HomeMy WebLinkAboutECR-Chestnut FEIR_04 25 11El Camino Real /Chestnut Avenue Area Plan
and associated General Plan Amendment,
and Zoning Ordinance Amendment
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
SCH # 2010072015
Prepared for the
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
by
.YA. ..111.. Err & .. Ill..b 11 AT LA
Urban and Regional 11anners
755 Sansome Street, Suite 400
San Francisco, California 941 1 1
0 ho? 415 956 4300,Q, 415 956 7315
APRIL 2011
Table of Contents
Introduction........................................................................................... ............................... 1 -1
Purpose........................................................................................................ ............................... 1 -1
Organization............................................................................................... ............................... 1 -1
Process......................................................................................................... ............................... 1 -2
2 Comments on the Draft EIR .......................................................... ............................2 -1
3 Response to Comments on the Draft EIR ............................. ............................3 -1
Agencies....................................................................................................... ............................... 3 -1
Organizations / Individuals ......................................................................... ............................... 3 -4
OralComments ............................................................................................ ............................3 -4
4 Revisions to the Draft EIR ............................................................... ............................4 -1
Appendix A: Revisions to the Draft Area Plan and Associated General
Plan and Zoning Amendments ............................................................. ............................A -I
Introduction
This Final Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared by the City of
South San Francisco (City) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). The City is the lead agency responsible for ensuring that the proposed El Camino
Real /Chestnut Avenue Area Plan and associated General Plan and Zoning Ordinance
amendments (Plan) comply with CEQA.
PURPOSE
The Final EIR incorporates the Draft EIR (for which a NOP was published July 5, 2010 and a
public scoping meeting was held July 16, 2010) and includes Responses to Comments on the
Draft EIR, and minor corrections and clarifications to the Draft EIR. In accordance with the
requirements of CEQA, the Final EIR only contains responses to significant environmental
issues raised in the comments received on the Draft EIR.
It is intended to disclose to City decision makers, responsible agencies, organizations, and the
general public, the potential impacts of implementing the proposed Plan. This program level
analysis addresses potential impacts of activities associated with approval and implementation
of the Plan, which is described in Chapter 2: Project Description, of the Draft EIR.
The primary purpose of the Final EIR is to respond to comments received on the Draft EIR
during the 45 -day public review period. The review period for the Draft EIR (State
Clearinghouse No. 2010072015) was from February 25, 2011 to April 11, 2011. This document,
combined with the Draft EIR, constitutes the Final EIR on the project. This Final EIR amends
and incorporates by reference the Draft EIR, which is available as a separately bound document
from the City of South San Francisco Planning Division, 315 Maple Ave., in South San
Francisco and online on the City of South San Francisco website at
http:// www.ci.ssf.ca.us /index.aspx ?NID =367.
ORGANIZATION
This document contains the following components:
• Chapter 2 lists all of the agencies and individuals that submitted either written or oral
comments on the Draft EIR; reproduces all comments and provides a unique number
for each EIR comment in the page margin.
• Chapter 3 provides responses to comments, numbered, and in order according to the
comments in Chapter 2.
• Chapter 4 lists revisions to the Draft EIR by chapter and page, in the same order as the
revisions would appear in the Draft EIR. Actual revised pages of the Draft EIR appear
at the end of the section, also in the same order that they would appear in the Draft
EIR.
• Appendix A lists revisions to the Plan and associated General Plan and Zoning Ordin-
ance amendments.
El Camino Real /Chestnut Avenue Area Plan,
and associated General Plan Amendment and Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Final Environmental Impact Report
PROCESS
Upon publication of the Final FIR, the Planning Commission and City Council will hold public
hearings to certify the FIR and to consider adoption of the proposed Plan. The Commission
and Council will determine the adequacy of the Final FIR, and, if determined adequate, will
make findings and certify the document as compliant with CEQA.
Copies of the Final FIR have been provided to agencies and other parties that commented on
the Draft FIR or have requested the Final FIR. The Final FIR is also available at the City of
South San Francisco, Planning Division, 315 Maple Ave., in South San Francisco.
1 -2
2 Comments on the Draft EIR
This chapter contains copies of the comment letters and oral comments received on the Draft
EIR of the proposed Plan. A total of five comment letters were received during the 45 -day
comment period. One additional letter was received after the close of comment period. CEQA
does not require that lead agencies respond to late comments. (Pub. Resources Code,
4 21091(d).) While no response to this late comment is required, one is included in Chapter 3.
Additionally, oral comments were received at a Planning Commission public hearing on the
Draft EIR. Each comment letter is numbered, and each individual comment is assigned a
number in the page margin. Responses to each comment are provided in Chapter 3 of this
document. Please note that only comments on the Draft EIR are addressed in this Final EIR.
Where appropriate, the information and /or revisions suggested in these comment letters have
been incorporated into the Final EIR. These revisions are included in Chapter 4 of this
document. Where comments address the merits of the proposed Plan rather than on the Draft
EIR, this is noted in the response.
Comments Received on the proposed Plan
Com-
ment #
Date
AgencylOrganization
Commenter
Agencies (Federal, State Regional, Local) (A)
AI
March 15, 2011
San Francisco International Airport
John Bergener
A2
March 28, 2011
City /County Association of Governments of
San Mateo
David Carbone
A3
April 11, 2011
Department of Transportation
Becky Frank
A4
April 12, 2011 (re-
ceived after close of
comment period)
Town of Colma
Colette Meunier
Organizations /Individuals (B)
BI
April 5, 2011
South San Francisco Rotary Club
Dennis Rosaia
B2
April 11, 2011
Kaiser Permanente
Linda Jensen
Oral Testimony (C)
CI
April 7, 2011
Planning Commission Hearing on Draft EIR
Oral Comments
2 -1
March 15, 2011
Mr. Gera* Beaudin, AICP
Senior Planner
Citv of South San Francisco
Economic and Community Development Department
Planning Division
P. O. Box 711
South San Francisco, CA 94083
.. ...........
.. ...........
rr rri
..............
.. ...........
..............
..............
..............
', ...........
i
rr�
Sant Fr aricisc r lnt rrtatlona , rpart
Subject: El Camino Real /Chestnut Aiwnue Area Plan, Draft En>ironmental Impact
Report — City of South San Francisco
Dear Mr. Beaudin:
Thank you for notIA-ing San Francisco International Airport (SFO or the Airport) of the
availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the El Camino Real /Chestnut
Avenue Area Plan (the Plan). We appreciate this opportunity to coordinate Nvith the City of South
San Francisco (the City) in considering and evaluating potential land use compatibility issues that
this and similar projects may pose for the Airport.
Airport staff has revieNved the Plan's DEIR that Nvas made available for public review on
February 25, 2011. This letter presents the Airport's comments on the proposed project.
As described in the DEIR, the Planning Area encompasses approximately 98 acres in the
geographic center of the City along El Camino Real, and includes lands formerly ovmed by the
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, the Kaiser Hospital site, and the City's Municipal
Services Building. The Planning Area envisions a new mixed -use district oriented toNvard
pedestrian and transit access, Nvith medium to high density development. At project buildout, the
Planning Area could contain up to a total of 1,500 residential units and 2,500 jobs.
Located approximately three miles northNvest of the Airport, the Planning Area is subject to the
policies of the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan (CLUP) for SFO. The SFO CLUP
addresses issues related to compatibility between airport operations and surrounding land use
development, considering noise impacts, safety of persons on the ground and in flight, height
III - III restrictions /airspace protection, and overflight notification. Land use development Nvithin the
Airport Influence Area is currently governed by the CLUP adopted by the City /County
Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C /CAG) in 1996, amended 1998. The SFO
CLUP is in the process of being updated and is anticipated to be completed by mid -2011. Since
AIRPORT OOMM ISSIONl Cpl °' AND C VICTY OF SAN FRAWS
E15WIN M✓aw Lft LARNY MAZ201.,A A"m 5, CRd Y10N LUANOR [OHNI AICHAWD A' (W6(j 41111ME PETE!A A 51 E ftN 10111N L MAR'VI
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
pry (Dffdw.M� Box 8,097 Swl fir,soluY Iiv co, V,wahff` tnia 94128 'To1650. V 11 30M F w 650. 8,21 .1304)5 N w.flyf wwm
Mr. Gerry Beaudin, AKT
March 1 S, 2011
Page 2 of 3
the CLUP update is likely to be completed and adopted before the Final EIR, it is advisable to
consider the policies of the draft updated CLUP in preparing the environmental documentation.
Future development Nvithin the Planning Area should be consistent Nvith CLUP policies Nvith
regard to height, noise, and safety compatibility. This is supported by South San Francisco
General Plan Policy 2 -I -22, which states: "Require that all future development conforms Nvith 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."
In order to protect airspace used for aircraft departure and arrival procedures, the height of new
development surrounding the Airport must be maintained below defined critical airspace
protection surfaces. Figure 3.9 -1, provided by SFO in August 2010, illustrates that the ground
elevation of the Planning Area is estimated to be at least 160 feet below SFO's composite critical
III -2 airspace protection surface. According to a preliminary airspace analysis, the maximum
permissible building height at the former San Francisco Public Utilities Commission site, where
the greatest discretionary building heights Nvould be alloNved, is approximately 240 feet above
mean seal level (AMSL). At the Safewa -,T /Chestnut Center site, the maximum permissible
building height is approximately 220 feet AMSL. The finished height of any proposed
development should be maintained below critical airspace protection surface limits.
With regard to noise impacts, the Planning Area is situated outside of the Airport's 65 dB CNEL
noise contour. HoNvever, the Planning Area is still subject to intermittent noise from aircraft
III -3 departing SFO, in addition to other sources of ambient noise. Proposed land uses should meet the
interior noise requirements of the 2007 California Building Code and the South San Francisco
General Plan.
III -4 The Planning Area is not situated Nvithin a runwa -,T end safety zone for SFO, and therefore the
proposed project does not pose an airport land use compatibility issue Nvith regard to safety.
A minor correction may be needed to a statement on page 3.9 -6. The end of the second paragraph
III -5 reads: "CLUP guidelines regarding noise are presented in Section 3.2." This should more
appropriately refer to Section 3.5.
The Airport appreciates your consideration of these comments. If I can be of assistance as the
City considers airport land use compatibility as they relate to this project or future projects, please
do not hesitate to contact me at (650) 821 -7867 or at john.bergenera- .fIvsfo.com
Sincerely,
John Bergener
Airport Planning Manager
San Francisco International Airport
Bureau of Planning and Environmental Affairs
Mr. Gerry Beaudin, ART
March 1 S, 2011
Page 3 of 3
cc: Nixon Lam, SFO, Manager of Environmental Affairs
Dave Carbone, Airport Land Use Commission
�[E0_11M11M11111MT` 1 1ET`T`11E11RA2 Nomprom
City/County Association of Governments
• San Mateo County
Atherton - Belmont - Brisbane - Burlingame - Colma - Daly City - East Palo Alto - Foster City - Half Moon Bay
- Hillsborough - Menlo Park - Millbrae - Pacifica - Portola Valley - Redwood City - San Bruno - San Carlos - San Mateo
Mateo County - South San Francisco - Woodside
March 23, 2011 '! . .. .....
I W -
NE: C/CAG Airport Land Use Committee (ALUC) Staff Comments on the Relevant
Content of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the El Camino
ReallChestnut Land Use Plan and Associated General Plan and Zoning
Ordinance Amendments
, =01 Mill nosiM1111:11 -1 •
110
"TT=M17=- -
The airport/land use compatibility issues of concern to the C/CAG Board are (1) height of
structures/airspace prutection, (2) aircraft noise impacts, and (3) runway end safety issues.
Each issue related to the proposed project is addressed on the next page.
ALUC Chairperson: ALUC Vice Chairperson: C/CAG Airport Land Use Committee (ALUC) Staff:
Richard Newman Ann Keighran, Council Member David F. Carbone, Transportation Systems Coordinator/Airport Environs
Aviation Representative City of Burlingame, California Planning, County of San Mateo Planning and Building Department.
555 COUNTY CENTER, 5TH FLOOR, REDWOOD CITY, CA 94063 - 650/599-1406 - 650/594-9980
This rewritten text is more "height of structures" specific than the current text in Section 4.4
and supports the text in the second paragraph on p. 3.9-7.
1 ........................................................................ 'Runway Safety Issues/Zones. The El Camino ReallChestnut Land Use Plan is not
A2-5 located within any runway end safety zones for San Francisco International Airport.
Therefore, runway safety is not an airport land use compatibility issue for future
.................... ............ development on the project site.
A2-6 p. 3.5-12 Add the following sentence at the end of the last full paragraph regarding the
Airport/Community Roundtable:
l i a ll o oll�illillillillillillilliilillilI IN! I'll 11111111
A2-7 p. 3.9-6 Revise the second sentence in the first paragraph to read as follows:
"The updated Plan will include the 2001/2006 FAA-accepted Noise Exposure Maps
"The proposed Plan would adhere to policies set forth in the 1996 CLUP (Amended
in 1998)."
"The updated Flan will include the 2001/2006 FAA-accepted Noise Exposure ffinaps
cc: C/CAG Airport Land Use Commiftee (ALUC) Members
Richard Napier, C/CAG Executive Director
Richard Newman, C/CAG ALUC Chairperson
John Bergener, SFO Planning Manager
� � �t
[ C 0 IIM IIM IIE N'T I 11E'I
11 .................................................................................................................................................................
TOMN OPCOLNIA
PLANNING DEPART)l
.............. .............. . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .............. "I'll",
April 11, 20.11
I
Mr. Gerry Beaudin, Senior Planner
City of South San Francisco Planning Division
P,O. Box 711
South San Francisco,, CA 94083
VIA Email r
Lt)
Itc) 1,1 C"Anilin"D Rt..d a ("cAll ("'alifornia 9�1,0I1
Phone� (65o) 9 0 FAX ( 9
RE: Environmental Imipact Report (EIR) — El Camino Rea Area Plan
lzmmaw=
is you for the opportunity to review and' comment on the Draft Environmental
Impact Report (DEIR) for the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan (Plan). Afte
review of the DEIR, the Planning Department offersthe following comment,s on beha
of the'Town of Colmai: I
5 oil 0
Letter to SSF April 11, 2011
Comments on D R, - El Carnino Real/Chestnut, Avenue Area Plan Page 2 of 2
oil
1 WHOM=
gJ11*3#111SO am I I; r, I fram is
W
At P'lan buildout, and as other areas such as the Treasure Island Mobile Home Park are
redeveloped with Medium Density Resil ential uses in accordance with the South San
Francisco General Plainthere will be a signcant increase in traffic volumes along El
Camino Real. The intersections north of Hickey Boulevard have not been evaluated in
the DEIR, and impacts associated with, Plan buildout could detrimentally affect the
Town of Colma's circulation and
transportation network. We request that the DEIR
buildout along El Camino Real north of Hickey Boulevard. At
Include the impacts of Pla
a minimurn, anal'ysis, should be Provided for the intersection of Arlington Drive and El
Camino Real.
"s r-MOUMIN t
C. Laura Allen, Colma City Manager (dectronically)
Brad Donohue, Deputy Public Works Director (electronically)
... ... ........ .... ....... ....... .......
Almi 15, 20 11
Chy of SmAi San Francisc��) Planrting Ccmnmission
Planning Nvkimr
cAy Hall
400 Graod Avenix,
South an Fram,isco. (,,,A �)*'V)
td C'amnno RealX-Iiestnut rk'venue Ares 1 axi & Associated Gencial Pl-an
Ammidmesa and Zoriing Or(]inance Arn,endiri('111
Dear Planninig ('c'� Wn"�,bers�
Thank you i"Z)r 1.1.6s opporaimitym 1,'x'ovide you "Ali, comulentson the F,] Catninc)
Re",11/01'eslni]L Averiue Nrea Plan, & Ass("x, (3o 1"I'lan
1,cming Ordinance
III III III Tl'ic overall m� ision Set fo'rt� i n I 1"'le /fire a Plan is a VVq mot ing one W (mr Coy
Thie Rotary Cub of Somh San Fkanciw,"I' toc)ks fi')rward to being"PW1 of its
implementation by sponsoring the 01mclopmem of an atmactively designed
aftli.'rrdabtc segficir hc)tisirig comri'll""u'lity consis'ling of 100 units.
We belicve ffiat our paxfiL�ipation in the dkl�'Ca Plan vvilli sig"filricantly enh�'511ce
camumnity omppml R w 11'iecrvietall j,')rc)grmrr VoT thiS Vf.�01,SOR, Wt-,� N-IieTeit iS
m'iport�""I'm th"It the Plan m(',1trde maligic lain amers that iaccornmindme dic
flasibUity Of SUch anat"R.')vdable senjor fioi, sing
Wc� have engRged HKWArWems, whc) 60
pm,miks emailng 5000 uniN ofoUbWaNe senior housing- kVc have als('l
:selected a:ii expevienced mJcvelcqment pannar American Baptistffonies ofthe
WesL QUA10AVIMich has miccessfufly devdoped 23 wrik')r hous,'ing
conmunhies cam mpiiing arm er 4,150 urdis, inclulng 12 a0blAW smim
houNg pnMgydes HKIT and ABI-10M ll'ilrve assim.cd 5.�ts in rwcpannj., tke
Wowing c which a,ie intunded lo suggem modrfications requked to
ac,c,oairnod al c the NOW Lit a r a 1 00 mink 05440',� senior llon.sing
ccrml 1munril Y,
housing in 1,11 e 1?1 high dens'hy nudimit teddeMMI in generat
2, &v both (,,urr'( m and conditions, the 15 for
residential tomms shown at Me lo,cation ctf the popeny most st6mble Or
aflIm-dable s,enlrmrdr housing m 11 most likely not be f , t�asiblc I' r a
no mtbel,' of years, - rtii s i'aci is reno,:,wmi in,
RQ,BQX563
SWJTI-r
SAN FRANCrSCO
CA 94080
the site development listed as Phase 5 in the city's program. The
site's raster -plan indicates a, single development approach to each of
the 3 residential towers thus requiring a joint venture for tile
affordable senior housing component with a market rate multifamily
development. We would like to see the affordable senior component
acknowledged and located as a, potential separate element in the
rnaster-plan along the creek side that can be developed independently
fironi the eventual market that will drive the viability of the high
density residential towers. The 2 residential components can then
complement each other and perhaps join at a cornmon phased parking
structure, The desired high site density would then be achieved over
the entire site development as a goal, while allowing the senior
component to be built and financed in a time line and economic
climate that reflects the opportunities available to nonprofit
developers versus the larger more volatile markets that drive t�ypical
multifamily developers.
3. As the Area Plan is presently written,, there is no practical way for an
,affordable low-income housing development to move Forward independent
of the other developments in the Plan. Funding cycles and development
limelines unique to affordable housing should be given, more consideration
when adopting a final Plan.
4. The proposal to include a ryunimUrn density of SO units per acre at this site
also presents problems for the development of senior affordable housing.
Given the current sources of public funding foi such housing such as the
l IUD Section 202 and Low-Incorne Housing Tax Credit programs, it would
be difficult to create a feasible financing structure that would allow fbr
much more than 1100 units, Also, the limitations of these federal sources of
Binding and the per-Unit costs of developing a inid-rise or high-rise property
would likely require: that an unusually large arnount of city funding be
secured.
We would suggest that an affordable housing overlay zone be included for
this site that would allow for a minii density of 50 units per acre. This
zone could also specify that only 40 percent of the site in question could be
eligible for this use, with the balance to be developed at 100 units per
acre, If this zone were created, the senior affordable housing development
could move forward quickly and independently while still allowing the site
as a whole to meet the original 80 unit per acre minimum density target,
Alternatively or additively, a master planning process could also be used to
allow for the inclusion of these affordable senior units in a manner that is
feasible arid, that is cowatible with the ovell goals and intention of the
area, plan.
5- "The coTwerns above also relate to the Plan recomniendation that the portion.
(. the site in (piestion'be developed. as the last of five phases. We argethat
the City provide for badly needed, afforoable senior housing to move
for on the fa mest firrie frarrie possible,
urge you to mnsider modifications to the draft Area Plari that will
accommodate the reasibifity of a, well-designed 100 unit affordable senior
housing cornplex- "I'he Delmr(trient of Health and I-Rallan Services'
Administration on. Aging ageticy rep orls that 1, out f v rry 2 d y
erl
house Mold s eam less than our Area Media, loan onie. The average time on the
waiting lists ofsernor bousing conInTUnifies in the City is2-5 years. Witbflie
rise in the number of baby-boomers, the demand of they type Of h0USir.Ig
proposed will increase exponentially ir thecoming years.
The South San Franckeo Rotary Club is excited by the prospect (, being part of
this important element of our City's fitture. We hope to Play an imponant role
ui� helping to make the vision of th.e Area Plan corn to fruition, MI e look
forward as well to working with the City on approp standards foi much
needed. afl'brdable senior houmg,
Than you for your attention and consideration,
1011 KAISER, PERMANENTEce,
ApH I IL 201
Ni r. Nfike Lapl pen
Fcotuijiiic �Develo lat
farrient Co , or
Deparivnexit of [Ec(,) auid (,oinTnwdt)r Deve lay pimeapt
Ciq (A'Soirth, S"in Fnancis
315 Woe A"evue
S(�,ntth Baru I`rancisoo, CA, 9408:3
Kaki ep Pw"nwiemv Medkal Comm,,
Re: El ("4111j"o, Real/chestnut Avefsueikrear Plan - Draft F`nvir( 'ipact
�Repart
De-,tr N4,r. L
"nmnk you hm the opportunily to r,vview the Draft Impact Report (br the E]
Camino Real)(7hestnut Avenite Area Plan ("DEIR")
flue Kaiser NWdical Center MrRruly occupies ov'er 2(L4 acres %A the 98 acre El
Carnino)(leswin Avenue Am 14an (I Area Flatf ) awa and Crony enAly 1, slate of the
gui inwgrmed rneodical care scrvices ix) 3316 of South San Fmncisco residents. ()or substantial
presence in the kxal an.d broider Smah San FMCiSe() C(HII[THU'lity wil I roniain anal will
respond to the needs of" q, nicinbers heaftftcare rmarket IN- thie
fum and dray IHI of dw Area Plan, Hiser Permariente ("`f aisQx") WOUld like to
concerns aK,)ul: the DETIR. thelroject Deserilption and die analysis clontained,
in die DEIR.
....................... I ()ur rnajo• concern is that the Area Plan and Fun1posed Zonhig Ord inance Atn�en(Jnwnt does
not adequawly acknovdedge ot- address the presence of the Kaiser Niedical Ctnter, rio•
acknowleidge that It will rcniai,rt, expand, adapt and change ovvr the I& of Me i9ca Phi n as a
ky and %lial citiinponent of the Plan. MHe the Area Plain menfions dir pres nice of flie
132-1 Kaker WWI Unter. auid (711 slaff"clearly ac k.no%v ledges hi public study sesskms Mal the
NUN] Cenwr in one of the regional avtractio and features Area Pkin the Medical
Cenwr qjwwN to be an, ahi'tost tatigen6al afterthoughtwhen reading, 1he Area Plaxi,.,, Thiis,
r in a s;oniewhat confiming Project Eksaymbn hi Me DE Ut hi which it is unclear what
ilie Kaiser W1121 Water in the Agra llhtn,
[:,xacerhating this
. pr(, is th�, tlie Areki Plari—Zcniing ("ode Awwndtnan and DUR conmin
comems dul are too prc�Cripfiv�r,and ttnwcessafily tvNi:t'i10 redevelqj,, niient ()PpOrl U,ni ties
V%Vetprw ,% Baqj4evard
Redwood Oly, Cahfewi4a 94063-2087 pa- 1 457704 ,
WSW =wo
mm"M MN Mh
Mr. Mike U"I p en
Apri I l, 201 l
Page Two
prioi.7 to any specific pro " iiect-le'vel phanning by Kaisei, We are concerned that t1lis
pretnaftltd)� MSU language has resulted in an enivironn, anal in the I)EIR that.
Will preclude further discussio13s between Kaiser and, (lie City pric)ri 110 adcTtion, oftheAiva
I'lan a nd Zoning Ordinance Amenthii'ient regarding, appr( mutually livneficial
niodilleatio to the Area Plan and Zoning ( - di nanicc Aniendrnent, Spedfically, with
respect to thc Zoning Ordhmrice Amenchnient Kaim is concerned tbat the Medical Center is
II,,, S 2 - 2 nap] it between two dilki zx designations, the El C',i Mixed kJse North, Mediulml.
Intensity alid, thin, Et Camit"to Mixed Use North, 1-figh Intietisity zones., With; its unique
integrated care delive r.) inodel, Kaiser needs to retait.i the flexibility to provide all tYI)CS ot
medical services anywhere on its canipus. As proposed, hospital uses are not perlifitted III
the EI (.'anlino Mixed Use N0,1111, I ligh Intensity portion of the Nd'edical Center thereby
prepnialurely Precluding Kaiser fro m expanding on to property fliat it has acquired Soir
eXj)aIIMOn j)LU'P(')SCS, NI sorne date in the not so clistana flutui,re Kaiser will need to replace
portions 01" the existing hospital iii order to inneet regpilatory requiriernents and to provide the
beM possible healtl°u care to its nienibem, "I"he pr(,)posed z(mws are undul restrictivv aud
usurp the role of tlie Ph Gr:;mwissirOIII '1111(l Cjj)i' ( in deteninining, the inaster
planned of' Kaiseri's South San Francisco Medical Celiter.
........................ Addifi(mally, i'nanyi of thie specific development statularcls containied, in the proPosed Zot
Ordinance Ainicndiiiient And the Area Man, appear specifically aimeld at residential aind
c ialdevelopiTiejit,, Health care a,Jjjd niedical centers in partiCLI.Iar ate highlyi
specialized dtvielopments needing to urine specifilc foderal, and slate sakty, privacy, 11-juinciat
II,,, S 2 - 3 and other regulatory dernarids. Whips Kaiser appreciates H. until it has as better sense of ilea
long- Iiiii ch I
Plans for the NIedical. ( enter, an;d is prepared to engage i n. a sl,)1w I'lic planning
le proicies-,, it is preniature to include stir standards in the Area Plan dnd Zoning
Ordiinance Aj:13endment. Tile cumej, dievelo pet neat ,aanda,rds are,tiot necessarily appro Im ate
as ihey are too prescriptive and resirictivc.fat a.mIlliMU111, Kaiser would appreciate
additionall language included in, the ii Plan and Zonirig Ordinance Aniiendn'leant that
Meognizes the uniquo n')Ie of" Medical Center deveiopnieta ari,d an acknowledgernent flvit the
proposed, developnient stamlards i I rtiot be app] ield literal lyi, Wesee:krC(:):tlfill°n'latlioNI'llia,t l�lie
ad(fition of" thestatenientor ppr'hwi ple m.piestedby Kaiser R)i• the developn:iient oil' adlernati ve
le-velo inIent Saandards an,d i
p gn guideflines fo:r die 6 edioul Centei are within the s,c(:)Pe
the DI-IR,
Bas end , on the Ibregoing we believe that ilit is hni, fior Kaisiei-- arn d tile City to begitt
meeting immediately to dliscus appropriate niodifications to dw Area Plain i Zoning
III S 2 - 4 Ordinance Amendinent to onsure that thiese ainendments do ncit restrict Kaisers ability to
cxN; its c,peri in South Saari Francisco pursuant to an reasoned dialogue i the city
and K.aiser's own erivin"nuliental review proeess. Kaiser resPectfully rieclutiststhat thy, City
instruct staffto trio if thy;, DI"IR. in acc with thc&e Co'llic'ey'lls.
Mr. Mike 1"appel"l,
Apri I 11, 20 1, 1
Page "h hr
mummmur,
As onc of the largest emp,'l(, in the City, Kzdser Perrvianonite WOUld, fikethe flexibifity 'to
temain and grom its Medical Ce"11ter in dve Cily Of South San, F'v Once again, th, an k
toreviov and provide. conunents on rho DIEUR, Please let ine know if
you have rrn,.Y quesfiorls or t discuss 111ese matters; Further an I look 1,orvvvtrr'] u) rTkCeUtlg
w you in the near 1.1iture,
S i o'cere IV �
T. is PmSident & Area Managcr - Sa.ji Mateo
pa- 14 5 7704
[ . iii iii,,,,,, ii .............. iI iii
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS MADE AT THE PLANNING
COMMISSION HEARING ON THE DRAFT EIR
Planning Commission Hearing April 7, 2011
Hollis Harris
My name is Hollis Harris, Vice President of Capital Projects for Kaiser Permanente and I am here
tonight speaking for Kaiser Permanente. We have been in South San Francisco for over 60 years
as Kaiser Permanente. We opened our first hospital at Grand and Spruce and moved to our
current site in 1975 and have been growing that site since then. We actually had an earlier
involvement in South San Francisco that Doctor Garfield, one of our founders, had an original
practice here in South San Francisco servicing the long shoremen who worked out at Oyster
Point. So we feel very committed and very much a part of the community. In fact 33 percent of
III III your residents are Kaiser Permanente members and we are proud of that fact, quite proud of that
fact. We fell asleep at the wheel a little bit and missed the fact that the Draft EIR was out. We
caught wind of it and found it earlier this week. So we don't have specific comments to make but I
just wanted to say we will be submitting a letter by Monday the deadline with our comments as
we are scrambling to figure them out. We look forward to working with staff and the Commission
on the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance changes to the Plan. That's all I have to say. I did it
under three minutes. Thank you.
Patrick Brosnan
My name is Patrick Brosnan and I am looking at it from the point of view of, my family, we own
some apartments at the corner of Grand and Mission. And just from my looking, I just started
looking at it a few days ago, and my concern is with traffic, especially between Oak and Grand
Avenue. It seems that the very high density residential, I think about 500 units are going in there,
111 -2 it seems that the only place to really approach, for cars to approach those buildings is on Mission
Road. So that is concerning to us that there are so many residents right there and I don't see any
other area that they can approach other than Mission Road, right off of Grand. That seems like a
lot of traffic for such a small road. As far as the Environmental Report, that is what really jumps
out at me.
Charles Bona
My name is Charles Bona and I am with the Mission Road Dental Center located on Mission
Road. We have been located there for about 30, 40 years. This is very important to us and I don't
know why we didn't get more notice about this Environmental Impact Report. I really feel like we
are being pushed on the 11t to come up with things that seem to give a little concern for those
111 -3 tenants, those people who are currently owners of property within the confines of the 98 acres.
And so I just wanted to say that I am not familiar with this process to a great degree but I wish we
had more notice on this because I don't know what the impacts going to be because I don't know
enough details. Perhaps we are going to have a lot more of an opportunity to work with the staff
as it finalizes and gets down to the nitty gritty, but I just wanted to make this comment at this
time.
Anna Macedi
My name is Anna Macedi and my comment is as a resident of South San Francisco, I did not
receive a notice of this meeting. I would think that this project affects every resident of South San
Francisco and not those within that specific area being planned. So I would've hoped that you
111 -4 would have taken that into consideration because the area you are discussing is already a traffic
L area so I don't see how this would benefit or improve the area at all. So I would hope that you take
that into consideration.
° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° °. George Flynn
By the information just given, it sounded like the traffic concerns were involved directly in the
111 -5 Environmental Impact Report.
It sounds like the Environmental Impact Report grievances, arguments, whatever, it sounds like
the end of that is going to be on May 11t And it sounds that looking from the presentation that
that includes the traffic impact and all of that. Is that correct?
Richard Hedges
If I may, not trying to usurp the chair or the Commissioners. Just to make a comment about EIRs
in general. But first Mr. Lohring wanted me to comment and I do too about how well you have
handled this, how well your explanation was in particular about what the EIR is doing tonight.
And I want to thank you for that. I think that EIRs in a lamen's opinion are much like
constitutions. They are the rule of law or the rule of development for the City. They lay out the
111 future plans and what can be developed in an area. For example, if you would look at another city
who went through a similar process that you are going through right now, San Mateo, with the
corridor plan over a long period of time that laid out the rules about what would be developed
there and later was incorporated into the City plan, overall General Plan by vote of the
population, overwhelmingly 85 percent I might add. What I heard the most concern about
tonight was traffic and that's always a concern for folks who live near any development. And what
I would say tonight would have been the time for you to look at the modeling used for the
documents, traffic in the EIR, for instance the model, you might find fault with it if a supercenter
was going in and the modeling used was for a grocery store. Those would be the things you would
bring up tonight to try to overturn. So it is simply not the night if you have some long term
concerns about the development as you said. I think you explained it very well.
3 Response to Comments on the Draft EIR
This chapter includes responses to each comment, and in the same order, as presented in
Chapter 2. The responses are marked with the same number - letter combination as the
comment to which they respond, as shown in the margin of the comment letters.
AGENCIES
A I: San Francisco International Airport
AI -I: The current and most recently adopted Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan (CLUP)
for San Francisco International Airport (SFO) was adopted by the City /County
Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C /CAG) in 1996, amended 1998;
therefore it was considered when preparing the Draft EIR. According to Dave Carbone
from C /CAG, via phone correspondence on March 16, 2011, the public review draft of
the SFO CLUP update is not yet ready for release, and adoption of the SFO CLUP
update is not anticipated until the end of 2011. Adoption of the proposed Plan is
anticipated to precede adoption —and possibly publication —of any update to the
CLUP. Accordingly, the Plan is evaluated in light of the existing, and only available
CLUP. As further described in Response AI -3, development within the Plan area will
comply with the City's General Plan, including Policy 2 -I -22.
AI -2: Comment noted. As the comment states, Figure 3.9 -1 illustrates that the ground level
elevation of the Planning Area is estimated to be at least 160 feet below SFO's
composite critical airspace protection surface. Since nowhere in the Planning Area are
heights greater than 160 feet permitted, SFO's composite critical airspace protection
surface limit will not be exceeded. The former San Francisco Public Utilities
Commission site is approximately 50 feet above mean sea level. The maximum
permitted height on that site is 160 feet with discretionary review; therefore the
maximum permitted height of structures on that site would be approximately 210 feet
above mean sea level, which is below the critical airspace protection surface limit of 240
feet for the site. The Safeway /Chestnut Center site is approximately 40 feet above mean
sea level. The maximum permitted height on that site is approximately 120 feet with
discretionary review; therefore the maximum permitted height of structures on that site
would be approximately 160 feet above mean sea level, which is below the critical
airspace surface limit of 220 feet above mean seal level for the site. Therefore, as the
Draft EIR states, the proposed Plan does not conflict with heights established for SFO's
airspace.
AI -3: This information is provided in Section 3.5 of the Draft EIR. As stated on page 3.5 -18
of the Draft EIR, new development under the proposed Plan would have to adhere to
noise standards in Section 20.300.010 of the Zoning Ordinance. In addition, future
development would also have to adhere to Title 24 and noise policies set forth in the
South San Francisco General Plan, which would effectively mitigate noise impacts.
AI -4: Comment noted. This information is provided on page 3.9 -6 of the Draft EIR.
3 -1
El Camino Real /Chestnut Avenue Area Plan,
and associated General Plan Amendment and Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Final Environmental Impact Report
AI -5: In response to the comment, the section reference on page 3.9 -6 has been updated.
A2: City /County Association of Governments of San Mateo
A2 -1: This is a comment regarding the process established by Public Utilities Code Section
21676, rather than the Draft FIR. In order to comply with the process, a request was
sent on March 30, 2011 to Dave Carbone of the C /CAG Airport Land Use Committee
(ALUC) to review the Plan at the next ALUC and C /CAG meeting. The Plan is on the
ALUC agenda for May 19, 2011 and on the C /CAG agenda for June 9, 2011.
A2 -2: See response to Comment AI -2.
A2 -3: In response to the comment, the regulatory setting under San Mateo County
Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan on page 3.9 -6 has been updated.
A2 -4: In response to the comment, reference has been added to the Summary of Impacts on
page 3.9 -7 to indicate that detailed noise analysis is located in Section 3.5 of the Draft
FIR.
A2 -5: In response to the comment, the Summary of Impacts on page 3.9 -7 has been updated
to include reference to runway end safety zones.
A2 -6: In response to the comment, the description of the Airport /Community Roundtable on
page 3.5 -12 has been updated to include reference to the City of South San Francisco.
A2 -7: In response to the comment, the regulatory setting under San Mateo County
Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan on page 3.9 -6 has been updated.
A2 -8: In response to the comment, the Summary of Impacts on page 3.9 -7 has been updated.
A2 -9: In response to the comment, the regulatory setting under San Mateo County
Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan on page 3.12 -15 has been updated.
A3: Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
A3 -1: Comment noted.
A4: Town of Colma
A4 -1: Comment noted. The comment restates portions of the analysis, but does not raise a
significant environmental issue with the analysis. No further response to this comment
is required.
A4 -2: The comment restates certain information provided in the Draft EIR's traffic chapter,
expresses a general concern regarding the increase in traffic, and requests analysis of
additional intersections. The scope of the Draft EIR's traffic analysis, including the
specific intersections to be evaluated, was developed in consultation with the California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and nearby agencies and jurisdictions,
including the commenter, were invited to participate in that scoping process. Per
3 -2
Chapter 3: Response to Comments on the Draft EIR
CEQA Guidelines 4 15082(a), upon deciding that an environmental impact report was
required for the Plan, the City of South San Francisco prepared a Notice of Preparation
which was mailed to responsible agencies, including the Town of Colma, on July 5,
2010. Under CEQA, when a responsible agency fails by the end of the prescribed 30-
day period to provide the lead agency with either a response to the notice or a well-
justified request for additional time, the lead agency may presume that none of those
entities have a response to make. (CEQA Guidelines 4 15082(b)(2) and 4 15103.) The
City of South San Francisco did not receive a response to the Notice of Preparation
from the Town of Colma. In addition to the Notice of Preparation, the City of South
San Francisco also conducted a scoping meeting to determine the scope and content of
the environmental information that responsible agencies may require. The notice of the
scoping meeting, held on July 16, 2010, was provided in the Notice of Preparation. The
Town of Colma did not attend the scoping meeting. The City did, however, work with
Caltrans to establish the scope of the traffic study. Caltrans' responses to the Notice of
Preparation were included in Appendix A of the Draft EIR. These responses and
correspondence from the lead agency's consultant is provided in Chapter 4 for
reference. Pursuant to Caltrans' request, the lead agency expanded the scope of the
traffic study to evaluate additional intersections that Caltrans believed could have
potentially significant impacts resulting from adoption of the Plan.
Upon completion of the Draft EIR, the City of South San Francisco prepared a Notice
of Availability which was mailed to the Town of Colma on February 25, 2011.
The Notice of Availability specified the 45 -day public review period, beginning on
February 25, 2011 and ending at 5:00 pm on April 11, 2011. During the public review
period, a Planning Commission Public Hearing was conducted on April 7, 2011 to
receive oral public comments on the Draft EIR. The Town of Colma did not provide
any oral comments at the Public Hearing. At the end of the public review period
specified in the Notice of Availability, comments had not been submitted by the Town
of Colma. A comment letter from the Town of Colma was received on April 11, 2011
via email at 5:32 pm, after the end of the public review period.
Per CEQA Guidelines 4 15207, if any public agency fails to comment within a
reasonable time as specified by the lead agency, it shall be assumed, absent a request for
a specific extension of time, that such agency or person has no comment to make.
Although the lead agency need not respond to late comments, the lead agency may
choose to respond to them. As the comment letter from the Town of Colma was
received after the end of the public review period, the City of South San Francisco is
not required to respond to the late comment letter. Therefore, the response to
comments being provided is for information purposes, as CEQA does not require a
response.
The City worked with the respondents to the NOP, including Caltrans, to develop the
study area for the transportation and circulation analysis for the Plan. The study area
intersections were chosen based on their location relative to the Planning Area and the
potential for impacts on the transportation network. The City of South San Francisco
and Caltrans developed and approved the list of study area intersections, with five
intersections along El Camino Real, including the intersections at Hickey Boulevard
3 -3
El Camino Real /Chestnut Avenue Area Plan,
and associated General Plan Amendment and Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Final Environmental Impact Report
and McClellan Drive. There were no public comments received requesting any
additional intersections be evaluated.
While the intersection of El Camino Real /Arlington Drive was considered for inclusion
in the traffic analysis study area, it was determined that Arlington Drive only provides
access to a self- contained residential neighborhood. Therefore, Arlington Drive is a
low volume local street. The intersection provides a traffic signal that controls traffic
and allows protected turning movements into and out of the neighborhood. Given the
low volume of traffic on Arlington Drive, and the existing signalization, the El Camino
Real /Arlington Drive intersection would not be expected to be significantly impacted
by the Plan. In addition, it is not expected that turning volumes at the El Camino
Real /Arlington Drive intersection will significantly increase with the development of
the Area Plan. Notably, Caltrans, which has jurisdiction over El Camino Real (State
Route 82), did not request evaluation of this intersection.
The Hickey Boulevard intersection to the south provides regional access to the freeway
network with its interchange at I -280. Travel patterns and traffic volumes along El
Camino Real north of Hickey Boulevard are significantly lower than south of Hickey
Boulevard, as indicated in existing and proposed future northbound left turn and
eastbound right turn peak hour volumes at the El Camino Real /Hickey Boulevard
intersection. Furthermore, intersections north of Hickey Boulevard are farther
removed from Planning Area, and accordingly would be expected to have lower
impacts than those intersections evaluated in the Draft FIR. For the reasons stated in
the Draft FIR and this response, the scope of the traffic analysis is adequate, and
analysis of the additional intersections as requested in the comment is not necessary.
B 1: Dennis Rosaia (South San Francisco Rotary Club)
BI -1: The comment letter does not raise a significant environmental issue or address the
adequacy of the FIR. As the commenter notes, the comments are on the proposed Plan
and associated General Plan and Zoning Ordinance amendments, rather than the Draft
FIR. The comment letter will be made a part of the record and provided to and
considered by decision - makers as part of their deliberation as whether to approve the
Plan. No further response is required as part of the Final FIR.
132: Linda Jensen (Kaiser Permanente)
B2 -1: As stated in the introductory paragraph in Chapter 2 Project Description of the Draft
FIR on page 2 -1, the project description provides background information regarding
the regional location and boundaries of the Planning Area, as well as objectives, and
key themes and components of the proposed Plan. Additional details are provided in
the Plan itself. The proposed Plan and associated General Plan and Zoning Ordinance
amendments were made available for review in conjunction with the Draft FIR.
Figure 2.1 -2 in the Project Description of the Draft FIR shows the precise location and
boundaries of the Planning Area (CEQA Guidelines 4 15124). Figure 2.1 -2 clearly
shows the Kaiser Permanente site within the Planning Area. Kaiser, therefore is
3 -4
Chapter 3: Response to Comments on the Draft EIR
included in the evaluation and review of environmental impacts in the Draft EIR.
Figures 2.3 -I through 2.3 -6 show existing and proposed land uses, heights, and zoning
for the Kaiser Permanente site; these maps along with supporting text provide a clear
description of the proposed Plan as it applies to the Kaiser Permanente site.
The existing land use, height and zoning maps, and supporting text in the Project
Description show that the existing General Plan land use designation for the Kaiser
Permanente site is office which has a base maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of I.0, up to
2.5 with discretionary approval and incentive based bonuses. The existing maximum
height limit is 80 feet for the site and the site's existing zoning designation of
Public /Quasi Public permits hospital uses after review and approval of a conditional
use permit by the Planning Commission.
The Plan proposes to change the General Plan land use designation of the Kaiser
Permanente site to North El Camino Real Mixed Use, Medium Intensity and North El
Camino Real Mixed Use, High Intensity. The proposed change in land use designation
increases the base maximum FAR to 1.5 (Medium Intensity) and 2.0 (High Intensity).
It also increases the maximum FAR with discretionary approval and incentive based
bonuses to 3.0 for part of the site (High Intensity). Overall, the Plan would result in an
increase of maximum FAR, which increases Kaiser's allowable building square footage
on the site, compared to Kaiser's existing land use designation. In addition, the Plan
proposes to increase the maximum height for the Kaiser Permanente Medical Center
site to up to I20 feet with discretionary approval, while the existing height limit is 80
feet. The Plan would allow for taller buildings on the Kaiser Permanente site.
The Plan is in effect malting the expansion of Kaiser more feasible through increasing
the maximum FAR and height, compared to what is currently allowed. In terms of
permitted uses, currently hospital is a conditionally permitted use at the Kaiser
Permanente site. As proposed by the Plan, the existing Kaiser Permanente site would
have two land use /zoning designations —in the El Camino Real /Chestnut Mixed Use,
Medium Intensity sub - district, the Public Review Draft of the Zoning Ordinance
Amendment continues to allow medical uses as conditionally permitted use. In
response to the comment, the Zoning Ordinance has now been revised to allow
hospital as a conditionally permitted use in the El Camino Real /Chestnut Mixed Use,
High Intensity sub - district on the undeveloped narrow portion of the Kaiser
Permanente site extending along El Camino Real as well. Thus, the proposed Zoning
Ordinance would continue to allow hospital as a conditionally permitted use on all sites
where these uses are currently conditionally permitted. Additionally, the Zoning
Ordinance Amendment has been revised to clarify that the required minimum 0.3 FAR
of active uses will not apply to the Kaiser Permanente Medical Center site designated as
El Camino Real /Chestnut Mixed use, Medium Intensity.
The Plan does not include any specific projects or development applications. Any
specific proposal by Kaiser to expand, would be considered by the City pursuant to the
development approval process, and subject to further CEQA review to evaluate project -
level impacts.
3 -5
El Camino Real /Chestnut Avenue Area Plan,
and associated General Plan Amendment and Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Final Environmental Impact Report
132 -2: This is a comment on the merits of the Plan, rather than the Draft FIR. The
environmental analysis in the Draft FIR does not preclude any discussions between
Kaiser and the City regarding potential future modifications to the Area Plan, General
Plan, Zoning Ordinance, or development on the Kaiser site. The proposed Area Plan
and Zoning regulations will require the review and approval of the Planning
Commission and City Council; accordingly, they do not usurp the role of those bodies
in determining the master planned future of the area.
As Figure 2.3 -I in the Draft FIR shows, the three parcels north of the existing Kaiser
Permanente site are currently designated Community Commercial /High Density
Residential. Figure 2.3 -3 shows that the existing height limit is 80 feet for those three
parcels. The parcel adjacent to the existing Kaiser site is currently zoned Transit Village
Commercial (TV -C) while the other two parcels are zoned Transit Village High
Density Residential (TV -RH). The maximum non - residential FAR for TV -C is 2.0,
while the maximum non - residential FAR for TV -RH is I.O. Hospital use is currently
not permitted on those three parcels. The 2009 City of South San Francisco General
Plan Housing Element identified those three sites as housing opportunity sites.
The Plan designates those three parcels as North El Camino Real Mixed Use, High
Intensity. The Plan increases the base maximum FAR of TV -RH to 2.0 and allows a
maximum FAR with discretionary approval and incentive base bonuses of 3.0 for all
three sites. The Plan increases the height limit up to 120 feet with discretionary review.
The Plan is not restricting redevelopment opportunities since it is not proposing any
new restrictions on uses, compared to what is currently allowed. Instead, the Plan is
expanding redevelopment opportunity by increasing the base maximum FAR on the
site currently zoned TV -RH from 1.0 to 2.0 and the Plan is allowing for a maximum
FAR with discretionary approval and incentive base bonuses of 3.0 where none
currently exist, enabling more building square footage compared to what is currently
allowed. In addition, the Plan increases maximum height to 120' with discretionary
approval, which allows for taller buildings compared to what is currently allowed. The
Plan is in effect malting the expansion of Kaiser more feasible. See Response to
Comment 132 -I for detailed discussion regarding hospital uses and revisions to the
Zoning Ordinance amendments.
132 -3: This is a comment on the Plan, rather than the Draft FIR. For information purposes, in
response to the comment, Policy UD -I2, as revised, in the proposed Plan states
"Ensure that any Kaiser Hospital redevelopment is in accordance with the Area Plan,
including the standards and guidelines spelled out in Chapter 5. While it is neither
expected nor required that the hospital maintain an active frontage with ground floor
commercial uses along El Camino Real (except as required in Figure 3 -3) the building
itself should be designed to be visually cohesive in appearance, with articulated
building form and massing, rather than a monolithic mass. The Area Plan would
enable a taller hospital building to provide this flexibility in massing. Further, the
hospital campus should be designed to take advantage of and be integrated with the
surroundings, including the linear park and new commercial uses, to enable workers
and visitors to enjoy the amenities and have easy access to eating establishments and
3 -6
Chapter 3: Response to Comments on the Draft EIR
shops." Any potential policies or edits, as the comment requests, would not alter the
conclusions presented in the Draft EIR regarding impacts as long as they are
complementary to the policies included in the Draft Plan.
1324: This is a comment on the Plan, rather than the Draft EIR. See response to comments
132 -1 through 132 -3.
C 1: Planning Commission Hearing on Draft EIR (Oral Comments)
CIA: See responses to B2 comments.
CI -2: This is a comment on the Plan, rather than the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR does show
that overall traffic impacts will be significant and unavoidable. Table 3.1 -7 and 3.1 -8
show traffic impacts at individual intersection. On Mission Road /Grand Avenue, traffic
impacts will be less than significant with improvements proposed by the Plan. On
Mission Road /Oak Avenue, mitigation measures are infeasible and traffic impacts will
be significant and unavoidable. The Plan does not include any specific projects or
development applications. The traffic analysis is based on Plan buildout, or full
development under the proposed Plan. The Plan does not specify or anticipate the
exact time when development will occur, the exact locations where development will
occur, or that exact size and intensity of the actual development. Therefore it is not
known what development at Mission Road /Grand Avenue or Mission Road /Oak
Avenue will look like until there is a specific development proposal. When there is a
specific development proposal, the proposed development would be subject to further
CEQA review to evaluate project -level impacts
CI -3: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15105, the public review period for the Draft
EIR was 45 days, beginning on February 25, 2011 and ending on April 11, 2011.
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15807, the City of South San Francisco gave
public notice of the availability of the Draft EIR through direct mailing to the owners
and occupants of property contiguous to and within the Planning Area, and through
posting of notice at the West Orange Library, Grand Avenue Library, City Clerk's office
and Planning Division Counter, as well as the City's website. For informational
purposes, in response to the comment, additional comments regarding the Plan may
still be submitted to the City.
CI -4: See Response to Comments CI -2 and CI -3.
CI -5: See Response to Comments CI -2 and CI -3. At the time the comment was received,
subsequent Planning Commission and City Council meetings required for the review
and approval of the Plan had not yet been scheduled. A Planning Commission meeting
has since been scheduled for May 5, 2011 for the Planning Commission to review and
provide a recommendation to the City Council on the Plan. Public comments on the
Plan are welcome by the City before adoption of the Plan. It is not anticipated that the
Plan will be adopted by May 11, 2011.
CI -6: Comment noted.
3 -7
4 Revisions to the Draft EIR
This chapter includes the revisions to the Draft EIR. These revisions have been made in
response to comments or based on review by the EIR preparers. The revisions appear here in
the order they appear in the Draft EIR. Text additions are noted in underline and text deletions
appear in s`---
Revisions to the Draft EIR are described in Table 4 -1 and organized by chapter, page and table
or figure, where applicable. Certain pages have been appended to the end of this chapter, for
clarity purposes; these pages are referenced in the table.
Table 4.1: Revisions to the Draft EIR
Chapter/ Page
Table/ Correction
Section
Figure
3.5 3.5 -12
...the Federal Aviation Administration, SFIA management and local govern-
ment. The City of South San Francisco is a founding member of the Roundt-
able.
3.9 3.9 -6
CLOP guidelines regarding noise are presented in Section -3 . 3_5
3.9 3.9 -6
4.4 Height Restrictions
Exhibit 4D in the CLOP shows the F.A.R PART 77 airspace plan in the im-
mediate San Francisco International Airport vicinity. The Planning Area is
subject to height restrictions. The ALUC is currently preparing an update of
the 1996 CLOP. As part of the update, the San Francisco International Air-
port has prepared a set of maps to illustrate the critical aeronautical surfaces
that protect the airspace for specific types of flight procedures. The aero-
nautical surfaces include those established in accordance with FAA Order
8260.38, U.S. Standards for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS) and a
surface required for One - Engine Inoperative (OEI) procedures for aircraft
departures on Runway 28 Left (to the west.) These surfaces indicate the
maximum feasible building height at which structures in the Planning Area
can be considered compatible with airport /aircraft operations. Consistencx
with the SFO CLOP is determined when height of structures are maintained
below critical airspace protection surface limits or below the height deter-
mined to be a "hazard to air navigation" by the FAA in an aeronautical studx
of the a proposed development project prepared pursuant to the filing of
FAA Form 7460 -1, "Notice of Proposed Construction or Alternation," bx
the project sponsor. The federal notice requirement and height determina-
tion also applies to development projects based on certain maximum height
parameters specified in the relevant FAA regulations (14 CFR Part 77, Sec-
tion 77.9 and (b )(1))
Area (AIA) beundary area fer SFIA as well as an updated diagraffi ef the
Is
El Camino Real /Chestnut Avenue Area Plan,
and associated General Plan Amendment and Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Final Environmental Impact Report
Table 4.1: Revisions to the Draft EIR
Chapter/ Page
Table/ Correction
Section
Figure
3.9 3.9 -6
The updated plan will include the 2-0 8 2001/2006 FAA - accepted Noise Ex-
posure Maps (NEMs).
3.9 3.9 -7
...ensure consistency between the three planning documents. The- presesed
3.9 3.9 -7
The Planning Area is not located within any runway end safety zones for San
Francisco International Airport. Therefore, runway safety is not an airport
land use compatibility issue for future development in the Planning Area.
3.9 3.9 -7
The Planning Area is eutside a" safety Pene and eutside ef the 65 G
neise The Planning Area is not located within the 65 dB CNEL air-.
craft noise contour or higher contour level, as shown on the most recent
FAA- accepted Noise Exposure Malmo (NEM)(2001) for SFO nor within the 65
dB CNEL aircraft noise contour as shown on the SFO 2006 NEM males (five -
,year protection.) Detailed noise analysis is contained in Section 3.5.
3.12 3.12 -15
The updated plan will include the 2-0 8 2001/2006 FAA - accepted Noise Ex-
posure Maps (NEMs).
Appendix A
Consultant correspondence with Caltrans regarding scope of Traffic study.
Caltrans letters are included for reference.
A -2
Draft Environmental Impact Report for El Camino Real /Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan
Amendment and Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
E. Noise
3. Noise Attenuation Measures. Noise attenuation measures identified in an acoustic study
shall be incorporated into the project to reduce noise impacts to satisfactory levels.
4. Maximum Acceptable Interior Noise Levels. New noise - sensitive uses (e.g. schools,
hospitals, churches, and residences) shall incorporate noise attenuation measures to
achieve and maintain and interior noise level of CNEL 45 dB.
5. Residential Interior Noise Level Reduction. New dwellings exposed to CNEL above 65 dB
shall incorporate the following noise reduction design measures unless alternative designs
that achieve and maintain an interior noise level of CNEL 45 dB are incorporated and
verified by a Board Certified Acoustical Engineer.
a. All fagades must be constructed with substantial weight and insulation;
b. Sound -rated windows providing noise reduction performance similar to that of the
fagade must be included for habitable rooms;
c. Sound -rated doors or storm doors providing noise reduction performance similar to
that of the fagade must be included for all exterior entries;
d. Acoustic baffling of vents is required for chimneys, fans, and gable ends;
e. Installation of a mechanical ventilation system affording comfort under closed- window
conditions; and
f. Double -stud construction, double doors, and heavy roofs with ceilings of two layers of
gypsum board on resilient channels.
F. Vibration. 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.
The Airport /Community Roundtable
The Airport / Community Roundtable is a voluntary committee of elected representatives from
45 municipalities near SFIA, established in 1981 to address community noise impacts from
aircraft operations at SFIA. The Roundtable monitors a performance -based noise mitigation
program implemented by airport staff, interprets community concerns and attempts to achieve
noise mitigation through a cooperative sharing of authority among the aviation industry, the
Federal Aviation Administration, SFIA management and local government. The City of South
San Francisco is a founding member of the Roundtable.
Residential Sound Insulation Program
The home insulation program at SFIA began in 1983, treating homes, churches, and schools in
the County of San Mateo, Daly City, Millbrae, Pacifica, San Bruno and South San Francisco.
3.5 -12
Draft Environmental Impact Report for El Camino Real /Chestnut Avenue Area Plan and associated General Plan
Amendment and Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
The ALUC is currently preparing an update of the 1996 CLUP, expected to be complete in
2011. The updated plan will include the -2008 2001/2006 FAA- accepted Noise Exposure Maps
(NEMs). It will also include an updated diagram that illustrates the configuration of the
preliminary Airport Influence Area (AIA) boundary area for SFIA as well as an updated
diagram of the Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77 airspace protection surfaces.
The Planning Area is not located within any runway end safety zones for the San Francisco
International Airport. CLUP guidelines regarding noise are presented in Section 3-4 3_5.
4.4 Height Restrictions
Exhibit 4D in the CLUP shows the F.A.R PART 77 airspace plan in the immediate San
Francisco International Airport vicinity. The Planning Area is subject to height restrictions.
The ALUC is currently preparing an update of the 1996 CLUP As part of the update, the San
Francisco International Airport has prepared a set of maps to illustrate the critical aeronautical
surfaces that protect the airspace for specific types of flight procedures. The aeronautical
surfaces include those established in accordance with FAA Order 8260.313, U.S. Standards for
Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS) and a surface required for One - Engine Inoperative
(OEI) procedures for aircraft departures on Runway 28 Left (to the west.) These surfaces
indicate the maximum feasible building height at which structures in the Planning Area can be
considered compatible with airport /aircraft operations. Consistency with the SFO CLUP is
determined when height of structures are maintained below critical airspace protection surface
limits or below the height determined to be a "hazard to air navigation" by the FAA in an
aeronautical study of the a proposed development project prepared pursuant to the filing of
FAA Form 7460 -1, "Notice of Proposed Construction or Alternation," by the project sponsor.
The federal notice requirement and height determination also a112lies to development projects
based on certain maximum height parameters specified in the relevant FAA regulations (14
CFR Part 77, Section 77.9(a ) and (b (1)). -
Noise Exrosttfe Mars (NEN!s). it will also itteitttle att urtlatetl tliagfam that ilittstfates the
IMPACT ANALYSIS
SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
Implementation of the proposed Plan would have a potentially significant adverse impact on
land use and housing if the proposed Plan would:
• Physically divide an established community;
• Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, population, or jobs, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing or relocation of services elsewhere;
• Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with ju-
risdiction 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 mi-
tigating an environmental effect.
3.9 -6
Draft Environmental Impact Report for El Camino Real /Chestnut Avenue Area Plan and associated General Plan
Amendment and Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
METHODOLOGY & ASSUMPTIONS
This analysis considers current policies and goals in the City's General Plan, existing and
proposed land use conditions within the Planning Area, and applicable regulations and
guidelines. Because the ALUC is still currently preparing an update of the 1996 CLUP, impacts
are evaluated based on the most current adopted version of the plan, which is the 1996 CLUP,
with 1998 Amendments, and in consultation with the San Francisco International Airport
(SFO).
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
The proposed Plan does not physically divide any established community. Rather, by
increasing compatibility along El Camino Real, increasing opportunities for housing, and
improving linkages, the proposed Plan provides improves connections to and continuity with
surrounding communities.
The Planning Area primarily consists of commercial uses. The proposed will significantly
increase the square footage of retail, services, and office space within the Planning Area. In
addition, the proposed Plan will also significantly increase the number of housing units and
removal of existing housing units as a result of the proposed Plan is not anticipated. Any
housing removed as a result of the proposed Plan would be replaced through additional
housing in the Planning Area. Overall, housing in the Planning Area is expected to increase
from 132 units to 1,587 units.
As part of adopting the proposed Plan, the General Plan will be amended and the Zoning
Ordinance will be updated to ensure consistency between the three planning documents. eke
The
Planning Area is not located within any runway end safety zones for San Francisco
International Airport. Therefore, runway is not an airport land use compatibilit issue
for future development in the Planning Area.
The Planning Area is not located within the 65 dB CNEL aircraft noise
contour or higher contour level, as shown on the most recent FAA - accepted Noise Exposure
Map (NEM)(2001) for SFO nor within the 65 dB CNEL aircraft noise contour as shown on the
SFO 2006 NEM map (five -year protection.) Detailed noise analysis is contained in Section 3.5.
The Planning Area is subject to height restrictions as identified in the CLUP. The ground
elevation of all the parcels within the Planning Area are estimated to be at least 160 feet or
more below SFO's critical airspace height limits. In addition, building heights will be required
to adhere to the limits indicated in the most recently adopted CLUP. This requirement is
reinforced by General Plan Policy 2 -I -22, which requires that "all development conforms to the
most recently adopted version of the San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use
Plan."
The Planning Area is not in an area subject to any habitat conservation or natural community
conservation plans; thus, there will be no impact with regard to habitat conservation plans.
3.9 -7
Draft Environmental Impact Report for El Camino Real /Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan
Amendment and Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
General Plan Consistency with Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans
Public Utilities Code 21675 requires each airport land use commission to formulate an airport
land use compatibility plan. California Government Code 65302.3 further requires that general
plans be consistent with airport land use compatibility plans. In addition, general plans and
applicable specific plans must be amended to reflect amendments to the airport land use
compatibility plan. The San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan is discussed
below.
Local Regulations
California Regional Water Quality Control Board
In coordination with the SWRCB, the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)
adopts and implements water quality control plans that recognize the unique characteristics of
each region with regard to natural water quality, actual and potential beneficial uses, and water
quality problems.
San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan (1996, amended 1998)
The San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) develops and implements the
San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan (CLUP). The current CLUP was
adopted in December 1996, amended in 1998. In San Mateo County, the City /County
Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C /CAG) is the designated ALUC. The
CLUP establishes the procedures that C /CAG uses in reviewing proposed local agency actions
that affect land use decisions in the vicinity of San Mateo County's airports. Airport planning
boundaries define where height, noise, and safety standards, policies, and criteria are applied to
certain proposed land use policy actions.
The ALUC is currently preparing an update of the 1996 CLUP. That plan is expected to be
completed in final draft form in 2011. The updated plan will include the 2608 2001/2006 FAA -
accepted Noise Exposure Maps (NEMs). It will also include an updated diagram that illustrates
the configuration of the preliminary Airport Influence Area (AIA) boundary area for SFIA as
well as an updated diagram of the Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77 airspace protection
surfaces.
South San Francisco General Plan (1999)
The South San Francisco General Plan includes a Health and Safety chapter which addresses
hazards in a comprehensive manner through hazard abatement policies and measures to
reduce risks to life and property in existing and new development.
IMPACT ANALYSIS
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 3.12 -3 -1
Future land uses proposed by the proposed Plan may involve the use, transport, and
disposal of hazardous materials. (No Impact)
3.12 -15
STATE OF CALIFORNIA — BUSINESS TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER Governor
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
111 GRAND AVENUE ° '"
P_ O. BOX 23660
OAKLAND, CA 94623 -0660 Flex your power!
PHONE (510) 622- 54910EIVE Be energy efficient!
RED
FAX (510) 286 -5559
TTY 711
AUG 10 2010
August 3, 2010
LECIDD) DEPARTMENT SM082265
SM -82 -20.65 -21.17
SCH #2010072015
Mr. Mike Lappen
City of South San Francisco
315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Dear Mr. Lappen:
El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan — Notice of Preparation
Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Department) in the
environmental review process for the El Camino Real /Chestnut Avenue Area Plan. The
following comments are based on the Notice of Preparation. As lead agency, the City of South
San Francisco is responsible for all project mitigation, including any needed improvements to
State highways. The project's fair share contribution, financing, scheduling, and implementation
responsibilities as well as lead agency monitoring should be fully discussed for all proposed
mitigation measures and the project's traffic mitigation fees should be specifically identified in
the environmental document. Any required roadway improvements should be completed prior to
issuance of project occupancy permits. An encroachment permit is required when the project
involves work in the State's right of way (ROW). The Department will not issue an
encroachment permit until our concerns are adequately addressed. Therefore, we strongly
recommend that the lead agency ensure resolution of the Department's California Environmental
Quality Act concerns prior to submittal of the encroachment permit application; see the end of
this letter for more information regarding the encroachment permit process.
Community Planning
The Department encourages the City of South San Francisco to provide a street configuration that
facilitates walking and biking to the South San Francisco BART station. We also recommend
that the City refer to, "Reforming Parking Policies to Support Smart Growth," a Metropolitan
Transportation Commission study funded by the Department, for sample parking ratios and
strategies that support Transit Oriented Development. These actions will encourage alternate
forms of transportation, reduce regional vehicle miles traveled and help alleviate future traffic
impacts on the state highways.
Traffic, Impact Study
The environmental document should include,an analysis of the impacts of the proposed project
on State highway facilities in the vicinity of the project site. Please ensure that a Traffic Impact
Study (TIS) is prepared providing the information detailed as follows:
"Caltrans improves mobility across California"
Mr. Mike Lappen /City of South San Francisco
August 3, 2010
Page 2
1. Information on the plan's traffic impacts in terms of trip generation, distribution, and
assignment. The assumptions and methodologies used in compiling this information should be
addressed. The study should clearly show the percentage of project trips assigned to State
facilities.
2. Current Average Daily Traffic (ADT) and AM and PM peak hour volumes on all significantly
affected streets, highway segments and intersections.
3. Schematic illustration and level of service (LOS) analysis for the following scenarios: 1)
existing, 2) existing plus project, 3) cumulative and 4) cumulative plus project for the
_roadways and intersections in the project area.
4. Calculation of cumulative traffic volumes should consider all traffic- generating developments,
both existing and future, that would affect the State highway facilities being evaluated.
5. The procedures contained in the 2000 update of the Highway Capacity Manual should be used
as a guide for the analysis. We also recommend using the Department's "Guide for the
Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies" it is available on the following web site:
htt : / /www.dot.ca. ov /h / traffo s /develo sery / eerationals stems /re orts /tis uide. df .
6. Mitigation measures should be identified where plan implementation is expected to have a
significant impact. Mitigation measures proposed should be fully discussed, including
financing, scheduling, implementation responsibilities, and lead agency monitoring.
Encroachment Permit
Any work or traffic control within the State ROW requires an encroachment permit that is issued
by the Department. Traffic - related mitigation measures will be incorporated into the construction
plans during the encroachment permit process. See the following website link for more
information: http: / /www. dot. ca. gov /hq /traffops /developsery /permits/
To apply for an encroachment permit, submit a completed encroachment permit application,
environmental documentation, and five (5) sets of plans which clearly indicate State ROW to the
address at the top of this letterhead, marked ATTN': Michael Condie, Mail Stop #5E.
Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please call Sandra Finegan of my staff at
(510) 622 -1644.
Sincerely,
LISA CARBONI
District Branch Chief
Local Development - Intergovernmental Review
c: State Clearinghouse
"Caltrans improves mobility across California"
Melinda Hue
From: Melinda Hue [melinda @dyettandbhatia.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2010 10:38 AM
To: 'sand ra_finegan @dot.ca.gov'
Cc: 'hannah @dyettandbhatia.com'
Subject: El Camino Real /Chestnut Avenue Area Plan EIR - Traffic Analysis
Attachments: DOT com -ECR NOP.pdf; el cam overview.pdf
Hi Sandra,
I am writing to you in regards to the El Camino Real /Chestnut Avenue Area Plan in the City of South San Francisco. We
received DOT's response to our Notice of Preparation for the EIR and I wanted to get in touch and run a list of potential
traffic study intersections and freeways by you for comments. (I have attached a copy of the DOT comment letter and a
map for your reference.)
Potential Study Intersections
1. El Camino Real /Hickey Boulevard
2. El Camino Real /Arroyo Drive /Oak Extension
3. El Camino Real /Chestnut Avenue
4. Mission Road /Oak Avenue
5. Mission Road /Chestnut Avenue
6. Westborough Boulevard /1 -280 NB On Ramp /Junipero Serra Boulevard
7. Westborough Boulevard /1 -280 SB Off Ramp
The following are a list of potential study intersections that are further away from the study area and I would like your
opinion on whether they should be studied:
El Camino Real /Sneath Lane
El Camino Real /1 -380 WB Off Ramp
El Camino Real /1 -380 EB Off Ramp
Are there any other intersections that you think should be studied?
Potential Study Freeway Segments
8. 1 -280 mainline between Hickey to Westborough
9. 1 -280 mainline between Westborough and Avalon
10. 1 -280 mainline between Avalon and 1 -380 (Or is this too far south of the Planning Area ?)
11. 1 -380 mainline between US 101 and El Camino Real
12. 1 -380 mainline between El Camino Real and 1 -280
Our traffic consultant did not recommend the study of El Camino roadway segments or US 101 freeway segments. Can
you please provide direction on whether those segments should be studied?
Please let me know if you have any further questions or if you need more information. Thanks!
Best,
►ZZ-311TF
Melinda Hue, SEED AP I Planner
DYETT & BHATIA I Urban and Regional Planners
755 Sansome Street, Suite 400 1 San Francisco, CA 941 1 1
Tel: 415 956 4300 x27 I Fax: 415 956 7315 1 http: / /www.dyettandbhatia.com
STATE OF CALIFORNIA— BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER Govemor
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
111 GRAND AVENUE
P. O. BOX 23660
OAKLAND, CA 94623 -0660
PHONE (510) 622 -5491
FAX (510) 286 -5559
TTY 711
October 20, 2010
Q�� r
�R
Flex your power!
Be energy efficient!
SM082265
SM -82- 20.65 -21.17
SCH #2010072015
Mr. Mike Lappen
Planning Division
City of South San Francisco
315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Dear Mr. Lappen:
El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan — Traffic Impact Study Scope of Work
Thank you for continuing to include the California Department of Transportation (Department)
in the environmental review process for the El Camino Real (ECR) /Chestnut Avenue Area Plan
project. The following comments are based on your request for a review of the scope of work of
the traffic impact study.
Highway, Traffic, and Signal Operations
1. Please include the following study intersections:
a. Chestnut Avenue /Grand Avenue
b. McLellan Boulevard/ECR
c. Orange Avenue /ECR
d. Junipero Serra Boulevard/Arroyo Drive
2. You can exclude the following intersections and freeway segments:
a. Sneath Lane /ECR
b. I- 380 /ECR
c. I -380 mainline between US -101 and ECR
d. I -380 mainline between I -280 and ECR
e. I -280 between Avalon Drive and I -380
Please forward at least one hard copy and one CD of the environmental document, TIS and its
transportation related technical appendices including the Synchro output sheets to the address
below as soon as they are available.
"Caltrans improves mobility across California"
Mr. Mike Lappen
October 20, 2010
Page 2
Sandra Finegan, Associate Transportation Planner
Community Planning Office, Mail Station I OD
California DOT, District 4
P.O. Box 23660
Oakland, CA 94623 -0660
Please feel free to call or email Sandra Finegan of my staff at (510) 622 -1644 or
sandra fineganAAdot.ca.gov with any questions regarding this letter.
Sincerely,
"4(\� �V
LISA CARBONI
District Branch Chief
Local Development — Intergovernmental Review
c: Ms. Terry Roberts, State Clearinghouse
"Caltrans improves mobility across California"
Appendix A: Revisions to the Draft Area Plan
and Associated General Plan and Zoning
Amendments
This Final FIR document responded to comments on the Draft FIR and, subsequently,
identified relevant changes to the Plan and Draft FIR.
The table below describes changes made to the Area Plan and associated Zoning amendments.
These changes were also discussed in Chapter 3: Response to Comments on the FIR. It is
organized by document and only reflects substantive changes. (Typos, formatting,
clarifications, and updated cross - references are not recognized in the table.) Statements in
bold, are followed by actual text and /or edits. Page, table, figure, goal, and policy numbers refer
to the numbers in the February 2011 Public Review (PR) Drafts. Certain pages have been
appended to the end of this appendix, for clarity purposes; these pages are referenced in the
table.
A -1
El Camino Real /Chestnut Avenue Area Plan,
and associated General Plan Amendment and Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Final Environmental Impact Report
Draft Plan and associated Zoning Ordinance Amendment Revisions
Table/
Page Figure Correction
Revise Policy UD -12 to clarify the location of required active
frontages.
UD -12 Ensure that any Kaiser Hospital redevelopment is in accordance with the
Area Plan, including the standards and guidelines spelled out in Chapter 5.
While it is neither expected nor required that the hospital maintain an active
frontage with ground floor commercial uses along El Camino Real (except as
required in Figure 3 -3) the building itself should be designed to be visually co-
hesive in appearance, with articulated building form and massing, rather than a
59 monolithic mass.
3 Revise Table 20.270.003: Land Use Regulations for El Camino
Real /Chestnut Sub - Districts to clarify where Hospital uses are per-
mitted after review and approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the
Planning Commission. Insert map for further clarification.
7 Revised Table 20.270.004 -I: Lot, Density, and FAR Standards for El
Camino Real /Chestnut Sub - Districts to clarify that the requirement
for a minimum 0.3 FAR of Active Uses does not apply in the ECR /C-
MXM sub - district along El Camino Real.
I I Revise Figure 20.270.004 -2: Building height to revise error in legend.
30 Revise Figure 1: Existing Zoning to provide clarification regarding
parcels.
31 Revise Figure 2: Proposed Zoning to provide clarification regarding
changes and parcels.
A -2
Guiding Principle a Develop the area with an overall character and urban
design .scheme that promotes livability and .sus s inablll ya
Creating a sense of continuity and cohesiveness throughout the district will require
a well- defined urban design palette of building, landscape, and site design ele-
ments. Place- making will be achieved through high quality building and site design
that accentuates key corners and intersections. An emphasis on walkability and
pedestrian orientation will maximize accessibility to Centennial Way and the BART
Station and establish a district that encourages people to linger in plazas, walk
along the parkway, or visit multiple destinations within the Planning Area.
UD -6 IEm.stabhsh a comprehensive urban design scheme that specifies a paVette
El Camino RcallChcstnutAvcnucArca Plan — Zoning OrdinanccAnicndmcnt
Draft for Review and Discussion
TABLE 20,270,003: LAND USE REGULATIONS FOR EL CAMINO REALICHESTNUT
SUB- DISTRICTS
Uses Permitted
ECR /C- ECR /C- ECR /G
MXH MXM RH
Additional Regulations
Residential Use Classifications
Single -Unit Dwelling
See sub - classification below
Single -Unit Attached
P(1)
I P
P
Multi -Unit Residential
See sub - classifications below
Multi -Unit
P(1)
P
P
Senior Citizen Residential
P(1)
P
P
Elderly and Long -term Care
C(1)
C
C
See Section 20.350.020 Group
Residential Facilities
Family Day Care Home
See sub - classification below
Small
P(1)
I P
P
Residential Care Facilities
See sub - classifications below
Limited
P(1)
P
P
General
-
C
C
See Section 20.350.020 Group
Residential Facilities
Senior
-
C
C
See Section 20.350.020 Group
Residential Facilities
Public and Semi- Public Use
Classifications
Colleges and Trade Schools,
Public or Private
MUP
MUP
MUP
Community Assembly, 2000
square feet or less
P
P
C
See Section 20.350.012
Community Assembly Facilities
Community Assembly,
More Than 2000 square
feet
MUP
MUP
C
See Section 20.350.012
Community Assembly Facilities
Community Garden
P(2)
P(2)
P(2)
Cultural Institutions
P
P
-
Day Care Centers
P
P
-
Government Offices
P
P
-
Hospitals and Clinics
See sub - classification below
Hospitals
()
C
-
`_eM IFiis;u,iiirg _ 20,220,003.
Park and Recreation
Facilities, Public
P
P
P
Public Safety Facilities
P
P
-
Schools, Public or Private
C
C
-
Social Service Facilities
MUP
MUP
-
See Section 20.350.035 Social
Service Facilities
El Camino RcallChcstnutAvcnucArca Plan — Zoning OrdinanccAnicndmcnt
Draft for Review and Discussion
TABLE 20,270,003: LAND USE REGULATIONS FOR EL CAMINO REALICHESTNUT
SUB- DISTRICTS
Uses Permitted
ECR /C-
MXH
ECR /C- ECR /G
MXM RH
Additional Regulations
Commercial Use Classifications
Animal Care, Sales and
Services
See sub - classifications below
Pet Stores
P
P
-
See Section 20.350.005 Animal
Care, Sales, and Services
Veterinary Services
P
P
-
See Section 20.350.005 Animal
Care, Sales, and Services
Artists' Studios
P
P
-
Banks and Financial
Institutions
See sub - classification below
Banks and Credit Unions
PPA)
P
-
Business Services
P(:44)
P
-
Commercial Entertainment
and Recreation
MUP
C(4,5
Eating and Drinking
Establishments
See sub - classifications below
Bars /Night Clubs /Lounges
C
-
-
Coffee Shops /Cafes
P
P
C
See Section 20.350.028 Outdoor
Seating
Restaurants, Full Service
P
-
-
See Section 20.350.028 Outdoor
Seating
Restaurants, Limited
Service
P
C(45 �)
-
See Section 20.350.028 Outdoor
Seating
Food and Beverage Retail
Sales
P
P
-
Convenience Market
P
P
-
See Section 20.350.013
Convenience Market
Live -Work Units
P(1)
P
-
See Section 20.350.023 Live -
Work Units
Lodging
See sub - classification below
Hotels and Motels
C
C
C
Maintenance and Repair
Services
P
MUP
-
Offices
See sub - classifications below
Business and Professional
PPA)
P
-
Medical and Dental
PPA)
P
-
Walk -In Clientele
P
P
-
El Camino RcallChcstnutAvcnucArca Plan — Zoning OrdinanccAnicndmcnt
Draft for Review and Discussion
TABLE 20,270,003: LAND USE REGULATIONS FOR EL CAMINO REALICHESTNUT
SUB- DISTRICTS
Uses Permitted
ECR /C-
ECR /C-
ECR /G
Additional Regulations
MXH
MXM
RH
Parking, Public or Private
P(.s(,)
P(.s(,)
-
Personal Services
See sub - classifications below
General Personal Services
P
P
-
See Section 20.350.030 Personal
Services
Retail Sales
See sub - classifications below
General Sales
P
P
-
Employment Uses
Recycling Facilities
See sub - classification below
Collection Facility
C((,)
C((,)
-
See Section 20.350.032 Recycling
Facilities
Research and Development
P
P
Transportation, Communication, and
Utilities Use Classifications
Communication Facilities
See sub - classifications below
Antennae and
MUP(78
MUP(78
MUP( aL'�)
See Chapter 20.370 Antennas
Transmission Towers
and Wireless Communications
Facilities
Facilities within Buildings
MUP
MUP
MUP
Utilities, Major
C
C
-
Utilities, Minor
P
P
P
Other Applicable Use Regulations
Accessory Uses
See Section 20.300.002 Accessory Buildings and Structures
Home Occupations
P
P
P
See Section 20.350.021 Home
Occupations
Nonconforming Use
See Chapter 20.320 Nonconforming Uses, Structures, and Lots
Temporary Use
See Chapter 20.340 Temporary Uses
Limitations:
1. Not permitted on the ground floor along El Camino Real, Chestnut Avenue, Oak Avenue, or BART Right -of-
Way south of Oak Avenue.
2. Subject to site evaluation based on prior use.
. .! .((5k 4_ti'j - , 5k Y71 (�!_on_tht4 th4 E_t_c5k n4P_5k�_I 1,_C_EI n, II Yl�S 4_E �_EYl�G� AP l,5 k j2L iv e/ alk , - Ave n t Ve
0 270Q_0'3.
34 . Customer service offices are permitted on the ground level, and other offices are permitted on the second
floor or when conducted as an accessory use with a permitted use on the site, occupying no more than 25 percent
of the floor area. Additional office space may be allowed with a Use Permit, upon finding that such use will not
conflict with adjacent street level retail uses.
4,5. Not permitted along Mission Road.
56. Must be structured.
6 Large Collection Facilities are not permitted.
7-£k. Only building mounted or completely enclosed within a building. Not permitted on the ground floor.
El Camino RcallChcstnutAvcnucArca Plan — Zoning OrdinanccAnicndmcnt
Draft for Review and Discussion
F II SL IRIE 7.0.7. 0.003 IHOSII` USES
E== Hospital use permitted after review and approval of a
ondlbonal Use Perrnit by the (Planning Comrn ssion
F -
20.270.004 Development Standards
Tables 20.270.004 -1 to 20.270.004 -3 prescribe the development standards for the El Camino
Real /Chestnut sub - districts. Additional regulations are denoted in the right hand column.
Section numbers in this column refer to other sections of this Ordinance, while individual
letters refer to subsections that follow the tables, under "Additional Development Standards ".
The numbers in Figure 20.270.040 below refer to corresponding regulations in the
column in the associated table.
El Camino RcallChcstnutAvcnucArca Plan — Zoning OrdinanccAnicndmcnt
Draft for Review and Discussion
TABLE 20.270.004 -I: LOT, DENSITY, AND FAR STANDARDS FOR EL CAMINO
REALICHESTNUT SUB - DISTRICTS
Standard
ECR /C-
ECR /C-
ECRIG
Additional Regulations
#
MXH
MXM
RH
Minimum Lot Size (sq ft)
20,000
20,000
20,000
Minimum Lot Width (ft)
50
50
50
Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
Minimum Floor Area
0.6 exclusive of areas
n/a
The requirement for a minimum
Ratio
devoted to parking, of
0.3 FAR of Active uses does not
which a minimum 0.3
apply to projects where 30% of
FAR shall be Active uses
the units are restricted and
affordable to low -or low -
moderate income households oir
i n %;I�'ua. IE ICw R /Cww - -1W(M suailb- �a;piisd.;iriict
_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_.,
a Il,o irii i.,_ IC II _C ii irii a r,_I ,_ II _
Maximum Floor Area
2.0
1.5
n/a
Exclusive of structured parking.
Ratio
Maximum Floor Area
3.0(A)
2.5(A)
n/a
Exclusive of structured parking.
Ratio with Incentive
Program
Residential Density (units
per acre; included within
the FAR above)
Minimum Density
n/a
n/a
80
Maximum Density
80
40
120
See Chapter 20.390, Bonus
Residential Density
Maximum Density with
110
60
180
See (A) and See Chapter 20.390,
Incentive Program
Bonus Residential Density
El Camino RcallChcstnutAvcnucArca Plan — Zoning OrdinanccAnicndmcnt
Draft for Review and Discussion
FIGURE 20.270.004 -2: BUILDING HEIGHT
121/160 Feet
80/120 Feet.
40 Feet
Qua r
11
xx /xx Base Height Liimit /'Height Limit with Discretionary Approvall
See 20.270.004(A)
D
RH: High Density Residential*
CC: Community Commercial
BC: Business Commercial
TV -C: Transit Village Commercial
TV -RM: Transit Village Medium Density Residential
TV -RH: Transit Village High Density Residential
PQP: Public /Quasi Public
PR: Parks and Recreation
ECRMX: El Camino Real Mixed Use
*Numerical designators denote the maximum
density allowed in each sub district.
0 100 ,000
FEET
FIGURE 1: EXISTING ZONING
D
ECR /C -MXH: El Camino Real /Chestnut Mixed Use, High Intensity
ECR /C -MXM: El Camino Real /Chestnut Mixed Use, Medium Intensity
ECR /C -RH: El Camino Real /Chestnut Residential, High Density
0 100 500 1000
FEET
FIGURE 2: PROPOSED ZONING CHANGES
Urban and Regional F'Ianners
755 Sansome Street, Suite 400
San Francisco, California 941 1 1
60 4 15 956 4300 ,1 1, 415 956 7315