paradise Valley Park
Paradise Valley Pocket Park
PG&E
Irish Town Greens
Jack Drago
P
a
r
kTotlot
Mitchell Ave
Green Spot
PG&ESUBSTATION
Department of
Public Works
Colma Cre
e
k
C
a
n
a
l
Colma Creek Canal
City Hall
Hillside
Plaza
Lowe’sHome
Improvement
South San Francisco
Business
Center
GATEWAY
NEIGHBORHOOD
EASTERN
NEIGHBORHOOD
GATEWAY
NEIGHBORHOOD
SIGN HILL
NEIGHBORHOOD
PARADISE VALLEYNEIGHBORHOOD
DOWNTOWN
NEIGHBORHOOD
LINDENVILLE
NEIGHBORHOOD
LEGEND
02505001000’
c
N
c
STUDY AREA BOUNDARY
RAILROAD TRACKS
LESS ACTIVE RAIL SPUR
EXISTING CALTRAIN STATION
PROPOSED CALTRAIN PLATFORM EXTENSION AND UNDER CROSSING
PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY
1/4-mile radiu
s
1/2-mile radius
c
c
101
101
FOURTH LANE
SIXTH LANE
SEVENTH LANE
EIGHTH LANE
JUNIPER AVE
NINTH LANE
TAMARACK LANE
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
CY
P
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
L
I
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
C
E
D
A
R
P
L
.
LINDEN AVE
N
U
E
BLVD.
M
A
P
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
WA
L
N
U
T
A
V
E
N
U
E
MA
G
N
O
L
I
A
A
V
E
N
U
E
S
P
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
S
P
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
HA
W
T
H
O
R
N
E
P
L
A
C
E
HI
C
K
O
R
Y
P
L
A
C
E
OL
I
V
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
SCH
O
O
L
S
T
.
LERC
H
A
V
E
N
U
E
BEECH
A
V
E
N
U
E
GRAND AVENUE
E GRAND A
V
E
E GRAN
D
A
V
E
GRAND AV
E
N
U
E
PO
L
E
T
T
I
W
A
Y
DU
B
U
Q
U
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
FO
R
B
E
S
B
L
V
D
H
A
R
B
O
R
W
A
Y
GA
T
E
W
A
Y
B
L
V
D
GA
T
E
W
A
Y
B
L
V
D
MILLER AVENUE
PA
L
M
A
V
E
N
U
E
E
L
M
C
O
U
R
T
LUX AVENUE
VILLAGE WAY
CALIFORNIA AVENUE
PARK
W
A
Y
PINE AVENUE
ASPEN AVENUE
ARMOU
R
A
V
E
N
U
E
BADEN AVENUE
COMMERCIAL AVE
RAILROAD AVE
FIRST LANE
SECOND LANE
THIRD LANE
N CANAL STREET
S CANAL STREET
MAYFAIR AVENUE
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
S
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
B
L
V
D
MITCHELL
A
V
E
UTAH
A
V
E
CORPORATE D
R
I
V
E
HEMLOCK AVENUE
SPRUCE AVEN UE
S A I R P O R T .
HILLSIDE
Spruce School
Church
Martin
School
Cypress & Pine Park
Sign Hill Park
Sister Cities Park
Paradise Valley Park
Paradise Valley Pocket Park
PG&E
Irish Town Greens
Jack Drago
P
a
r
kTotlot
Mitchell Ave
Green Spot
PG&ESUBSTATION
Department of
Public Works
Colma Cre
e
k
C
a
n
a
l
Colma Creek Canal
City Hall
Hillside
Plaza
Lowe’sHome
Improvement
South San Francisco
Business
Center
GATEWAY
NEIGHBORHOOD
EASTERN
NEIGHBORHOOD
GATEWAY
NEIGHBORHOOD
SIGN HILL
NEIGHBORHOOD
PARADISE VALLEYNEIGHBORHOOD
DOWNTOWN
NEIGHBORHOOD
LINDENVILLE
NEIGHBORHOOD
LEGEND
02505001000’
c
N
c
STUDY AREA BOUNDARY
RAILROAD TRACKS
LESS ACTIVE RAIL SPUR
EXISTING CALTRAIN STATION
PROPOSED CALTRAIN PLATFORM EXTENSION AND UNDER CROSSING
PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY
PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS
PEDESTRIAN PRIORITY ZONE
IMPROVED INTERSECTION
CRITICAL IMPROVED INTERSECTION
PLAZA OR ACCENT PAVING
PEDESTRIAN PRIORITY STREET & LANE
DOWNTOWN GATEWAY
draft November 8, 2012
EASTERN
NEIGHBORHOOD
Figure 3.18: Downtown Special Plaza Areas
LINDEN NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERStreet paving creates special area for neighborhood events.
CITY HALL PLAZAStreet and adjacent plaza create central gathering spaces for community events and everyday
casual use.
GATEWAY STREET PLAZAAccent paving and gateway wel-
come visits to the Grand Avenue
retail district.
CALTRAIN PLAZA WEST
Proposed plaza entry to relocat-
ed Caltrain Station and pedestri-
an/bicycle tunnel.
CALTRAIN PLAZA EAST
East entry plaza, drop-off area,
and transit and shuttle connec-tions.
590
3.28 South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan
ire ͛Ǥ͙͡ǣ altrain Plaa
0’20 40’10
N BENCHES
EAST GRAND AVE
AI
R
P
O
R
T
B
L
V
D
TREE BUFFER
ACCENT TREES
GENEROUS, OPEN PLAZA
PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING FOR
WAYFINDING AND SAFETY
WAYFINDING AND INFORMA-
TION SIGNAGE AND/OR KIOSK
Caltrain Plaza
The plaza at the intersection of Airport Boulevard and Grand Avenue that will
lead to the Caltrain Station pedestrian and bicycle undercrossing is an op-
portunity to provide a public open space that not only can offer downtown
residents and businesses a gathering space, but is an opportunity to enhance
the gateway experience to South San Francisco. The plaza should account for
bicycle ingress and egress from the pedestrian and bicycle undercrossing to
the bike lanes on Grand Avenue, East Grand Avenue and Airport Boulevard
to ensure safety, visibility and clear paths for bicyclists out of the way of pe-
destrians.
Guiding Principle 22: Create a vibrant, safe plaza to serve residents, visitors
and Downtown businesses.
UD-30 The plaza should be generous in width to provide a safe, pleasant
environment.
UD-31 The area should be well-lit to create safe access to the station and
Downtown.
UD-32 The plaza should include deciduous trees that create shade in summer
and allow sun to warm the plaza in winter.
UD-33 Site amenities, such as benches and trash receptacles should be
provided. Consideration should be given to deter unwanted loitering.
UD-34 Materials and site furnishings should be consistent with those used
in the redesign of Grand Avenue to maintain a uniform look to the
Downtown.
591
3.29February 2015
Land Use & Urban Design 3
Figure 3.20: Caltrain Plaza (looking west)
592
3.30 South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan
inen eioroo Plaa
The Linden Avenue neighborhood center, north of Downtown on Linden Av-
enue, is an opportunity area that can provide public open space and neigh-
borhood services within walking distance of home or from the businesses
along Linden Avenue.
Similar to City Hall Plaza, the Linden Neighborhood Plaza should include
streetscape improvements and accent paving to indicate a special place.
While it would function at most times as a street, on special occasions the
block could be closed temporarily to traffic and parking to expand the usable
area and provide a central gathering space for special events such as farmers’
markets, food trucks, or arts, music or cultural festivals.
It would be desirable to also provide a usable outdoor green space such as a
pocket park in proximity to the Linden Neighborhood Plaza as an additional
community amenity.
Guiding Principle 23: Create a central neighborhood center that provides a
safe, outdoor space for special, local events.
UD-35 Create a design concept for a public plaza on Linden Avenue between
Aspen and Pine Street which incorporates the existing roadway as
well as adjoining sidewalks while retaining travel lanes and on-street
parking.
UD-36 Allow for occasional closures of the block for special occasions and
events while ensuring access is maintained to businesses.
UD-37 The plaza should provide flexibility for a wide range of activities and
gatherings.
UD-38 Design of the plaza should be consistent with any new adjoining pocket
park, using material palettes that are consistent and compatible.
UD-39 The plaza design should include lighting to create a special, safe place.
UD-40 Accent trees should be included in the design to indicate a unique place.
Street conert to plic pace or irantǡ peetrianǦrienl eentǤ
593
3.31February 2015
Land Use & Urban Design 3
Figure 3.21: Linden Neighborhood Center and Plaza
594
3.32 South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan
atern eioroo pen Space
Two types of open space will be possible east of US 101 in the Eastern Neigh-
borhood: open space provided on private properties but accessible to the
general public, and linear public open space that can be provided along the
abandoned rail corridor.
In the Eastern Neighborhood, property owners or developers will be imple-
menting a new pattern of streets, sidewalks, and landscaped areas within the
new employment center. Zoning and guidelines for this area will require a
significant set-aside for publicly-accessible open space.
Guiding Principle 24: Ensure new development in the Eastern Neighborhood
provides a significant amount of publicly-accessible
open space within the development concepts for new
office, R&D, or supporting uses.
UD-41 Establish an urban development pattern with streets and lanes, with
moderate setbacks.
UD-42 Require provision of generous sidewalks.
UD-43 Screen any surface parking or service areas that are visible from
sidewalks with plantings and adequate setbacks.
UD-44 Provide open space adjoining new development to be clearly accessible
to the public at all daylight hours, not gated or fenced.
In addition to publicly-accessible open space that can be provided through
incentives or zoning with new development, the existing rail spur that cross-
es the Eastern Neighborhood in the south near the intersection of Gateway
Boulevard and South Airport Boulevard may provide an opportunity for a lin-
ear park, pedestrian way and bicycle facilities. This east/west connection can
link to several existing and planned bicycle facilities east of 101 to connect to
the Bay. This open space also creates a pleasant buffer and publicly accessible
outdoor areas that can be enjoyed by the increased population in the Eastern
Neighborhood.
pen pace in te atern eioroo col tae te or o inoral par
alon te railroa pr or ore ran plaa aociate wit new eelopentǤ
595
3.33February 2015
Land Use & Urban Design 3
Figure 3.22: Eastern Neighborhood Looking West
596
3.34 South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan
locwie ro top letǣ iewal lǦot accooate iccle parinǡ
art i interate into te peetrian realǡ eitin iǦloc croin
on
ran Aeneǡ ornaental tree rate proie protection or te tree
an create an acceile raceǡ accent pain create interetin ein
eatre in an ran iewalǡ te eitin cloc in owntown create a
inatre eetin placeǤ
597
3.35February 2015
Land Use & Urban Design 3
Streetscape
Streets throughout the Specific Plan area, particularly those within the Pe-
destrian Priority Zone, will be improved over time with improved sidewalks,
crossings and streetscape.
Key streetscape elements to be considered include:
▪ Street trees ▪ Ground plane planting
▪Paving ▪ Tree grates
▪Benches ▪ Trash and other receptacles
▪Bicycle racks ▪ Light standards
▪Public art
Guiding Principle 25: Improve the public realm of sidewalks and adjoining
open spaces throughout the Specific Plan plan area and
particularly within the Pedestrian Priority Zone to create
an attractive pedestrian environment.
Guiding Principle 26: Create a street tree plan that responds to the streetscape
definition plan to create unique neighborhood streets
defined by street tree type.
UD-45 Create a street tree plan for the Downtown that complements existing
healthy trees with additional trees. Consider utilizing special trees
in particular locations or in special corridors with seasonal color, or
distinctive bark and/or foliage.
UD-46 Provide improvements commensurate with the future level of
pedestrian activity and consistent with the goals of the Pedestrian
Master Plan and Climate Action Plan objectives; on streets adjacent to
Grand Avenue, provide a high level of improvement, including the full
complement of streetscape furnishings.
UD-47 Include accent paving at public plaza spaces, and as a design component
to the Grand Avenue improvements.
UD-48 Consider implementing a public art program to encourage public art in
the Downtown area.
UD-49 Implement a street tree plan for Linden Avenue that includes one type
of tree within the Downtown Pedestrian Priority Zone and the Linden
Neighborhood Center, with a second tree type along the rest of Linden
Avenue. This will create special, accent areas along Linden Avenue.
UD-50 Implement accent trees at Downtown gateway areas on Grand Avenue
at Spruce and Cypress Avenues to create special entry areas.
UD-51 Establish a family of site furnishings to be used throughout the
Downtown area to reinforce a sense of place.
UD-52: “Consider implementing a wayfinding program to more effectively
manage travel on Grand Avenue and adjacent streets to provide
visitors with parking information for short-term and long-term parking,
and connections to transit. Wayfinding signage could also provide
information for pedestrian and bicycle routes and networks with
attention paid to major destinations, and include mileage or estimated
times to encourage these modes of travel.
Sidewalk Amenities
Widened sidewalks provide space for an enhanced public environment with
sidewalk dining, shop displays, seating, plantings, and signage. In the case
of South San Francisco, historic markers could be included to highlight the
role of the Downtown in the City’s development and local history. Extended
curbs and bulb-outs create additional space in the pedestrian environment
and space for amenities for other modes of travel, such as transit and bicycle.
Expanded sidewalks provide areas for bicycle parking and bus shelters with
seating. Bicycle parking on the sidewalk would include bike racks, whereas
additional, more secure parking, such as bike lockers should be located at the
Downtown parking garage and Caltrain Station.
598
3.36 South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan
Streetcape eapleǡ ario a Area locationǡ owin iewal aenitieǡ ininǡ an oter treetcape iproeentǤ
599
3.37February 2015
Land Use & Urban Design 3
Street Lighting
Lighting is a particularly important element to provide safety and security
throughout the plan area. Lighting within the Pedestrian Priority Zone should
be at a pedestrian scale and spaced at a distance that provides full coverage
of sidewalks and other pedestrian areas. The existing light fixtures on Grand
Avenue and Linden Avenue are historic in nature and should be preserved in
future improvements. Additional pedestrian-scaled lighting should be added
in appropriate areas to ensure safety and comfort. Pedestrian lighting should
also be considered throughout the Pedestrian Priority Zone and the design of
the fixtures and the light source should complement new development, pro-
vide unique character to the neighborhood streets, and be energy efficient. It
is encouraged that a fixture be specified for the rest of the Pedestrian Priority
Zone that is complementary to the future of South San Francisco and does
not harken back to historic days, but celebrates the unique neighborhoods in
Downtown.
Gateway lighting should occur at the entrances to the Downtown. Special
lighting should highlight Grand and Linden Avenues. The entire Pedestrian
Priority Zone which will be the location of many area retail services and ame-
nities should also be well lighted. Provision of adequate, appropriate lighting
throughout the Specific Plan area is very important to creating an active and
safe environment that will be suitable for the new development proposed in
this Specific Plan.
Guiding Principle 27: Provide suitable lighting throughout the plan area,
with a particular focus on the Downtown, to create a
comfortable environment that is suited to a wide array
of land uses and retail activities.
Figure 3.23 illustrates a concept for lighting throughout the Specific Plan
area. It includes four lighting types or conditions:
▪Gateway lighting
▪Grand Avenue and Linden Avenue lighting
▪Pedestrian street lighting
▪Special plaza lighting Top: Existing double acorn light on Grand Avenue, single acorn at regular spacing on the
Embarcadero in San Francisco. Bottom: Accent lighting across an Emeryville street creates a
special plaza for evening events.
600
3.38 South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan
LIGHTING
draft November 15, 2012
GATEWAY LIGHTING
GRAND AVE + LINDEN AVE LIGHTING
PEDESTRIAN STREET LIGHTING
PROPOSED PLAZA LIGHTING
LEGEND
0 250 500 1000’
STUDY AREA BOUNDARY
RAILROAD TRACKS
LESS ACTIVE RAIL SPUR
EXISTING CALTRAIN STATION
PROPOSED CALTRAIN PLATFORM EXTENSION AND UNDER CROSSINGc
N
101
101
FOURTH LANE
SIXTH LANE
SEVENTH LANE
EIGHTH LANE
JUNIPER AVE
NINTH LANE
TAMARACK LANE
CYPRE
S
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
CYPR
E
S
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
LIN
D
E
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
CED
A
R
P
L
.
LINDEN AVENUE
BLVD.
MAP
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
WA
L
N
U
T
A
V
E
N
U
E
MA
G
N
O
L
I
A
A
V
E
N
U
E
SP
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
SPR
U
C
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
HAW
T
H
O
R
N
E
P
L
A
C
E
HIC
K
O
R
Y
P
L
A
C
E
OLI
V
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
SCHOOL ST.
LERCH AVENUE
BEECH AVENUE
GRAND AVENUE
E GRAND AVEE GRAND AVE
GRAND AVENUE
POLETTI
W
A
Y
DUBUQ
U
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
FORBES
B
L
V
D
HARBOR
W
A
Y
GATEWAY
B
L
V
D
GATEWAY
B
L
V
D
MILLER AVENUE
PA
L
M
A
V
E
N
U
E
ELM
C
O
U
R
T
LUX AVENUE
VILLAGE WAY
CALIFORNIA AVENUE
PARK WAY
PINE AVENUE
ASPEN AVENUE
ARMOUR AVENUE
BADEN AVENUE
COMMERCIAL AVE
RAILROAD AVE
FIRST LANE
SECOND LANE
THIRD LANE
N CANAL STREET
S CANAL STREET
MAYFAIR AVENUE
AIRP
O
R
T
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
AIRPOR
T
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
S A
I
R
P
O
R
T
B
L
V
D
MITCHELL AVE
UTAH AVE
C O R P O R A TE DRIV
E
H
E
MLOCK AVENUE
SPRUCE AVENUE
S A I R P O R T .
HILLSIDE
c
c
c
ire ͛Ǥ͚͛ǣ onceptal itin Plan
LIGHTING
draft November 15, 2012
GATEWAY LIGHTING
GRAND AVE + LINDEN AVE LIGHTING
PEDESTRIAN STREET LIGHTING
PROPOSED PLAZA LIGHTING
LEGEND
0 250 500 1000’
STUDY AREA BOUNDARY
RAILROAD TRACKS
LESS ACTIVE RAIL SPUR
EXISTING CALTRAIN STATION
PROPOSED CALTRAIN PLATFORM EXTENSION AND UNDER CROSSINGc
N
101
101
FOURTH LANE
SIXTH LANE
SEVENTH LANE
EIGHTH LANE
JUNIPER AVE
NINTH LANE
TAMARACK LANE
CYPR
E
S
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
CYPR
E
S
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
LI
N
D
E
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
CE
D
A
R
P
L
.
LINDEN AVENUE
BLVD.
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
MA
P
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
WAL
N
U
T
A
V
E
N
U
E
MA
G
N
O
L
I
A
A
V
E
N
U
E
SP
R
U
C
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
SPR
U
C
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
HAW
T
H
O
R
N
E
P
L
A
C
E
HI
C
K
O
R
Y
P
L
A
C
E
OLI
V
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
SCHOOL ST.
LERCH AVENUE
BEECH AVENUE
GRAND AVENUE
E GRAND AVEE GRAND AVE
GRAND AVENUE
POLETTI
W
A
Y
DUBUQ
U
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
FORBES
B
L
V
D
HARBOR
W
A
Y
GATEWAY
B
L
V
D
GATEWAY
B
L
V
D
MILLER AVENUE
PA
L
M
A
V
E
N
U
E
EL
M
C
O
U
R
T
LUX AVENUE
VILLAGE WAY
CALIFORNIA AVENUE
PARK WAY
PINE AVENUE
ASPEN AVENUE
ARMOUR AVENUE
BADEN AVENUE
COMMERCIAL AVE
RAILROAD AVE
FIRST LANE
SECOND LANE
THIRD LANE
N CANAL STREET
S CANAL STREET
MAYFAIR AVENUE
AIRPO
R
T
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
AIRPO
R
T
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
S
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
B
L
V
D
MITCHELL AVE
UTAH AVE
C O R P O R A TE DRIV
E
H
E
MLOCK AVENUE
SPRUCE AVEN UE
S A I R P O R T .
HILLSIDE
c
c
c
0’500 1000’250
N
601
3.39February 2015
Land Use & Urban Design 3
Lighting plans and specifications should be prepared in coordination with the
redesign of Grand Avenue to ensure a compatible and complimentary sys-
tem.
UD-52 Provide special gateway lighting at either end of Grand Avenue to
signify arrival at these key entries to the historic Downtown. Gateway
lighting may be provided in conjunction with other gateway elements
such as pylons.
UD-53 The double acorn light fixture utilized on Grand Avenue is appropriate
for this historic Downtown. This fixture should be maintained here and
on Linden Avenue, the major cross street to Grand Avenue.
UD-54 Throughout the Pedestrian Priority Zone pedestrian-scaled light
fixtures should be provided to assure adequate light levels. Consider
using a single acorn style to complement the fixtures on Grand and
Linden Avenues.
UD-55 Pedestrian light fixtures should typically be 12-14 feet in height.
All fixtures should be designed to focus light onto sidewalks and to
minimize light spillover into adjacent upper level building windows or
into the night sky in general.
UD-56 The plazas at City Hall and the Caltrain Station should all be distinguished
with special lighting which may include dramatic lighting of important
structures or accent lighting of special art or design elements.
UD-57 Seasonal and special event lighting can be used at City Hall, on building
facades, along pedestrian walkways, or across intersections or blocks in
order to celebrate holidays or city events.
602
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:18-127 Agenda Date:2/28/2018
Version:1 Item #:3c.
Ordinance amending the South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance,related to the Downtown Station Area
Specific Plan District,in accordance with South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 20.550 ("Amendments
to Zoning Ordinance and Map")
WHEREAS,in July of 2010,the City Council for the City of South San Francisco (“City”)adopted a
comprehensive update to the City’s zoning ordinance,which repealed the then-existing Title 20 of the South
San Francisco Municipal Code,and replaced it with an entirely new Title 20 that,among other actions,
established new zoning districts,revised and reformatted many then-existing zoning provisions,eliminated
inconsistent and outdated provisions,and codified entirely new zoning provisions,including new land use
regulations and development standards (“Zoning Ordinance”); and
WHEREAS,in January of 2015,the City adopted the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (“DSASP”)and
companion land use and development regulations in Chapter 20.280 of the Zoning Ordinance,which details the
purpose, land use and development standards for the DSASP; and
WHEREAS,the proposed revisions to the Zoning Ordinance are intended to provide incentives for high-
density residential development adjacent to transit with the provision of public benefits and encourage family-
friendly housing; and
WHEREAS,the City has prepared a Zoning Amendment (“Amendment”)to the City’s Zoning Ordinance,
including refinements to Chapter 20.280 of the Zoning Ordinance (Exhibit A); and
WHEREAS,the Zoning Ordinance was adopted after preparation,circulation,consideration,and adoption of
an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”)in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act,Public Resources Code Sections 21000,et seq.(“CEQA”),in which the IS/MND analyzed the
environmental impacts of adopting the Zoning Ordinance and concluded that adoption of the Zoning Ordinance
could not have a significant effect on the environment because none of the impacts required to be analyzed
under CEQA would exceed established thresholds of significance; and
WHEREAS, environmental analysis for the Amendment was conducted, which concluded that the
environmental effects associated with implementation of the revised density are fully within the scope of the
environmental analysis conducted in the 2015 Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”), such that the Amendment
does not meet the criteria under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15164 or 15162 justifying preparation of a
subsequent EIR and thus, an addendum is the appropriate environmental document for the Project; and
WHEREAS,pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164,the City and consultant PlaceWorks,Inc.prepared
an addendum to the 2015 EIR for the Project (“2018 Addendum”),which is the appropriate environmental
City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/18/2024Page 1 of 4
powered by Legistar™603
File #:18-127 Agenda Date:2/28/2018
Version:1 Item #:3c.
an addendum to the 2015 EIR for the Project (“2018 Addendum”),which is the appropriate environmental
clearance for the proposed revisions to the Zoning Ordinance,since the proposed revision is within the scope of
the certified EIR; and
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission reviewed and carefully considered the information in the 2018
Addendum,at a duly noticed public hearing held on February 1,2018,made the findings and recommended
approval of the Addendum,since the changes do not alter any of the previous EIR assumptions and no new
significant impacts are identified;and as an objective and accurate document that reflects the independent
judgement of the City in the identification,discussion and mitigation of the Project’s environmental impacts;
and
WHEREAS,the refinements,clarifications,and/or corrections set forth in this Amendment,as they relate to the
Downtown Station Area Specific Plan District in Chapter 20.280 are minor in nature,the adoption of which
would not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of any
previously identified effects beyond those disclosed and analyzed in the IS/MND prepared for the Zoning
Ordinance,the 2015 DSASP EIR,or the 2018 Addendum prepared for the Project,nor do the refinements,
clarifications,and/or corrections constitute a change in the project or change in circumstances that would
require additional environmental review; and
WHEREAS,on February 1,2018,the Planning Commission for the City of South San Francisco held a
properly noticed public hearing to solicit public comment and consider the proposed Amendment,take public
testimony, and make a recommendation to the City Council on the project; and
WHEREAS,on February 28,2018,the City Council for the City of South San Francisco held a properly
noticed public hearing to solicit public comment,take public testimony,consider the proposed Amendment,and
take action on the proposed Amendment.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT ORDAINED that based on the entirety of the record before it,as described below,
the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION I.FINDINGS.
Based on the entirety of the record as described above,the City Council for the City of South San
Francisco hereby makes the following findings:
A.General Findings.
1.The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this ordinance.
2.The record for these proceedings,and upon which this ordinance is based,includes without limitation,
Federal and State law;the California Environmental Quality Act,Public Resources Code §21000,et seq.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/18/2024Page 2 of 4
powered by Legistar™604
File #:18-127 Agenda Date:2/28/2018
Version:1 Item #:3c.
Federal and State law;the California Environmental Quality Act,Public Resources Code §21000,et seq.
(CEQA)and the CEQA Guidelines,14 California Code of Regulations §15000,et seq.;the South San
Francisco General Plan and General Plan EIR,including all amendments and updates thereto;the South San
Francisco Municipal Code;all reports,minutes,and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning
Commission’s duly noticed February 1,2018 meeting;all reports,minutes,and public testimony submitted
as part of the City Council’s duly noticed February 28,2018 meeting;and any other evidence (within the
meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e) and §21082.2).
3.The refinements,clarifications,and/or corrections set forth in this Amendment,as they relate to the
Downtown Station Area Specific Plan District in Chapter 20.280 are minor in nature,the adoption of which
would not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of any
previously identified effects beyond those disclosed and analyzed in the IS/MND prepared for the Zoning
Ordinance,the 2015 DSASP EIR,or the 2018 Addendum prepared for the Project,nor do the refinements,
clarifications,and/or corrections constitute a change in the project or change in circumstances that would
require additional environmental review; and
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 Planning Manager, Sailesh Mehra.
B.Zoning Amendment Findings
1.The proposed Zoning Text Amendment is consistent with the adopted General Plan because the Zoning Text
Amendment will reinforce the General Plan policies promoting high-density residential development
adjacent to transit.With minor revisions as a General Plan Amendment,the Zoning Text Amendment will
be consistent with the General Plan.None of the revisions to the Zoning Ordinance will conflict with or
impede achievement of any of the goals, policies, or land use designations established in the General Plan.
2.The Zoning Text Amendment applies to property that is entirely suitable in terms of access,size of parcel,
relationship to similar or related uses,and other considerations as deemed relevant by the Planning
Commission and City Council because the proposed revisions will further promote high-density
development in close proximity to transit with the provision of community benefits.
3.The proposed Zoning Text Amendment does not change any zoning districts as already identified in the
Zoning Ordinance and therefore will not be detrimental to the use of land in any adjacent zone.
SECTION II.AMENDMENTS.
The City Council hereby makes the findings contained in this ordinance and amends the sections attached as
Exhibit A with additions in double-underline and deletions in strikethrough.Sections and subsections that are
not amended by this ordinance in Exhibit A shall remain in full force and effect.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/18/2024Page 3 of 4
powered by Legistar™605
File #:18-127 Agenda Date:2/28/2018
Version:1 Item #:3c.
SECTION III.SEVERABILITY.
If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held
invalid or unconstitutional,the remainder of this ordinance,including the application of such part or provision
to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby and shall continue in full force and effect.To
this end,provisions of this ordinance are severable.The City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby
declares that it would have passed each section,subsection,subdivision,paragraph,sentence,clause,or phrase
hereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections,subsections,subdivisions,paragraphs,sentences,
clauses, or phrases be held unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable.
SECTION IV.PUBLICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
Pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 36933,a summary of this ordinance shall be
prepared by the City Attorney.At least five (5)days prior to the Council meeting at which this ordinance is
scheduled to be adopted,the City Clerk shall (1)publish the Summary,and (2)post in the City Clerk’s Office a
certified copy of this ordinance.Within fifteen (15)days after the adoption of this ordinance,the City Clerk
shall (1)publish the summary,and (2)post in the City Clerk’s Office a certified copy of the full text of this
ordinance along with the names of those City Council members voting for and against this ordinance or
otherwise voting. This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after its adoption.
*****
City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/18/2024Page 4 of 4
powered by Legistar™606
Exhibit A
Draft Zoning Ordinance to Modify Chapter 20.280: Downtown Station Area Specific Plan District
A. Revise Section 20.280.004, Development Standards, to revise the Maximum Density with
Incentives in the Downtown Transit Core sub-district.
20.280.004 Development Standards
Tables 20.280.004-1 through 3 prescribe the development standards for the Downtown Station Area sub-
districts. Additional regulations are denoted in the right-hand column. Section numbers in this column
refer to other sections of this title, while individual letters refer to subsections that follow the tables, under
Section 20.280.005 “Additional Development Standards.”
Table 20.280.004-1
Lot, Density, and FAR Standards - Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Sub-Districts
Standard DTC GAC DRC TO/RD LCC LNC Additional
Standards
Minimum Lot Size
(sq. ft.) 5,000 5,000 5,000 10,000 5,000 5,000
Minimum Lot Width
(sq. ft.) 50 50 50 50 50 50
Minimum Lot Depth
(sq. ft.) n/a n/a 80 n/a 80 n/a
Minimum FAR 2.0 1.5 n/a 1.5 n/a 2.0
Maximum FAR 6.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 n/a 3.0 Exclusive of
structure parking
Maximum FAR with
Incentive Program 8.0 4.0 3.25
(1) 3.5 n/a n/a Exclusive of
structured parking
Residential Density (units per acre, included within FAR above)
Minimum Density 80 14 40 n/a 20.1 40
Maxim um Density 100 60 80 n/a 40 60
Maximum Density
with Incentive
Program. Does not
include density
bonuses allowed per
Chapter 20.390,
Bonus Residential
Density
120
180
(A)
80 (A) /
100 (2)(A)
100
(A) /
125
(1)(A)
n/a n/a 80 (A)
Limitations:
1. For qualifying affordable Senior Housing Projects
2. For developments on corner parcels or lots greater than one acre
607
Table 20.280.004-2
Building Form and Location Standards – Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Sub-Districts
Standard DTC GAC DRC TO/RD LCC LNC Additional
Standards
Height (ft)
Maximum
Building
Height
85 45-65
(1)(2)
65 FAA
allowed
50 85 See Section
20.300.006
Heights and
Height
Exceptions
Minimum
Ground Floor
Height for
non-
residential
uses
15; 12 min
clearance
15; 12
min
clearance
15; 12 min
clearance
15; 12 min
clearance
15; 12 min
clearance
15; 12 min
clearance
See above
and Section
20.280.005(B)
(1)
Maximum
Finished
Floor Height
(residential)
5 n/a 5 n/a 5 5 See above
Yards (ft)
Grand
Avenue (east
and west)
Frontage
n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a n/a n/a
Pedestrian
Priority Zone
Street
Frontage
At
property
line or 10
feet from
curb
(whichever
is greater)
n/a At
property
line or 10
feet from
curb
(whichever
is greater)
n/a At
property
line or 9
feet from
curb
(whichever
is greater)
At
property
line or 9
feet from
curb
(whichever
is greater)
Eastern
Neighborhood
Streets
except Grand
Avenue
Frontage
n/a n/a n/a 20 n/a n/a
Interior Side
0; 10
when
abutting
residential
district
0 0; 10
when
abutting
residential
district
n/a 0 0
Rear
0, 10
when
abutting
0 20 (E) 10 for the
first two
stories, 15
0, 10
when
abutting
0, 10
when
abutting
608
an R
district (E)
thereafter
(C)
an R
district (E)
an R
district (E)
Maximum Lot
Coverage
100 100 90 85 75 90 See Ch.
20.040 Rules
of
Measurement
Limitations:
1. Height break would occur a minimum of 30 feet from the front of the building.
2. Corner properties may be exempt from this requirement, subject to evaluation by the decision-making
authority in the review process and consistent with the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan design
guidelines.
Figure 20.280.004-2
Building Height
Table 20.280.004-3
Open Space and Landscaping
Standards – Downtown Station
Area Specific Plan Sub-Districts
Standard DTC GAC DRC TO/RD LCC LNC Additional Standards
Minimum Usable Open
Space (sq. ft. per res. unit)
100 100 100 Refer to
Section
20.280.007(K)
100 150 See Supplemental
Regulations
20.100.004(D) (10)
Minimum Amount of
Landscaping (% of site)
n/a n/a n/a 15 n/a 10 See Section 20.300.007
Landscaping
609
B. Revise Section 20.280.005(A), DSASP Additional Development Standards, Increased Density
and FAR Incentive Program, to include Family-friendly Units as a public benefit:
A. Increased Density and FAR Incentive Program. An increase to the maximum FAR or maximum
density as referenced in Table 20.280.004-1 may be permitted for buildings with the approval of a
Conditional Use Permit by the City Council through the satisfaction of a combination of the following
public benefits:
1. To be eligible for an increase to the maximum FAR or density incentives under this subsection, the
public benefits that are included as part of a development project must demonstrate a positive
contribution that is above and beyond the minimum required impact fees and other requirements of the
particular project. The following preferences for public benefits to the Downtown community and the City
may be considered as eligible to allow increased density and FAR standards for a project pursuant to t his
subsection:
a) Local Hire Program;
b) Public art;
c) Funding or construction of local streetscape enhancements as identified in the Downtown Station
Area Specific Plan;
d) Funding for enhanced public spaces;
e) Funding for public safety facilities, community meeting rooms, child care or similar;
f) Tenant space for local businesses or existing businesses in need of relocation;
g) Provision of green building measures over and above the applicable green building compliance
threshold required pursuant to Title 15 (“Building and Construction”) of the South San Francisco
Municipal Code;
h) Transit subsidy or other incentives for residents and/or employees; and
i) Family-friendly (two- and three-bedroom units); and
j) Other developer proposed incentives achieving a similar public benefit.
2. For projects seeking either an increase to the maximum FAR or maximum density pursuant to this
subsection, the following shall apply:
a) Applicant shall submit financial evaluation and analysis, information, and evidence to allow for a
reasonable assessment of the value of the benefits offered relative to the incentives being
sought, including the proposed public benefits as outlined above.
b) Applicant shall provide an assessment of the economic and/or intrinsic value of the proposed
public benefit as compared with the economic value of the proposed development incentives
requested by the applicant. The City may request an independent third party review, by a
qualified appraisal expert, hired by the City at the applicant’s expense, to validate the valuation
submitted by the applicant. This requirement is not intended to imply a need for the applicant to
provide or disclose a complete project pro forma. Only the marginal costs of the proposed public
benefit and incentive are required to be disclosed in the analysis.
c) Applicant shall provide an explanation as to the way in which the proposed amenities will further
the City’s goals and objectives as outlined in the SSF Downtown Station Specific Plan, and
conformance of the proposed project with the General Plan, Specific Plan provisions and Zoning
Ordinance, and that a reasonable nexus exists between the public benefit provided and the
incentive granted.
610
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:18-28 Agenda Date:2/28/2018
Version:1 Item #:4.
Report regarding an amendment to the City’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)Annual Action
Plan for Fiscal Year 2017-2018 to re-allocate $180,000 from the Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program to
Public Improvement projects.(Maria Wada, Community Development Coordinator)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council hold a Public Hearing to hear public testimony and comments
pertaining to an amendment to the City’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)Annual Action
Plan for Fiscal Year 2017-2018 to re-allocate $180,000 from the Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program to
Public Improvement projects,and adopt a resolution approving an amendment to the Annual Action
Plan.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
On April 27,2017,the City Council adopted its 2017-18 Annual Action Plan for the use of Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG)funds.The City submitted this Plan to the U.S.Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD), and HUD subsequently approved the City’s Plan.
Among other provisions,the 2017-18 Annual Action Plan established a $250,000 Revolving Loan Fund (RLF)
to support the Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program.The RLF was established in order to:(a)give the City
more flexibility to help manage the unexpected and unplanned program income that is generated by loans being
repaid;and (b)help meet HUD’s requirement for the City to expend funds in a timely manner,by using funds
to help low- and moderate-income households through the City’s Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program.
In the process of implementing the RLF,staff has been looking for ways to maximize resources and improve
efficiency for the administration of housing rehabilitation projects -which tend to be time-intensive and require
a wide range of skills,such as loan underwriting and construction management.Accordingly,staff has been
working with other members of the CDBG San Mateo County Cohort on a collaborative effort to streamline
administration of Housing Rehabilitation Loans.This new,collaborative program will not be in place in time to
meet HUD’s timeliness deadlines in this fiscal year.To ensure that the City meets timeliness obligations despite
the delay in the Housing Rehabilitation Program,staff proposes amending the 2017-2018 Annual Action Plan to
re-allocate $180,000 from the Housing Rehabilitation Program to Public Improvement projects.Table 1
outlines the proposed changes.
With the additional funding,Public Improvement projects can be undertaken to support safety improvements,
ADA accessibility,and improvements to existing public facilities that serve the CDBG Service Areas.Such
projects include:lighting to improve safety in the public right of way;public pathway improvements,HVAC
updates to the senior center,and additional parking lot and ADA access improvements.The remaining $70,000
in the Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program is intended for any potential loans that may be processed in the
current fiscal year.
Table 1: Amendments to Annual Action Plan
City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/18/2024Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™611
File #:18-28 Agenda Date:2/28/2018
Version:1 Item #:4.
2017-18 Annual Action Plan Amendments Funding
Homeowner Housing Rehabilitation Program (RLF)$ 250,000
Amended Funding $ (180,000)
Total Funding $ 70,0000
Public Facilities and Infrastructure Improvements
in CDBG target area neighborhoods $ 486,210
Amended Funding $ 180,000
Total Funding $ 666,210
The process for amending the Annual Action Plan is outlined in the Citizen Participation Plan (CPP).Per the
CPP,a public hearing is required for any funding changes of $50,000 or more.On January 27,2018,this Public
Hearing was noticed in compliance with CPP noticing requirements.
FISCAL IMPACT
The proposed reallocation of $180,000 from the CDBG Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program to Public
Improvement projects would:(a)reduce spending from the City’s General Fund on Capital Improvement
Program (CIP);and (b)allow the City to meet HUD spending regulations and therefore reduce the risk of
receiving less CDBG grant funding in the future.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends that the City Council hold a Public Hearing to hear public testimony and comments
pertaining to an amendment to the City’s CDBG Annual Action Plan for Fiscal Year 2017-2018 to re-allocate
$180,000 from the Housing Rehabilitation Program to Public Improvement projects,and adopt a resolution
approving an amendment to the Annual Action Plan.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/18/2024Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™612
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:18-151 Agenda Date:2/28/2018
Version:1 Item #:4a.
A resolution approving an amendment to the City’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)Annual
Action Plan for Fiscal Year 2017-2018 to re-allocate $180,000 from the Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program
to Public Improvement projects.
WHERAS,the City Council approved the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)Annual Action Plan
for Fiscal Year 2017-2018 on April 26, 2017; and
WHEREAS,in the 2017-2018 Annual Action Plan,$250,000 was budgeted for a Revolving Loan Fund (RLF)
to support the Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program; and
WHEREAS,the RLF was expected to help meet the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD)
requirement for the City to expend funds in a timely manner,by using funds to help low-and moderate-income
households through the City’s Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program; and
WHEREAS,to maximize resources and improve efficiency,the City is working with other members of the
CDBG San Mateo County Cohort on a collaborative effort to streamline administration of Housing
Rehabilitation Loans; and
WHEREAS,this new,collaborative program will not be in place in time to meet HUD’s timeliness deadlines in
this fiscal year; and
WHEREAS,to ensure the City meets timeliness obligations despite the delay in the Housing Rehabilitation
Program,the 2017-2018 Annual Action Plan must be amended to re-allocate $180,000 from the Housing
Rehabilitation Program to Public Improvement projects; and
WHEREAS,the process for amending the Annual Action Plan is outlined in the Citizen Participation Plan
(CPP), which requires a public hearing for any funding changes of $50,000 or more;
WHEREAS,a duly noticed Public Hearing was held on February 28,2018 to hear public testimony and
comments pertaining to amending the Annual Action Plan for Fiscal Year 2017-2018 to re-allocate $180,000
from the Housing Rehabilitation Program to Public Improvement projects.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City
Council hereby:
1.Approves the Amendment to the Annual Action Plan for Fiscal Year 2017-2018,attached to this
Resolution as Exhibit A.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/18/2024Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™613
File #:18-151 Agenda Date:2/28/2018
Version:1 Item #:4a.
*****
City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/18/2024Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™614
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
2017-2018 PROPOSED ANNUAL ACTION PLAN AMENDMENT
The City of South San Francisco adopted its 2017-18 Annual Action Plan for the use of federal
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds on April 27th, 2017. The City submitted
this Plan to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and HUD subsequently
approved the City’s Plan.
In the 2017-2018 Annual Action Plan, the City budgeted an anticipated $415,000 for its 2017-
2018 CDBG funding allocation, as well as about $695,000 generated by program income and
rollover funding. When the City was originally preparing the 2017-2018 Annual Action Plan, in
spring of 2017, the City was under the assumption that a Revolving Loan Fund (RLF) would
provide the flexibility to help manage the unexpected and unplanned program income that had
been generated in the past through prior loan programs. As part of the City’s commitment to
CDBG, the RLF was expected to help meet the obligations to expend funds in a timely manner
and to use these funds to help low- and moderate-income households and neighborhoods through
the City’s Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program. Residential housing rehabilitation projects are
very time and effort intensive, and require a wide range of skills, such as loan underwriting and
construction management, to be successful. To maximize resources and improve efficiency, the
City is currently working with other members of the CDBG San Mateo County Cohort on a
collaboration effort to help streamline and administer Housing Rehabilitation Loans and the
work associated with residential rehabilitation construction projects throughout the County and
other cohort jurisdictions, including South San Francisco. It is anticipated that this program will
not be in place in time to meet HUD’s timeliness deadlines. To ensure that the City meets
timeliness obligations despite the delay in the Housing Rehabilitation Program, the City will
amend its 2017-2018 Annual Action Plan to re-allocate $180,000 from the Housing
Rehabilitation Program to Public Improvement projects.
CDBG PROGRAM CHANGES
Housing Rehabilitation Program
The City’s Housing Rehabilitation Program was budgeted at a total of $250,000. The project
includes preparing and completing housing rehabilitation loans that fund health and safety
repairs. The program includes new guidelines and loan underwriting requirements. There is
regional interest in supporting this project and implementation has been temporarily delayed
pending regional cooperation. In order to meet HUD’s spending timeliness requirements and to
efficiently invest the CDBG funding in the community, the City would like to move funds from
the Housing Rehabilitation Program into the Public Facility Improvements program. The City
anticipates additional funding will be available for the Housing Rehabilitation Program in the
2018-19 program year when the Housing Rehabilitation Program is ready to begin making loans.
2017-2018 Output: Homeowner Housing Rehabilitation Program
615
Original Goal: 4 Rehabilitation loans/projects
New Goal: 0 Rehabilitation loan/project
Goals Addressed: #1 – Increase, Maintain & Improve Affordable Housing
Original Funding: $250,000
Amended Funding: ($180,000)
Total Funding: $70,000
Public Facilities and Infrastructure Improvements
The City of South San Francisco will use the funds to provide public right of way and facility
improvement in the City with the Uptown and Downtown areas as the priority areas. The goal of
this project is to sustain and/or increase the level of business and economic activity in areas that
serve or have a high percentage of low-income residents. The public improvement projects
included, but were not limited to, lighting and street crossing improvements, parking facility
accessibility improvements, parks/playlot improvements, and projects related to the City’s ADA
Transition Plan. With the additional funding, the Public Improvements will be implemented to
support safety improvements, ADA accessibility, and improvements to existing public facilities
that serve the CDBG Service Areas. Such projects will include updating and improving lighting
to address safety concerns in the public right of way; improving public pathway improvements,
HVAC updates to the senior center, and additional parking lot and ADA access improvements.
2017-2018 Output: Public Facilities and Infrastructure Improvements in CDBG target area
neighborhoods
Original Goal: 4 Public Infrastructure and Facility Improvement Projects
New Goal: 6 Public Infrastructure and Facility Improvement Projects
Goals Addressed: #4 – Preserve and Improve Public Right of Way or Facilities
Original Funding: $486,210
Amended Funding: $180,000
Total Funding: $666,210
616
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:18-156 Agenda Date:2/28/2018
Version:1 Item #:5.
Motion to approve the Minutes from the meetings of January 24, 2018 and February 14, 2018.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/18/2024Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:18-149 Agenda Date:2/28/2018
Version:1 Item #:6.
Motion confirming payment registers for February 28, 2018.(Richard Lee, Director of Finance)
The payments shown in the attached payment register are accurate and sufficient funds were available for
payment (payroll items excluded).
Attachment: Payment Register
City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/18/2024Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™632
Payment Listing by Department for City Council Review
Payments issued between and2/5/2018 2/18/2018
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
CITY ATTORNEY
MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK 2/16/2018 2653352017120346 E 100-04110-5003 83,657.11 SSF CITY ATTNY FEES DEC 2017
Payments issued for CITY ATTORNEY $83,657.11
CITY CLERK
THE SWENSON GROUP, INC. 2/16/2018 265353213769 E 100-02110-5074 173.28 CITYWIDE COPIER CHARGES
VERIZON WIRELESS 2/9/2018 2651739800043944 E 100-02110-5071 99.07 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2017
Payments issued for CITY CLERK $272.35
CITY COUNCIL
BASQUE CULTURAL CENTER 2/14/2018 265194021818 E 100-01110-5030 60.00 KM, RG -- TICKETS FOR BASQUE CULTURAL CENT
CITY OF REDWOOD CITY 2/16/2018 265357cc365358 E 100-01110-5031 1,450.00 ML/CC FOR LN/GR--REG FOR RWC CHAMB 2018
RICHARD GARBARINO 2/9/2018 265123013018 E 100-01110-5032 146.60 RG -- EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT: LEAGUE&CITY
2/9/2018 265123013018 E 100-01110-5071 35.93 RG -- EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT: LEAGUE&CITY
2/14/2018 265229020518 E 100-01110-5031 16.39 RG -- EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT FOR LEAGUE M
SODINIS BERTOLUCCIS 2/9/2018 265170cc365001 E 100-01110-5031 37.41 RG/CC -- BUSINESS LUNCHEON WITH LIBRARY DI
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO HIGH 2/14/2018 265283020918 E 100-01110-5030 70.00 LN, KM -- TICKETS FOR SSF HIGH SCHOOL EVENT
SSF CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 2/9/2018 265170cc364991 E 100-01110-5030 25.00 KM/CC --- ATTENDANCE AT CHAMBER'S GOOD M
SSF PAL BOOSTERS 2/14/2018 265286020218 E 100-01110-5030 80.00 LN, RG -- TICKETS FOR SSF PAL BOOSTERS EVENT
VERIZON WIRELESS 2/9/2018 2651739800043944 E 100-01110-5071 273.20 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2017
Payments issued for CITY COUNCIL $2,194.53
CITY MANAGER
15FIVE 2/9/2018 265170cc364904 E 100-05110-5021 35.40 MF/CC -- 15FIVE SUBSCRIPTION FOR DEC 2017
4IMPRINT, INC. 2/14/2018 265300cc365252 E 100-05110-5030 4,243.94 LA/CC -- ANNUAL YEAR-END HOLIDAY GIFT TO SS
AARON BROTHERS 2/9/2018 265170cc364741 E 100-05110-5025 164.32 LA/CC -- FRAME/MATT PROCLAMATION FOR OU
DEBORAH GILL 2/9/2018 2651241/8-1/31/18 E 100-05110-5025 250.00 DG-EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT FOR JAN 2018
2/9/2018 2651241/8-1/31/18 E 100-05110-5031 94.72 DG-EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT FOR JAN 2018
FEDEX 2/9/2018 265170cc364909 E 100-05110-5027 34.50 MF/CC -- FED EX OVERNIGHT
FLAVAS JAMAICAN GRILL 2/14/2018 265300cc364165 E 100-05110-5031 63.66 MF/CC -- BUSINESS LUNCHEON RE CITY BUSINESS
ICMA ONLINE 2/9/2018 265170cc364907 E 100-05110-5031 50.00 MF/CC -- CREDENTIALED MGR CERTIFICATION RE
Tuesday, February 20, 2018 Page 1 of 33 633
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and2/5/2018 2/18/2018 -City of South San Francisco
CITY MANAGER
K JACK ENGINEERING COMPANY 2/7/2018 265089CC 364870 E 100-05110-5001 318.80 TD CC- NEWSRACK PEDESTALS
LAMPHIER-GREGORY 2/16/2018 26533011056 E 100-05110-5061 4,336.80 OPD PHASE IIID-IVD RESIDENTIAL ENTITLEMENTS
LOWE'S CREDIT SERVICES 2/9/2018 265170cc364757 E 100-05110-5005 7.52 LA/CC -- SUPPLIES FOR MAYOR FRAME AT CITY H
PAYPAL 2/9/2018 265170cc364784 E 100-05110-5029 565.00 LA/CC -- EQUIPMENT RENTAL FOR EMPLOYEE LU
2/14/2018 265300cc365354 E 100-05110-5030 65.00 ML/CC FOR MF -- TICKET CALIF CITY MGMT FOU
2/14/2018 265300cc365356 E 100-05110-5031 725.00 ML/CC FOR MF--REG FOR CHAMBER RWC PROGR
SAN MATEO CTY HARBOR DISTRICT 2/16/2018 265348I18-008 E 100-05110-5005 35,000.00 OYSTER PT IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT-SMC
2/16/2018 265348I18-010 E 100-05110-5005 18,725.00 OYSTER PT MARINA IMPLEMENTATION AGREEM
SFMTA PARKING 2/14/2018 265300cc365172 E 100-05110-5032 12.00 MF/CC -- PARKING AT US CORPS OF ENGINEERS
SPECIALTY'S CAFE & BAKERY 2/9/2018 265170cc364747 E 100-05110-5030 11.99 LA/CC -- FOOD FOR SSFHSD BAND--GRAND AVE H
2/9/2018 265170cc364748 E 100-05110-5030 233.70 LA/CC -- FOOD FOR GRAND AVE HOLIDAY BAND F
SPROUT SOCIAL 2/9/2018 265170cc364914 E 100-05110-5001 124.00 LA/CC -- SOCIAL MEDIA MONITORING SERVICE 12
SSF CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 2/14/2018 265300cc365357 E 100-05110-5030 1,500.00 ML/CC FOR MF--TWO TABLES SSF CHAMBER INST
STAPLES BUSINESS ADVANTAGE 2/9/2018 265170cc364746 E 100-05110-5020 111.04 LA/CC -- SUPPLIES FOR SANTA PROGRAM LETTER
THRIFTY CAR RENTAL 2/9/2018 265170cc364731 E 100-05110-5030 108.22 MF/CC -- CAR RENTAL AT ICMA CONFERENCE, SA
UNITED AIRLINES 2/14/2018 265300cc365163 E 100-05110-5032 619.00 MF/CC -- FLIGHT TO ICMA CONF, SAN ANTONIO,
USPS 2/9/2018 265170cc364749 E 100-05110-5027 91.69 LA/CC -- STAMPS FOR SANTA PROGRAM LETTERS
2/9/2018 265170cc364752 E 100-05110-5027 39.20 LA/CC -- STAMPS FOR SANTA PROGRAM LETTERS
2/9/2018 265170cc364753 E 100-05110-5027 73.95 LA/CC -- BULK SHIPMENT OF SANTA LETTERS 201
2/9/2018 265170cc364756 E 100-05110-5027 24.99 LA/CC -- STAMPS FOR SANTA LETTERS 2017
VERIZON WIRELESS 2/9/2018 2651739800043944 E 100-05110-5071 400.12 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2017
WALGREENS 2/9/2018 265170cc364750 E 100-05110-5025 4.34 LA/CC -- PHOTO PRODUCTION FOR OUTGOING M
2/9/2018 265170cc364781 E 100-05110-5025 4.34 LA/CC -- PHOTO PRODUCTION FOR INCOMING M
Payments issued for CITY MANAGER $68,038.24
COMMUNICATIONS
CANVA.COM 2/9/2018 265170cc364737 E 100-05130-5025 10.00 LA/CC -- GRAPHIC DESIGN FOR SSF FLYERS
2/9/2018 265170cc364739 E 100-05130-5025 12.95 LA/CC -- CANVA.COM GRAPHIC DESIGN SUBSCRI
2/14/2018 265300cc365249 E 100-05130-5025 12.95 LA/CC--CANVA.COM GRAPHIC DESIGN MONTHLY
CAPIO 2/14/2018 265300cc365254 E 100-05130-5032 450.00 LA/CC -- REGISTRATION FOR CAPIO ANNUAL CON
CONSTANT CONTACT, INC. 2/9/2018 265170cc364913 E 100-05130-5005 195.00 LA/CC -- EMAIL SUBSCRIPTION FOR SSF BUSINESS
2/14/2018 265300cc365267 E 100-05130-5005 195.00 LA/CC -- EMAIL SUBSCRIPTION FOR SSF BUSINESS
Tuesday, February 20, 2018 Page 2 of 33 634
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and2/5/2018 2/18/2018 -City of South San Francisco
COMMUNICATIONS
DESIGNOSAUR GRAPHICS, INC 2/9/2018 265170cc364744 E 100-05130-5025 650.00 LA/CC -- DESIGN & FINAL ART-2017 SSF WINTER
GOGOAIR.COM 2/14/2018 265300cc364916 E 100-05130-5032 9.95 LA/CC -- INFLIGHT WIFI CHARGES
SPROUT SOCIAL 2/14/2018 265300cc365266 E 100-05130-5001 124.00 LA/CC -- SOCIAL MEDIA MONITORING SERVICES 1
UNITED AIRLINES 2/9/2018 265170cc364760 E 100-05130-5032 8.99 LA/CC -- WIFI SERVICES WHILE TRAVELING
2/9/2018 265170cc364826 E 100-05130-5032 7.99 LA/CC -- INFLIGHT WIFI SERVICES
WESCO GRAPHICS, INC 2/14/2018 26530943756 E 100-05130-5025 5,499.94 SSF ALL-CITY NEWSLETTER PRINTING FOR FEB 20
Payments issued for COMMUNICATIONS $7,176.77
CITY TREASURER
CHANDLER ASSET MGMT, INC 2/16/2018 2653201801SOSF E 100-03110-5001 6,923.47 JAN 2018 INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO MANAGEME
Payments issued for CITY TREASURER $6,923.47
ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
4LEAF INC. 2/14/2018 265180J3523E E 100-10520-5005 13,656.45 BUILDING INSPECTION SERVICES FARRIS HIX 12/0
ADVANCED BUSINESS FORMS 2/14/2018 26518330422 E 100-10520-5025 93.00 BUSINESS CARDS - KINAHAN/CALVO
ALLISON KNAPP WOLLAM 2/14/2018 2652402-2018 E 270-10413-5005 7,755.00 GENESIS IMPLEMENTATION CONSULTING SVCS 1
AMAZON.COM 2/14/2018 265300cc 365468 E 100-10115-5020 22.99 IM-LAPTOP SLEEVE CASE
2/16/2018 265357cc 365649 E 100-10115-5020 17.60 IM-OFFICE SUPPLIES (8PP)
AT&T 2/7/2018 2650209391060834 E 100-10520-5045 105.33 BUILDING DIVISION DSL LINE - ANNEX
BISNOW 2/14/2018 265300cc 365434 E 100-10115-5031 89.00 IM-BISNOW CONFERENCE ON DVELOPMENT INN
CBRE HOTELS 2/14/2018 26520941490-SF160134 E 100-10115-5005 3,673.55 FY 16 17 CONSULTING SERVICES TO ASSIST IN TH
2/14/2018 26520941490-SF160134-8 E 100-10115-5005 2,725.00 FY 16 17 CONSULTING SERVICES TO ASSIST IN TH
CLEARLITE TROPHIES 2/14/2018 26521381852 E 100-10410-5035 200.20 PLAQUES FOR OUTGOING PLANNING COMMISSI
CSG CONSULTANTS INC 2/14/2018 26521716232 E 100-10520-5005 510.00 BUILDING INSPECTION SERVICES GENENTECH 20
2/14/2018 26521716233 E 100-10520-5005 3,612.50 BUILDING INSPECTION SERVICES GENENTECH 20
DAILY JOURNAL CORPORATION 2/14/2018 265219B3086751 E 100-10410-5024 78.10 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR PC MTG 1-18-1
2/14/2018 265219B3091403 E 100-10410-5024 73.70 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR PC MTG 2-1-18
2/14/2018 265219B3091413 E 100-10410-5024 93.50 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR PC MTG 2-1-18
2/14/2018 265219B3093909 E 100-10410-5024 58.30 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR PC MTG 2-8-18
ERLER & KALINOWSKI, INC. 2/7/2018 265037B70049.01-01 E 100-10110-5005 5,765.50 938 LINDEN - PROFESSION SERVICES FOR NOV-D
FEDEX 2/7/2018 2650405-982-90319 E 100-10110-5005 27.40 FEDEX SERVICES
2/7/2018 2650405-997-28760 E 100-10115-5035 125.28 FEDEX SERVICES
Tuesday, February 20, 2018 Page 3 of 33 635
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and2/5/2018 2/18/2018 -City of South San Francisco
ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
FEDEX 2/7/2018 2650406-004-53311 E 222-10310-5020 39.56 FEDEX SERVICES
2/7/2018 2650406-034-12469 E 100-10110-5005 112.54 FEDEX SERVICES
2/7/2018 2650406-048-13418 E 100-10110-5005 23.45 FEDEX SERVICE
GATEWAY PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOC 2/7/2018 265046RD 2532544 E 100-10110-5005 715.19 559 GATEWAY OWNER ASSOC. DUES
INTL ECONOMIC DEV COUNCIL 2/16/2018 265357cc 365647 E 100-10115-5031 378.00 IM-IEDC ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP
2/16/2018 265357cc 365648 E 100-10115-5031 95.00 IM-BRE WEBINAR FOR EDH DIVISION
LOWE'S CREDIT SERVICES 2/16/2018 265357cc 365653 E 100-10115-5020 43.00 IM-XMAS SUPPLIES FOR OFFICE
MAZE & ASSOCIATES 2/16/2018 26533427174 E 241-10880-5007 35.95 PREPARATION OF SCO ANNUAL RPT
MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK 2/14/2018 2652492017120333 E 100-10110-5005 3,595.50 217-219, 201 AND 207 GRAND PROP DISP CHARG
2/14/2018 2652492017120334 E 100-10110-5005 256.50 938 LINDEN PROP DISP CHARGES FROM MEYERS
2/16/2018 2653352017120332 E 270-10415-5003 490.00 LEGAL SVCS REIMBURSEMENT THRU DEC 2017
2/16/2018 2653352017120338 E 270-10415-5003 465.00 LEGAL SVCS REIMBURSEMENT THRU DEC 2017
2/16/2018 2653352017120339 E 270-10414-5003 3,636.50 LEGAL SVCS REIMBURSEMENT THRU DEC 2017
2/16/2018 2653352017120341 E 270-10415-5003 155.00 LEGAL SVCS REIMBURSEMENT THRU DEC 2017
2/16/2018 2653352017120342 E 270-10415-5003 98.00 LEGAL SVCS REIMBURSEMENT THRU DEC 2017
2/16/2018 2653352017120343 E 270-10415-5003 62.00 LEGAL SVCS REIMBURSEMENT THRU DEC 2017
2/16/2018 2653352017120344 E 270-10414-5003 1,274.00 LEGAL SVCS REIMBURSEMENT THRU DEC 2017
OFFICE DEPOT INC 2/14/2018 265253997034881001 E 100-10115-5020 123.64 OFFICE SUPPLIES (8 PP)
PLACEWORKS 2/14/2018 26526264470 E 100-10410-5005 2,236.73 DOWNTOWN TRANSIT CORE REZONE & CEQA 1/
POSTAL ANNEX 2/14/2018 265300cc 365436 E 100-10110-5020 34.71 IM-SHIPPING THANK YOU GITS FOR PROJECT TO
PRECISE PRINTING AND MAILING 2/14/2018 26526420591 E 100-10410-5020 178.92 ENVELOPES FOR PLANNING DEPT
READYREFRESH 2/14/2018 26527008B0030587323 E 100-10520-5020 48.17 DRINKING WATER FOR ANNEX BUILDING
2/14/2018 26527008B0030587323 E 100-10410-5020 48.17 DRINKING WATER FOR ANNEX BUILDING
2/16/2018 26534508B0030587240 E 100-10115-5031 36.02 WATER DISPENSER SERVICES 1/7/18 TO 2/6/18
2/16/2018 26534508B0030587265 E 100-10115-5031 29.95 WATER DISPENSER SERVICES 1/7/18 TO 2/6/18
REDWOOD APPRAISAL 2/16/2018 265346845 E 100-10110-5005 6,750.00 938 LINDEN AVENUE APPRAISAL
RICHARD PENCE 2/7/2018 265063121517 E 100-10520-5033 148.00 BLDG INSP CERT. CLASS (DVC) PENCE 08/11/17-1
SAN FRANCISCO BUSINESS TIMES 2/14/2018 26527610069968 E 100-10110-5024 2,764.00 (2017 OC) CITY FO SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO SF R
SPECIALTY'S CAFE & BAKERY 2/9/2018 265170cc364965 E 100-10115-5035 284.80 SB -- FOOD FOR 2017 HOLIDAY MUSIC ON GRAN
2/14/2018 265300cc 365467 E 100-10115-5031 245.98 IM-JHS COMMITTEE AND STAFF LUNCH FOR OP H
STAPLES BUSINESS ADVANTAGE 2/9/2018 2651588048085739 E 100-10520-5020 533.09 MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES
SURVEY MONKEY 2/14/2018 265300cc 365404 E 222-10310-5031 408.00 IM-SURVEY MONKEY ANNUAL SERVICE PLAN
Tuesday, February 20, 2018 Page 4 of 33 636
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and2/5/2018 2/18/2018 -City of South San Francisco
ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
THE SWENSON GROUP, INC. 2/16/2018 265353213769 E 100-10110-5074 291.62 CITYWIDE COPIER CHARGES
2/16/2018 265353213769 E 100-10410-5074 275.77 CITYWIDE COPIER CHARGES
ULI- URBAN LAND INSTITUTE 2/14/2018 265300cc 365416 E 100-10115-5031 105.00 IM-ULI CONFERENCE ON HOUSING - DT REGISTR
2/14/2018 265300cc 365417 E 100-10115-5031 80.00 IM-ULI CONFERENCE - ON EMERGING TRENDS - N
2/16/2018 265357cc 365650 E 100-10115-5031 75.00 IM-ULI PANEL: CAPITAL MARKET AND CONSTRUC
2/16/2018 265357cc 365651 E 100-10115-5031 40.00 EDH, ANNUAL RETREAT VENUE - 4 HRS; 8 PP
VERIZON WIRELESS 2/9/2018 2651739800043944 E 100-10115-5071 180.05 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2017
2/9/2018 2651739800043944 E 100-10110-5071 146.70 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2017
2/9/2018 2651739800043944 E 100-10411-5071 70.14 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2017
2/9/2018 2651739800043944 E 100-10520-5071 250.67 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2017
2/9/2018 2651739800043944 E 100-10410-5071 364.20 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2017
WEST COAST CODE CONSULTANTS 2/7/2018 265093I-411-217-012-01 E 100-10520-5005 39,586.83 DEC 2017 BLDG PLAN REVIEW SVCS
2/7/2018 265093I-411-217-012-03 E 100-10520-5005 5,100.00 BUILDING INSPECTION SERVICES VENOOK 12/01/
2/7/2018 265093I-411-217-012-05 E 100-10520-5005 2,340.00 BUILDING ADMIN SERVICES ROMERO 12/01/17-1
Payments issued for ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT $112,933.75
FINANCE
CA SOCIETY MUNI FINANCE OFFICE2/16/2018 265357CC365527 E 100-06110-5032 370.00 AT - CSMFO CONFERENCE REGISTRATION
2/16/2018 265357CC365533 E 100-06110-5031 20.00 AT - CSMFO MEETING REGISTRATION 02/06/18
2/16/2018 265357CC365535 E 100-06110-5031 153.96 AT - FLIGHT FOR CSMFO CONFERENCE 02/20-02/
COSTCO 2/16/2018 265357CC365557 E 100-06110-5031 17.98 JB - CSMFO TRAINING REFRESHMENTS
COUNCIL OF DEVELOPMENT FINANCE2/9/2018 2651143952018 E 100-06110-5031 400.00 CDFA MEMBERSHIP FEES
CSMFO 2/16/2018 26532402/06/18 E 100-06110-5031 200.00 CSMFO REGISTRATION FEES (PASSTHROUGH)
DAVID TAUSSIG & ASSOCIATES INC2/16/2018 2653251712188 E 100-06210-5005 3,327.00 DEC 2017-PROF CONSULTING SVCS-INFRASTRUC
2/16/2018 2653251712189 E 100-06210-5005 3,775.33 DEC 2017-PROF CONSULTING SVCS-INFRASTRUC
DELTA AIR 2/16/2018 265357CC365569 E 100-06110-5032 322.35 RL - GFOA CONFERENCE AIRFARE
GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS 2/16/2018 265357CC365563 E 100-06110-5032 25.00 RL - GFOA CONFERENCE REGISTRATION FEE
MAZE & ASSOCIATES 2/16/2018 26533427174 E 100-06210-5007 5,147.05 PREPARATION OF SCO ANNUAL RPT
MMANC 2/16/2018 265357CC365559 E 100-06110-5032 100.00 JB - CONFERENCE REGISTRATION MMANC
NBS GOVERNMENT FINANCE GROUP 2/9/2018 265143121700336 E 100-06110-5005 595.00 2ND AMENDMENT TO USER FEES COST OF SVCS
OFFICE DEPOT INC 2/16/2018 265339101347955001 E 100-06210-5020 80.42 OFFICE SUPPLIES - FINANCE
2/16/2018 265339102900999001 E 100-06210-5020 147.87 OFFICE SUPPLIES - FINANCE
Tuesday, February 20, 2018 Page 5 of 33 637
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and2/5/2018 2/18/2018 -City of South San Francisco
FINANCE
OFFICE DEPOT INC 2/16/2018 265339103873641001 E 100-06210-5020 103.01 OFFICE SUPPLIES - FINANCE
2/16/2018 265339994344932001 E 100-06110-5020 92.84 OFFICE SUPPLIES - FINANCE
2/16/2018 265339994619668001 E 100-06110-5020 56.79 OFFICE SUPPLIES - FINANCE
2/16/2018 265339995156778001 E 100-06110-5020 80.28 OFFICE SUPPLIES - FINANCE
2/16/2018 265339996785614001 E 100-06110-5020 205.29 OFFICE SUPPLIES - FINANCE
2/16/2018 265339999174856001 E 100-06110-5020 159.66 OFFICE SUPPLIES - FINANCE
PERSONNEL DATA SYSTEMS, INC. 2/9/2018 265147038102 E 100-06110-5005 6,243.75 VISTA HRMS IMPLEMENTATION - SVCS RENDERE
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES 2/16/2018 265357CC365554 E 100-06110-5032 401.88 JB - AIRFARE - CSMFO CONF FOR 3 EMPLOYEES: J
STARBUCKS 2/16/2018 265357CC365573 E 100-06110-5031 15.95 CC - 01/16/18 TRAINING REFRESHMENTS
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 2/9/2018 265159276060/280488 E 100-06210-5037 96.00 DECEMBER 2017 LIVESCAN SUBMISSIONS
THE SWENSON GROUP, INC. 2/16/2018 265353213769 E 100-06210-5074 426.55 CITYWIDE COPIER CHARGES
TYLER TECHNOLOGIES INC 2/16/2018 265356045-212972 E 100-06110-5031 5,365.24 TRAINING 01/16-01/18/18
VERIZON WIRELESS 2/9/2018 2651739800043944 E 100-06110-5071 423.09 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2017
Payments issued for FINANCE $28,352.29
FIRE
5.11 TACTICAL 2/14/2018 265300cc365323 E 100-11310-5021 101.69 KA-DISASTER PREP OPERATING SUPPLIES
AIRGAS USA, LLC 2/14/2018 2651869951221208 E 100-11610-5021 444.44 OXYGEN
2/14/2018 2651869951221209 E 100-11610-5021 253.36 OXYGEN
AMAZON MKTPLACE 2/9/2018 265170cc365185 E 100-11710-5045 117.96 TB- APPLE PENCIL - PARK & REC
2/9/2018 265170cc365189 E 100-11710-5045 169.33 TB- APPLE SMART KEYBOARD - PARK & REC
AMAZON.COM 2/7/2018 265089cc36459 E 100-11110-5021 16.17 GK-CELL PHONE CASE FOR CITY CELL - KOHLMAN
2/7/2018 265089cc364884 E 100-11110-5021 31.67 JM-OPERATING SUPPLIES -PHONE CASE FOR SOCI
BOX.NET BUS SRVCS, CA 2/14/2018 265300cc365330 E 100-11310-5021 45.00 KA-DIASTER PREP OPERATING SUPPLIES - WEB BI
CAPITAL ONE NATIONAL ASSOC 2/14/2018 2652087003731000005605 E 100-11730-5020 26.53 COSTCO- OPERATING SUPPLIES
CHRISTOPHER BROUGHTON 2/14/2018 2652021/7/18 E 100-11610-5033 386.34 STAFF DEVELOPMENT REIMBURSEMENT PARA FF
CLEARLITE TROPHIES 2/14/2018 26521381786 E 100-11730-5020 753.83 NAME PLATES
COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATION IN2/7/2018 2650318155200440364083 E 100-11310-5021 159.72 EOC CABLE SERVICE
CORELOGIC SOLUTIONS, LLC. 2/9/2018 26511381859237 E 100-11223-5045 250.00 REALQUEST/S.MATEO CO. FORECLOSURE REPOR
2/9/2018 26511381866581 E 100-11223-5045 250.00 REALQUEST/S.MATEO CO. FORECLOSURE REPOR
COSTCO 2/14/2018 265300cc365130 E 100-11730-5020 163.86 AR-STATION 61, 63, 65 OPERATING SUPPLIES, KIT
2/14/2018 265300cc365130 E 100-11730-5021 427.30 AR-STATION 61, 63, 65 OPERATING SUPPLIES, KIT
Tuesday, February 20, 2018 Page 6 of 33 638
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and2/5/2018 2/18/2018 -City of South San Francisco
FIRE
DEVIN FLANNERY 2/7/2018 2650421/25/18 E 100-11610-5033 200.00 STAFF DEVELOPMENT REIMBURSEMENT - D FLA
DINAPOLI PIZZERIA & RESTAURANT2/14/2018 265300cc365337 E 100-11310-5004 997.39 KA-CERT AWARD DINNER (40+)
FAILSAFE TESTING 2/7/2018 2650399499 E 100-11710-5051 1,504.20 ANNUAL GROUND LADDER TESTING
FASTRAK 2/14/2018 265300cc365327 E 100-11611-5021 25.00 KA-BRIDGE TOLLS
2/14/2018 265300cc365327 E 100-11310-5021 25.00 KA-BRIDGE TOLLS
FDPINS LLC 2/14/2018 265300cc365342 E 100-11310-5004 206.32 KA-CERT AWARDS - PINS
FEDEX 2/7/2018 2650406-068-81036 E 100-11110-5036 33.18 POSTAGE
2/7/2018 2650406-068-81036 E 100-11710-5061 228.36 POSTAGE
2/7/2018 2650406-076-26413 E 100-11110-5036 35.98 POSTAGE
FIVE CITIES FIRE AUTHORITY 2/7/2018 265041FCFA-337 E 100-11720-5033 450.00 RIDENOUR - CONFINED SPACE RESCUE TECHNICI
FLOWERS ELECTRIC & SVC CO INC 2/14/2018 26522821712028 E 100-11730-5050 2,228.00 GFCI PROTECTED CURCUIT PANEL
GOTOCITRIX.COM 2/7/2018 265089cc364735 E 100-11710-5021 288.00 JB-GO TO MEETING ORGANIZER SUBSCRIPTION
GYM DOCTORS 2/7/2018 26505000093178 E 100-11730-5050 478.38 EQUIPMENT REPAIRS
2/7/2018 26505000093179 E 100-11730-5050 273.22 EQUIPMENT REPAIR
JOHN THE SIGN GUY 2/14/2018 265300cc365123 E 100-11110-5036 489.28 AR-PARA FF NEW HIRE UNIFORMS
K-119 OF CALIFORNIA 2/7/2018 26505272123 E 100-11710-5021 173.33 RESTOCK PREMIX FUEL FOR APPARATUS
2/7/2018 26505272163 E 100-11710-5021 8.69 LUBRICANT FOR STATION
KRONOS INCORPORATED 2/7/2018 26505511264533 E 100-11611-5021 4,101.56 25 ADDITIONAL TELESTAFF LICENSES
L N CURTIS & SONS 2/7/2018 265056INV157747 E 100-11710-5021 520.03 OPERATING SUPPLIES - 4 CASES OF 36, 30 MIN. R
LEXISNEXIS 2/14/2018 265300cc365232 E 100-11210-5021 50.00 LD - DATA MANAGEMENT SERVICE CODE ENFOR
LIFE-ASSIST INC 2/14/2018 265243838312 E 100-11610-5021 792.32 EMS SUPPLIES
2/14/2018 265243838315 E 100-11610-5021 282.02 EMS SUPPLIES
2/14/2018 265243838673 E 100-11610-5021 693.97 EMS SUPPLIES
2/14/2018 265243839004 E 100-11610-5021 820.71 EMS SUPPLIES
2/14/2018 265243839350 E 100-11610-5021 142.80 EMS SUPPLIES
2/14/2018 265243839444 E 100-11610-5021 142.80 EMS SUPPLIES
2/14/2018 265243839822 E 100-11610-5021 451.25 EMS SUPPLIES
2/14/2018 265243839870 E 100-11610-5021 543.63 EMS SUPPLIES
NOTHING BUNDT CAKES 2/14/2018 265300cc365331 E 100-11310-5004 150.00 KA-REFRESHMENTS FOR CERT AWARD DINNER (4
OFFICE DEPOT INC 2/14/2018 265253100614031001 E 100-11223-5020 153.96 OFFICE SUPPLIES
2/14/2018 265253100614031001 E 100-11110-5020 154.05 OFFICE SUPPLIES
2/14/2018 265253995213031001 E 100-11110-5020 69.80 OFFICE SUPPLIES
Tuesday, February 20, 2018 Page 7 of 33 639
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and2/5/2018 2/18/2018 -City of South San Francisco
FIRE
OFFICE DEPOT INC 2/14/2018 265253995855854001 E 100-11110-5020 150.49 OFFICE SUPPLIES
2/14/2018 265253996077311001 E 100-11223-5020 144.91 OFFICE SUPPLIES
2/14/2018 265253996077695001 E 100-11110-5020 265.30 OFFICE SUPPLIES
2/16/2018 265339999352287001 E 100-11223-5020 -124.97 OFFICE SUPPLIES
PARTY CITY 2/14/2018 265300cc365336 E 100-11310-5004 189.51 KA-CERT AWARDS PARTY SUPPLIES (40+)
PENINOU FRENCH LAUNDRY & CLEAN2/14/2018 265300cc365131 E 100-11110-5021 81.15 AR-OPERATING SUPPLIES FIRE ADMIN. DRY CLEA
PENINSULA UNIFORMS & EQUIP INC2/14/2018 265259146680 E 100-11611-5021 115.16 UNIFORMS
READYREFRESH 2/14/2018 26527018A5711311000 E 100-11710-5021 131.54 STATION 61 DRINKING WATER
RYAN BIBERSTON 2/14/2018 2651971/19/18 E 100-11610-5033 350.00 STAFF DEVELOPMENT REIMBURSEMENT PARA FF
SARKIS SIGNS 2/7/2018 2650757997 E 100-11110-5020 174.80 OFFICE NAME PLATES
SATCOM GLOBAL, INC. 2/7/2018 265089cc364887 E 100-11310-5021 42.75 JM-MONTHLY SATELLITE RADIO SERVICE EMERG
SMART & FINAL STORES LLC 2/14/2018 265300cc365335 E 100-11310-5004 33.40 KA-REFRESHMENTS FOR CERT AWARDS DINNER (
STAPLES CREDIT PLAN 2/14/2018 265300cc365109 E 100-11730-5021 369.22 AR-STATION 63 & 62 SUPPLIES - TONER AND INK
2/14/2018 265300cc365109 E 100-11730-5020 46.97 AR-STATION 63 & 62 SUPPLIES - TONER AND INK
STARBUCKS 2/14/2018 265300cc365339 E 100-11310-5004 63.80 KA-COFFEE FOR CERT AWARDS DINNER (40+)
STRYKER SALES CORPORTION 2/7/2018 2650842331551M E 100-11610-5021 2,289.06 GURNEY BATTERIES AND CHARGERS
THE SWENSON GROUP, INC. 2/16/2018 265353213769 E 100-11710-5074 30.88 CITYWIDE COPIER CHARGES
2/16/2018 265353213769 E 100-11310-5074 11.79 CITYWIDE COPIER CHARGES
2/16/2018 265353213769 E 100-11110-5074 208.38 CITYWIDE COPIER CHARGES
VERIZON WIRELESS 2/9/2018 2651739800043944 E 100-11720-5071 75.29 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2017
2/9/2018 2651739800043944 E 100-11610-5071 561.73 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2017
2/9/2018 2651739800043944 E 100-11611-5071 260.29 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2017
2/9/2018 2651739800043944 E 100-11210-5071 514.17 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2017
2/9/2018 2651739800043944 E 100-11223-5071 38.45 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2017
2/9/2018 2651739800043944 E 100-11310-5071 41.09 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2017
2/9/2018 2651739800043944 E 100-11710-5045 410.72 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2017
2/9/2018 2651739800043944 E 100-11710-5071 1,343.71 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2017
2/9/2018 2651739800043944 E 100-11110-5071 467.78 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2017
W.W. GRAINGER INC. 2/7/2018 2650929681566197 E 100-11710-5021 33.41 REPLACE GFI OF WATER VAC ON 508
WITTMAN ENTERPRISES, LLC 2/7/2018 2650961709745 E 100-11610-5005 9,636.26 AMBULANCE BILLING CONTRACTUAL SERVICES-S
2/7/2018 26509617100745 E 100-11610-5005 8,705.32 AMBULANCE BILLING CONTRACTUAL SERVICES-O
ZOLL MEDICAL CORPORATION 2/14/2018 2653112630271 E 100-11610-5021 410.45 EMS SUPPLIES
Tuesday, February 20, 2018 Page 8 of 33 640
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and2/5/2018 2/18/2018 -City of South San Francisco
FIRE
ZOLL MEDICAL CORPORATION 2/14/2018 2653112630295 E 100-11610-5021 146.83 EMS SUPPLIES
2/14/2018 2653112630797 E 100-11610-5021 145.30 EMS SUPPLIES
2/14/2018 2653112630899 E 100-11610-5021 114.71 EMS SUPPLIES
2/14/2018 2653112633423 E 100-11610-5021 38.66 EMS SUPPLIES
Payments issued for FIRE $47,828.74
HUMAN RESOURCES
ALPHACARD 2/7/2018 265089CC364841 E 100-09110-5020 464.31 LB ID CARD SOFTWARE UPGRADE
CORODATA RECORDS MANAGEMENT IN2/7/2018 265089CC364902 E 100-09110-5026 183.87 MM MONTHLY SHREDDING SVC FEE 11/30/17
COSTCO 2/7/2018 265089CC364910 E 100-09110-5020 48.47 MM OFFICE SUPPLIES & VICTORIA'S FAREWELL
2/7/2018 265089CC364915 E 100-09110-5031 17.99 MM VICTORIA'S FAREWELL 30 PEOPLE
CROWN AWARDS INC 2/9/2018 265170cc364892 E 100-09113-5031 9.36 SB -- MEDAL FOR LEAP PROG ALLSTAR RECIPIENT
DOLLAR TREE STORE 2/7/2018 265089CC364896 E 100-09110-5020 13.11 MM HOLIDAY OFFICE SUPPLIES
2/7/2018 265089CC364901 E 100-09110-5020 10.88 MM HOLIDAY OFFICE SUPPLIES
2/7/2018 265089CC364908 E 100-09110-5031 11.96 MM VICTORIA'S FAREWELL 30 PEOPLE
EMTRAIN 2/7/2018 265089CC364890 E 100-09110-5013 619.20 MM 2017/18 MNDTD HARRASSMENT PREV TRN
2/7/2018 265089CC364950 E 100-09110-5013 309.60 MM 2017/18 MNDTD HARRASSMENT PREV TRN
2/7/2018 265089CC36498 E 100-09110-5013 619.20 MM 2017/18 MNDTD HARRASSMENT PREVENTI
ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR 2/9/2018 26511915854428 E 100-09110-5032 149.72 CAR RENTAL FOR CALPELRA CONF 12/5/17-12/9/
EQUIFAX 2/7/2018 265089CC364949 E 100-09110-5036 21.47 MM BACKGROUND CK MONTHLY SVCS 12/7/17
OFFICE DEPOT INC 2/14/2018 265253102872419001 E 100-09110-5020 76.31 STAFF RECURRING SUPPLIES
REGIONAL GOVERNMENT SRVC AUTH 2/14/2018 2652737863 E 100-09110-5005 2,475.99 DECEMBER 2017 CONTRACT SVCS HECTOR P. AL
SMART & FINAL STORES LLC 2/7/2018 265089CC364905 E 100-09110-5031 12.97 MM VICTORIA'S FAREWELL 30 PEOPLE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 2/9/2018 265159276060/280488 E 100-09110-5037 32.00 DECEMBER 2017 LIVESCAN SUBMISSIONS
THE SWENSON GROUP, INC. 2/16/2018 265353213769 E 100-09110-5074 269.57 CITYWIDE COPIER CHARGES
VERIZON WIRELESS 2/9/2018 2651739800043944 E 100-09110-5071 77.20 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2017
Payments issued for HUMAN RESOURCES $5,423.18
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
AGS GEOSPATIAL, LLC 2/14/2018 2651856 E 785-16110-5005 6,760.00 GIS MAPPING SERVICES - DECEMBER 2017
AMAZON MKTPLACE 2/9/2018 265170cc365096 E 785-16110-5041 125.94 DW-SUPPLIES FOR PEG BROADCASTING
2/9/2018 265170cc365193 E 785-16110-5021 12.01 TB-AMAZON MEMBERSHIP FEE FOR IT PURCHASE
Tuesday, February 20, 2018 Page 9 of 33 641
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and2/5/2018 2/18/2018 -City of South San Francisco
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
CITY MECHANICAL INC 2/7/2018 26502843571 E 785-16110-5001 744.78 IT MOVING/RELOCATION EXPENSES - 329 MILLER
CIVIC LLC 2/7/2018 2650291489 E 785-16110-5005 200.00 MONTHLY MAINTENANCE MYCIVIC APP - JAN 20
2/7/2018 2650291531 E 785-16110-5005 200.00 MONTHLY MAINTENANCE MYCIVIC APP - FEB 20
CLIENTFIRST TECHNOLOGY CONSULT2/14/2018 2652148528 E 785-16110-5001 15,107.87 IT DEPARTMENT MASTER PLANNING SERVICES
COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATION IN2/14/2018 2652158155 20 044 0622357 E 785-16110-5071 239.05 HIGH SPEED INTERNET SERVICE - TERRABAY
DANIEL WOLDEMICHAEL 2/16/2018 265363JAN2018 E 785-16110-5031 100.58 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT - D. WOLDEMICHAEL
DELL MARKETING LP 2/16/2018 26532610194011930 E 785-16110-5051 409.58 EXTERNAL DVD DRIVES - VARIOUS DEPARTMENT
GROCERY OUTLET 2/9/2018 265170cc365106 E 785-16110-5020 2.49 JD- OFFICE SUPPLIES
KELSO COMMUNICATIONS 2/9/2018 265132I2018014 E 785-16110-5005 2,867.39 TELECOMMUNICATIONS MAINTENANCE - 03/201
NETWORK SOLUTIONS, INC 2/7/2018 265089cc364980 E 785-16110-5051 55.98 RC - SSF BIOTECH.COM DOMAIN REGISTRATION
OFFICE ESSENTIALS INC 2/16/2018 265340CIV0653866 E 785-16110-5021 2,179.55 DATA CARTRIDGE - IT
PENINSULA LIBRARY SYSTEM 2/14/2018 26525812251 E 785-16110-5040 3,604.00 ENVISIONWARE RENEWAL
THE SWENSON GROUP, INC. 2/9/2018 265165211990 E 785-16110-5074 41,813.14 COPIER PURCHASE - VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS
2/16/2018 265353213769 E 785-16110-5074 68.13 CITYWIDE COPIER CHARGES
VERIZON WIRELESS 2/9/2018 2651739800043944 E 785-16110-5071 217.63 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2017
Payments issued for INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY $74,708.12
LIBRARY
3DOODLER 2/9/2018 265170CC365111 E 100-15110-5021 38.97 EM - OPERATING SUPPLIES
AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES, INC 2/7/2018 26501714TY-X41M-9CJ9 E 100-15110-5021 2.47 OPERATING SUPPLIES
2/7/2018 2650171D7D-C1JD-YL4Q E 100-15110-5021 43.98 OPERATING SUPPLIES
2/7/2018 2650171HN7-V9H4-KRDX E 100-15230-5030 -2.07 PROGRAM SUPPLIES - CREDIT
2/7/2018 2650171KV4-LK4K-9D9D E 100-15110-5021 4.19 OPERATING SUPPLIES
2/7/2018 2650171NKH-WTVX-D9J1 E 100-15110-5020 -24.06 OFFICE SUPPLIES RTN (19WY-QY4K-TPJR) - GRAN
2/7/2018 2650171T3G-Q9QP-F3TN E 100-15230-5030 -13.43 CREDIT - PROGRAM SUPPLIES
2/9/2018 2651001KV4-LK4K-TT4V E 100-15110-5021 116.02 OPERATING SUPPLIES
2/9/2018 2651001XF7-6YRD-P6PF E 100-15230-5030 19.70 PROGRAM SUPPLIES
2/16/2018 2653141C6H-417D-J31F E 100-15210-5022 89.22 BOOKS
2/16/2018 2653141C6H-417D-RWCG E 100-15999-5999 88.06 VETERANS CONNECT SUPPLIES
2/16/2018 2653141CPF-PKNK-3X49 E 100-15110-5020 32.76 OFFICE SUPPLIES - GRAND LIBRARY
2/16/2018 2653141TV4-6GXV-4CC7 E 100-15110-5021 27.58 MAKERSPACE SUPPLIES
2/16/2018 2653141WWQ-NY6R-M613 E 100-15230-5030 21.00 PROGRAM SUPPLIES
Tuesday, February 20, 2018 Page 10 of 33 642
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and2/5/2018 2/18/2018 -City of South San Francisco
LIBRARY
AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES, INC 2/16/2018 2653141YGR-N1X1-9VMX E 100-15110-5020 17.22 OFFICE SUPPLIES - GRAND AVE. LIBRARY
AMAZON MKTPLACE 2/9/2018 265170cc365184 E 100-15110-5045 163.86 TB - EXTERNAL HARD DRIVE - LIBRARY
AMAZON.COM 2/9/2018 265170cc364897 E 100-15999-5022 69.57 AP - BOOKS
2/9/2018 265170CC364963 E 100-15110-5021 196.94 ABS - OPERATING SUPPLIES
2/9/2018 265170CC364968 E 100-15999-5999 32.34 ABS- MAKERSPACE SUPPLIES - GRAND
AMERICAN BUTTON 2/9/2018 265170CC364971 E 100-15110-5021 43.06 EM - PROGRAM SUPPLIES
ANTIGUA COFFEE SHOP 2/9/2018 265170cc364930 E 100-15430-5031 8.49 KB - COMMUNITY OUTREACH MEETING
BAKER & TAYLOR INC 2/16/2018 265315ACCT#L1123914 E 100-15310-5022 -47.66 BOOKS
2/16/2018 265315ACCT#L1123914 E 100-15210-5022 926.91 BOOKS
BRASIL EM MENTE 2/7/2018 265023012018 E 100-15320-5022 290.00 JUV PORTUGUESE BOOKS
BROWNPAPERTICKETS.COM 2/9/2018 265170CC364988 E 100-15220-5030 16.52 AT - PERFORMER'S SHOWCASE FOR SUMMER LE
CANVA.COM 2/16/2018 265357CC365592 E 100-15110-5021 12.95 AM - CANVA FOR WORK MONTHLY
CAPITAL ONE NATIONAL ASSOC 2/7/2018 2650260003-1626 E 100-15999-5999 788.50 CLC AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAM SNACKS
COSTCO 2/9/2018 265170cc364935 E 100-15430-5031 10.87 KB - MEETING REFRESHMENTS
2/9/2018 265170cc364935 E 100-15999-5031 46.86 KB - MEETING REFRESHMENTS
DEA SECURITY SYSTEMS CO INC 2/14/2018 265220C020720182 E 100-15110-5021 210.00 PANIC BUTTONS PROGRAM AND SET UP
2/14/2018 265220C020720183 E 100-15110-5021 530.00 PANIC BUTTONS PROGRAMMING AND SET UP (2)
DEMCO INC. 2/7/2018 2650346292141 E 100-15110-5021 197.27 TECHNICAL PROCESSING SUPPLIES
DOLLAR TREE STORE 2/9/2018 265170cc364924 E 100-15999-5021 13.11 KB - PROGRAM SUPPLIES, HOMEWORK CLUB
2/9/2018 265170CC364992 E 100-15110-5020 8.70 AT - LIBRARY BOARD BOOK COLLECTION STORAG
2/16/2018 265357CC365591 E 100-15310-5030 16.64 AM - PROGRAM SUPPLIES
DOORDASH 2/9/2018 265170cc364933 E 100-15430-5031 28.52 KB - STAFF MEETING LUNCH
EDUCATION CLOSET 2/9/2018 265170CC365113 E 100-15110-5032 119.00 AT - EDUCATION CLOSET WINTER CONFERENCE
FACEBOOK 2/16/2018 265357CC365584 E 100-15110-5030 6.89 AM - FACEBOOK ADVERTISING SERVICES FOR LIB
GE MONEY BANK/AMAZON 2/7/2018 2650470010 3871 E 100-15220-5043 13.86 AUDIO/ BOOKS
2/7/2018 2650470010 3871 E 100-15210-5043 195.01 AUDIO/ BOOKS
2/7/2018 2650470010 3871 E 100-15210-5022 77.82 AUDIO/ BOOKS
GOOGLE.COM 2/16/2018 265357CC365590 E 100-15310-5030 50.30 AM - PROGRAM REFRESHMENTS
HOLLINGER METAL EDGE INC. 2/16/2018 265357CC365595 E 100-15110-5021 209.77 AM - HISTORY ROOM SUPPLIES
HOME DEPOT 2/16/2018 265357CC365586 E 100-15110-5021 127.16 AM - SHELVING UNIT
INFOPEOPLE 2/16/2018 265357CC365583 E 100-15110-5031 150.00 AM - SEMINAR REGISTRATION
ITUNES STORE 2/16/2018 265357CC365587 E 100-15210-5043 14.99 AM - HBO IPAD MONTHLY RENEWAL
Tuesday, February 20, 2018 Page 11 of 33 643
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and2/5/2018 2/18/2018 -City of South San Francisco
LIBRARY
ITUNES STORE 2/16/2018 265357CC365593 E 100-15210-5043 14.99 AM - MONTHLY IPAD APP RENEWAL
KARLA BOURDON 2/14/2018 2651998/12/17-2/2/18 E 100-15999-5021 74.08 PROGRAM SUPPLIES, MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT
2/14/2018 2651998/12/17-2/2/18 E 100-15220-5030 3.25 PROGRAM SUPPLIES, MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT
2/14/2018 2651998/12/17-2/2/18 E 100-15430-5031 73.08 PROGRAM SUPPLIES, MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT
MASE GROUP LLC 2/7/2018 26505700060A E 100-15110-5001 1,360.00 DVD LABELLING SERVICE
2/7/2018 26505700278 E 100-15110-5001 251.25 DVD LABELING SERVICE
2/7/2018 26505700279 E 100-15110-5001 201.70 DVD LABELLING SERVICE
2/9/2018 26513700280 E 100-15110-5001 113.30 DVD LABELING SERVICE
2/16/2018 26533300281 E 100-15110-5001 218.70 DVD LABELING SERVICE
MICHAEL'S 2/9/2018 265170cc364918 E 100-15999-5021 166.91 KB - PROGRAM SUPPLIES, HOMEWORK CLUB
MIDWEST TAPE 2/9/2018 265141ACCT#2000009742 E 100-15320-5043 132.95 A/V - JUV
2/9/2018 265141ACCT#2000009742 E 100-15220-5043 256.63 A/V - JUV
2/14/2018 265250ACCT#2000009739 E 100-15210-5043 3,918.97 A/V - ADULT SERVICES
2/14/2018 265250ACCT#2000009739 E 100-15220-5043 296.76 A/V - ADULT SERVICES
2/14/2018 265250ACCT#2000009739 E 100-15310-5043 580.39 A/V - ADULT SERVICES
OCLC WESTERN 2/9/2018 2651440000579755 E 100-15110-5001 483.09 CATALOGING AND METADATA SUB-MONTHLY
OFFICE DEPOT INC 2/9/2018 265145101190207001 E 100-15110-5020 261.49 OFFICE SUPPLIES - GRAND LIBRARY
2/9/2018 265145994354602001 E 100-15110-5021 104.61 OPERATING SUPPLIES
2/9/2018 265145995579699001 E 100-15110-5020 141.27 OFFICE SUPPLIES - GRAND
2/9/2018 265145995579926001 E 100-15110-5020 24.83 OFFICE SUPPLIES - GRAND LIBRARY
2/9/2018 265145999393419001 E 100-15110-5020 154.41 OFFICE SUPPLIES
2/14/2018 265253102003071001 E 100-15110-5020 71.22 OFFICE SUPPLIES
2/14/2018 265253102410297001 E 100-15110-5020 98.31 OFFICE SUPPLIES
2/14/2018 265253102410340001 E 100-15110-5021 51.41 OPERATING SUPPLIES
2/16/2018 265339104113252001 E 100-15110-5020 217.61 OFFICE SUPPLIES - MAIN LIBRARY
2/16/2018 265339104113887001 E 100-15110-5020 181.27 OFFICE SUPPLIES - GRAND LIBRARY
2/16/2018 265339105630301001 E 100-15110-5020 15.07 OFFICE SUPPLIES- MAIN LIBRARY
OTC BRANDS, INC 2/9/2018 265170CC364982 E 100-15320-5030 38.99 AT - STORY TIME SUPPLIES
2/9/2018 265170CC364982 E 100-15220-5030 19.98 AT - STORY TIME SUPPLIES
2/16/2018 265357CC365588 E 100-15230-5030 31.94 AM - PROGRAM SUPPLIES - CLIFFIE DAY
OTHER MACHINE CO. 2/9/2018 265170CC364983 E 100-15110-5021 49.68 AT - OPERATING SUPPLIES
2/9/2018 265170CC364986 E 100-15110-5021 25.74 AT - OPERATING SUPPLIES
Tuesday, February 20, 2018 Page 12 of 33 644
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and2/5/2018 2/18/2018 -City of South San Francisco
LIBRARY
PAYPAL 2/9/2018 265170CC364961 E 100-15110-5021 7.50 ABS- WEB HISTORY TIMELINE
PENINSULA LIBRARY SYSTEM 2/7/2018 26506412259 E 100-15999-5999 6,131.00 WIRELESS ACCESS POINTS UPGRADE
2/7/2018 26506412276 E 100-15110-5001 2,182.95 ATOZ DATABASE 1/1-12/31/18
2/7/2018 26506412285 E 100-15110-5001 762.30 PROQUEST SAFARI TECH BKS SHARED COLLECTIO
PIZZA HUT 2/9/2018 265170cc364921 E 100-15999-5031 47.00 KB- STAFF TRAINING REFRESHMENTS
RECORDED BOOKS, INC. 2/7/2018 26506975710094 E 100-15210-5043 38.24 A/V
2/7/2018 26506975710391 E 100-15210-5043 114.68 A/V
2/7/2018 26506975710669 E 100-15210-5043 32.76 A/V
2/7/2018 26506975710714 E 100-15210-5043 32.76 A/V
2/7/2018 26506975710822 E 100-15210-5043 125.64 A/V
2/7/2018 26506975710993 E 100-15210-5043 38.24 A/V
2/9/2018 26515375703291 E 100-15210-5043 8.69 A/V
2/9/2018 26515375711207 E 100-15210-5043 87.38 A/V
2/9/2018 26515375711486 E 100-15210-5043 80.69 A/V
2/9/2018 26515375711494 E 100-15210-5043 80.69 A/V
2/9/2018 26515375713912 E 100-15210-5043 131.07 A/V
2/9/2018 26515375714292 E 100-15210-5043 87.38 A/V
2/9/2018 26515375714592 E 100-15210-5043 43.69 A/V
2/14/2018 26527175717841 E 100-15210-5043 98.32 A/V
2/14/2018 26527175718100 E 100-15210-5043 43.70 A/V
2/14/2018 26527175718106 E 100-15210-5043 63.35 A/V
SAFEWAY INC 2/9/2018 265155125129 E 100-15999-5021 104.03 PROGRAM REFRESHMENTS, PROJECT READ
2/9/2018 265155125129 E 100-15410-5031 12.78 PROGRAM REFRESHMENTS, PROJECT READ
2/9/2018 265155125129 E 100-15410-5021 105.95 PROGRAM REFRESHMENTS, PROJECT READ
SAFEWAY STORE 2/9/2018 265170CC364970 E 100-15230-5030 39.99 EM - PROGRAM SUPPLIES
SCHOLASTIC CORPORATION 2/14/2018 26527816434065 E 100-15220-5022 27.69 BOOKS - JUV
2/14/2018 26527816436307 E 100-15220-5022 138.45 BOOKS - JUV
SMART & FINAL STORES LLC 2/9/2018 265170cc364920 E 100-15999-5031 19.97 KB - STAFF DEVELOPMENT REFRESHMENTS
SOCIALACTIONMEDIA.COM 2/16/2018 265357CC365580 E 100-15210-5043 55.00 AM - A/V
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 2/9/2018 265159276060/280488 E 100-15110-5037 128.00 DECEMBER 2017 LIVESCAN SUBMISSIONS
SUPER TEACHER WORKSHEETS 2/9/2018 265170cc364900 E 100-15999-5022 19.95 AP - MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL, TEACHER WORKS
TARGET 2/9/2018 265170CC364990 E 100-15220-5030 19.43 AT - SUMMER LEARNING PRIZES
Tuesday, February 20, 2018 Page 13 of 33 645
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and2/5/2018 2/18/2018 -City of South San Francisco
LIBRARY
TARGET 2/16/2018 265357CC365585 E 100-15110-5020 11.44 AM - OFFICE SUPPLIES - GRAND LIBRARY
THE GALE GROUP, INC 2/7/2018 26508562698702 E 100-15210-5022 28.66 BOOKS
2/9/2018 26516462916112 E 100-15210-5043 54.65 BOOKS
2/9/2018 26516462916294 E 100-15210-5043 52.85 BOOKS
2/9/2018 26516462967455 E 100-15210-5043 88.72 BOOKS
THE PENWORTHY COMPANY 2/7/2018 2650860536669-IN E 100-15220-5022 337.33 JUV BOOKS
THE SWENSON GROUP, INC. 2/16/2018 265353213769 E 100-15110-5074 648.99 CITYWIDE COPIER CHARGES
TINDIE.COM 2/16/2018 265357CC365579 E 100-15220-5030 112.67 AM - TEEN SOLDERING PROGRAM
TRADER JOE'S 2/9/2018 265170CC364953 E 100-15110-5031 5.98 VS - MEETING REFRESHMENTS (10)
TWO CATS COMIC BOOK STORE 2/14/2018 265299022018 E 100-15220-5022 175.42 COMIC BOOK DAY PROGRAM SUPPLIES
USPS 2/9/2018 265170CC364973 E 100-15110-5027 17.85 EM - POSTAGE - LIBRARY BOARD PACKETS
VERIZON WIRELESS 2/9/2018 2651739800043944 E 100-15110-5071 158.59 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2017
2/9/2018 2651739800043944 E 100-15430-5071 38.23 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2017
Payments issued for LIBRARY $27,264.39
NON-DEPARTMENTAL
ABAG PLAN CORPORATION 2/16/2018 265312PLAN-2017-18-066 E 782-07410-5003 13,588.32 GENERAL LIABILITY CLAIMS - DEC 2017
AT&T 2/7/2018 2650209391060747 E 781-07210-5071 313.91 PHONE CHARGES
2/7/2018 2650209391060752 E 781-07210-5071 329.76 PHONE CHARGES
2/7/2018 2650209391060755 E 781-07210-5071 134.67 PHONE CHARGES
2/7/2018 2650209391060758 E 781-07210-5071 59.27 PHONE CHARGES
2/7/2018 2650209391060760 E 781-07210-5071 51.59 PHONE CHARGES
2/7/2018 2650209391060817 E 781-07210-5071 98.58 PHONE CHARGES
2/7/2018 2650209391060821 E 781-07210-5071 299.51 PHONE CHARGES
2/7/2018 2650209391060848 E 781-07210-5071 71.21 PHONE CHARGES
2/7/2018 2650209391060867 E 781-07210-5071 18.66 PHONE CHARGES
2/7/2018 2650209391060973 E 781-07210-5071 214.36 PHONE CHARGES
2/14/2018 265193650 829 1947 221 7 E 781-07210-5071 164.80 PHONE CHARGES
CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE 2/14/2018 2652063779544444 E 781-07210-5073 18,791.53 WATER SERVICE
CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE CO 2/14/2018 2652070165444444 E 781-07210-5073 144.87 WATER SERVICE
2/14/2018 2652073194444444 E 781-07210-5073 34.48 WATER SERVICE
2/14/2018 2652073310807997 E 781-07210-5073 45.64 WATER SERVICE
Tuesday, February 20, 2018 Page 14 of 33 646
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and2/5/2018 2/18/2018 -City of South San Francisco
NON-DEPARTMENTAL
CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE CO 2/14/2018 2652075187444444 E 781-07210-5073 198.33 WATER SERVICE
2/14/2018 2652077807444444 E 781-07210-5073 14.90 WATER SERVICE
2/14/2018 2652079639955148 E 781-07210-5073 37.94 WATER SERVICE
COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATION IN2/16/2018 2653228155 20 044 0045948 E 100-07110-5001 42.81 CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOMS BUSINESS CABL
EMPLOYEE BENEFIT SPECIALISTS 2/9/2018 265118FEB0118 E 783-00000-4341 578,873.96 FEBRUARY 2018 HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUM
2/9/2018 265118FEB0118 E 783-00000-4342 268,312.69 FEBRUARY 2018 HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUM
2/9/2018 265118FEB0118 E 783-00000-4349 29,693.53 FEBRUARY 2018 HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUM
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY2/7/2018 2650610211654236-2 E 781-07210-5070 8.65 GAS/ELECTRIC SERVICE
2/7/2018 2650615548997000-8 E 781-07210-5070 1,921.53 GAS/ELECTRIC SERVICE
2/7/2018 2650616152070396-0 E 781-07210-5070 51.56 GAS/ELECTRIC SERVICE
2/7/2018 2650618286202617-4 E 781-07210-5070 477.47 GAS/ELECTRIC SERVICE
2/7/2018 2650618923172305-0 E 781-07210-5070 21.81 GAS/ELECTRIC SERVICE
2/7/2018 2650625616338496-1 E 781-07210-5070 92,537.72 GAS/ELECTRIC SERVICE
2/14/2018 2652560285235090-5 E 781-07210-5070 266.49 GAS/ELECTRIC SERVICE
2/14/2018 2652561936382234-7 E 781-07210-5070 20.37 GAS/ELECTRIC SERVICE
2/14/2018 2652562500898977-1 E 781-07210-5070 58.69 GAS/ELECTRIC SERVICE
2/14/2018 2652562814692974-1 E 781-07210-5070 112.05 GAS/ELECTRIC SERVICE
2/14/2018 2652563635896993-3 E 781-07210-5070 67.00 GAS/ELECTRIC SERVICE
2/14/2018 2652564575602530-5 E 781-07210-5070 10.80 GAS/ELECTRIC SERVICE
2/14/2018 2652565177240092-8 E 781-07210-5070 362.79 GAS/ELECTRIC SERVICE
2/14/2018 2652565961515715-9 E 781-07210-5070 52.56 GAS/ELECTRIC SERVICE
2/14/2018 2652566035223249-4 E 781-07210-5070 226.68 GAS/ELECTRIC SERVICE
2/14/2018 2652566846819681-8 E 781-07210-5070 86.66 GAS/ELECTRIC SERVICE
2/14/2018 2652567785237739-7 E 781-07210-5070 115.98 GAS/ELECTRIC SERVICE
2/14/2018 2652568177181277-3 E 781-07210-5070 71.15 GAS/ELECTRIC SERVICE
2/14/2018 2652568701065497-5 E 781-07210-5070 73.30 GAS/ELECTRIC SERVICE
PENINSULA LIBRARY SYSTEM 2/7/2018 26506412259 E 784-07512-5023 2,572.12 WIRELESS ACCESS POINTS UPGRADE
READYREFRESH 2/16/2018 26534508B0030587158 E 100-07110-5021 164.50 01/07-02/06/18 WATER COOLER RENTAL/REFILL
2/16/2018 26534508B0030587240 E 100-07110-5031 36.03 WATER DISPENSER SERVICES 1/7/18 TO 2/6/18
2/16/2018 26534508B0030587265 E 100-07110-5031 29.96 WATER DISPENSER SERVICES 1/7/18 TO 2/6/18
TOWNSEND PUBLIC AFFAIRS, INC. 2/14/2018 26529813322 E 100-07888-5061 5,000.00 TOWNSEND GRANT CONSULTING SERVICES FOR J
TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT 2/16/2018 265355103288 E 782-07410-5081 69,602.03 WORKERS' COMPENSATION LOSS REPLENISHME
Tuesday, February 20, 2018 Page 15 of 33 647
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and2/5/2018 2/18/2018 -City of South San Francisco
NON-DEPARTMENTAL
Payments issued for NON-DEPARTMENTAL $1,085,483.22
PARKS & RECREATION
ALL INDUSTRIAL ELECTRIC SUPPLY2/7/2018 2650145177058 E 100-17420-5050 527.29 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES
2/7/2018 2650145177197 E 100-17420-5050 622.54 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES
2/9/2018 2650985169414 E 100-17420-5050 1,012.25 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES
AMAZON MKTPLACE 2/9/2018 265170CC365042 E 100-17340-5050 236.25 JR: PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP
AMAZON.COM 2/14/2018 265300CC365531 E 100-17310-5020 11.20 GM: PARKS DIV - OFFICE SUPP
2/16/2018 265357CC365490 E 100-17230-5031 108.16 DS - AMAZON YEARLY MEMBERSHIP
AMERICAN RED CROSS 2/14/2018 265300CC365246 E 100-17230-5033 216.00 DS - LIFEGUARD RE-CERTIFICATION
AQUATIC COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIES 2/14/2018 265190051717A E 100-17110-5050 1,140.00 CONSULTNG FEE FOR OPERATION COSTS & REVE
ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 2/7/2018 265019758418013 E 100-17410-5034 34.76 UNIFORMS FOR FAC DIV
2/7/2018 265019758429869 E 100-17410-5034 34.76 UNIFORMS FOR FAC DIV
2/7/2018 265019758441796 E 100-17410-5034 34.76 UNIFORMS FOR FAC DIV
B&B CUSTOM DESIGNS 2/7/2018 26502216917 E 100-17310-5034 108.16 UNIFORM SHIRTS FOR PARKS DIV
BOXWOOD TECHNOLOGY INC 2/16/2018 265357CC365540 E 100-17110-5033 124.00 MP: REC SUPV JOB POSTING
BSN SPORTS, INC 2/16/2018 265317901484019 E 100-17240-5021 59.07 BASKETBALL SUPPLIES FOR RAPP PROGRAMS
CAL-STEAM INC #2504 2/7/2018 2650253124270 E 100-17420-5050 110.90 FACILITIES - OPER SUPP
2/7/2018 2650253125700 E 100-17420-5050 433.67 FACILITIES - OPER SUPP
2/16/2018 2653183122135 E 100-17420-5050 595.97 FACILITIES - OPER SUPP
CINTAS CORPORATION LOC 464 2/9/2018 265109464102679 E 100-17230-5051 330.24 OMP POOL MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES
2/16/2018 265321464108393 E 100-17230-5051 70.25 OMP POOL MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES
CITY MECHANICAL INC 2/7/2018 26502843884 E 100-17420-5050 435.00 HVAC MAINT @ MAGNOLIA
COLE SUPPLY COMPANY, INC. 2/7/2018 265030225413 E 100-17420-5021 3,225.40 CITY FAC - CUSTODIAL SUPPLIES
2/7/2018 265030225745 E 100-17420-5021 193.20 CITY FAC - CUSTODIAL SUPPLIES
2/7/2018 265030227950 E 100-17420-5021 830.23 CITY FAC - CUSTODIAL SUPPLIES
2/7/2018 265030227950-1 E 100-17420-5021 153.71 CITY FAC - CUSTODIAL SUPPLIES
2/7/2018 265030227950A E 100-17420-5021 232.31 CITY FAC - CUSTODIAL SUPPLIES
2/7/2018 265030228432 E 100-17420-5021 147.55 CITY FAC - CUSTODIAL SUPPLIES
2/7/2018 265030CM219234C E 100-17420-5021 -576.29 CITY FAC - CUSTODIAL SUPPLIES
2/7/2018 265030CM227950C E 100-17420-5021 -221.30 CITY FAC - CUSTODIAL SUPPLIES
2/9/2018 265111229249 E 100-17420-5021 1,142.33 CITY FAC - CUSTODIAL SUPPLIES
Tuesday, February 20, 2018 Page 16 of 33 648
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and2/5/2018 2/18/2018 -City of South San Francisco
PARKS & RECREATION
COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATION IN2/9/2018 2651128155 20 044 0252494 E 100-17240-5021 37.43 MONTHLY CABLE BILL FOR TERRABAY BUILDING
2/16/2018 2653228155 20 044 0216218 E 100-17276-5021 53.91 MONTHLY CABLE BILL FOR MAGNOLIA SENIOR CE
CONSTANT CONTACT, INC. 2/14/2018 265300CC365528 E 100-17110-5050 195.00 GM - MONTHLY EMAIL SERVICE
COSTCO 2/9/2018 265170cc365146 E 100-17275-5061 299.45 LA-WINTER CAMP SUPPLIES
2/9/2018 265170CC365147 E 100-17275-5061 273.96 LA- WINTER CAMP SUPPLIES
CRAIGSLIST 2/9/2018 265170CC365151 E 100-17275-5033 75.00 LA- JOB POSTING
DEA SECURITY SYSTEMS CO INC 2/7/2018 265033C010320182 E 100-17410-5005 1,050.00 FIRE ALARM SERVICE - CITY HALL
ERCILIA SANTOS 2/7/2018 2650742/16/17-1/5/18 E 100-17111-5021 410.87 EMPLOYEE REIMB FOR EVENT SUPPLIES
EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS INC 2/7/2018 2650384648926 E 231-17531-5050 193.58 PARKS DIV - IRRIGATION SUPPLIES
2/7/2018 2650384678981 E 100-17320-5050 114.12 PARKS DIV - IRRIGATION SUPPLIES
FOOD SERVICE PARTNERS OF CA 2/9/2018 265122SSF0174 E 100-17276-5061 777.00 SPECIAL CHRISTMAS MEALS FOR DEC 14, 2017
FULLY INC. 2/16/2018 265357CC365538 E 100-17110-5021 828.12 MP: OFFICE DESK FOR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
HOUSE OF COLOR SSF 2/7/2018 265051103540 E 100-17420-5050 143.55 MSB - PAINT SUPPLIES
2/7/2018 265051103679 E 100-17420-5050 100.28 MSB - PAINT SUPPLIES
HUB INTERNATIONAL INSUR SVCS 2/9/2018 265128HUBInsJan18 E 100-17210-5004 2,026.02 JAN 2018 FACILITY RENTAL INSURANCE (PASSTHR
INC NORTHERN SAFETY CO 2/16/2018 265338902774434 E 100-17230-5031 99.00 AQUATICS SUPPLIES
JOANN FABRICS 2/9/2018 265170CC365161 E 100-17110-5061 46.08 SR - CRAFT SUPPLIES
K-119 OF CALIFORNIA 2/14/2018 26523672186 E 100-17320-5050 60.39 OPERATING SUPPLIES
KELLY-MOORE PAINT CO INC 2/9/2018 2651311102-00000570527 E 232-17532-5050 219.75 PARKS DIV - PAINT SUPP
LOWE'S CREDIT SERVICES 2/9/2018 265135902143 E 100-17320-5050 319.23 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP
2/9/2018 265135902558 E 231-17531-5050 224.21 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP
2/9/2018 265135902613 E 100-17320-5050 3.10 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP
2/9/2018 265135902833 E 100-17420-5050 50.84 FIRE STATION #62 - OPER SUPP
2/9/2018 265135902872 E 100-17420-5050 70.47 MSB - OPER SUPP
2/9/2018 265135909512 E 100-17320-5050 57.06 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP
2/9/2018 265135916122 E 100-17420-5050 9.95 FIRE STATION #61 - OPER SUPP
2/9/2018 265135917416 E 100-17420-5050 51.89 SIEBECKER - OPER SUPP
2/9/2018 265135923597 E 100-17320-5050 11.36 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP
2/9/2018 265170CC365152 E 100-17275-5061 194.47 LA-PROGRAM SUPPLIES
2/16/2018 265332902049 E 100-17320-5050 11.36 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP
2/16/2018 265332902263 E 232-17532-5050 77.97 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP
2/16/2018 265332902521 E 100-17320-5050 8.17 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP
Tuesday, February 20, 2018 Page 17 of 33 649
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and2/5/2018 2/18/2018 -City of South San Francisco
PARKS & RECREATION
LOWE'S CREDIT SERVICES 2/16/2018 265332902687 E 232-17532-5050 58.57 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP
2/16/2018 265332916702 E 100-17320-5050 -57.06 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP
2/16/2018 265332916858 E 232-17532-5050 -58.47 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP
2/16/2018 265332923943 E 100-17320-5050 11.36 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP
MICHAEL BOROVINA 2/9/2018 265107January 3, 2018 E 100-17260-5020 176.89 EMPLOYEE REIMB. FOR RENTAL BLDG. SUPPLIES
2/9/2018 265107January 3, 2018 E 100-17250-5021 176.89 EMPLOYEE REIMB. FOR RENTAL BLDG. SUPPLIES
2/14/2018 2651981/22-2/2/18 E 100-17276-5061 201.14 EMPLOYEE REIMB FOR SENIOR SERVICE CTR - SU
MICHAEL'S 2/9/2018 265170CC365164 E 100-17110-5061 92.88 SR - CRAFT SUPPLIES
MONAHAN PAPER CO 2/7/2018 265059626116 E 100-17970-5061 668.86 HICKEY ISLAND IMPROVEMENTS
NBC SUPPLY CORP 2/9/2018 26514221941 E 100-17320-5034 169.45 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP
OLIVER ABRAMSON 2/14/2018 2651811-27-18 E 100-17230-5050 15.20 EMPLOYEE REIMB. FOR NOZZLE HEADS FOR OMP
ORCHARD SUPPLY 2/14/2018 265300CC356295 E 100-17420-5035 20.48 BC: CITY FACILITIES - OPER SUPP
2/14/2018 265300CC365529 E 100-17320-5050 13.08 GM - IPP SUPPLIES
PAUL SWINK 2/9/2018 2651601-25-2018 E 100-17260-5021 337.96 REIMBURSEMENT FOR PORTABLE PICKLEBALL NE
PESTICIDE APPLICATORS PRO 2/14/2018 265300CC365313 E 100-17320-5050 45.00 BC: PESTICIDE ASSOC. MEMBERSHIP - MICHAEL P
PHUONG TRAN 2/9/2018 265168SSF11 E 100-17320-5050 75.00 CENTENNIAL WAY - INTERPRETIVE SIGNAGE
POSTMASTER- SAN BRUNO OFFICE 2/7/2018 2650661/19/18a E 100-17110-5027 22.77 ADDITIONAL POSTAGE FOR SPRING LEISURE GUI
QUENCH USA, INC. 2/16/2018 265342INV01086835 E 100-17420-5050 69.81 CORP YARD LUNCH ROOM WATER - 2/1/18 -3/31
READYREFRESH 2/14/2018 26527008A0030586945 E 100-17276-5021 42.74 MONTHLY BOTTLED WATER SERVICE FOR MAGN
2/16/2018 26534518B5729903004 E 100-17420-5001 35.22 CORP YARD BOTTLED WATER 1/13/18-2/12/18
2/16/2018 26534518B5729903004 E 100-17310-5001 35.22 CORP YARD BOTTLED WATER 1/13/18-2/12/18
REFRIGERATION SUPPLIES DISTRIB2/7/2018 26507139236628-00 E 100-17420-5050 125.46 CITY FAC - OPER SUPP
ROCHESTER MIDLAND CORPORATION 2/7/2018 265072INV00021870 E 100-17410-5005 181.18 CITY FAC - CUSTODIAL SUPPLIES
2/7/2018 265072INV00021871 E 100-17410-5005 52.84 CITY FAC - CUSTODIAL SUPPLIES
ROOFLINE SUPPLY & DELIVERY 2/16/2018 26534710619452-001 E 100-17420-5050 223.33 CITY FAC - OPER SUPP
SOUTH CITY LUMBER AND SUPPLY 2/7/2018 265079935772 E 100-17420-5050 13.93 CLC - OPER SUPP
2/7/2018 265079935773 E 100-17420-5050 0.64 SIEBECKER - OPER SUPP
2/7/2018 265079935999 E 100-17420-5050 4.69 CITY FAC - OPER SUPP
2/7/2018 265079936004 E 100-17420-5050 11.68 W.ORANGE LIBRARY - OPER SUPP
2/7/2018 265079936125 E 100-17420-5050 8.28 CITY HALL - OPER SUPP
2/7/2018 265079936127 E 100-17420-5050 1.09 CITY HALL - OPER SUPP
2/7/2018 265079936215 E 100-17420-5050 3.27 FERNEKE BLDG - OPER SUPP
Tuesday, February 20, 2018 Page 18 of 33 650
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and2/5/2018 2/18/2018 -City of South San Francisco
PARKS & RECREATION
SOUTH CITY LUMBER AND SUPPLY 2/7/2018 265079936220 E 100-17420-5050 12.75 CLC - OPER SUPP
2/7/2018 265079936346 E 100-17420-5050 6.00 MILLER PARKING GARAGE - OPER SUPP
2/7/2018 265079936399 E 100-17420-5050 7.40 W.ORANGE LIBRARY - OPER SUPP
2/7/2018 265079936461 E 100-17420-5050 40.89 FERNEKES BLDG - OPER SUPP
2/7/2018 265079936508 E 100-17420-5050 3.24 MSB - OPER SUPP
2/7/2018 265079936511 E 100-17420-5050 6.10 SIEBECKER - OPER SUPP
2/7/2018 265079936617 E 100-17420-5050 14.18 FIRE STATION #63 - OPER SUPP
2/7/2018 265079936662 E 100-17420-5050 6.18 FIRE STATION #61 - OPER SUPP
2/7/2018 265079936969 E 100-17420-5050 62.14 ART STUDIO - OPER SUPP
2/7/2018 265079937029 E 100-17420-5050 75.13 ART STUDIO - OPER SUPP
2/7/2018 265079937067 E 100-17420-5050 42.25 ART STUDIO - OPER SUPP
2/7/2018 265079937119 E 100-17420-5050 139.60 MSB - OPER SUPP
2/7/2018 265079937120 E 100-17420-5050 43.58 CORP YARD - OPER SUPP
2/7/2018 265079937164 E 100-17420-5050 24.95 MAGNOLIA - OPER SUPP
2/7/2018 265079937201 E 100-17420-5050 3.74 ORANGE POOL - OPER SUPP
2/7/2018 265079937321 E 100-17420-5050 49.85 POLICE DEPT - OPER SUPP
2/7/2018 265079937342 E 100-17420-5050 1.41 CITY HALL - OPER SUPP
2/7/2018 265079937358 E 100-17420-5050 7.92 CITY HALL - OPER SUPP
2/7/2018 265079937411 E 100-17420-5050 6.17 MSB - OPER SUPP
2/7/2018 265079937459 E 100-17420-5050 50.41 W.ORANGE LIBRARY - OPER SUPP
2/7/2018 265079937547 E 100-17420-5050 35.22 WESTBOROUGH BLDG - OPER SUPP
2/7/2018 265079937613 E 100-17420-5050 19.69 MAGNOLIA/OMP - OPER SUPP
2/7/2018 265079938024 E 100-17420-5050 7.64 CORP YARD - OPER SUPP
2/7/2018 265079938056 E 100-17420-5050 52.47 FIRE STATION #62 - OPER SUPP
2/7/2018 265079938091 E 100-17420-5050 25.56 FIRE STATION #62 - OPER SUPP
2/7/2018 265079938105 E 100-17420-5050 3.27 FIRE STATION #62 - OPER SUPP
2/7/2018 265079938109 E 100-17420-5050 20.46 FIRE STATION #61 - OPER SUPP
2/7/2018 265079938153 E 100-17420-5050 33.49 WESTBOROUGH BLDG - OPER SUPP
2/7/2018 265079938154 E 100-17420-5050 61.69 MSB - OPER SUPP
2/7/2018 265079938172 E 231-17531-5050 5.23 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP
2/7/2018 265079938330 E 100-17420-5050 18.11 WESTBOROUGH BLDG - OPER SUPP
2/7/2018 265079938445 E 100-17420-5050 -18.11 WESTBOROUGH BLDG - OPER SUPP
Tuesday, February 20, 2018 Page 19 of 33 651
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and2/5/2018 2/18/2018 -City of South San Francisco
PARKS & RECREATION
SOUTH CITY LUMBER AND SUPPLY 2/14/2018 265282938221 E 100-17320-5050 30.20 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP
2/14/2018 265282938252 E 100-17320-5050 8.48 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP
2/14/2018 265282938429 E 100-17420-5050 1.38 CITY FAC - OPER SUPP
2/14/2018 265282938471 E 100-17420-5050 18.56 W.ORANGE LIBRARY - OPER SUPP
2/14/2018 265282938521 E 100-17320-5050 30.84 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP
2/14/2018 265282938530 E 100-17320-5050 17.01 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP
2/14/2018 265282938723 E 100-17320-5050 63.91 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP
2/14/2018 265282938724 E 100-17320-5050 15.32 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP
2/14/2018 265282938762 E 100-17320-5050 41.71 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP
2/14/2018 265282938806 E 232-17532-5050 331.13 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP
2/14/2018 265282938813 E 232-17532-5050 5.69 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP
2/14/2018 265282938872 E 100-17320-5050 46.66 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP
2/14/2018 265282938899 E 231-17531-5050 38.84 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP
2/14/2018 265282938919 E 100-17320-5050 19.40 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP
2/14/2018 265282938940 E 231-17531-5050 14.19 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP
2/14/2018 265282938986 E 232-17532-5050 75.93 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP
2/14/2018 265282939014 E 232-17532-5050 77.26 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP
2/14/2018 265282939059 E 232-17532-5050 32.90 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP
2/14/2018 265282939077 E 100-17320-5050 91.15 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP
2/14/2018 265282939120 E 100-17320-5050 42.43 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP
2/14/2018 265282939140 E 100-17320-5050 68.82 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP
2/14/2018 265282939185 E 100-17320-5050 42.27 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP
2/16/2018 265351930112 E 100-17240-5021 58.73 WATER JUGS FOR MIDDLE SCHOOL SPORTS PRO
2/16/2018 265351930352 E 100-17240-5021 69.33 FIELD PREP SUPPLIES
STANDARD PLUMBING SUPPLY CO 2/14/2018 265289GYFG88 E 100-17420-5050 7.91 FERNEKES BLDG - OPER SUPP
STAPLES BUSINESS ADVANTAGE 2/16/2018 2653528048085767 E 100-17110-5020 180.85 MSB ADMIN OFFICE SUPPLIES
2/16/2018 2653528048579424 E 100-17110-5020 406.45 OFFICE SUPPLIES AND PRINTER CARTRIDGES FOR
STAPLES CREDIT PLAN 2/14/2018 265300CC365244 E 100-17230-5020 116.21 DS - BINDERS AND SUPPLIES FOR OMP POOL
2/14/2018 265300CC365316 E 100-17310-5021 84.09 BC: PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 2/9/2018 265159276060/280488 E 100-17310-5037 64.00 DECEMBER 2017 LIVESCAN SUBMISSIONS
THE CHICAGO FAUCET SHOPPE 2/14/2018 265300CC365300 E 100-17320-5050 200.78 BC: PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP
THE SWENSON GROUP, INC. 2/16/2018 265353213769 E 100-17110-5074 1,035.44 CITYWIDE COPIER CHARGES
Tuesday, February 20, 2018 Page 20 of 33 652
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and2/5/2018 2/18/2018 -City of South San Francisco
PARKS & RECREATION
THE SWENSON GROUP, INC. 2/16/2018 265353213769 E 100-17240-5074 34.06 CITYWIDE COPIER CHARGES
2/16/2018 265353213769 E 100-17276-5074 88.17 CITYWIDE COPIER CHARGES
TOMMY SEUNG NAM KIM 2/7/2018 265053Jan. 27, 2018 E 100-17260-5001 140.00 GOLF INSTRUCTOR FEES FOR WINTER SESSION G
ULINE SHIP SUPPLIES 2/14/2018 265300CC365530 E 100-17310-5020 128.35 GM: PARKS DIV - OFFICE SUPP
UNITED SITE SERVICES OF CA 2/14/2018 265301114-6314721 E 100-17320-5001 132.75 PORTABLE REST @ COMMUNITY GARDENS
2/14/2018 265301114-6323177 E 100-17320-5001 100.89 PORTABLE REST @ PONDEROSA FIELD
2/14/2018 265301114-6323178 E 100-17320-5001 100.89 PORTABLE REST @ PARADISE FIELD
2/14/2018 265301114-6346903 E 100-17320-5001 110.09 PORTABLE REST @ SOUTHWOOD FIELD
VERIZON WIRELESS 2/9/2018 2651739800043944 E 100-17270-5071 3.18 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2017
2/9/2018 2651739800043944 E 100-17110-5045 821.01 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2017
2/9/2018 2651739800043944 E 100-17210-5071 25.47 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2017
2/9/2018 2651739800043944 E 100-17230-5071 25.74 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2017
2/9/2018 2651739800043944 E 100-17110-5071 98.57 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2017
2/9/2018 2651739800043944 E 100-17260-5071 53.68 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2017
2/9/2018 2651739800043944 E 100-17275-5071 66.13 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2017
2/9/2018 2651739800043944 E 100-17276-5071 50.85 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2017
2/9/2018 2651739800043944 E 100-17310-5071 215.21 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2017
2/9/2018 2651739800043944 E 100-17410-5071 289.83 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2017
2/9/2018 2651739800043944 E 100-17999-5999 10.02 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2017
2/9/2018 2651739800043944 E 231-17531-5071 28.44 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2017
2/9/2018 2651739800043944 E 100-17250-5071 31.04 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2017
W.W. GRAINGER INC. 2/7/2018 2650929667338785 E 100-17320-5050 750.28 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP
2/7/2018 2650929676265771 E 100-17420-5050 45.30 CITY HALL - OPER SUPP
2/9/2018 2651769669093081 E 100-17320-5050 1,394.14 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP
2/9/2018 2651769670340240 E 100-17320-5050 57.69 CITY HALL - OPER SUPP
2/9/2018 2651769671324615 E 100-17320-5050 230.76 CITY HALL - OPER SUPP
2/9/2018 2651769671548221 E 100-17320-5050 565.29 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP
2/9/2018 2651769673497583 E 100-17320-5050 230.76 CITY HALL - OPER SUPP
2/9/2018 2651769674165254 E 100-17320-5034 584.44 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP
2/14/2018 265300CC365532 E 100-17970-5061 568.34 GM: GARBAGE CART FOR OMP POOL
WALSCHON FIRE PROTECTION INC 2/9/2018 265177165253.4 E 100-17420-5050 6,123.50 FIRE SPRINKLER QUARTERLY INSPECTION
WEATHERPROOFING TECHNOLOGIES 2/16/2018 26536095187142 E 100-17420-5050 1,598.44 ROOF LEAK REPAIR - MSB
Tuesday, February 20, 2018 Page 21 of 33 653
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and2/5/2018 2/18/2018 -City of South San Francisco
PARKS & RECREATION
WESTERN EXTERMINATOR CO 2/16/2018 2653615803732 E 100-17410-5005 245.00 PEST CONTROL - MSB
Payments issued for PARKS & RECREATION $41,400.13
POLICE
76 2/7/2018 265089CC364782 E 100-12110-5031 44.51 JA - GAS FOR VEH 105
AMAZON MKTPLACE 2/9/2018 265170cc365183 E 100-12110-5045 45.02 TB - PHONE CASES PD
2/9/2018 265170cc365199 E 100-12110-5045 43.64 TB- IPHONE CASES (2) - PD
AMAZON.COM 2/7/2018 265089CC364696 E 100-12210-5025 20.76 LD - BOOK FOR DISPATCHERS
AMERICAN MESSAGING SERVICES 2/7/2018 265018M7175147SB E 100-12410-5071 17.68 PAGER SERVICE - PD & WQCP
EMBASSY SUITES 2/7/2018 265089CC364700 E 100-12720-5033 157.34 MR - SWAT TRAINING HOTEL STAY
SHELL OIL 2/7/2018 265089CC364783 E 100-12110-5031 42.34 JA - GAS FOR VEH 105
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 2/9/2018 265159276060/280488 E 100-12720-5037 66.00 DECEMBER 2017 LIVESCAN SUBMISSIONS
THE SWENSON GROUP, INC. 2/16/2018 265353213769 E 100-12210-5074 452.02 CITYWIDE COPIER CHARGES
VERIZON WIRELESS 2/9/2018 2651739800043944 E 100-12110-5045 154.83 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2017
2/9/2018 2651739800043944 E 100-12410-5071 1,227.13 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2017
Payments issued for POLICE $2,271.27
PUBLIC WORKS
AIRPORT AUTO PARTS INC 2/9/2018 265097377174 E 781-13610-5021 238.82 GARAGE OPER SUPPLIES- VEH 279
2/9/2018 265097377265 E 781-13610-5021 63.60 GARAGE OPER SUPPLIES
ALL INDUSTRIAL ELECTRIC SUPPLY2/9/2018 2650985178019 E 710-13941-5051 896.19 REPLACEMENT ELECTRICAL CORDS
2/9/2018 2650985178020 E 710-13922-5051 145.94 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES
2/9/2018 2650985178038 E 710-13941-5051 1,684.26 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES
2/14/2018 2651875178472 E 710-13942-5051 127.94 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES
ALLDATA CORP 2/7/2018 265089CC 364865 E 781-13610-5001 125.00 DB CC- MONTHLY DATA SERVICE CHARGE
ALPHA ANALYTICAL LABORATORIES 2/7/2018 2650158012591-MD_SSF E 710-13953-5004 470.00 FY 2017-2018 ANALYTICAL SERVICES
2/7/2018 2650158012782-MD_SSF E 710-13953-5004 210.00 FY 2017-2018 ANALYTICAL SERVICES
2/7/2018 2650158012915MD_SSF E 710-13953-5004 153.00 FY 2017-2018 ANALYTICAL SERVICES
2/7/2018 2650158013104-MD_SSF E 710-13951-5005 101.00 FY 2017-2018 ANALYTICAL SERVICES
2/7/2018 2650158013105-MD_SSF E 710-13951-5005 180.00 FY 2017-2018 ANALYTICAL SERVICES
2/7/2018 2650158013123-MD_SSF E 710-13951-5005 80.00 FY 2017-2018 ANALYTICAL SERVICES
2/7/2018 2650158013432-MD_SSF E 710-13951-5005 3,153.00 FY 2017-2018 ANALYTICAL SERVICES
Tuesday, February 20, 2018 Page 22 of 33 654
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and2/5/2018 2/18/2018 -City of South San Francisco
PUBLIC WORKS
ALPHA ANALYTICAL LABORATORIES 2/9/2018 2650998013666-MD_SSF E 710-13953-5004 210.00 FY 2017-2018 ANALYTICAL SERVICES
2/9/2018 2650998021121-MD_SSF E 710-13953-5004 260.00 FY 2017-2018 ANALYTICAL SERVICES
2/14/2018 2651888013657-MD_SSF E 710-13951-5005 163.00 FY 2017-2018 ANALYTICAL SERVICES
ALTRANS 2/7/2018 26501631-1389 E 100-13999-5999 450.00 OBSERVATION & MONITORING SERVICES OF SOU
2/7/2018 26501631-1390 E 100-13999-5999 450.00 OBSERVATION & MONITORING SERVICES OF SOU
AMAZON MKTPLACE 2/9/2018 265170cc365194 E 100-13210-5045 109.20 TB - IPAD CASE - ENGINEERING
2/9/2018 265170cc365195 E 710-13910-5045 677.32 TB- APPLE SMART KEYBOARDS (4) - WQCP
2/9/2018 265170cc365197 E 710-13910-5045 469.72 TB - IPAD PENCILS (4) - WQCP
AMAZON.COM 2/7/2018 265089CC 364866 E 100-13410-5020 84.78 DB CC- REFERENCE BK FOR PW MAINT MANAGER
AMERICAN MESSAGING SERVICES 2/7/2018 265018M7175147SB E 710-13910-5071 73.13 PAGER SERVICE - PD & WQCP
AQUADYNE ASSOCIATES 2/9/2018 26510118-001 E 710-13941-5021 711.77 CERLIC OXYGEN SENSOR REPLACEMENT
ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 2/7/2018 265019758441795 E 100-13410-5001 132.69 STREETS MAINT UNIFORMS
2/7/2018 265019758441795 E 710-13315-5001 132.68 STREETS MAINT UNIFORMS
2/7/2018 265019758441797 E 781-13610-5001 13.95 GARAGE UNIFORMS
2/7/2018 265019758441798 E 781-13610-5001 35.95 GARAGE FENDER SEAT COVERS & SHOP TOWELS
2/9/2018 265102758453585 E 710-13315-5001 154.93 STREET DIVISION UNIFORMS
2/9/2018 265102758453585 E 100-13410-5001 154.94 STREET DIVISION UNIFORMS
2/9/2018 265102758453587 E 781-13610-5001 106.95 GARAGE DIVISION UNIFORMS
2/9/2018 265102758453588 E 781-13610-5001 35.95 GARAGE FENDER SEAT COVERS & SHOP TOWELS
2/14/2018 265191758465302 E 100-13410-5001 91.94 STREET DIVISION UNIFORMS
2/14/2018 265191758465302 E 710-13315-5001 91.93 STREET DIVISION UNIFORMS
2/14/2018 265191758465305 E 781-13610-5001 35.95 GARAGE FENDER SEAT COVERS
ARCO'S AUTO BODY 2/9/2018 265103030325 E 781-13610-5001 2,020.08 GARAGE- VEH 20 REPAIRS
AZCO SUPPLY, INC. 2/7/2018 265021228125 E 100-13460-5021 1,232.34 STREETLIGHTING OPER SUPPLIES
BAY VALVE SVC & ENGINEERING 2/9/2018 26510433510 E 710-13941-5051 1,642.76 RWG ANALOG FEEDBACK CARD INSTALLATION
BROADMOOR LUMBER & PLYWOOD CO 2/7/2018 26502446062 E 740-13820-5021 92.37 STREET MAINT OPER SUPPLIES
2/7/2018 26502446072 E 740-13820-5021 92.37 STREET MAINT OPER SUPPLIES
2/14/2018 26520145898 E 100-13411-5021 92.37 STREET MAINT OPER SUPPLIES
CENTRAL CONCRETE SUPPLY CO 2/9/2018 26510817606174 E 740-13820-5021 275.31 STREET MAINT OPER SUPPLIES
CITY AUTO SUPPLY 2/7/2018 2650273-494504 E 781-13610-5021 47.43 GARAGE OPER SUPPLIES- VEH 32
2/7/2018 2650273-495064 E 781-13610-5021 137.17 GARAGE OPER SUPPLIES VEH 307
2/7/2018 2650273-495618 E 781-13610-5028 22.81 GARAGE OPER SUPPLIES-5028
Tuesday, February 20, 2018 Page 23 of 33 655
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and2/5/2018 2/18/2018 -City of South San Francisco
PUBLIC WORKS
CITY AUTO SUPPLY 2/9/2018 2651103-496991 E 781-13610-5021 20.30 GARAGE OPER SUPPLIES VEH 308
CRANE & HOIST SERVICES 2/16/2018 2653233442 E 710-13930-5051 200.00 QUARTERLY SAFETY INSPECTION ON CRANES & H
2/16/2018 2653233442 E 710-13941-5051 200.00 QUARTERLY SAFETY INSPECTION ON CRANES & H
2/16/2018 2653233442 E 710-13932-5051 200.00 QUARTERLY SAFETY INSPECTION ON CRANES & H
2/16/2018 2653233442 E 710-13931-5051 200.00 QUARTERLY SAFETY INSPECTION ON CRANES & H
CULLIGAN SANTA CLARA 2/7/2018 2650320078952 E 710-13941-5051 196.50 WATER SOFTENER SERVICE
D&M TRAFFIC SERVICES, INC. 2/14/2018 26521856203 E 100-13430-5021 3,030.50 TRAFFIC MARKING OPER SUPPLIES
2/14/2018 26521856204 E 100-13430-5021 672.73 TRAFFIC OPER OPER SUPPLIES
DISH NETWORK 2/16/2018 265357CC363196 E 710-13910-5005 109.01 BS - DISH NETWORK
DRD AUTOMOTIVE, INC. 2/14/2018 265222147841 E 710-13941-5051 405.82 FUEL & OIL FILTERS
DYSERT ENVIRONMENTAL INC 2/7/2018 26503612999 E 710-13953-5005 245.00 FY 2017-2018 SAMPLING SERVICES
2/7/2018 26503613000 E 710-13953-5005 245.00 FY 2017-2018 SAMPLING SERVICES
2/7/2018 26503613001 E 710-13953-5005 245.00 FY 2017-2018 SAMPLING SERVICES
2/7/2018 26503613002 E 710-13953-5005 350.00 FY 2017-2018 SAMPLING SERVICES
2/9/2018 26511713012 E 710-13953-5005 350.00 FY 2017-2018 SAMPLING SERVICES
2/9/2018 26511713014 E 710-13953-5005 245.00 FY 2017-2018 SAMPLING SERVICES
2/9/2018 26511713015 E 710-13953-5005 245.00 FY 2017-2018 SAMPLING SERVICES
2/9/2018 26511713016 E 710-13953-5005 245.00 FY 2017-2018 SAMPLING SERVICES
2/9/2018 26511713017 E 710-13953-5005 155.00 FY 2017-2018 SAMPLING SERVICES
FEDERAL SIGNAL CORPORATION 2/9/2018 2651216793459 E 781-13610-5001 285.03 GARAGE- REPAIRS TO CITY VEHICLE
2/9/2018 2651216793462 E 781-13610-5001 285.03 GARAGE- REPAIRS TO CITY VEHICLE
FEDEX 2/7/2018 2650406-042-03016 E 100-13210-5027 27.25 NOTICE TO PROCEED UNDER REIMBURSEMENT A
FISHER SCIENTIFIC COMPANY, LLC2/14/2018 2652278931931 E 710-13951-5021 338.79 LAB SUPPLIES
FLYERS ENERGY LLC 2/7/2018 26504318-630377 E 781-13610-5028 1,833.89 FS 61 FUEL
2/7/2018 26504318-630378 E 781-13610-5028 704.29 FS 61 FUEL
FONG BROTHERS PRINTING, INC. 2/7/2018 2650442703621 E 100-13999-5999 784.42 PRINTING OF SOUTH CITY SHUTTLE TIMETABLE
FREMOUW ENVIRONMENTAL SVC, INC2/7/2018 26504571109A E 781-13610-5028 5,067.00 HAZARDOUS WASTE MATERIAL DISPOSAL
2/7/2018 26504571109B E 781-13610-5028 2,511.26 HAZARDOUS WASTE MATERIAL DISPOSAL
2/7/2018 26504571109C E 781-13610-5028 232.70 HAZARDOUS WASTE MATERIAL DISPOSAL
GLOBAL SUN LANDSCAPE 2/9/2018 2651253889 E 710-13943-5050 675.00 FY 17-18 LANDSCAPE SERVICES
GOLDEN STATE CHEMICAL & SUPPLY2/14/2018 265231770368 E 710-13941-5050 2,685.00 OPERATING SUPPLIES- DISPOSABLE NITRILE GLOV
2/16/2018 265327770369 E 710-13910-5021 107.60 OPERATING SUPPLIES
Tuesday, February 20, 2018 Page 24 of 33 656
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and2/5/2018 2/18/2018 -City of South San Francisco
PUBLIC WORKS
GRANITEROCK COMPANY 2/7/2018 2650481083622 E 710-13315-5021 815.63 STREET MAINT OPER SUPPLIES
2/14/2018 2652331085872 E 100-13411-5021 224.84 STREET MAINT OPER SUPPLIES
GRAPHICS ON THE EDGE 2/9/2018 2651263168 E 781-13610-5001 2,038.75 GARAGE- DECAL INSTALLATION VEH 906
HARRINGTON INDUSTRIAL PLASTIC 2/9/2018 265127003L8136 E 710-13942-5051 653.81 SHOP PVC PIPE AND FITTING RE-STOCK
HOUSE OF COLOR SSF 2/7/2018 265051103728 E 100-13410-5021 310.14 PAINTS & SIGNS OPER SUPPLIES
IPS GROUP, INC 2/9/2018 26513030959 E 720-13720-5005 5,728.58 JAN. SMART METERS CC TRANS. MO. FEE & SECU
JAM SERVICES INC 2/14/2018 265235102620 E 100-13450-5021 5,445.02 SIGNALS OPER SUPPLIES
JESUS GOVEA III 2/14/2018 2652322/12/2018 E 710-13910-5033 116.55 SACRAMENTO STATE WATER PROGRAM COURSE
K-119 OF CALIFORNIA 2/7/2018 26505272128 E 710-13315-5021 184.92 SEWER MAINT OPER SUPPLIES
2/14/2018 26523672305 E 100-13450-5021 21.25 ELECTRICAL OPER SUPPLIES
2/14/2018 26523672305 E 100-13460-5021 21.24 ELECTRICAL OPER SUPPLIES
KAMAN INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGIES 2/14/2018 265237X349530 E 710-13942-5051 175.87 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES
LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES, INC. 2/16/2018 26533100516.05-7 E 710-13910-5002 482.50 FY 17-18 WASTEWATER REGULATORY ASSISTANC
LOWE'S CREDIT SERVICES 2/9/2018 265135901256 E 710-13315-5021 276.83 SEWER MAINT OPER SUPPLIES
2/9/2018 265135901316 E 710-13315-5021 194.23 SEWER MAINT OPER SUPPLIES
2/9/2018 265135902013 E 710-13315-5021 412.22 SEWER MAINT OPER SUPPLIES
2/9/2018 265135902231 E 100-13430-5021 21.77 PAINTS & SIGNS OPER SUPPLIES
2/9/2018 265135902238 E 710-13315-5021 80.89 SEWER MAINT OPER SUPPLIES
2/9/2018 265135902792 E 710-13315-5021 21.37 SEWER MAINT OPER SUPPLIES
2/9/2018 265135902962 E 710-13315-5021 157.56 SEWER MAINT OPER SUPPLIES
2/9/2018 265135909574 E 100-13440-5021 27.98 STREET CLEANING OPER SUPPLIES
2/9/2018 265135909790 E 710-13315-5021 42.33 SEWER MAINT OPER SUPPLIES
2/9/2018 265135923006 E 710-13942-5051 91.07 CONSTRUCTION ADHESIVE AND CAP SCREWS
2/16/2018 265332902935 E 710-13315-5021 592.23 SEWER MAINT OPER SUPPLIES
2/16/2018 265332923092 E 710-13932-5050 6.22 PARKING SIGN
MARGARET KELLEY 2/14/2018 2652382-12-2018 E 710-13910-5033 192.00 CWEA PROFESIONAL MEMBERSHIP
MAZE & ASSOCIATES 2/16/2018 26533427174 E 720-13720-5007 74.60 PREPARATION OF SCO ANNUAL RPT
2/16/2018 26533427174 E 710-13310-5007 549.02 PREPARATION OF SCO ANNUAL RPT
2/16/2018 26533427174 E 250-13510-5007 40.44 PREPARATION OF SCO ANNUAL RPT
2/16/2018 26533427174 E 710-13910-5007 1,152.94 PREPARATION OF SCO ANNUAL RPT
MCC CONTROLS LLC 2/9/2018 265138CD99295049 E 710-13932-5051 2,260.70 FY 2017-18 SCADA/ELECTRICAL SERVICES
2/9/2018 265138CD99295049 E 710-13962-5051 2,260.71 FY 2017-18 SCADA/ELECTRICAL SERVICES
Tuesday, February 20, 2018 Page 25 of 33 657
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and2/5/2018 2/18/2018 -City of South San Francisco
PUBLIC WORKS
MCC CONTROLS LLC 2/9/2018 265138CD99295049 E 710-13941-5051 2,260.71 FY 2017-18 SCADA/ELECTRICAL SERVICES
2/9/2018 265138CD99295049 E 710-13942-5051 2,260.70 FY 2017-18 SCADA/ELECTRICAL SERVICES
2/9/2018 265138CD99295049 E 710-13943-5051 2,260.70 FY 2017-18 SCADA/ELECTRICAL SERVICES
2/9/2018 265138CD99295049 E 710-13961-5051 2,260.71 FY 2017-18 SCADA/ELECTRICAL SERVICES
2/9/2018 265138CD99295049 E 710-13964-5051 2,260.71 FY 2017-18 SCADA/ELECTRICAL SERVICES
2/9/2018 265138CD99295049 E 710-13930-5051 2,260.70 FY 2017-18 SCADA/ELECTRICAL SERVICES
MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 2/7/2018 26505854891459 E 100-13430-5021 24.93 PAINTS & SIGNS OPER SUPPLIES
2/9/2018 26513955292432 E 710-13943-5051 463.96 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES
METRO MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS 2/9/2018 265140054540 E 781-13610-5001 113.24 GARAGE- CONTROL HEAD REPAIRS (0859)
2/9/2018 265140054541 E 781-13610-5001 113.24 GARAGE- REPAIRS TO CONTROL HEAD (0859)
2/9/2018 26514042023 E 781-13610-5021 78.66 GARAGE OPER SUPPLIES VEH 2
2/14/2018 26524842030 E 710-13922-5021 3,728.58 PUBLIC WORKS COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT
MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK 2/16/2018 2653352017120329 E 740-13810-5003 341.00 CITY ATTNY FEES DEC 2017 405.237 - STORM WA
2/16/2018 2653352017120331 E 250-13510-5003 375.00 CITY ATTNY FEES DEC '17 405.254 SSF VS SF REGI
MMANC 2/7/2018 265089CC 364877 E 100-13410-5033 80.00 JL CC- REG. FOR 2018 WINTER FORUM 2/7/18
2/7/2018 265089CC 364880 E 100-13410-5031 75.00 JL CC- MMANC MEMBERSHIP
MY PARKING PERMIT 2/7/2018 265089CC 364860 E 720-13720-5025 424.68 MG CC- ADDT'L PERMITS FOR JAN 2018 (SURFAC
2/7/2018 265089CC 364875 E 720-13720-5025 847.50 JL CC- PRINTING OF MONTHLY PARKING PERIMTS
NATIONAL CINEMEDIA, LLC 2/16/2018 265336INV -141392 E 710-13953-5030 8.06 CINEMA OUTREACH
NORTH STATE ENVIRONMENTAL 2/16/2018 265337049702 E 710-13951-5004 2,200.00 DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
NSI SOLUTIONS, INC. 2/14/2018 265251350861 E 710-13951-5021 381.00 LAB SUPPLIES
2/14/2018 265251350862 E 710-13951-5021 259.00 LAB SUPPLIES
OFFICE DEPOT INC 2/7/2018 265060999160661001 E 100-13210-5020 105.71 OFFICE SUPPLIES FOR ENGINEERING
2/9/2018 265145100629252001 E 710-13910-5021 225.06 OFFICE SUPPLIES
2/9/2018 265145100629390001 E 710-13910-5021 18.56 OFFICE SUPPLIES
2/9/2018 265145101212825001 E 710-13910-5021 78.42 OFFICE SUPPLIES
2/14/2018 265253101793362001 E 100-13210-5020 79.01 OFFICE SUPPLIES FOR ENGINEERING
2/16/2018 265339103488767001 E 100-13210-5020 172.25 OFFICE SUPPLIES FOR ENGINEERING
2/16/2018 265339104486410001 E 710-13910-5021 288.75 OFFICE SUPPLIES
OLE'S CARBURETOR & ELEC INC 2/9/2018 265146416237 E 781-13610-5021 98.24 GARAGE- BATTERY (0859)
2/9/2018 265146417714 E 781-13610-5021 13.07 GARAGE STOCK SUPPLIES (0857)
2/9/2018 265146417838 E 781-13610-5021 43.36 GARAGE OPER SUPPLIES VEH 506
Tuesday, February 20, 2018 Page 26 of 33 658
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and2/5/2018 2/18/2018 -City of South San Francisco
PUBLIC WORKS
PAUL RUBINO 2/9/2018 2651541/30/18 E 710-13315-5031 43.60 STANDBY MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT- P. RUBINO
PAYPAL 2/7/2018 265089CC 364852 E 100-13410-5061 25.00 EK CC- CHAMBER EVENT REG, BREAKFAST & LEAR
PENINSULA BATTERY CO 2/16/2018 265341124388 E 710-13922-5021 104.79 REPLACEMENT BATTERY FOR CAR NO. 206
PETER SHEA 2/14/2018 2652802/3-2/7/18 E 710-13315-5034 44.47 STAND BY MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT- P.SHEA
PETERSON POWER SYSTEMS INC 2/9/2018 265148SW240146504 E 710-13943-5051 6,803.65 WAUKESHA ENGINE PERIODIC MAINTENANCE
POWERPLAN/PAPE MACHINERY 2/7/2018 26506710779615 E 781-13610-5021 72.24 GARAGE OPER SUPPLIES VEH 311
2/9/2018 26514910796601 E 781-13610-5021 158.55 GARAGE- VEH 311 OPER SUPPLIES
PRIORITY 1 PUBLIC SAFETY EQUIP2/9/2018 2651506603 E 781-13610-5021 719.45 GARAGE- OPER SUPPLIES VEH 21 & 22
PRODUCTIVE PRINTING & GRAPHICS2/7/2018 26506832286 E 100-13210-5021 2,348.88 OPERATING SUPPLIES - NO PARKING SIGNS FOR E
2/14/2018 26526532504 E 720-13720-5005 81.94 PARKING METER COLLECTION RECEIPTS
PROFESSIONAL BINDING PRODUCTS 2/16/2018 265357CC363195 E 710-13910-5021 27.13 BS - OFFICE SUPPLIES
PUMP REPAIR SERVICE 2/9/2018 265151038746 E 710-13943-5051 2,906.89 REPLACEMENT PUMP CONNECTING ROD & GEA
2/9/2018 265151038748 E 710-13941-5051 26.10 REPLACEMENT PUMP RETAINING RING SETS
2/9/2018 265151038750 E 710-13941-5051 449.34 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES- GEAR JOINT SEAL KITS,
2/14/2018 265266038768 E 710-13941-5051 301.53 PUMP REPAIR PARTS - RESTOCK
R&B COMPANY 2/14/2018 265268S1714870.001 E 740-13820-5021 742.06 STREET MAINT OPER SUPPLIES
2/16/2018 265344S1719295.001 E 710-13315-5021 2,282.37 SEWER MAINT OPER SUPPLIES
R&S ERECTION OF SAN MATEO INC 2/9/2018 265152G42071 E 710-13922-5050 296.00 SERVICE AND PROGRAMMING TO REAR GATE
RAY SILVA 2/14/2018 2652812-3-2018 E 710-13951-5021 66.60 REPLACEMENT LABORATORY FAUCET REIMBURS
READYREFRESH 2/14/2018 26527008B0030587323 E 100-13210-5020 48.17 DRINKING WATER FOR ANNEX BUILDING
2/14/2018 26527018B0028246270 E 710-13910-5021 338.65 DRINKING WATER-BILLING PERIOD (12/07/17-01
2/16/2018 26534518B5729903004 E 100-13410-5001 35.22 CORP YARD BOTTLED WATER 1/13/18-2/12/18
2/16/2018 26534518B5729903004 E 781-13610-5001 35.22 CORP YARD BOTTLED WATER 1/13/18-2/12/18
ROZZI REPRODUCTION & SUPPLY IN2/7/2018 265073145021 E 100-13210-5025 79.48 OYSTER POINT JOINT TRENCH INTENT PRINTS
2/7/2018 265073145054 E 100-13210-5025 93.96 OYSTER POINT MYLAR ENLARGEMENT
SAN FRANCISCO HARLEY-DAVIDSON 2/9/2018 265156393488 E 781-13610-5021 168.08 GARAGE OPER SUPPLIES- VEH 41
SERRAMONTE FORD INC 2/7/2018 265076606272 E 781-13610-5021 425.60 GARAGE STOCK & VEH 10
2/7/2018 265076606383 E 781-13610-5021 376.28 GARAGE STOCK OPER SUPPLIES
2/7/2018 265076606384 E 781-13610-5021 376.28 GARAGE STOCK OPER SUPPLIES
2/7/2018 265076606863 E 781-13610-5021 3.57 GARAGE OPER SUPPLIES VEH 1
2/9/2018 265157607353 E 781-13610-5021 31.09 GARAGE STOCK OPER SUPPLIES
SF PINNACLE LIMO INC 2/16/2018 26535011094 E 100-13999-5999 5,100.00 SOUTH CITY SHUTTLE SERVICE 1/8/18 - 1/31/18
Tuesday, February 20, 2018 Page 27 of 33 659
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and2/5/2018 2/18/2018 -City of South San Francisco
PUBLIC WORKS
SIGNWORLD AMERICA 2/7/2018 265089CC 364925 E 100-13430-5021 170.25 TD CC- SIGNS OPER SUPPLIES
SOUTH CITY CAR WASH INC 2/7/2018 2650773098 E 781-13610-5001 1,415.60 JANUARY CAR WASH SERVICE FOR CITY VEHICLES
SOUTH CITY LUMBER AND SUPPLY 2/7/2018 265079937726 E 781-13610-5021 106.15 GARAGE OPER SUPPLIES VEH 288
2/14/2018 265282930338 E 100-13430-5021 15.30 PAINTS & SIGNS OPER SUPPLIES
2/14/2018 265282938509 E 100-13411-5021 14.17 STREET MAINT OPER SUPPLIES
2/14/2018 265282938893 E 100-13450-5021 10.25 SIGNALS OPER SUPPLIES
2/16/2018 265351932089 E 100-13411-5021 59.20 STREET MAINT OPER SUPPLIES
SPARTAN MOTOR CHASSIS, INC. 2/7/2018 265080IN00719385 E 781-13610-5021 96.55 GARAGE OPER SUPPLIES VEH 509
STAPLES BUSINESS ADVANTAGE 2/16/2018 2653528048579390 E 100-13210-5020 142.01 OFFICE SUPPLY FOR ENGINEERING
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 2/9/2018 265159276060/280488 E 710-13310-5037 32.00 DECEMBER 2017 LIVESCAN SUBMISSIONS
STEVEN ENGINEERING 2/7/2018 2650812473120-00 E 710-13943-5051 949.36 REPLACEMENT SENSOR FOR SLUDGE HANDLING
STEWART CHEVROLET 2/7/2018 265082109129 E 781-13610-5021 271.69 GARAGE OPER SUPPLIES VEH 210
2/7/2018 265082109182 E 781-13610-5021 59.65 GARAGE OPER SUPPLIES VEH 247
STOMMEL, INC 2/7/2018 265083SI10786 E 781-13610-5021 646.85 GARAGE- VEH 1 OPER SUPPLIES
SWRCB ACCOUNTING OFFICE 2/9/2018 265161WD-0130977 E 710-13315-5002 5,597.50 ANNUAL PERMIT FEE FOR 7/1/17-6/30/18
2/9/2018 265161WD-0130977 E 740-13820-5002 5,597.50 ANNUAL PERMIT FEE FOR 7/1/17-6/30/18
TELSTAR, INC 2/14/2018 26529593087 E 710-13964-5051 3,076.90 REPLACEMENT INTRUMENTATION PARTS: COPPE
2/14/2018 26529593088 E 710-13944-5051 564.08 REPLACEMENT INTRUMENTATION PARTS: VALVE
TESCO CONTROLS INC 2/14/2018 2652960064067-IN E 100-13450-5021 3,370.36 SIGNAL MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES
THE SWENSON GROUP, INC. 2/16/2018 265353213769 E 710-13910-5074 195.63 CITYWIDE COPIER CHARGES
2/16/2018 265353213769 E 100-13210-5074 516.22 CITYWIDE COPIER CHARGES
2/16/2018 265353213769 E 710-13310-5074 413.74 CITYWIDE COPIER CHARGES
THOMAS FISH COMPANY 2/7/2018 26508722366 E 710-13951-5021 142.50 BIOASSAY SPECIMEN
TRACTION-GENUINE PARTS CO. 2/7/2018 265088853307695 E 781-13610-5021 86.13 GARAGE STOCK OPER SUPPLIES
2/7/2018 265088853307696 E 781-13610-5021 32.68 GARAGE STOCK OPER SUPPLIES VEH 705
2/7/2018 265088853307761 E 781-13610-5021 45.00 GARAGE STOCK & VEH 509 OPER SUPP
2/7/2018 265088853307832 E 781-13610-5021 50.90 GARAGE STOCK OPER SUPPLIES
2/7/2018 265088853307882 E 781-13610-5021 -86.13 GARAGE OPER SUPPLIES-CREDIT
2/9/2018 265167853308021 E 781-13610-5021 8.45 GARAGE STOCK OPER SUPPLIES
2/9/2018 265167853308024 E 781-13610-5021 50.90 GARAGE OPER SUPPLIES
2/9/2018 265167853308169 E 781-13610-5021 11.42 GARAGE OPER SUPPLIES
2/9/2018 265167853308239 E 781-13610-5021 42.21 GARAGE STOCK OPER SUPPLIES
Tuesday, February 20, 2018 Page 28 of 33 660
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and2/5/2018 2/18/2018 -City of South San Francisco
PUBLIC WORKS
TRACTION-GENUINE PARTS CO. 2/9/2018 265167853308282 E 781-13610-5021 11.42 GARAGE STOCK & VEH 311 SUPPLIES
2/9/2018 265167853308283 E 781-13610-5021 42.25 GARAGE STOCK OPER SUPPLIES
UNITED ROTARY BRUSH CORP 2/9/2018 265171CI213676 E 781-13610-5021 756.18 GARAGE STOCK & VEH 311
UNITED SITE SERVICES OF CA 2/14/2018 265301114-6348327 E 710-13922-5051 104.43 RESTROOM FACILITIES SERVICES (02/03-03/02/1
2/16/2018 265358114-6354585 E 710-13922-5051 313.28 PORTABLE RESTROOM FACILITIES SERVICES (02/0
UNIVAR USA INC 2/7/2018 265090SJ861093 E 710-13944-5021 2,690.77 FY 2017-2018 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE
2/9/2018 265172SJ861357 E 710-13964-5021 5,415.28 FY 2017-2018 SODIUM BISULFITE
2/9/2018 265172SJ862055 E 710-13944-5021 2,516.42 FY 2017-2018 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE
2/16/2018 265359SJ863190 E 710-13944-5021 2,611.84 FY 2017-2018 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE
USA FLEET SOLUTIONS 2/7/2018 26509131119 E 781-13610-5001 92.55 GPS FOR STREET SWEEPERS
VERIZON WIRELESS 2/9/2018 2651739800043944 E 710-13310-5071 52.24 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2017
2/9/2018 2651739800043944 E 781-13610-5071 87.50 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2017
2/9/2018 2651739800043944 E 100-13210-5045 657.18 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2017
2/9/2018 2651739800043944 E 100-13410-5045 1,739.94 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2017
2/9/2018 2651739800043944 E 100-13410-5071 203.45 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2017
2/9/2018 2651739800043944 E 100-13411-5071 66.35 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2017
2/9/2018 2651739800043944 E 100-13420-5071 12.67 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2017
2/9/2018 2651739800043944 E 100-13210-5071 283.91 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2017
2/9/2018 2651739800043944 E 100-13450-5071 35.12 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2017
2/9/2018 2651739800043944 E 710-13315-5071 220.53 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2017
2/9/2018 2651739800043944 E 710-13910-5045 2,628.56 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2017
2/9/2018 2651739800043944 E 710-13910-5071 418.32 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2017
2/9/2018 2651739800043944 E 720-13720-5045 466.79 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2017
2/9/2018 2651739800043944 E 720-13720-5071 47.56 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2017
2/9/2018 2651739800043944 E 740-13820-5071 71.41 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2017
2/9/2018 2651739800043944 E 100-13430-5071 26.97 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2017
VIRIDIAN WASTEWATER CONSULTING2/14/2018 2653043/19-3/21/18 E 710-13910-5033 700.00 GRADES 4 & 5 REVIEW FOR NICHOLAS TALBOT
VWR INTERNATIONAL LLC 2/9/2018 2651758081144495 E 710-13951-5021 104.22 LAB SUPPLIES
2/9/2018 2651758081149579 E 710-13951-5021 51.77 LAB SUPPLIES
2/9/2018 2651758081151474 E 710-13951-5021 499.49 LAB SUPPLIES
2/9/2018 2651758081151475 E 710-13951-5021 140.70 LAB SUPPLIES
2/9/2018 2651758081151476 E 710-13951-5021 117.66 LAB SUPPLIES
Tuesday, February 20, 2018 Page 29 of 33 661
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and2/5/2018 2/18/2018 -City of South San Francisco
PUBLIC WORKS
VWR INTERNATIONAL LLC 2/9/2018 2651758081169003 E 710-13951-5021 195.09 LAB SUPPLIES
2/14/2018 2653058081281625 E 710-13951-5021 22.02 LAB SUPPLIES
2/14/2018 2653058081290722 E 710-13951-5021 334.40 LAB SUPPLIES
W.W. GRAINGER INC. 2/7/2018 2650929669847809 E 710-13922-5050 -1,071.97 ITEM RETURN-14613LM LED LAMPS
2/7/2018 2650929672989994 E 710-13922-5051 839.04 LED REPLACEMENT LAMPS
2/7/2018 2650929678714453 E 710-13941-5021 273.28 SAFETY SUPPLIES AND SIGNAGE
2/7/2018 2650929679155300 E 100-13460-5021 223.97 STREETLIGHTING OPER SUPPLIES
2/7/2018 2650929679506858 E 710-13941-5021 89.15 SAFETY SUPPLIES SIGNAGE
2/7/2018 2650929679506866 E 710-13942-5051 201.34 OPERATING SUPPLIES REPLACEMENT CAUTION SI
2/7/2018 2650929680004331 E 710-13922-5021 152.12 OPERATING SUPPLIES- CLEANING SUPPLIES
2/7/2018 265092968102678 E 710-13941-5021 167.98 SAFETY SUPPLIES - ANTI-SLIP TAPE
2/7/2018 2650929681295656 E 710-13941-5050 167.98 OPERATING SUPPLIES- SAFETY SIGNS
2/7/2018 2650929685563752 E 100-13460-5021 42.97 STREETLIGHTING OPER SUPPLIES
2/9/2018 2651769681913134 E 710-13922-5051 744.65 LED REPLACEMENT LAMPS
2/9/2018 2651769683161435 E 710-13932-5051 835.13 ELECTRICAL PARTS
2/9/2018 2651769683176599 E 710-13922-5051 52.69 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES
2/9/2018 2651769684412720 E 710-13941-5021 321.97 SAFETY SIGNS
2/9/2018 2651769684412738 E 710-13941-5021 193.25 SAFETY SIGNS
2/9/2018 2651769685056047 E 710-13943-5051 500.72 REPLACEMENT INSULATED CONNECTORS & ELEC
2/9/2018 2651769685056054 E 710-13922-5021 214.66 SAFETY SIGNS
2/14/2018 2653079686611949 E 710-13930-5051 44.84 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES
WEST COAST POWDER COATING 2/7/2018 2650940398175 E 720-13720-5005 2,400.00 POWDER COATING OF PARKING METERS @ MPG
WILLDAN FINANCIAL SERVICES 2/16/2018 265362010-36849 E 710-13910-5060 1,000.00 FY2016/17 ANNUAL CONTINUING DISCLOSURE S
WINGFOOT COMMERCIAL TIRE SYSTM2/7/2018 265095184-1082054 E 781-13610-5021 300.10 GARAGE OPER SUPPLIES VEH 247
2/7/2018 265095184-1082055 E 781-13610-5021 1,653.97 GARAGE OPER SUPPLIES VEH 307
2/7/2018 265095184-1082056 E 781-13610-5021 633.92 GARAGE OPER SUPPLIES VEH 312
2/7/2018 265095184-1082056 E 781-13610-5001 237.06 GARAGE OPER SUPPLIES VEH 312
2/7/2018 265095184-1082100 E 781-13610-5001 237.06 GARAGE- VEH 508 SUPPLIES & ROAD SERVICE
2/7/2018 265095184-1082100 E 781-13610-5021 1,580.48 GARAGE- VEH 508 SUPPLIES & ROAD SERVICE
2/9/2018 265179184-1082083 E 781-13610-5021 240.48 GARAGE OPER SUPPLIES VEH 107
2/9/2018 265179184-1082132 E 781-13610-5021 481.36 GARAGE OPER SUPPLIES VEH 723
2/9/2018 265179184-1082191 E 781-13610-5021 713.00 GARAGE- OPER SUPPLIES VEH 215
Tuesday, February 20, 2018 Page 30 of 33 662
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and2/5/2018 2/18/2018 -City of South San Francisco
PUBLIC WORKS
XEROX CORPORATION 2/9/2018 265170cc365104 E 100-13210-5045 78.53 JD - SCANNER REPAIR PARTS - PLANNING DIVISIO
ZAP MANUFACTURING INC 2/14/2018 2653101038 E 100-13430-5021 782.41 TRAFFIC MARKINGS OPER SUPPLIES
Payments issued for PUBLIC WORKS $176,290.00
BALANCE SHEET
CITY OF BURLINGAME 2/14/2018 2652124TH QTR 2017/2018 YB 280-21204 9,639.00 BID ASSESSMENTS PASS THROUGH
DISCOUNT PLUMBING 2/9/2018 265116E18-0080 B 270-21703 576.00 ENCROACH DEPOSIT, 1361 HILLSIDE BLVD
R B ROOFING CO INC. 2/14/2018 265267B17-2136 B 270-21724 200.00 C & D DEPOSIT REFUND 2545 POMEROY CT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 2/9/2018 265159276060/280488 B 100-21205 81.00 DECEMBER 2017 LIVESCAN SUBMISSIONS
W S CONSTRUCTION CO 2/14/2018 265306B17-2081 B 270-21724 200.00 C & D DEPOSIT REFUND 238 LAWRENCE AVE
WAVEDIVISION HOLDINGS, LLC 2/14/2018 265308E17-0122 B 270-21703 1,200.00 ENCROACH DEPOSIT,1322 EL CAMINO REAL
Payments issued for BALANCE SHEET $11,896.00
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
BKF ENGINEERS 2/9/2018 26510617110685 E 710-99999-5999 3,361.73 ON CALL SERVICES FOR WATER RESOURCES
CAROLLO ENGINEERS, PC 2/16/2018 2653190164517 E 710-99999-5999 7,043.50 ON CALL WATER RESOURCES SERVICES
CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO2/14/2018 26521102/12/2018 E 710-99999-5999 750.00 LICENSE AGREEMENT FEE - SANITARY SEWER REP
CSG CONSULTANTS INC 2/9/2018 26511514846 E 510-99999-5999 4,045.00 ON CALL CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES FY 17-18
EXPRESS PLUMBING & SEWER 2/9/2018 26512022546P E 740-99999-5999 63,800.00 REPAIR WORK TO CITY STORM LINE AT 359 VALV
FEDEX 2/7/2018 2650405-930-01352 E 510-99999-5999 33.49 US 101 ENCROACHMENT PERMIT APPLICATION
INTERSTATE GRADING & PAVING IN2/9/2018 2651292 E 510-99999-5999 156,484.00 2016 STREET REHABILITATION PROJECT
KITCHELL CEM 2/14/2018 26523976935 E 510-99995-5999 36,403.00 COMMUNITY CIVIC CAMPUS, PM SERVICES, KITC
KJ WOODS CONSTRUCTION INC 2/7/2018 2650541 E 710-99999-5999 6,650.00 SANITARY SEWER & MANHOLE REPLACEMENT PR
PG&E 2/7/2018 265065Contract 1235039 E 510-99999-5999 6,883.69 INSTALLATION OF STREETLIGHT SERVICE POINT A
ROZZI REPRODUCTION & SUPPLY IN2/14/2018 265274145847 E 510-99999-5999 1,578.77 COPIES OF SAN BRUNO CANAL BRIDGE PLAN FOR
TELECOMMUNICATIONS ENG ASSOC 2/9/2018 26516345230 E 510-99999-5999 35,062.19 FIRE DEPARTMENT ALERTING SYSTEM
Payments issued for CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS $322,095.37
DESIGNATED FUND BALANCE
COSTCO 2/7/2018 265089cc364976 B 280-27410 71.97 GK-REFRESHMENTS FOR COLMA CREEK CLEANUP
2/9/2018 265170CC364975 B 280-27408 122.49 EM - LIBRARY STAFF PROGRAM & TRAINING (60-
DEVIL MOUNTAIN NURSERY 2/7/2018 265035171577/1 B 280-27473 8,596.94 TREES FOR STREETS
Tuesday, February 20, 2018 Page 31 of 33 663
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and2/5/2018 2/18/2018 -City of South San Francisco
DESIGNATED FUND BALANCE
GOURMET COFFEE SOLUTIONS INC. 2/16/2018 26532802021802 B 280-27408 166.89 SUPPLIES FOR PUBLIC COFFEE MACHINE
MICHAEL BOROVINA 2/16/2018 2653162/8/18 B 280-27402 85.55 EMPLOYEE REIMB FOR EVENT SUPPLIES
PHILLIP E PERRY 2/14/2018 26526012/04-08/17 B 280-27465 589.17 EXPENSES-CEC-2017 ICC FIRE PLANS EXAMINER P
ROYAL PIN DONUTS 2/7/2018 265089cc364981 B 280-27410 47.80 GK-CPTF A.M. REFRESHMENTS FOR COLMA CLEA
SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSIT DISTR2/14/2018 26527710171055 B 280-27402 405.50 SENIOR REDI-WHEELS FOR NOVEMBER 2017
2/14/2018 26527712171075 B 280-27402 290.00 SENIOR REDI-WHEELS FOR DECEMBER 2017
SCHOOL HOUSE GROCERY 2/7/2018 265089cc364955 B 280-27410 193.50 GK-VOLUNTEER REFRESHMENTS FOR THE HOLID
2/16/2018 2653498621 B 280-27402 803.81 SENIOR LUNCH
STAPLES CREDIT PLAN 2/9/2018 265170CC365153 B 280-27434 143.47 KJC- PROGRAM SUPPLIES
STARBUCKS 2/7/2018 265089cc364978 B 280-27410 31.90 GK-CPTF COLMA CREEK CLEAN UP EVENT COFFEE
2/9/2018 265170CC364956 B 280-27408 25.00 VS - INTERVIEW PANEL AND STAFF APPRECIATIO
TRADER JOE'S 2/9/2018 265170CC364954 B 280-27408 20.00 VS - STAFF APPRECIATION
WALGREENS 2/16/2018 265357CC365539 B 280-27405 19.16 MP: CORP YARD HOSPITALITY
Payments issued for DESIGNATED FUND BALANCE $11,613.15
REFUNDS/REIMBURSEMENTS
ACCURATE PRINTING COMPANY 2/14/2018 265182109781 BL R 100-00000-30403 209.75 BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND - DUPLICATE PAYME
ALECTOR LLC 2/16/2018 265313109449 BL R 100-00000-30403 5,501.50 BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND - DUPLICATE PAYME
AL-TONE OVERHEAD DOORS INC 2/14/2018 265189015578 BL R 100-00000-30403 171.00 BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND - DUPLICATE PAYME
AMELIA ZHOU 2/16/2018 265364983397 R 100-00000-35705 30.00 FINES & FEES REFUND
ARTIST ON WHEELS 2/14/2018 265192109971 BL R 100-00000-30403 154.25 BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND - DUPLICATE PAYME
BAY AREA ASPHALT 2/14/2018 265195102008 BL R 100-00000-30403 156.00 BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND - DUPLICATE PAYME
BILL LEE 2/9/2018 2651331029315 R 100-17230-35303 7.00 REFUND OF OVERPAYMENT FOR SCRIPT CARD
BRAUN EQUIPMENT SERVICES LLC 2/14/2018 265200108618 BL R 100-00000-30403 132.75 BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND - DUPLICATE PAYME
CAFE BUNN MI 2/14/2018 265205109362 BL R 100-00000-30403 265.26 BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND - DUPLICATE PAYME
CALVIN WEI 2/9/2018 2651781030989 R 100-17250-35301 113.00 NO LONGER WANTS ALTA LOMA PARK #2 AND #
CONNIE E. MORRIS, DDS 2/14/2018 265216105362 BL R 100-00000-30403 226.75 BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND - DUPLICATE PAYME
DFS FLOORING 2/14/2018 265221101245 BL R 100-00000-30403 156.00 BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND - DUPLICATE PAYME
DYNASTY CUSTOMS BROKER INC 2/14/2018 265223015432 BL R 100-00000-30403 413.25 BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND - DUPLICATE PAYME
ENDPOINT CONSULTING INC 2/14/2018 265226109521 BL R 100-00000-30403 409.50 BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND - DUPLICATE PAYME
GELLERT DENTAL OFFICE 2/14/2018 265230012612 BL R 100-00000-30403 775.00 BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND - DUPLICATE PAYME
HOEM & ASSOCIATES, INC. 2/14/2018 265234008363 BL R 100-00000-30403 196.00 BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND - DUPLICATE PAYME
Tuesday, February 20, 2018 Page 32 of 33 664
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and2/5/2018 2/18/2018 -City of South San Francisco
REFUNDS/REIMBURSEMENTS
KAREN GUERRERO 2/7/2018 2650491029475 R 100-17250-35301 350.00 REFUND OF HALL DEPPOST
KURT MEISWINKLE INC 2/14/2018 265241105470 BL R 100-00000-30403 156.00 BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND - DUPLICATE PAYME
LAURIE LOO 2/9/2018 2651341030589 R 100-17260-35306 73.80 REFUND REMAINDER OF CLASSES FOR BALLET LE
LUXOR REAL ESTATE SERVICES 2/14/2018 265244106959 BL R 100-00000-30403 150.25 BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND - DUPLICATE PAYME
LYDIA QUIRINDONGO 2/16/2018 2653431031183 R 100-17250-35301 360.00 REFUND OF DAMAGE DEPOSIT
LYRA LLC 2/14/2018 265245106217 BL R 100-00000-30403 172.75 BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND - DUPLICATE PAYME
METRALIGHT INC 2/14/2018 265247102931 BL R 100-00000-30403 129.25 BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND - DUPLICATE PAYME
MICHELLE VINES 2/9/2018 2651741031005 R 100-17240-35305 75.00 REFUND - MIDDLES SCHOOL GIRLS BASKETBALL L
NANCY LUCERO 2/9/2018 265136520785 R 100-00000-35705 18.00 FINES & FEES REFUND
OCEAN EMPIRE SEAFOOD INC 2/14/2018 265252109265 BL R 100-00000-30403 172.75 BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND - DUPLICATE PAYME
ONE HOUR CLEANERS 2/14/2018 265254108489 BL R 100-00000-30403 209.75 BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND - DUPLICATE PAYME
OYSTER PT EYE CARE OPTOMETRY 2/14/2018 265255100136 BL R 100-00000-30403 226.75 BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND - DUPLICATE PAYME
PETROCHEM INSULATION INC 2/14/2018 265261101502 BL R 100-00000-30403 156.00 BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND - DUPLICATE PAYME
PNF SFO LLC 2/14/2018 265263002558 BL R 100-00000-30403 44.00 BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND - DUPLICATE PAYME
RAINA BEACH 2/14/2018 265196107390 BL R 100-00000-30403 66.56 BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND
REDWOOD T&T CORP 2/14/2018 265272109784 BL R 100-00000-30403 129.25 BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND - DUPLICATE PAYME
SAN FRANCISCO BIRD HOTEL 2/14/2018 265275107250 BL R 100-00000-30403 154.25 BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND - DUPLICATE PAYME
SF EXPRESS CORPORATION 2/14/2018 265279110222 BL R 100-00000-30403 265.25 BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND - DUPLICATE PAYME
TERESA BENAVIDES 2/9/2018 2651051029316 R 100-17230-35303 4.50 SCRIPT CARD OVER PAYMENT
TNT DEMOLITION INC 2/14/2018 265297099999 BL R 100-00000-30403 186.75 BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND - DUPLICATE PAYME
TRAVIS TANG 2/9/2018 2651621031004 R 100-17240-35305 75.00 REFUND - ,MIDDLE SCHOOL GIRLS 8TH GRADE BA
TRICIDA INC 2/9/2018 265169107646 BL R 100-00000-30403 4,430.00 BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND - TRICIDA INC
TRINY HERNANDEZ 2/16/2018 2653291031169 R 100-17250-35301 200.00 DAMAGE DEPOSIT RETURNED IN FULL
2/16/2018 2653291031170 R 100-17250-35301 300.00 DAMAGE DEPOSIT RETURNED IN FULL - PART 2
VICKY TORRES 2/9/2018 2651661030056 R 100-17230-35303 91.00 REFUND FOR A CANCELLED AQUATICS CLASS
WENDY TIMBREZA 2/16/2018 265354799849 R 100-00000-35705 24.00 FINES & FEES REFUND
Payments issued for REFUNDS/REIMBURSEMENTS $17,137.87
TOTAL PAYMENTS FOR PERIOD $2,132,959.95
Tuesday, February 20, 2018 Page 33 of 33 665