Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 41-2016 RESOLUTION NO. 41-2016 CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS AND DETERMINING THAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT TO CONSTRUCT A NEW SENIOR RESIDENTIAL BUILDING WITH A TOTAL OF 80 AFFORDABLE RENTAL UNITS, I MANAGER UNIT AND 1,993 SQUARE FEET OF COMMUNITY ASSEMBLY SPACE AT 310, 312, 314 MILLER AVENUE, AND APN 012-311-060 IS STATUTORILY AND CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 6545 7(A) AS A RESIDENTIAL P'ROJEC'T CONSISTENT WITH AND UNDERTAKEN PURSUANT TO A SPECIFIC PLAN AND THE CLASS 32 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FOR INFILL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS AND APPROVING THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS. WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco ("City") is the owner of certain real property located in the City known as 310, 312 and 314 Miller Avenue and a municipal parking lot (`.`Property"), also known as County Assessor's Parcel Numbers APN 012-311- 230; APN 012-311-240; APN 012-311-250; and APN 012-311-060, collectively referred to in Project documents as "300 Miller Avenue"; and WHEREAS, on Tune 29, 2011 the legislature of the State of California (the "State") adopted Assembly Bill xI 26 ("AB 26"), which amended provisions of the Redevelopment Law; and WHEREAS, pursuant to AB 26 and the California Supreme Court decision in California Redevelopment Association, et al, v. Ana Matosantos, et al., which upheld AB 26 (together with AB 1484, the "Dissolution Law"), the former South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency was dissolved on February 1, 2012; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Dissolution Law, the State of California Department of Finance ("DOF"), on August 31, 2012, approved transfer of certain properties, including a portion of the Property, to the City of South San Francisco in its capacity as the Successor Housing Agency; and WHEREAS, in January of 2015, the City and Rotary Plaza, Inc, ("Developer") entered into an Exclusive Negotiation Rights Agreement ("ENRA") that established a mutual understanding among the City and the Developer regarding the potential development of the Property; and WHEREAS, the Developer has proposed construction of a mixed-use residential. development ("Project"), consisting of 80 affordable senior housing units, 1 manager's unit and 1,993 square feet of community assembly space over .56 acres at the following addresses: 310 1 Miller Avenue, 312 Miller Avenue, 314 Miller Avenue and a municipal parking lot (collectively referred to as "300 Miller Avenue" or"Project Site") in the City; and WHEREAS, the City is interested in selling the Property to the Developer as contemplated in the ENRA, contingent upon approval of a Purchase and Sale Agreement, an Affordable Housing Regulatory Agreement, a Performance Deed of Trust and a Development Agreement by the City Council, Developer securing all funding for the Project, and Developer obtaining all applicable land use entitlements from the City necessary to construct the Project on the Project Site; and WHEREAS, approval of the Developer's proposal is considered a "project" for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act, Pub. Resources Code § 21000, et seq. ("CEQA"); and WHEREAS, the City Council certified an Environmental Impact Report ("FIR") on January 28, 2015 (State Clearinghouse number 2013102001), which included a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, in accordance with the provisions of the CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, which analyzed the potential environmental impacts of the development of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan ("DSASP FIR"); and WHEREAS, the City Council also adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations ("SOC") on January 28, 2015 in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, which carefully considered each significant and unavoidable impact identified in the FIR and found that the significant environmental impacts are acceptable in light of the project's economic, legal, social, technological and other benefits; and WHEREAS, the Project is in compliance with all applicable regulations in the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan and the Project is subject to the DSASP FIR MMRP; and WHEREAS, the Project is statutorily exempt from CEQA pursuant to Government Code Section 65457 as a residential development project that is undertaken to implement and is consistent with the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan and that none of the conditions specified in CEQA Section 21166 or CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 have occurred; and WHEREAS, the Project is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 as an infill development project and that none of the exceptions to the exemption specified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 have occurred; and WHEREAS, the City prepared an Environmental Consistency Analysis for the Project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c)(2) and concluded that in accordance with the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, as a result of the Project no new effects could occur and no new mitigation would be required even if the Project was not exempt from CEQA. The Environmental Consistency Analysis demonstrates that the Project would not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified effects beyond those disclosed and analyzed in the DSASP FIR certified by City Council; and 2 WHEREAS, on March 17, 2016 the Planning Commission for the City of South San Francisco held a lawfully noticed public hearing to solicit public comment and consider the Environmental Consistency Analysis, Development Agreement and proposed entitlements and recommended making a determination that the Project is statutorily and categorically exempt from CEQA and recommended approval of the Environmental Consistency Analysis, Development Agreement and proposed entitlements; and WHEREAS, on April 13, 2016 the City Council for the City of South San Francisco held a lawfully noticed public hearing to solicit public comment and consider the Project, the statutory and categorical CEQA exemptions and the Environmental Consistency Analysis; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and carefully considered the information in the record including the Environmental Consistency Analysis, all supplementary analyses, and comment letters submitted, makes the findings contained in this Resolution, and determines that the Project is statutorily and categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to California Government Code section 65457(a) as a residential project consistent with and undertaken to implement the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan and class 32 categorical exemption as an infill development project and also approves the Environmental Consistency Analysis as an objective and accurate document that reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City in the discussion of the Project's environmental impacts. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the record before it, which includes without limitation, the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code §21000, et seq. ("CEQA") and the CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of Regulations §15000, et seq.; the South San Francisco General Plan and General Plan EIR; the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan and the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR; the South San Francisco Municipal Code; the Project applications; the Project Plans, as prepared by HKIT Architects, dated February 23, 2016, the Environmental Consistency Analysis, as prepared by City staff, dated March 17, 2016 including all appendices thereto; all site plans, and all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission's duly noticed March 17, 2016 meeting; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the City Council's duly noticed April 13, 2016 meeting and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e) and §21082.2), the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby finds as follows-, A. General CEQA Findings 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct. 2. The Environmental Consistency Analysis attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A, as prepared by City staff, dated March 17, 2016 is incorporated by reference and made a part of this Resolution, as if set forth fully herein. 3 3. The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco, 315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 94080, and in the custody of the Planning Manager, Sailesh Mehra. 4. Based upon the testimony and information presented at the hearing and upon review and consideration of the environmental documentation provided, including but not limited to the Environmental Consistency Analysis, as prepared by City staff, dated March 17, 2016 attached hereto as Exhibit A, the City Council., exercising its independent judgment and analysis, finds that the Project is statutorily exempt from CEQA pursuant to Government Code Section 65457 as a residential development project that is undertaken to implement and is consistent with the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan and that none of the conditions specified in CEQA Section 21166 or CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 have occurred, that the Project is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 as an infill development project and that none of the exceptions to the exemption specified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 have occurred, and that as a result of the Project no new effects could occur and no new mitigation would be required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15 1 68(c)(2) and in accordance with the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 even if the Project was not exempt from CEQA . The Environmental Consistency Analysis demonstrates that pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c)(2), the Project falls within the environmental parameters analyzed in the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR, and that the Project would not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified effects beyond those disclosed and analyzed in the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR certified by City Council nor would new mitigation be required for the Project. This is supported by the fact that, consistent with the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the project prepared a Historic Resources Analysis, a Shadow Analysis, and a Traffic and Circulation Analysis, which determined that the Project would not result in any new impacts not adequately evaluated and addressed by the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR. B. CEQA StatutoEy Exemption Findings I. The City Council finds that the Project is being undertaken pursuant to and in conformity with the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan as set forth in the Planning Commission Staff Report dated March 17, 2016 and the City Council Staff Report dated April 13, 2016 and included in the record as part of the material accompanying the Project's hearing. Specifically, the Project will help implement elements of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan's vision for Downtown related to transit-oriented development, i.e., the development of higher-density residential uses on underutilized parcels within a convenient walk of the Caltrain Station, by providing 80-units of affordable senior housing and I manager's unit within 1/2-mile of the Caltrain Station. 2. The City Council finds that based on substantial evidence in the record, none of the events described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred: The Project does not include any substantial changes in the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan project and so does not require major revisions to the 4 Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. This is supported by the fact that the Project is consistent with the Specific Plan and proposes no changes or amendments to the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan itself; because the Project does not include changes in the Specific Plan, there are no changes that would require revisions to the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR. No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is to be undertaken to implement the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan that will require major revisions of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. This is supported by the fact that the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR was certified just more than a year before the Project is being considered, and the circumstances surrounding the implementation of the Specific Plan are substantially similar to when the Specific Plan was adopted. No new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR was adopted, shows that: • The Project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR, or • Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR, or • Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measures or alternative, or • Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. This is supported by the fact that no new information, let alone new information of substantial importance, has been added to the record regarding the Project or the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan. The Environmental Consistency Analysis further confirms that the Project would not result in any significant effects not discussed in the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR. 3, Therefore, the City Council finds that as the Project would not result in any new effects contemplated by CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no EIR or negative declaration need 5 be prepared for the Project because it is statutorily exempt from CEQA as a project consistent with a specific plan pursuant to Government Code Section 65457. C. CEQA Categorical Exemption Findings 1. The City Council finds that substantial evidence exists that the Project meets each of the required conditions to qualify as an infill development project described in Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines, as follows: The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations, o As discussed in the findings related to the Density Bonus and Parking Reduction request, the Project is consistent with the General Plan designation and all applicable General Plan policies. Furthermore, the Project is consistent with all applicable zoning designations and regulations. The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. o The Project is located within the City of South San Francisco limits in the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan area, on a site of only 0.56 acres, and is substantially surrounded by urban uses, including residences and a parking structure, with small commercial uses in its immediate vicinity. The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. 0 The Project Site is currently used for surface parking and single-family homes. Because the site is currently disturbed and occupied with urban uses, there is no habitat on the site that is suitable for endangered, rare, or threatened species. Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. • Traffic Impacts. The Project's Traffic and Circulation Analysis indicates that the Project would result in a less than significant impact with regard to traffic and no mitigation would be required. • Noise Impacts: As required by Section 1207 of the California Building Code, the Project must include design features to ensure that interior noise levels do not exceed 60 db (in accordance with State of California acoustical standards). The Project's compliance with these standards, including proposed building, ceiling, and other assemblies, must be verified by a certified acoustician. • Air Quality: The Project must comply with all regulations of the BAAQMD in relation to fugitive dust control, asphalt paving, demolition control 6 methods regarding asbestos, and all other District regulations. The Project is not considered a stationary source and does not require a stationary source permit. In addition, the Project is an urban infill project near a high-quality transit station, and thus will generate fewer vehicle miles traveled, and less air pollution, than a comparable project located outside a developed urban area. 0 Water Quality: The Project will not result in any significant effects on water quality because it must incorporate Best Management Practices and implement a Water Pollution Control Plan as required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. o Public water, public wastewater, and sewer facilities adequate to serve the Project exist within Miller Avenue and Tamarack Lane. Electricity and gas are available immediately adjacent to the site. On site drainage improvements will direct surface flow into existing storm drainage facilities, which are adequate to handle projected flow from the Project. Police and fire services, as well as all other public services, are provided by the City, and, as part of their preliminary review, the police and fire departments have not identified any inadequacies in these services within the service area of the Project Site. 2. Therefore, the City Council find that no EIR or negative declaration need be prepared for the Project because it is categorically exempt from CEQA as an infill development project described in Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby makes the findings contained in this Resolution, and hereby takes the following actions: 1. Approve the Environmental Consistency Analysis, including all supplementary analyses attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A. 2. Determines that the Project is statutorily exempt from CEQA because the Project falls within the Government Code section 65457(a) exemption to CEQA for residential projects consistent with and undertaken pursuant to a specific plan for which an environmental impact report has been certified. 3. Determines that the Project is categorically exempt from CEQA because the Project is an infill development project as described in Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption. 7 I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting held on the 13th day of April, 2016 by the following vote: AYES. Councilmembers Daryl Matsumoto, Richard A. Garbarino and Liza Normandy Vice Mayor Pradeqp Gupta and Mayor Mark N. Addiego, NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None ATTEST: Kri . arlinelli, City Clerk 8 EXHIBIT A ENVIRONMENTAL CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS 2630051.1 9 Project Information — Environmental Consistency Analysis 1. Purpose The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) allows for limited environmental review of subsequent projects under a program Environmental Impact Report (EIR). (CEQA Guidelines section 15168.) Subsequent activities in a proposed project must be examined in the light of the program EIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared. The CEQA Guidelines require agencies to use checklists or similar mechanisms to conduct this analysis. This Environmental Consistency Analysis (ECA) satisfies the CEQA Guidelines. Under this ECA,the City of South San Francisco (City) uses a written checklist to evaluate the proposed development site at 300 Miller Avenue and the proposed activity to determine whether the environmental effects of the project were sufficiently analyzed under the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (DSASP) program EIR. (CEQA Guidelines section 15168(c)(4).) On January 28, 2015, a program EIR was certified by the City Council. (Final Environmental Impact Report for the South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (DSASP), State Clearinghouse #2013102001.) The program EIR assessed the potential environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the DSASP. The DSASP established new land use, development, and urban design regulations for the area for a 20-year planning period. The following ECA has been prepared to consider whether any new environmental effects not identified in the DSASP program EIR might be created by construction and operation of the Rotary Miller Senior Housing Development project and concludes that all environmental effects were previously analyzed and no additional environmental review is required. It is important to note that the proposed project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Government Code section 65457, as it is a residential development project that is being undertaken pursuant to a specific plan for which an EIR was prepared and certified and no event specified in Public Resources Code section 21166 has occurred. The project is also exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15332 as it is a qualified in-fill development project. This ECA demonstrates that even if the project was not exempt from CEQA, it would still qualify for streamlining pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15168. In addition, this analysis further supports the above-stated exemption by concluding that all environmental effects stemming from the project were previously analyzed and no event pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21.166 has occurred since the preparation and certification of the DSASP program EIR. IT. Project Description I Proiect Title Rotary Miller Senior Housing Development 300 Miller Avenue 2. Lead Agency Name and Address City of South San Francisco 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 I Contact Person and Phone Number Rozalynne Thompson Associate Planner Economic and Community Development Department-Planning Division (650) 877-8535 rozalynne.thompson@ssf.net 4. Project Location The City of South San Francisco 5. Protect Sponsor's Name and Address J.P. Stocco,Deputy Development Director Beacon Development, Inc. 6120 Stoneridge Mall Road, Suite 300 Pleasanton, CA 94588 (925)924-7112 6. General Plan Designation Downtown Residential 7, Zonin Downtown Station Area Specific Plan(DSASP)—Downtown Residential Core Zoning Sub-District 8. Description of Project The applicant proposes to construct a new five-story residential building comprised of 91 affordable senior housing residential units above a parking garage. The total gross floor area of the building will be 88,287 square feet and will be 65 feet tall. The building will be constructed of four stories of wood frame over one-story concrete podium. The first floor will accommodate the parking area, bicycle storage, lobby, office, utility spaces, and a 1,993 square-foot community assembly space. The second through fifth floors will consist of a total of 80 one-bedroom apartments and one two-bedroom apartment, 7,489 square feet of open space in the form of two terraces and a main courtyard, and resident amenities, such as laundry and lounge areas. The applicant proposes to provide 39 vehicle parking spaces, four short-teen bicycle parking spaces, and 20 long-term bicycle spaces. Because Table 20.330.004 of the Zoning Ordinance does not specify the parking requirement for Senior Residential Housing uses, the parking requirement for the project will be established as part of the Conditional Use Permit process pursuant to Section 20.330.004(D) of the Zoning Ordinance. The project will also merge four contiguous parcels, a 14,000 square-foot municipal surface parking lot (APN 012-311-260) and 310, 312, and 314 Miller Avenue (APNs 012-311-230, 012-311-240, 012-311-250, respectively), which are each 3,500 square feet 2 and developed with single-story and two-story residential structures. Once all four parcels are merged, all existing residential structures will be demolished to accommodate the proposed project. 9. Existing Uses On-Site The project site is comprised of four parcels. The westernmost parcel is 14,000 square feet and is currently used as a municipal surface parking lot. The three other parcels are each 3,500 square feet and developed with single-story and two-story residential structures. 10. Su rounding Land Uses and Settin The project site is in the portion of the DSASP area west of US-101. The immediate vicinity includes the nearby South San Francisco Caltrain station, US-101, Airport Boulevard, and a mixture of low-density residential, mixed-use, and commercial development along Linden Avenue and Miller Avenue. 11. Other public agencies whose approval is required(e.g.,permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): None. Development will be subject to entitlements solely from the City of South San Francisco. III. Determination The project is within the scope of the DSASP program EIR and no new environmental document is required. (CEQA Guidelines section 15168(c).) All of the following statements are found to be true: 1. This subsequent project will have no additional significant effects not discussed or identified in the DSASP program EIR; 2. No new or additional mitigation measures or alternatives are required or if they are required, the project proponent has agreed to adopt them as part of the project; 3. This subsequent project is within the scope of the project covered by the Final EIR for the City's DSASP; 4. All applicable policies,regulations, and mitigation measures identified in the DSASP program FIR will be applied to this subsequent project or otherwise made conditions of approval of this subsequent project; and 5. No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the DSASP program EIR was certified which would require major revisions to the DSASP program FIR, and no new information,which was not known and could not have been known at the time that the DSASP program EIR was certified as complete,has become available. 3 Issues: I. AFSTRETICS -- Would the project.- a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not limited to, trees,rock outcroppings,and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? ("Glare" is defined in the DSASP program FIR as the reflection of harsh bright light sufficient to cause physical discomfort or loss in visual performance and visibility) Documentation: a. The DSASP program EIR (p. 4.1-9) concluded that no scenic, vistas or view corridors existed within the DSASP area but that there are prominent visual landmarks in South San Francisco outside of the DSASP area, including San Bruno Mountain, Sign Hill Park, the "Wind Harp Tower"at San Bruno Point Hill and the San Francisco Bay. There are no designated scenic outlooks within the DSASP area and no designated places where people would gather in order to gain a view of San Bruno Mountain or Sign Hill Park. Additionally, all new development under the DSASP would have building heights consistent with the land use designations of the development sites. Since the land use designations are approved by the General Plan, blockage of these views by new development would be consistent with the City's regulations. Therefore, the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista, consistent with the DSASP program EI.R. b, State Route 101 parallels the eastern boundary of the DSASP area; however, State Route 101 is not an f Q,ficially designated state scenic highway Neither Tamarack Lane nor Miller Avenue, the two roadways along the northern and southern boundaries of the project site, are state scenic highways _,h ia a ,srarrcara.lrtrr7l. Therefore, the Project will have a no impact in scenic resources within a state scenic highway. The existing Downtown area is currently comprised of varying building heights and vernacular architecture, and lacks a cohesive grid street network. There is little to no streetscape, the area is deteriorated in certain locations, and is generally not designed for optimal pedestrian and commercial activity. Implementation of the DSASP has established design guidelines and standards to improve the overall aesthetic quality of the DSASP area as a whole. The proposed project would be beneficial to the DSASP area, as it will include 81 new residential units within a modern building, will provide significant pedestrian and streetscape enhancements, such as two new bulb outs and a raid-block pedestrian crossing and new street trees, along Miller Avenue, and redevelop the site. Design Standard 20 of the DSASP requires projects in the specific plan area to "[c)ionsider the impacts of shade and wind on open spaces,pedestrian corridors and retail streets in the massing and articulation ofbuildingfacades". A shadow study was prepared to analyze whether the Project would create substantial shade impacts on open spaces, pedestrian corridors, and retail streets and whether the Project would create shadows that "substantially degrade"the quality of the site and its surroundings. In addition to open spaces, pedestrian corridors, and retail streets, the analysis also discussed the Project's potential to incrementally increase shadows on schools; routinely usable outdoor spaces associated with residential units, such as yards or other outdoor seating areas; and shade sensitive commercial uses, which would include pedestrian-oriented outdoor spaces or dining areas, nurseries, and solar collectors, North of"the Project site is Tamarack Lane, a narrow alley. On the north side of'Tamarack Lane across from the Project Site is a single-story multifamily residential development with approximately eight units. Single-family residences are located on either side of the multifamily building to the east and west with frontage on Tamarack Lane, There are no schools,parks, or other public open spaces in the immediate vicinity of the Project Site. There are also no shade-sensitive commercial uses, which would include pedestrian-oriented outdoor spaces or dining areas, nurseries, and solar collectors, in the vicinity of the Project Site 4 The study concluded that the proposed Project would cast new shadows on Tamarack Lane and portions of the residential properties in the vicinity of the Project Site. No new shadows would be cast upon open spaces, pedestrian corridors, and retail streets,- therefore, the Project would not have an impact on these categories of shade-sensitive uses. The study also concluded that the Project would also cast some new shadows on residential properties west of the Project Site during portions of the morning; however, these shadows would he transitory in nature and leave the western properties unshaded by noon. To the north and east, the Project would result in incrementally new shadows on the non-shade-sensitive portions of residential and commercial properties, such as parking areas, roofs, and driveways. Because the Project does not have the potential to increase shadows on schools; routinely usable outdoor spaces associated with residential units, such as yards or other outdoor seating areas; and shade-sensitive commercial uses, it would not substantially degrade the quality of the Project Site and its surroundings, and the Project would result in less than significant impacts. c. The land uses accommodated under the DSASP would have the potential to include sources of light and glare, such as security lighting or new glass paneled buildings. However, the DSASP area is currently developed with similar land uses. Redevelopment would not result in a substantial net increase in nighttime lighting or daytime glare sources. The South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMQ includes multiple building and construction regulations and zoning requirements that are intended to minimize localized light and glare impacts. Additionally, the DSASP Performance Standards and adopted zoning regulations state that all new pedestrian light fixtures shall be designed to,focus light onto sidewalks and to minimize light spillover into adjacent upper level building windows or into the night sky. The proposed project has been designed to adhere to these requirements and therefore, no new sources of substantial light or glare not evaluated by the DSASP program EIR would result from implementation of the project, 11. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES--Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland of Statewide Importance(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,or a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for,or cause rezoning of,forest land,timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? Documentation: a. , c, d& e. No agricultural uses are located in the DSASP area, and the area does not contain any Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, forest land, timberland, timberland production, or forest land(DSASP program EIR p. 5-1). The project is located in a built-out urban environment, and therefore would not convert farmland to a non-agricultural use. Consistent with the DSASP program EIR, no impact would occur as a result of the proposed project. b. The project would not conflict with any agricultural zoning use or a Williamson Act contract. There are no such zoned land uses or Williamson Act contracts in the project vicinity (DSASP program EIR p. 5-1). Consistent with the DSASP program EIR, no impact would occur as a result of the proposed project. 111.AIR QUALITY Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate an air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or 5 projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard,(including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative threshold for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations,including, but not limited to, substantial levels of toxic air contaminants? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Doenmentation: a. -c. The DSASP program FIR (pp. 4.2-10 through 4.2-28) identified significant and unavoidable impacts related to air quality for construction and operational activities of new development if mitigation measures were not implemented for all future projects. Mitigations were suggested by the EIR, but the City Council determined that such impacts could not be avoided even with the incorporation of these measures, and that no other feasible mitigations or alternatives would avoid or lessen the impacts. Consequently, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the DSASP program EIR on January 28, 2015 that weighed new development benefits against potential impacts and determined that significant and unavoidable impacts to air quality were acceptable in light of the benefits of DSASP development. The proposed project is in compliance with all applicable DSASP regulations, and as a result, would not create any additional construction or operational emission impacts in excess of those addressed by the DSASP program EIR and Statement of Overriding Considerations, The project would be required to comply with the Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program (MMPP) and the applicable Mitigation Measures outlined in the DSASP program EIR as a condition of approval. While implementation of mitigation measure MM4.2-1 and MM4.2-2 have the potential to reduce air pollutant emissions from construction by requiring compliance with BAAQMD construction mitigation measures, and operation through the reduction of project-related trips, they cannot guarantee that emissions would be lessened to below a significance level. Therefore; even with implementation of mitigation, construction and operational emissions would be significant and unavoidable impacts. d. The DSASP program EIR (pp. 4.2-22 through 4,2-27) concluded that development in accordance with the DSASP regulations would expose sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminants (T4 Cs) and particulates (PM2_5) if'IoCated within 500 feet of afteeway, urban roads with 100,000 vehicles/day, or the Caltrain railroad,-within 300 feet oj'dly cleaners using perehlorethylene; or 300 feet of a gas station with a throughput of'3.6 million gallons per year or greater, DSASP Mitigation Measure MM4.2-3 requires a Health Risk Assessment be prepared and approved by the City if a project is sited within those limits. Although potentially sensitive receptors—senior residents with health conditions that could be adversely impacted by changes in air quality — would reside within the project, the siting distance of the project falls outside of the siting limits identified in DSASP Mitigation Measure MM4.2-3. The project is located 1,013 feet from the US-I01 freeway and there are no urban roads with 100,000 vehicles per day within the vicinity of the project site. The nearest dry cleaning use, Central Cleaners, is located 332 feet from the project site and outsources the dry cleaning process to an off-site plant. The nearest gas station is located 66 feet from the project site and produces a throughput less than 3.6 million gallons per year. There/bre, exposure to sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations will be minimal and less than a significant impact. e. Typical land uses that generate objectionable odors as identified in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines-and California Air Resources Board (ARB) Air Quality and Land Use Handbook include, but are not limited to, wastewater treatment plants, landfills, composting facilities, food manufacturing plants, recycling facilities, and automobile body shops. The project proposes a 5,480 square foot commercially fficespace on the ground floor in addition to the 81 residential units. No use for the space has been specified at this time. Should a food service, restaurant, or other use which could create objectionable odors,be proposed in the space, operation of the use must comply with City and BAAQMD regulations including those related to ventilation, odor control, and safety. Furthermore, the project would accommodate refuse and recycling in enclosed trash rooms on each residential floor and the lowerlstreet level of the project garage. Refuse and recycling pick-up would be provided by a local waste service provider (South San Francisco Scavenger) and would occur on a weekly basis. For the aforementioned reasons, construction and operation of the proposed project would not create objectionable odors. 6 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES— Would theproject: a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate,sensitive,or special status species in local or regional plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U,S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,policies,regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act(including,but not limited to,marsh, vernal pool,coastal,etc.)through direct removal, filling,hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan? Documentation: a. — c. The DSASP area is currently developed with residential, commercial, and office uses. There are no large open spaces in the project area. Open space within the Downtown area consists of developed park-land, mostly graded vacant lots, and a portion of the PG&E transmission corridor. The City's General Plan identifies the areas of the City that support biological resources, which generally consist of San Bruno Mountain, Sign Hill, and wetland areas along Colma Creek (South San Francisco General Plan, 1999, Open Space and Conservation Element). The City requires assessment and protection qJ'biological resources for development in these areas. The DSASP area is not located in an area that supports biological resources. Only a small portion on the southern boundary of the DSASP area is adjacent to the Colma Creek Canal. The area is located south of Airport Boulevard, east of the railroad track, and east of*San Mateo Avenue and the project site is located approximately 0,44 miles from Colma Creek. Riparian habitat in South San Francisco is limited to along Colma Creek and along the Bay fringe. However, the DSASP does not propose any land use directly adjacent to the canal and the area directly adjacent to the canal is currently in use for utility infrastructure and right-of-way. The proposed project is not proximate to this location. Therefore, consistent with the DSASP program EIR, this project would not result in any substantial adverse impacts to sensitive plant or animal species. The DSASP program EIR (pp. 5-1 through 5-2) concluded that special-status species would be potentially ajftcted only by DSASP facilitated development that is adjacent to Colma Creek. The project site is located approximately 2,270 feet from Colma Creek-, and, therefore, would not result in such an impact. Furthermore, the proposed project site is located in a developed area within South San Francisco's Downtown, which has been developed with urban land uses for over 100 years. Therefore, the project would not result in any substantial adverse impacts to sensitive plant or animal species. d. Construction and development associated with implementation of the proposed project would not occur within an area containing habitat that supports biological resources. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on wildlife movement corridors. Landscaping vegetation within the DSASP area could provide potential nesting habitat for migrating birds. If vegetation removal were to occur during the February I through August 31 bird nesting period, construction would be required to comply with applicable regulations in the California Fish and Game Code (Section 3503, 3513, or 3800), which would protect nesting birds from construction disturbances and this will be required as a condition of approval. Thus, impacts of the project on migratory wildlife will be less-than- significant. 7 e. The project area contains trees defined as protected by the South San Francisco Tree Preservation Ordinance, Title 13, Chapter 13.30. Development activities would involve removing a Ficus tree with a circumference of 50 inches and a Melaleuca tree with a circumference of 57 inches. The project would be required to comply with the Tree Preservation Ordinance as part of the project approval process, which includes obtaining a permit for removal of any protected trees on the site. This will be required as a condition of approval. The project would not result in any new or unidented impacts consistent with the evaluation of the DSASPprogram EIR. f There is no adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Communities Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan that is applicable to the DSASP area or proposed project. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES-- Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Documentation: a. The DSASP program EIR (pp. 4.3-11 through 4.3-13) identifies 12 historic resources within the DSASP area and an additional 12 sites within 0.5 mile of the area boundaries. Although the Grand Avenue commercial corridor was suggested as a historic district, it was never formally designated. The DSASP program EIR concluded that there would he potential impacts to these resources only for project sites located on or directly adjacent to a historic resource. Because implementation of the DSASP could potentially demolish historical resources, the DSASP concluded that the impacts to historical resources would be significant and unavoidable. A Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) was adopted and, with respect to historical resources, identified mitigation measures that would reduce impacts. Specifically, the SOC requires implementation of mitigation measure MW4,3-1, which requires a qualified professional to conduct a site-specific historical resource evaluation for future development within the DSASP area that would demolish or otherwise physically affect buildings or structures 45 years old or older or would otherwise affect their historic setting and make recommendations for eliminating or reducing impacts to historic resources. The City of South San Francisco's Department of Parks and Recreation prepared a Historic Resources Inventory in 1986 and identified the structures located at 310 Miller Avenue and 314 Miller Avenue as potentially historic resources. A Historic Resource Evaluation (TIRE) of the structures located at 310, 312, and 314 was prepared by VerPlanck Historic Preservation Consulting. The three subject properties: 310, 312, and 314 Miller Avenue, contain a total of six dwellings, including three ea. 1895 cottages facing Miller Avenue(310, 312, and 314 Miller Avenue) and three secondary dwellings facing Tamarack Lane, including 311 Tamarack Lane (built. ca. 1922), 313 Tamarack Lane (built ca. 1940), and 315 Tamarack Lane (built ca. 1915). According to the LIRE, the only building that retains sufficient integrity is the cottage at 310 Miller Avenue and therefore, appears eligible for listing in the California Register. The Project would require demolishing 310 Miller Avenue, a potentially historic building, The HRE outlines recommendations that could reduce the Project's impact. The HRE recommends a combination of documenting 310 Miller Avenue to Historic American Building Survey (NABS) standards, developing publicly- accessible interpretive display that documents and commemorates the history of a historical resource, and an earnest attempt to relocate the building to another site nearby. These recommendations will be included cis a Condition of Approval and, thus, there is no new effects pursuant to 15162 or 15168(c)(2). b, The proposed project would not cause a potentially significant impact to any known archaeological resources in the project vicinity. However, the DSASP program EIR (pp. 4.3-13 through 4.3-14) concluded that there is a high potential for new development facilitated by the DSASP to disturb unrecorded archaeological resources, which represented a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures MM4.3-2 through MM4.3-4 of the DSASP 8 program EIR requires that prior to any earth-disturbing activities (e.g., excavation, trenching, grading) or in the event that any deposit oj'prehistoric or historic archaeological materials are encountered during project construction activities, all work within 100 feet shall be stopped and a qualified archaeologist be contacted to assess the deposit and make recommendations, possibly including complete avoidance of the resources, in-place preservation, and/or data recovery. Additionally,prior to start of construction, the supervisor will undergo worker- environmental awareness training or provide evidence of such training that is City-approved. Consequently, with implementation of these measures, which shall be required as conditions of approval for the project, the project will not result in any new environmental effects beyond those previously analyzed and addressed in the DSASP program EIR. c. The proposed project would not cause a potentially significant impact to any known paleontological resources in the project vicinity, However, the DSASP program EIR (p,4.3-14) concluded that earthimoving activity associated with DSASP-facilitated development could potentially disrupt, alter; or eliminate as-Yet undiscovered paleontological resources, which represented a potentially significant impact, Mitigation Measures MM4.3-5 and MM4.3-6 of the DSASP program EIR requires that prior to the issuance of grading or demolition permits, the Community Development Department, in coordination with a qualified paleontologist, assess individual development proposals for the potential to destroy unique paleontological resources and to determine provisions to protect such resources when applicable, possibly including complete avoidance of the resources, in-place preservation, and/or data recovery as detailed in MM4.3-5. Additionally, should paleontological resources or unique geologic features be idented at a particular site during project construction, construction shall cease within 100 feet of the find and the City shall be notified. A City-approved paleontologist shall assess the significance of the find and impacts to any significant resources shall be mitigated to a less-than-significant level through methods determined adequate by the paleontologist and as approved by the City. These measures, which shall be required as conditions of approval for the project, would reduce the potential impacts of the project on paleontological resources to a less-than-sign iticant level, consistent with the evaluation of the DSASP program EIR. d. The proposed project would not cause a potentially significant impact to any known cemeteries or human remains in the project vicinity (DSASP program EIR p. 4,3-15). However, should any human remains be found during on- or off-site improvements associated with the proposed project, the DSASP program EIR identifies California Health and Safety Code section 7050.5 requiring that no further disturbances shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to the origin and disposition of the remains pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRQ Section 5097.98. PRC section 5097.98 outlines the Native American Heritage Commission notification process and the required procedures if the County Coroner determines the human remains to be Native American, Compliance with this standard regulation would protect unknown and previously unidentified human remains, and thus, impacts related to unknown human remains would be less than signcant and no mitigation would be required, consistent with the evaluation of the DSASP program EIR, VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS— Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,including the risk of loss,injury,or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide,lateral spreading, subsidence,liquefaction,or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater diTorals stems where sewers are not available for the 9 Idisposal of wastewater? Documentation: a, (i.-iv) The DSASP area is not located within an Earthquake Fault Zone as defined by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1994 and no known active or potentially active faults traverse the study area. Because ground rupture generally only occurs at the location of afiault, and no active faults are known to traverse the DSASP area, the project would not be subject to a substantial risk of surface fault ruptures. The City and the larger San Francisco Bay Area are in a seismically active region. A rupture of the Peninsula Segment of'the San Andreas Fault could result in intensities registering 7.1 on the modi/ted Mercalli intensity scale in the South San Francisco area. Most of the City would experience an intensity level of VII (Nonstructural Damage) or VIII (Moderate)from a rupture of the Peninsula Segment of the San Andreas Fault during an earthquake with a 7.1 magnitude. According to the South San Francisco General Plan, portions of the DSASP area are located in areas potentially subject to extremely high or very high levels of ground shaking (Yee General Plan Health and Safety Element Figure 8-2 [General Plan Policies for Seismically Sensitive Lands]), The structural design of the proposed buildings must adhere to state and City building code standards, such as the California Building Code (CBC), which dune minimum acceptable levels of risk and safety. Additionally, in accordance with the General Plan Policy 8.1 11, special occupancy land uses (hospitals, schools, and other structures that are important to protecting health and safety in the community) would not be located in the areas designated as seismically sensitive in General Plan Figure 8-2, Compliance with existing state and City regulations would be consistent with the analysis of the DSASP program EIR that identified that existing regulations would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. Because the DSASP area is located in a seismically active region, the potential for seismic-related ground failure exists, including liquefaction. Most of the DSASP area is located in an area with very low susceptibility for liquefaction, except a portion of the DSASP area east of US 101 with a moderate to very high risk-for liquefaction (USGS n.d.). However, proposed development must adhere to the CRC and the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, which include requirements for geotechnical investigations in areas with high risks for liquefaction, including mitigation to minimize risks. Compliance with existing state and City regulations would be consistent with the analysis of the DSASP program EIR that identified that existing regulations would reduce impacts to a less-than-signficant level. The parts of the San Francisco Bay region having the greatest susceptibility to landslides are hilly areas underlain by weak bedrock units with slopes greater than 15 percent. In South San Francisco, this hazard is primarily located on the southern flank of San Bruno Mountain in the Terrabay development and near Skyline Boulevard Because the DSASP area is located in an area with slopes less than 13 percent, natural slope instability is not a concern. Excavation wall stability would be regulated by C.BC Chapter 33 and consistent with the DSASP program EIR analysis, b-e. Earth-disturbing activities associated with construction would be temporary and erosion effects would depend lamely on the areas excavated, the quantity of excavation, and the length of time soils are subject to conditions that would be affected by erosion processes. In addition, all construction activities would be required to comply with CBC Chapter 18, which regulate.,;excavation activities and the construction offoundations and retaining walls, and CBC Chapter 33, which regulates safeguarding activities, including drainage and erosion control. Additionally, development would continue to be required to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System general permit for construction activities. Pursuant to this permit, as part of an erosion control plan, construction site erosion and sedimentation control best management practices(BMPs) would be implemented and would include such measures as silt fences, watering for dust control, straw bale check dams, hydroseeding, and other measures. Further, development under the DSASP will be required to comply with all applicable provisions of the San Mateo Countywide Slormwater Pollution Prevention Program (STOPPP), and requires runoff management programs that would include BMPs to control erosion and sedimentation. Following construction, future development would consist almost entirely of impervious surfaces and would not be subject to substantial erosion or topsoil loss. The soil in South San Francisco is generally characterized as having a low expansion potential, with the exception of areas at the base of the San Bruno Mountains or adjacent to San Francisco Bay. Development in the DSASP area would not be located in an area at high risk for expansive soils. The proposed project would not produce wastewater that requires support of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. The City of South San Francisco would continue to provide wastewater service to the entire DSASP area Compliance with the required regulations would ensure that the project does not result in new environmental effects beyond those previously analyzed and addressed in the DSASP program EIR. Therefore, the project remains consistent with the analysis of the DSASP program EIR. 10 VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS-- Would the project: a), Generate greenhouse gas emissions,either directly or indirectly,that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan,policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Doeumentation: a. A limited amount of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions would occur during demolition and construction activities. Because GHGs remain in the atmosphere for years, even the temporary emissions from construction activities would be cumulatively considerable without the implementation of'BAA QMD-recomm ended BMPs, and the City's General Plan and Climate Action Plan (CAP)policies to reduce construction-related GHG emissions. Implementation of the General Plan and CAP policies along with mitigation measure MM4.4-1 would reduce this impact to less than cumulatively significant. Incorporation of the General Plan and CAP policies would reduce the generation of waste from construction activities, thereby reducing the emission of GHGs associated with waste disposal and decomposition. Implementation of the DSASP prograrn EIR Mitigation Measure MM4.4-1 would reduce GHG emissions associated with waste and would have the potential to reduce combustion-related GHG emissions by reducing the amount or type of fuel utilized at construction sites. In summary, construction emissions would be temporary in nature and would not significantly contribute to regional GHG levels with appropriate prescribed mitigation measures. The DSASP program EIR (pp. 4.4-21 through 4.4-26) determined that while the occupancy and operation of DSASP facilitated projects would generate GHG emissions, these emissions would be subject the City's adopted CAP and the CAPspolicies. Mitigation Measures MM4.4-2 through MM4.4-10, as applicable, will be incorporated into the project as conditions oJ'approval, As such, the project's GHG emissions would result in a less-than- signcant impact. This project is consistent with the DSASP program EIR analysis and would not result in new or unidentified impacts. Further, the Conditions of Approval and MMRP mitigation measures implement existing, not new, mitigation and therefore, the project remains consistent with the analysis of the DSASP program EIR. & As indicated above, with implementation ofmitigation, the project within the DSASP would meet the goals identified in the Cft) qf South San Francisco's CAP which is needed to reduce GHG emissions within the City to exceed the Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32)goals moving past 2020. Therefore, the emissions of GHGsfi-om new development within the DSASP would be consistent with both AB 32 and the CAP for the City. This project is consistent with the DSASP program EIR analysis and would not result in new or unidentified impacts. Further, the Conditions of Approval and MMRP mitigation measures implement existing, not new, mitigation and therefore, the project remains consistent with the analysis of the DSASPprogyram EIR. VIII.HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS-- Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,use,or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances,or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and,as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? 11 e) For a project located within an airport land use plan,or,where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,injury,or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Documentation: a. The project would include 81 residential units, associated uses, and a 5,480 square foot commerciallofflce space. It would not involve routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, nor would it result in hazardous emissions. The DSASP program EIR (p. 5-4) concluded that while some hazardous substances may be generated, stored, transported, used or disposed of in association with residential and non-residential development projects Downtown (e.g., cleaning supplies), existing local, State, and federal regulations and oversight would reduce the potential threat to a less-than-significant impact. This project is consistent with the DSASP program EIR analysis and would not result in new or unidentijied impacts. b. & c. Although the project site is 0.19 miles fi-om the nearest school, the proposed project would not create a signcant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. No manufacturing or industrial processes that utilize or produce dangerous substances are proposed with this project, and the DSASP program EIR (p. 5-4) concluded that--with mandatory local, State, and federal regulations in place--the risk to the public or the environment from upset and accident conditions would represent a less-than-significant impact. This project is consistent with the DSASP program EIR analysis and would not result in new or unidentified impacts. d. According to the State Water Resources Control Board GeoTracker database, there are several open and closed hazardous materials cases in the DSASP area, Cases are concentrated south of Grand Avenue and along the US 101 corridor. The majority qf'cases involve leaking underground storage tanks(LUST). Other cases involve solvents and dry cleaning chemicals. The proposed project site(300 Miller Avenue) is not located on a site included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled by the State Water Resources Control Board Geotracker database ............ viewed.March 8, 2016). Therefore, the impacts related to listed hazardous ... ..... materials sites is less-than-significant and would be consistent with the analysis of the DSASP program EIR. e. -f The project area is located approximately 1.39 miles north of the San Francisco International Airport(SFIA). The DSASP area is located outside of all airport Safety Compatibility Zones.However, the DSASP area is located within Airport Influence Area B and is subject to Federal Aviation Administration notcation requirements (see Exhibit IV-10 [FAA Notification Form 7460—Filing Requirements, of the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport]) (C/CAG 2012). The maximum building height allowed in the DSASP area (120 feet)would be below 163.2 feet, which is the lowest obstruction standard in the DSASP area (Yee Exhibit IV 14, 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 77 Airport Imaginary Surfaces – North Side, of the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport). Additionally, all future development under the DSASP would be subject to review for compatibility with the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan for SFIA. Consistent with CER Part 77, developers proposing structures taller than the notification elevations identified in Exhibit IV-10 of the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan would be required to file a notcation with the FAA at least 30 days before the proposed start of construction, Most of the DSASP area, including the proposed project site, is located in area that requires notification for buildings taller than 100 feet. The proposed structure is 65 feet and, therefore, would not require notification, Coordination with the FAA would ensure that a significant safety hazard would not occur. There are no private airstrips within two miles of the DSASP area. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project vicinity, consistent with the analysis of the DSASPprogram EIR. g. Construction activities associated with development under the DSASP could potentially affect emergency response or evacuation plans due to temporary construction barricades or other obstructions that could impede emergency access on site. However, SFFMC Section 11.16.170 prohibits road closures or obstructions without approval by the 12 Chief o Police. Coordination with the Chief of Police would ensure that adequate emergency access is maintained during construction. As a result, the proposed project would be required to comply with the SSFMC and not impair or interfere with emergency plans, and the project is consistent with the analysis of the DSASP program EIR. h. The project site is located in a downtown urban environment not adjacent to wildlands and therefore would not expose people or structures to a significant risk-of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. This is consistent with the analysis of the DSASP program EIR. IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY-- Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level(e.g.,the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially after the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche,tsunami, or mudflow? Documentation: a. - d. To comply with the Clean Water Act (CWA), San Mateo County and the twenty cities and towns in the County, including the City of South San Francisco, formed the San Mateo Countywide STOPPP. STOPPP holds a joint municipal NPDES permit from the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The permit includes a comprehensive plan to reduce the discharge of pollutants to creeps, San Francisco Bay, and the ocean to the maximum extent possible. The San Mateo Countywide STOPPP has a Site Design Standards against guidelines intended to reduce stor7nwater pollution this checklist will be completed and required by the Water Quality Division and is included as a Condition of Approval. Construction activities would continue to be required to comply with the PDES general permit for construction activities, pursuant to which BMPs would be implemented to control..slormwater during construction, including silt fences, watering,for dust control, straw bale check-dams, hydroseeding, and other measures. Colma Creek is the City's main natural drainage system. A small area along the southern boundary of the DSASP area is adjacent to Colma Creek;however, Colma Creek does not intersect the DSASP area and future development of the project would not alter the course of Colma Creek- or any other waterway. Surface and stormwater runoff from the DSASP area is collected by the City's storm drainage system. The existing storm drainage system in the project area is designed to accommodateflows./rom urbanized development and takes into account the high ratio of impervious surfaces in the area. The proposed project would remove existing buildings on the site and redevelop the 13 area with similar uses. The ratio of impervious surface area would be similar to existing conditions, thereby not increasing runoff or storm water flows over existing conditions. During construction, erosion and run-off would be controlled through required compliance with the NPDES general permit for construction activities, including preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. Compliance with existing regulations would ensure that the project is consistent with the analysis of the DSASP program EIR, would not create any new or unidentified environmental effects, and would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. e. Redevelopment under this project would require new drainage structures and localized on-site storm drain systems. This project proposes a new storm drain system to accommodate anticipated runoff and sizing will be directed by the Engineering Division, as appropriate during the Building Permit process. The San Mateo Countywide STOPPP has a Site Design Standards Checklist to evaluate proposed projects against guidelines intended to reduce stormwater pollution. This project will be required to conform to those provisions and the development would be required to comply with all applicable regulations pertaining to water quality. Compliance with existing regulations would ensure that the project is consistent with the analysis of'the DSASP program EIR and would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. f With implementation of the San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) as part of both the NPDES permit program, project construction would result in no degradation of existing water quality.. Furthermore, operation of*the proposed project would not generate any foreseeable uses that would substantially degrade water quality. The proposed project is in compliance with all applicable regulations, as evaluated by the DSASP program EIR and as a result, no additional water quality impacts are anticipated with implementation of* this project. g. -j. Portions oJ'the DSASP area east qf'US 101, north of Armour Avenue, and south of 2nd Lane are within the 100- year flood hazard area, but the proposed prqject is not within this portion of DSASP (California Department of Water Resources 2013). No residences are proposed east of US 101; therefore, no impact would occur in this area. However, high-density residential land use could be accommodated within the 100-year flood hazard area north of Armour Avenue and south of 2nd Lane.However, consistent with General Plan Policy 8.2-1-2, the City would ensure as part of the development review process that proposed development in the 100-year flood hazard area would provide adequate flood protection, The project is consistent with the analysis of the DSASP program EIR. The project site is not located in a potential dam failure inundation area (http,-Ilresilience.abag.ca.govlwp- contentldocument,vIMap-Plate,5.pdj), A 1.5-million-gallon storage reservoir located on the top of San Bruno Hill poses the greatest risk of seiche hazards in the DSASP area. However, because the reservoir holds a relatively small volume of water, water released during seiching would be largely absorbed in the vegetated hillsides.. Because the hillsides are not very steep, the flow of water would not be rapid. Also, water would drain away from the hill instead ofponding and resulting in high water levels. Thus, seiche inundation impacts are considered to be less than significant in the project area. The project site is not located in an area at risk far tsunami inundation; therefore, a significant impact related to tsunamis would not occur(California EMA et al. 2009). The potential far inundation by mudflow is considered low because the DSASP area does not contain steep slopes. Hillsides surrounding the DSASP area are covered by development andlor landscaping. Rainfall onto these areas would encounter vegetation or impervious su)faces, and would not pose a risk of causing saturated soil to loosen and flow downhill. Thus, there would be no mudflow inundation impact on the DSASP project area, as evaluated in the DSASP program EIR. X. LAND USE AND PLANNING-- Would the project, a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy,or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project(including,but not limited to the general plan,specific plan,local coastal program,or zoning ordinance)adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect'? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? 14 Documentation: a. The DSASP program EIR (p. 4.5-10) concludes that implementation of the DSASP would reinforce, with no substantial change in, established community-wide land use patterns. The EIR also concludes that the DSASP land use characteristics,provisions, and development standards would result in beneficial land use effects. The DSASP has been incorporated into the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The proposed project is consistent with the DSASP standards and zoning regulations and as a result, no further analysis is required. L The project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy, or regulation of agencies with jurisdiction over the project (DSASP program EIR p. 4,5-11). The project complies with all applicable DSASP standards, guidelines, and regulations. Ae applicant will be requesting a Conditional Use Permit to reduce or modify some requirements consistent with the City's adopted Zoning Ordinance. Overall density for this project will be consistent with the standards set forth in SSFMC 20.280.004 at 125 dwelling units per acre for affordable Senior Housing projects in the Downtown Residential Core. The DSASP would yield significant amounts of new residential and employment uses in the DSASP area, where development potential would be determined by applying the land use, density and intensity assumptions to land within each distric,t. For the purposes of the DSASP and for assessing environmental impacts, associated with the plan, it has been assumed that only 25 percent of parcels in the DSASP area would be developed within the plan's 20 year time/rame. Assuming only 25 percent of the parcels within the DSASP area would be redeveloped over the approximate 20-year time/rame of the plan, the DSASP has the potential to add 1,435 units of residential uses to the existing 1,426 units in the area, for a total of 2,861 residential units in the proximity of the Caltrain station. Additionally, the DSASP has the potential to add a maximum of 1.2 million sf of new office/R&D uses, which represents as many as 2,400 or more jobs added to the City. This project represents 81 new residential units, which will bring the cumulative total to fewer than 500 total new residential units within the DSASP area since its adoption in January 2015. As a result, no potentially,significant land use or planning impacts are anticipated and no,further analysis beyond the DSASP program EIR is necessary. c. There is no adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Communities Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan that is applicable to the DSASP area and the project remains consistent with the analysis of the DSASP program EIR. XI. MINERAL]RESOURCES-- Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,specific plan or other land use plan? Documentation: a. - b. No signcant mineral deposits are identified in the DSASP area (DSASPprogram EIR p. 5-7). Theproject site is within the DSASP and neither contains valuable or locally important mineral resources nor consumes significant amounts ofmineral resources. Therefore,project implementation would not create an impact on mineral resources, consistent with the analysis oj'the DSASP program EIR. I. NOISE— Would the prqlect result in., a) Exposure of persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance,or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generate excessive ground-borne vibration or groundbome noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the 15 project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 0 For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Documentation: a.-b, Noise in South San Francisco is regulated by the City's Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8,32 of'the Municipal Code). In addition, the Noise Element of the City's General Plan enumerates noise policies. More specifically, excessive and unreasonable noise levels are defined as noise levels generated by construction activities, including demolition, alteration, repair or remodeling of existing structures, and construction of new structures, on property within the City, at more than 90 decibels (dB)measured at any point within a residential district oJ'the City and outside of the plane of'the property, Therefore, construction noise is required to be less than 90 dB within residential districts and no construction noise is permitted between the hours of 8.-00 PM and 8:00 AM the following day. The City's General Plan requires all exterior noise sources (construction operations, air compressors, pumps,fans, and leaf blowers) to use available noise suppression devices and techniques to bring exterior noise down to acceptable levels compatible with adjacent land uses. The primary sources of noise from the project would be temporary construction noise and operational noise. Construction noise is largely a function of the construction equipment used, the location and sensitivity of nearby land uses, and the timing and duration of the noise-generating activities. Construction noise levels would vary depending on construction phase, equipment type and duration of use, distance between noise source and receptor, and presence or absence of barriers between noise source and receptor. All noise-generating construction activities are anticipated to be conducted on weekdays between the hours of 8:00 AM and 8:00 PM in accordance with City requirements, which require noise suppression devices to reduce noise levels below 90 dB. The DSASP program EIR (pp. 4.6-14 through 4.6-17)concluded that new DSASP facilitated multifamily residential development could be exposed to noise levels exceeding City guidelines and State Title 24 standards, resulting in a potentially significant impact, Mitigation Measure MM4.6-3 states that a noise study consistent with the requirements of the California Building Code shall be conducted for°new multifamily residential projects, and noise reduction measures necessary to achieve compatibility with the City's Noise Element guidelines and Title 24 standards (45 dBA CNEL within residential units)shall be incorporated into the project. This measure, which shall be required as a condition of approval for the project, would reduce the potential noise impacts on the project to a less-than-significant level and is consistent with and has been adequately addressed by the DSASP program.EIR, The DSASP program EIR (pp. 4.6-18 and 4.649) also identified potentially significant intermittent vibration impacts for residential projects located within 70 feet of the centerline of the Caltrain railroad tracks. The proposed project site is 1,290 feet firom the Caltrain tracks right-of-way and, therefore, intermittent vibration impacts would be less-than-significant and is consistent with and has been adequately addressed by the DSASP program EIR. c. The DSASP program EIR (pp. 4.6-20 through, 4.6-21) concluded that permanent noise levels from DSASP development would increase primarily due to new traffic patterns, new commercial development next to or below residential development, and site-specific sources such as mechanical equipment. The addition of project traffic .from build out of the entire DSASP(up to 1,400 new units) would result in an increase in noise levels of up to 3 dBA for two roadway segments in the DSASP area; however, those segments are not located adjacent to this proposed project and this project represents only a fraction of the total expected units within the DSASP' area, Therefbre, project-related impacts associated with increases in traffic noise will he less-than-significant and have been adequately addressed by the DSASP program EIR. d. The DSASP program EIR (1). 4.6-22) concluded that potentially significant temporary noise and vibration impacts, could be generated by demolition and construction activities in the DSASP area. Construction of'land uses accommodated by the DSASP area would not take place all at once, and would be spread throughout the DSASP area so that limited receptors would be exposed to construction noise at any given time. Under SSTMC Section 8.32.050(d), construction activities are limited to between the hours of 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM on weekdays, 9:00 AM to 8:00 PM on Saturdays, and 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM on Sundays and holidays, or as authorized by the construction 16 permit, Construction noise that occurs during these hours is exempt from the noise level limits established in the City's Noise Ordinance because these hours are outside of the recognized sleep hours for residents and outside of evening and early morning hours and time periods where residents are most sensitive to exterior noise. Consequently, the City considers impacts resulting from construction noise during these hours to be less than significant. Project construction would be required to comply with all applicable City ordinances, including limits on construction hours. Therefore, impacts related to construction noise would be less than significant, and no .further mitigation is required, as analyzed in the DSASP program EIR. e. -f The DSASP area is located approximately 1,39 miles from San Francisco International Airport (SFO). Due to distance and the orientation of the airport runways, the DSASP area is not located within the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour of SFO (City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility.Plan for the Environ of San Francisco International Airport, October 2012). Noise levels of 65 dBA CNEL are considered compatible with residential land uses in the City's General Plan (South San Francisco 1999, Noise Element). Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, the City's General Plan Noise Element, and the DSASP program EIR analysis and related impacts would be less than significant. XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING-- Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly(for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly(for example,through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people,necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Documentation: a. With the adopted DSASP area plan, General Plan and Zoning amendments, construction of 81 new residential units and up to 240 new residents (2.96 per household) would be consistent with the General Plan, where additional population growth clue to the higher-density areas within the DSASP area has been accounted for in future population growth projections for the City. Additionally, a higher employment rate has also been accounted for in the General Plan. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with all governing documents and policies regulating the City and would not exceed the build-out estimated population of'the amended General Plan. Thus, the impacts from direct population growth as a result of new housing units with this project would be consistent with the DSASP program EIR and no further analysis is required. The DSASP provides for infill development that makes maximum use of existing infrastructure. The DSASP area is located in the center of a dense urban area, and implementation of the DSASP would not include extension of the existing infrastructure, only site-specific infrastructure upgrades as needed. The proposed project is consistent with this evaluation fi-ono the DSASP program EIR and no further analysis is required. b. -c. The DSASP program EIR (pp. 4.7-11 and 4.7-12) concluded that the DSASP, and projects facilitated by it, would not result in significant displacement impacts. The study area has a population of 11,000 and an estimated 3,716 housing units, based on an average person Baer-household fiietor of 2.96. Implementation of the DSASP could result in an additional 1,435 housing units within the DSASP area between 2010 to 2035 (pp. 4.7-10) because the DSASP accommodates higher density residential development. Consequently, according to the DSASP program EIR, any affordable housing units lost would be recouped through redevelopment in the DSASP area and the DSASP would not displace significant numbers of residents or residential units necessitating construction Of' replacement housing elsewhere. Demolition of existing residential structures at 310, 312, and 314 Miller Avenue would be required to accommodate the new structure. Currently, there are a total of six residential structures on 310, 312, and 314 Miller, Ten residents live in three of the structures. The remaining three structures are unoccupied, As the project proposes residential units restricted to seniors, all ten of the residents would be permanently displaced. In compliance with the Uniform Relocation Act("URA') (42 U.S.C. §§4600 et seq.), its implementing regulations (49 CER. Part 24), the California Relocation Assistance Law, California Government Code Section 7260 et seq (the "CRAL'), and the California Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Guidelines (Title 25, California Code of Regulations, Sections 6000 et seq. (the "Guidelines')) for residential displacements, a Relocation Plan was 17 prepared in December 2015. The Relocation Plan provides the results of'o needs assessment survey, their incorporation into the Relocation Plan, and the details of the plan itself Furthermore, the Relocation Plan must be consistent with the Affordable Housing and Anti-Displacement Strategy in the DSASP. The Relocation Plan shall be included as a Condition of Approval and with approval, the project will be consistent with the DSASP regulation guidelines, the DSASP program EIR, and will not result in displacement of a substantial number of*people or housing units. V.PUBLIC SERVICES-- Would the project: a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts,in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? Documentation: a. The Project is located in the DSASP area, and, as identified in the DSASP program EIR, would result in slight population growth. The future increase in the residential population could result in an increase number of fire and police service calls. In order to ensure that an adequate police and fire set-vice is provided, the City has implemented a Public Safety Impact Fee (2012) for all new development to fund expansion of needed public services. This fee is intended to fund improvements in infrastructure or public services necessitated by new development. All development pursuant to the DSASP would be required to pay this fee. However, construction of new fire or police protection facilities is not expected as a result of'this project, as the DSASP program EIR concluded that current provision of fire or police protection facilities is adequate to serve the proposed development under the DSASP. Further reducing impacts to fire services, all development pursuant to the DSASP would be required to comply with provisions of the California Building Code and Fire Code pertaining to fire protection systems and equipment, general safety precautions, and many other general and specialized fare safety requirements for new and existing buildings and premises, including emergency access provisions (see SSFMC Sections 15.08.010 and 15.24.010, adopting the CBC and California Fire Code). The Conditions of Approval requiring these impact fees implement existing, not new mitigation„ however, and therefore, the project remains consistent with the analysis of the DSASP program EIR. Although the DSASP program EIR recognizes a slight increase in residential population, new or physically altered school facilities are not expected to be required to serve future development such as the Project due to declining enrollment throughout the district and the availability of multiple school locations. Furthermore,payment of fees collected under the authority of Califbrnia Senate Bill 50 (SB 50) would permit school districts to collect fees to offset the costs with increasing school capacity as a result of development. Moreover, as the development is restricted to adults aged 62 or older, construction of new or physically altered school facilities in not expected as a result of'this project. Therefore, the Projects impact on schools would be less than significant. The Project will also have less than a significant impact on parks. The existing parkland per resident ratio is 3.4 acres per 1,000 residents, which is .4 acre above the minimum ratio of 3.0 acres of parkland established by the Open Space Element of the General Plan. Furthermore, the Project includes 7,489 square feet of usable open space for the residents, which would partially of f set the demand far recreational facilities generated by additional residents. Therefore, it is not anticipated that Project would require new or physically altered parks and, therefore, the impact is less than significant. The Project's impact on other public facilities, such as libraries, would also be less than significant. South San Francisco has a current staff of 37 employees, which, according to the State of California Library Statistics, which exceeds the minimum number of library employees necessary by 14 staff members, The DSASP area could add an additional 4,248 residents to the City and, therefore, would require an additional staff memberfor a total oJ'24 staff 18 members. Moreover, the South San Francisco Library systems combined collection of 189,672 books and audio- visual materials provide more than the 2 items per capita recommended by the California Library Association. The Project would add at least, 81 residents to South San Francisco and therefore, no substantial increase in number of library staff or demand of library materials is expected. Thus, the Project is not expected to require any now or physically altered library facilities to serve the Project and therefore, would have a less than significant impact. XV. RECREATION— Would the project: a) Result in an increased use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Include recreational facilities, or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities,which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Documentation: a. It is expected that existing facilities serving the DSASP area would satisfy most if not all of the park and open space needs generated by the DSASP buildo ut, including this project proposal. More specifically, Orange Memorial Park and Centennial Way, along with 218 total acres ofparks and open space, averaging 3.4 acres per 1,000 residents provides a wide range of regional facilities available for the residents of the City. In addition to Orange Memorial Park and Centennial Way, there are a wide variety of City, County), educational and private recreational facilities within the City. Also, the DSASP program EIR (p. 4.9-8 and 4.9-9) concluded that there would be no significant parks, and recreation impacts resulting from the DSASP or projects built under it. Additionally, upon build-out of the DSASP, a network of new open space opportunities is anticipated that will further serve the entire DSASP area, and new development within the DSASP may,be required to pay in-lieu fees to support increases in population. The proposed project will be in compliance with all applicable DSASP regulations, as approved with the entitlements request, and as a result, is consistent with the DSASP program EIR analysis. b. The project would include private recreational facilities(e.g.,fitness center)but does not require the construction or expansion of public recreational facilities. As a result, the project would not have an adverse physical effect on the environment related to recreational facilities and is consistent with the analysis of the DSASP program EIR. XV1. TRANSPORTXFION/TRAFFIC— Would the project., a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system,taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system,including but not limited to intersections,streets,highways and freeways,pedestrian and bicycle paths,and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including,but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures,or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature(e.g.,sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Conflict with adopted policies,plans,or programs regarding public transit, bicycle,or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? 19 Documentation: a. - b. The DSASP program EIR (pp, 4.10-61 through 4.10-68) identified significant and unavoidable impacts at five area intersections, as well as impacts on freeway segments, freeway ramps, and transit service, Mitigations were suggested by the EIR, but the South San Francisco City Council determined that such impacts could not be avoided even with the incorporation of these measures, and that no other feasible mitigations or alternatives would avoid or lessen the impacts. Consequently, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the DSASP program EIR on January 28, 2015 that weighed new development benefits against potential impacts and determined that significant and unavoidable impacts to transportation/traffic was acceptable, in light of the benefits from development in the Downtown area. The proposed project is in compliance with all applicable DSASP regulations, and as a result, would not create any additional transportation or traffic impacts in excess of those addressed by the DSASP program EIR and Statement a Overriding Considerations. A trqffic analysis prepared by Abrams If Associates (Transportation, Impact Analysis, 300 Miller Avenue Senior Housing Project,Abrams Associates Traffic Engineering, Inc., September 2015) concluded that no impacts are anticipated.for either of the two intersections analyzed, with implementation of mitigation measures in the DSASP program EIR. The City Engineer has peer reviewed the analysis and determined that no further traffic analysis is required. c. The project would not result in a change in air traffic patterns at San Francisco International Airport or any other airport, including either an increase in air traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks. d. The project, as proposed, would operate within the existing roadway system. The supplemental traffic analysis prepared by Abrams Associates (Transportation, Impact Analysis, 300 Miller Avenue Senior Housing Project, Abrams Associates Trqffic Engineering, Inc., September 2015) evaluated on-site circulation and was peer-reviewed ewed by the City',v Engineering Division. Based on a review of the proposed site plan, it was determined that the internal garage circulation would function well and should not cause any safety or operational problems, that the project site design would be required to conform to City design standards, that the project is not expected to create any significant impacts to pedestrians, bicyclists, or traffic operations. Moreover, as part of the proposed project, two new bulb outs and a mid-block pedestrian crossing would be constructed, thereby improving pedestrian access to shopping, transit and amenities, and to the downtown area as a whole. Therefore, the project would have no impact resulting in a substantial increase in hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses. e. The proposed project would utilize the existing roadways in the vicinity. The project design would be required to comply with all applicable City codes and regulations pertaining to emergency access, as well as fire protection and security. In addition, all buildings would (1) include a sprinkler system; (2) Knox key box for each building with access keys to entry doors, electricallmechanical rooms, elevators, and others to be determined; and (3) maps mounted at entry gates for rapid orientation while responding to emergencies. Additionally., the City has implemented a Public Safety Impact Fee (2012)for all new development. This fee is intended to fund improvements to infrastructure or public services necessitated by new development to ensure adequate emergency access. f The applicant proposes a single- level podium parking garage with 39 parking spaces on the site. Generally, the minimum off-street parking requirement for residential units in the DSASP equates to one space per unit in the downtown area per Section 20.330.007 of the SSFMC. Thus, under that provision of the SSFMC, the project would require 81 parking spaces. As a result, the applicant has applied for an entitlement to reduce the overall parking requirement based on forecasted parking demand and vehicular trip generation and proximity of the project to transit. The applicant has provided a supplemental traffic analysis prepared by Abrams Associates (Transportation, Impact Analysis, 300 Miller Avenue Senior Housing Project,Abrams Associates Traffic Engineering, Inc., September 2015) that posits that, based on the ITE Parking Generation Manual, that the parking demand generated by a senior housing residential development located in a Central Business District (CBD) is a rate .59 of a non-senior residential housing development, thereby reducing the required number of spaces to 48. The supplemental traffic analysis also suggests that the availability of transit, the use of bicycles, and the attractiveness of walking in the mixed-use downtown environment would'further reduce parking demand and vehicle trip generation. Moreover, the Miller parking garage is located immediately across from the site, and can also accommodate additional parking demand generated by the use, Thus, with approval, the project will be consistent with the DSASP regulation guidelines, the DSASP program EIR, and will not result in inadequate parking capacity. 20 Implementation of the proposed project would not require on- or off-site improvements that would conflict with existing policies, plans, or programs that support alternative transportation. The project site is located less than one-quarter mile from a regional rail station (Caltrain) and bus depot (Sam Trans), In addition, the proposed project would support both bike and pedestrian usage consistent with the DSASP, including secure hike parking and sidewalk improvements and landscaping. Moreover, as part of the proposed project, two new bulb outs and a mid- block pedestrian crossing would be constructed, thereby improving pedestrian access to shopping, transit, and amenities, and to the Downtown area as a whole. As a result, the proposed project would not have a negative impact on alternative transportation modes, consistent with the analysis oJ'the DSASP program EIR. XVIL UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS-- Would the project- a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment or distribution facilities, or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of a new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources,or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Fail to comply with federal, state,and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Documentation: a. The DSASP program EIR (p. 4.11-30) concluded that the South San Francisco/San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant, located in South San Francisco, would ensure that the wastewater facility is able to continue to meet or exceed the wastewater treatment requirements established for it by the RWQCB, even with the additional wastewater generated by development permitted under the DSASP. b, The DSASP program EIR (pp. 4.11-21 through 4.11-24) concluded that development occurring under the DSASP would not necessitate the construction or expansion of water or wastewater treatment facilities. See items (d) and (e)below for further explanation. C. The DSASP program EIR (pp. 4.11-21 through 4.11-24) concluded that no significant increase in storm water runoff was anticipated to be created by the DSASP or DSASP-facilitated development. Furthermore, each project is required to submit documentation consistent with the State and County Water Pollution Prevention Program requirements, which are peer reviewed by the Water Quality Division of the City's Department of'Public Works. The project is expected to qualify for a 100 percent exemption under Special Project Category "C" (Transit- Oriented Development[TOD]Project) of the San Mateo County Water Pollution Prevention Program, which means that the project would be 100 percent exempt (in storm drainage volume) from County low impact development (LID) requirements because the project: (1) is within 114-mile of a transit hub; (2) has a minimum density of 100 dwelling units per acre (project density would he approximately 120 units per acre); and (3) would contain no surface parking. The result would be that up to 100 percent oJ'the project site's impervious surface runoff could be treated with media filter devices approved by the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (RA SMAA). This proposed exemption is subject to City review and approval. The project would be subject to this requirement as a condition of project approval. The Conditions of Approval and MMRP mitigation measures,are not implementing new mitigation, however, and therefore the project remains consistent with the analysis o the DSASP program EIR. Therefore, impacts of this project on stormwater runoff f and facilities would be less than significant and consistent with the analysis of the DSASP program EIR. 21 d. The City, of South San Francisco is served by the Cal Waters South San Francisco District. Cal Water obtains water from a purchasing agreement with San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUQ, which is supplied by local surface water sources within its Regional Water System, and from its own groundwater sources. Future area water supplies would he delivered through existing City supply facilities and new water infrastructure constructed for delivery into specific project sites. Adequate delivery was identified within the DSASP program EIR (p. 4.11-24) for all anticipated new development within the DSASP area, therefore this project is consistent with the DSASP program EIR analysis. e. Sewage and wastewater generated within the City is collected through the City's sewer system and is disposed of and treated at the South San FranciscolSan Bruno WQCP. The sanitary sewer system has an interconnecting network of approximately 12 miles of 6-inch to 30-inch-diameter gravity sewer mains,force mains, and twelve pump stations, which function together to bring wastewater from individual homes and businesses to the WQCP. Some PUMP stations act as tributaries to a ftiv stations that handle most of'the wastewater from large portions of the community. Title 14 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code ensures the future health, safety, and general welfare of the City with regard to water supply, and provides regulations for the City's wastewater collection and treatment system. Wastewater generation is correlated with water usage and continued water conservation practices would reduce the volume of wastewater generated. New developments such as this project would be required to comply with all provisions of the NPDES program as well as all applicable wastewater discharge requirements issued by the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board(SFB RWQCB). The City of South San Francisco would maintain local sewer lines and perform upgrades on an as-needed basis. It is anticipated that the increased flows from development under the DSASP, including this project, would not result in required upgrades to the reclamation plants, and the project is consistent with the DSASP program EIR analysis, f g. Project construction would comply with all applicable solid waste regulations and landfill capacity exists for future DSASP buildout. Solid waste disposal and recycling in the City of South San Francisco is regulated by the City's SSFMC, particularly Chapters 8,16 and 8.28. Under the SSFMC,future development would be required to have its solid waste, including construction and demolition debris, and recyclable materials collected by the Scavenger Company. Additional health and sanitation requirements set forth in the SSFMC would be met by the Scavenger Company. The proposed project would comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste, and is consistent with the DSASP program EIR analysis. XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal,or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,but cumulatively considerable("cumulatively considerable"means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or indirectly'? Documentation: a. Based on the preceding discussion and the program EIR prepared for the DSASP, including mitigation measures, it has been determined that the proposed project is consistent with the analysis of the DSASP program EIR and would not degrade the quality of the environment, ,substantially reduce the habitat oJ'afish or wildlife species, cause afish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. b. According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15355, `°,Cumulative impacts'refer to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. 22 "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. The potential cumulative impacts of the project have been considered for each environmental topic evaluated above. Given the relatively short-term nature of the project's construction schedule, and the fact that the proposed project would serve an existing community within an urbanized area consistent with the adopted DSASP, the project is not anticipated to have any cumulatively considerable impacts beyond those identified and analyzed in the DSASP program EIR. c. The project would not have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly, beyond those previously identified, analyzed and addressed in the DSASP program EIR. 23 Attachment 1 Historic Resources Evaluation HISTORIC RESOURCE E IL O N 310 312, n(I 3 "f'4 ii v A v�",P,f" e South San Francisco, California 7 Ail February 10, 2016 Prepared by verl�,',)Ianck HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTING Historic Resource Evaluation 310 to 314 Miller Avenue,South San Francisco, CA TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Executive Summary....................................... ....................................................... ............... I 11. Methods ................. ................. .................................. ......... ....._........................................... 2 Ill. Property Description .... .................... .......... ................................ ........ ......._............ 2 IV. Property History ......................................................................................... ......................14 V. Previous Evaluations................................................................__.....................................35 VI. Property Evaluation.........................................................................................................36 VII. Evaluation of Project-specific Impacts,...................................................................38 Vill. Potential Mitigation Measures ............................................................................. ....41 IX. Conclusion......................................................................................................... ................. 43 X. Bibliography............................................................................................................ ............44 XI. Appendix ... .....__......... ............... .................. .......................... ................... ........46 1111111111111M verj,�), C, k HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTING February 10,2016 Historic Resource Evaluation 310 to 314 Miller Avenue, South San Francisco, |. Executive Summary VerP|anck Historic Preservation Consulting prepared this Historic Resource Evaluation /HRE\for three ires- identia| properties in downtown South San Francisco, California. The properties are located at 310, 312, and 314 MillerAvenue, between Linden and Maple avenues.Theycomprise Lots 23,24,and 25 of Assessor Block No. 311. Together, the three parcels comprise a site measuring 7S' by 140Y, not including a large surface parking lot next door which is also part of the project s|te /Figumy1\. Eachofthethree25' by14(Y parcels contains two dwellings,with the primary dwellings facing Miller Avenue and the secondary dwell- ings facing Tamarack Lane, a narrow alley bisecting Block 311 from east to west. Two of the properties contain recognizable Queen Anne-style worker's cottages—31D and 314 Miller Avenue. The third prop- erty, 312 �Mi|8er Avenue, has an older multi-family dwelling facing Miller Avenue that started out as a Queen Anne cottage but was so heavily modified between 2930 and 1940 that it no longer retains any evidence of its original design. Two of the three secondary dweU|inBs on Tamarack Lane, including 311 (behind 310 Miller Avenue) and 313 (behind 312 Miller Avenue) Tamarack Lane date to between 1920 and 1940, though both have been remodeled in recent decades. There is also a single-family cottage at 315 Tamarack Lane (behind 314 Miller Avenue) that was built ca. 1915. The three cottages date to the 1890s, not long after South San Francisco, otherwise kmuvxn as "South City," was established in 1891 by the South San Francisco Land and improvement Company. As such they have historical importance, but only one building on the site, 310 Miller Avenue, retains sufficient integrity to qualify for listing in the California Register ofHistorical Resources (California Register). Figure 1.Aerial photograph showing the location mf3a0,312,and 314 Miller Avenue Source:Bing.conm;annotated by Christopher V*mP|anck 1 Ver������� � � � HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTING February l¢'20l6 Historic Resource Evaluation 3l8t*3l4 Miller Aven South Son Francisco, CA KU. Methods Christopher VerPlanck, the author of this HRE, has over 15 years of experience evaluating potential his- torical resources in the San Francisco Bay Area and the West. In compliance with the City ofSouth San Fmamdocn Planning Division's requirements, this HRE provides a full description of the subject properties, their development history,a summary of their existing historical status,and an evaluation of their poten- tiaU eligibility for listing in the California Register, VerP|anck visited 310 to 314 Miller Avenue on January l4, 201GtophotngnaphandswrveythebuHd|ng4thesite, andtheaurroundingneighbVrhood. Overthe next week he conducted primary research at the following government offices, libraries, and repositories: the San Mateo County C{erk-Recorder's Office,the San Mateo County History Museum Archives,the South San Francisco Historical Society,and the South San Francisco Public Library. Mr.VorP|anck also conducted on-line research, including U.S.Census records, local and regional newspapers,and United States Geolog- ical Swrvey(USGS)tnpographica[ mapaandaeriahphotognaphs.Tvvnn*seanchnapositohesvverenotavail- able during the course of research for this project, including the City of South San Francisco's Planning and Building Division files, which are in storage uvh||e City Hall Annex is remodeled, and the South 5om Francisco History Room in the Grand Avenue Library,which is also undergoing remodeling. 0||. Property Description A. Context 310�312,and 314 Miller Avenue are located in downtown South San Francisco,a suburban city in northern San Mateo County. The three properties, which contain 10,5000 square feet of space, are located within an urbanized context. They are located one block no�rth of Grand Avenue, South Sao Francisco's main commercial district, and 125 feet west of Linden Avenue, a secondary cnnnmnerc|e| street. Downtown South San Francisco is one of San Mateo County's most intact historic commercial districts, containing a range of commercial and mixed-use buildings, residential hotels, and civic buildings dating to the last decade of the nineteenth century and the first quarter of the twentieth century. South, Gam Francisco's Civic Center is located less than a block west of the subject properties, occupying an entire city block bounded by Grand, Walnut, Miller, and Maple avenues. The Civic Center contains South San Francisco's most important civic buildings, including City Hall,the Grand Avenue Library, City Hall Annex, and alarge surface parking lot. Miller Avenue is a transitional street, nnarkingthe boundary between the Grand Avenue commercial district and the predominantly residential areas north and west of downtown. It is part of the original "South San Fraincisco Plat Number 1,"the first part of the city laid out in 1891 by the South San Francisco Land and Improvement Company. The south side of Miller Avenue is largely devoted to non-residential uses ancillary tothe downtown business district. Located directly across the street from the subject properties isa surface parking lot(Figure 2)belonging tna late 1917Os-era Wells Fargo branch bank located at the northwest corner ofMiller and Linden avenues (Figure 3>. Next-door to the VVe||s Fargo property, at3I1 Miller Avenue, isamuUti-fanu||y residential property that appears to date to the late I9GOsorearly 1970s. This non-descripx °dingbat" apartment building resembles several others in the residential area north of Grand Avenue (Figure 4). Located next-door to the apartment building is a large, four-level municipal parking structure at 329 h$U|er Avenue. Built ca. 2005, this Postmodern-style structure was constructed by the now-defunct South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency. It is the largest parking facility in the city's downtown, serving both visitors to the nearby Civic Center as well as shoppers patronizing businesses on Grand Avenue (Figure 5). Located next-door to the parking garage is another ���� � �� �� U a��c�° v n � HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTING February 10'2016 Historic Resource Evaluation 3lohm3l4 Miller Avenue,South San Francisco, CA 1960s-era ^dinobat° apartment building at 337 Miller Avenue. Next-door to it is pair of Craftsman bungalows at 341 and 345 Miller Avenue. These two dwellings, the last two single-family residences on the block, are local landmarks listed on the City of South San Francisco's Citywide List of Designated and Potential Historic Resources. Built ca. 1920^ the two modest cottages are typical of the second wave of workers' housing built to house South San Francisco's industrial workers during the first quarter of the twentieth century (Figure 6). Adjoining these two properties tothe west is one-story, Art Deco-style church (originally a mortuary) at324 Maple Avenue. Figure 2.Parking lot across the street from 310tm314 Figure 3.Wells Fargo branch nt Linden and Miller avm- M|Uler Avenue;view toward south mveq view toward southwest Figure w.Apartment building am3a1 Miller Avenue;view Figure s.Parking structure am3z9 Miller Avenue;view to- toward south ward southwest 3 n�����U �� � ~��== � *a����� HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTING February l8'2Ol6 Historic Resource (Evaluation 310 to 314 Miller Avenue, South San Francisco, CA n r i Figure 6.Craftsman bungalows at 341 and 345 Miller Avenue(center);view toward southeast The north side of the 300 block of Miller Avenue is mostly residential, including the subject properties. The only exceptions include a City-owned parking lot at the northeast Corner of Miller and Maple avenues„ another City-owned parking lot adjoining the subject properties to the west(Figure 7),and Chico's Service Station at the northwest Corner of Miller and Linden avenues (Figure g). The service station appears to date to the 1950s, when prefabricated metal buildings like this one were popular for service station facilities. ii I / Figure 7.City-owned parking lot west of 314 to 314 Mil- Figure 8.Chico"s Service Station at Linden and Miller ave- ler Avenue;view toward south nues;view toward south er'pla nc HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTING February 113,2016 Historic Resource Evaluation 8T0h»3q4 Miller Avenue,South Son Francisco, CA The remaining 11 properties oo the north side nf Miller Avenue are all occupied bv single-family ur multi- family dvxe|Hmgs. Most contain at least two buildings, including in many cases secondary dwelling facing Tamarack Lane. Beginning at the west end of the block is the Nellie Cohen House at 340 Miller Avenue. Built in 1906 and saved from demolition in 1986,the shingled Dutch Colonial is South San Francisco's first landmark,designated inl9O6(Figure 9).z Next-door toitisa192Osera Mediterranean-style house at336 Miller Avenue (Figure 10). This house |s very similar to thousands of rowhouses built in nearby San Francisco during this era. Located next-door to it is a non-descriptnwo-farni|y house at 324-34 Miller Avenue.This dwelling,which appears to have been built in the I9GQs,took the place ofa Victorian cottage. There is ca. 1910 cottage at the rear of the property facing Tamarack Lane.To the east of thi'is property is a one-story-over-basement, Craftsman bunga!|ovv at 332 Miller Avenue. Built or moved to the site after 19Z5,the dwelling shares the lot with anom-descript, 195Ds-era,two-family dwelling at331-33 Tamarack Lane. Am overgrown vacant lot sits between 332 Miller Avenue and the adjoining property at328Miller Avenue. 328 Miller Avenue contains a two-car garage facing Miller and a heavily altered cottage at 325 Tamarack Lane. To the east of this property is another "Sam Francisco-style" Mediterranean-style rum/houseat3Z4 Miller Avenue (Figure 11\.The next property isaCity-owned parking lot and the three subject properties. East nf the subject properties are three parcels between the project site and Linden Avenue; they include e ome-story' ca. 1900 cottage at 3,08 Miller Avenue, a heavily altered ca. 1900 dwelling at 306 Miller Avenue(Figure 12),and the previously described Chico's Service Station(See Figure ��. Figure 9.Nellie Cohen House mt3«O Miller Avenue;view Figure zO.mxed ftermnean-styemwhmwseau336Miller toward northeast Avenue;view toward northwest Gil Davis,"Historical House Makeover,"newspaper unknown(January 3,1998).Clipping in the South San Francisco Historical Society. � �� �����)U �r �=���~� xn����� HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTING February \0'2016 Historic Resource Evaluation 310 to 314 Miller Avenue, South San Francisco, CA ®r,/ 1 j uw Figure 11.Mediterranean-style rowhouse at 324 Miller Figure 12.Vernacular dwellings at 306 and 308 Miller Av- Avenue;view toward northwest enue;view toward northwest As previously mentioned, Tamarack Lane is a, narrow service alley that transects Block 311 from east-to- west. All of the blocks in the original South San Francisco plat have similar alleys, which in addition to providing additional usable street frontage for garages and secondary residential units, provide easements for power lines and a place for garbage to be collected. Like many of the other residential properties on the north side of Miller Avenue, 3016 and 308 Miller Avenue both have free-standing buildings facing Tamarack Lane, though in this case they are garages instead of secondary dwellings (Figure 13).While the south side of the alley is mostly lined! by secondary dwellings and garages,the north side of Tamarack Lane has several large multi-family properties, including a 1930s-era, eight-unit apartment building at 312-18 Tamarack Lane (Figure 14). ( r� � ✓�,it//% /�/� F/i/i /�������rip/f�� //I' Figure 13.Garages on south side of Tamarack Lane;view Figure 14.Apartment building at 312-18 Tamarack Lane; toward east view toward northeast Ve C ' a r c HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTING February 10,2016 Historic Resource Evaluation 310 to 4 Miller Avenue, South San Francisco,CA B. Site The subject of this study are three residential properties at3lO Miller Avenue/311 Tamarack Lane, 31Z Miller Avenue/313 Tamarack Lane, and 314 Miller Avenue/315 Tamarack Lane. The three properties are each 25 feet wide by 140 feet deep. Also part ofthe proposed project site is the City-owned parking lot to the west, which means that the entire project site measures 175 feet wide o|umg both Miller Avenue and Tamarack Lane and 14O feet deep (Figure 15). The parking lot is paved in asphalt and without any structures. The three residential properties each contain two dwellings —one facing Miller Avenue and another facing Tamarack Lane — vvith rear yards between them. Each property has a narrow front yard separated from Miller Avenue by concrete retaining wall, suggesting that Miller Avenue was graded after the houses facing Miller Avenue were built (Figure 16). Concrete stairs out into the retaining walls and provide access to the porches of each house along Miller Avenue. In addition to its retaining wall,310 Miller Avenue has a hedge, a small lawn, and o mature tree between itand 312 Miller Avenue.312Miller Avenue has e below-grade garage added ca. 1940, the construction of which resulted in the removal of most ofits retaining wall and lawn. 3I4 Miller Avenue has retaining wall, a small lawn bounded by a picket fence,and a tree in its front yard.The three properties are part of a row of five dwellings that were all probably built between 1891 and 1900. In contrast to the three houses facing Miller Avenue,which are each set back from the street by about 15 feet, the three secondary dwellings along Tamarack Lane are flush with the right'of-vuay without any landscaping. Figure 15.Project site Source:aing.comm/annotated hy Christopher verp|anmk 7 �� MO���� ���rpUall1cl HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTING February 10,2076 Historic Resource Evaluation 310 to 314 Miller Avenue,South San Francisco, GA I ir iii ° W M ddff �� , �1m 11111111111 T ti9�BM, it r Figure 16.310(right),312(center),and 314(left)Miller Avenue,view toward north C. 310 MfllerAvenue/311 Tamarack Lane Built ca. 1895, 310 Avenue is the best-preserved of the three nineteenth-century cottages on the project site(Figure 17), It is a one-and-a-half-story,wood-frame,Queen Anne workers'cottage with a front-facing gable roof.The primary facade, which faces Miller Avenue, is the only elevation with any ornamentation. Like the rest of the exterior, it is clad in rustic channel siding with decorative "fishscale" shingle cladding within the attic gable. Below the gable, the left bay of the primary fagade is composed of a two-sided (originally three-sided) bay window defined by recessed panels above and below and a recessed pilaster to the left. The bay window contains two non-historic, double-hung aluminum sash windows framed by plain wood casings.The right bay features an integral porch accessed by a flight of wood stairs.The porch is supported by turned posts and the upper part is embellished by a spindle frieze and scroll-sawn brack- ets. The lower part of the porch has a non-historic wood balustrade composed of square balusters. The left side of the porch contains the main entrance. This entrance, which is not original, contains a non- historic door. The north wall of the porch,where the entrance was originally located, has a window con- taining non-historic,double-hung aluminum sashes.The remaining three fagades are clad in rustic channel siding and utilitarian.A one-story addition built ca. 1955 is attached to the rear of the dwelling; it contains a secondary unit with the address of 31OA Miller Avenue. Like the rest of the house, the addition has a gable roof and is mainly clad in rustic siding with non-historic windows (both vinyl and aluminum) and non-historic doors(Figure 18).A portion of the addition is finished in stucco on the east fagade.The mod- erately altered dwelling appears to be in fair-to-good condition. There is a small fenced-in yard' and a paved patio between 310 Miller Avenue and 311 Tamarack Lane. 311 Tamarack Lane is a two-story,wood-frame,vernacular dwelling constructed ca. 1920(Figure 19).Clad in rustic channel siding and fenestrated with non-historic aluminum sliders and accessed by non-historic composite doors,the dwelling has little visual or historical character.The heavily altered dwelling appears to be in fair-to-good condition, 8 VerII' Ianck HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTING February 10,2016 Historic Resource Evaluation 310 to 314 Miller Avenue,South San Francisco, CA o ai, t II p i � Figure 17.Primary fagade of 310 Miller Avenue; Figure 18.Rear and side fagades of 310 Miller Ave- view toward north nue view toward south "YiiP:�l 1, / r� Figure 19.311 Tamarack Lane;view toward northeast 9 x1/ r�o' a n,c' HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTING February 10,20116 Historic Resource Evaluation 3U0ho3l4 Miller Avenue,South Son Francisco,CA D. 312 Miller Avenuey313 Tamarack Lane Built ca. 1895 and extensively remodeled and expanded between 1930 and 1940,312 Miller Avenue bears no resemblance to its original Queen Anne cottage form.Originally one-story in height,the existing dwell- ing |stwostoriesaboveabe[ow+gradegarage. ThedweU|inghasaverycmnnp|ico1ednnassinQ, suggestin0 that it has been added onto many times. The two-story section in the front has a combination flat and hipped roof, with a prominent gable facing the street (Figure 20).The basement and first floor levels are finished in stucco and the rest of the dwelling is finished in rustic channel siding,with a few shingled areas. The first floor level Vf the primary fapadeis two bays wide, with eI94Os-ena steel window in the left bay, vvhichsitsabnve1hegany8edoor.TherightbaKvvhich [s |ocatedtotherUghtVfaonncreteretein|ngwai|U separating the driveway from what remains of the front yard, is the location of the primary entrance, which contains e non-historic vinyl door, and a vinyl sliding window,The second floor level features two vinyl casement windows. Like the rest of the exterior,the primary fagade has no ornament, The side a nid rear elevations of 312 Miller Avenue are especially complicated in terms of their massing, with mm|1|p|e shed and gable-roofed additions and dormers(Figure 21\. Uke1heprinnaryfagade, thenthertbreeo|mva- tionscontainmon-hiotoricvimy| casenmentanddouble-hungxvindovvyayhesand, mmn-bisturicviny| and/or composite doors.Several nf the rear additions constitute a secondary unit with the address of312AMiller Avenue.The heavily altered building appears 1obe |n fair condition. , Figure 2o.Primary fgadeot3z2Miller Avenue;view Figure 21.Rear and side fapdesof3zz Miller Ave- toward northeast num/view toward southwest 10 Ve r � o na�-i cr� HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTING February 1¢.20l6 Historic Resource Evaluation 310to314 MillerAvenue,South San Francisco, CA There is a small paved patio between 312 Miller Avenue and the secondary dwelling at the rear of the lot, whose address is 313 Tamarack Lane. 313 Tamarack Lane is a two-story,wood-frame,two-family dwelling constructed ca. 194D(Figures 22 and 23). |t|sauti|itairian building clad in rustic channel siding and capped by a shallow cross'gab|e roof. Access tothe upper unit is via two wood exterior stairs onthe north and south tagades and access to the lower unit is via two doors on the south and east sides of the dwelling. The windows are all framed by plain wood casings and contain non-historic vinyl s,liders and double-hung sash windows.The doors are all non-historic vinyl and/or composite counterparts.The moderately altered building appears tobeim good condition. Figure 22.3z3Tamarack Lane;view toward north- Figure 23.313 Tamarack Lane;view toward south- west west 1l MOM Ver��,,)U�� � x n �� H8TORKCPRE8ERVAT|ONCONSQ[[|NG February 1D,2O16 Historic Resource Evaluation 310 to 314 Miller Avenue,South San, Fraincisco, CA E 314 Miller Tamarack Lane Built ca. 1895, 314 Miller Avenue is a one-story,wood-frame, Queen Anne workers' cottage with a partial brick and concrete foundation and a compound hip and gable-roof(Figure 24).The exterior is clad in rustic channel siding, composite lapped siding, and plywood T1-11 siding. Like 310 Miller, the attic gable facing M0|erAwemue is dad in decorative fishsca|e shingles. The pr[rnarytagade has undergone more changes than 310MiNer, including the addition of a brick stair with metal balustrade,the replacement of much of the original rustic channel siding with composite lapped siding, the replacement of all of the wood win- dows with aluminum fixed and sliding sash windows (including the enlargement of the opemimGs), and the replacement of the original door with a composite door in a new opening. All, that appears to remain of the original fagade is the paneling above the porch, the cornice, and the shingle-clad gable. The other three fagades are dad in a combination of rustic channel siding and plywood T1-11 siding, |mc|md|mg1he ca. 1990 rear addition (Figures 25-26). This addition has a flat roof and aluminum slider windows. The extensively altered dxveNing appears tobe |m good condition. Figure 24.Primary h,F"demf3z4 Miller Avenue;view toward north The secondary dwelling at the rear of the lot is a small vernacular cottage at 315 Tamarack Lane. Built ca. 1915, the cottage is the oldest of the secondary dwellings along Tamarack Lane (Figure 27). It is a one- story, gable-roofed building with a concrete foundation. The simple, unornemented, dwelling is clad in rustic channel siding with non-historic aUunn[murn cloubUe-hung windows. The relatively intact dwelling, which is unoccupied, appears tobe |n fair condition. 12 �� ��r������� � �� � HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTING February 1g'2O1$ Historic Resource Evaluation 310 to 31+4 Miller Avenue,South San Francisco, CA Figure 25.West facade of 314 Miller Avenue;view toward'southwest ,emu 9 °m Figure 26.North facade of 314 Miller Avenue;view to- Figure 27.315 Tamarack Large;view toward southwest ward south 13 er a n HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTING February 10,2016 Historic Resource Evaluation 310 to 314 Miller Avenue, South San Francisco, CA |V. Property History A. History of South Son Francisco Native Americans The earliest inhabitants of South San Francisco were the Yelamu band of the Ohlone trib,e. Shellmounds along San Francisco Bay and other settlements along local creeks establish their arrival in the area to around 3,000 B.C.E. Like the Oh|ume living in what is now San Francisco, the inhabitants of what is now South San Francisco spoke Ramaytush. The (}h:|nne of South Sam Francisco lived in a village of approxi- mately 100 to 200 people called Urebure. Like all Ohlone,the residents of Urebure were,hunter-gatherers who lived off shellfish, fish, waterfowl, and small mammals; as well as foraged nuts, seeds, and berries.z The Yehamu band 0f the Oh|one survived more 0[less peacefully for several thousand years until the arri- val oftheSpomiardsin1769.GospordePorto|6, o|omgvvithh|spartyofscoutsaodmbdonaMes, f|rstspot- ted Sam Francisco Bay from atop Sweeney Ridge, which overlooks what is now South Sam Francisco. In 1775,Juan Bautista deAmza led an expedition north from Mexico to establish a location for a mission on the 5em Francisco Peninsula, which was accomplished with the founding ofMis/6nSon Francisco,deAgs (Mission Dolores) in 1776.One year later,Misi6n Santo Clara was founded nearwhat is now San Jose.The roadcmnnect[m8thetmonoissions,E/Crno/no Real or"The Royal Rmad," passed through what io now South Francisco, roughly following C1DIma Creek.The Yelamu were gradually relocated to Mission Dolores where they were converted to Catholicism, taught to speak Spanish,and instructed in various trades, in the pro- cess their native culture was destroyed and many died of imported diseases.' Rancho Bur| 0mr| Mexico gained its independence from Spain in1821 and began secularizing the missions im California after 1833. Nearly all of the former mission lands were then granted to prominent Mexican citizens. The ex- mission lands in what is now South San Francisco, which were used for pasturing cattle belonging to Mis- sion Dolores, were granted inIB35by Governor Jmo6 Castro toJos6 Antonio S6nchez. Rancho BuriBuri, a 14,639-acre spread encompassing much of what is now northern San Mateo County,was named!afteir the ObVooe village Urebure,S6mchez,asub-lieutenant stationed et the Poeyidioof San Francisco, used the land for cattle-grazing. The cattle raised on Rancho Bur[ Buri were slaughtered and their hides processed for shoe leather and their fat rendered into tal;low for use in lamps and candles. Both:the hides a:nd the tallow vvereingreatdennandintbe 'UnitedStatesanduvvnersofvisitin8Annericanrnencbantvesye|spaidhamd- some|yforthem.w 56ncbezm/Vrked Rancho Burl 8uri until his death in 1843, after which time the ranch went to his 10 chil- dren. The annexation of California by the United States in 1848 following the defeat of Mexico in the Mexican-American War spelled the end of the rancho economy in the San Francisco Bay Area.Though the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo promised to protect Spanish and Mexican land grants, ranch uvvnem had to establish title to their lands through a difficult and expensive process overseen by the U.S. Public Land Commission.After almost 25years,during which the S6nchez family incurred tens mf thousands nfdollars in legal fees, the family received Their patent in 1872. Exhausted and out of money, S6nchez's heirs had already begun selling off Rancho BmriBwri years before receiving the final patent. [m18G0, Darius O. Mills xMalcolm Margolin,The ow*we Way(oor:a|ev;Heyday Books,zoo4). 'ovptt&ah#|a^g Camino aeaNchomu/Avevue Area Plan,wmbsite; Accessed Janu- ary 19,201E 4 Ogden Hoffman,Reports of Land Cases Determinedin the UnitedStates District Courtfor the Northern Districtof ca0vm/n(amnrrano|soo: �� �� �4 � ��� U������ HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTING February 10'20l6 Historic Resource Evaluation dl0ho3l4 Miller Avenue, South Son Francisco, CA bought 1,50O acres encompassing what is now the city of Millbrae from SJinchez' heirs. Somewhat later, Mills and his brother-in-|am, Ansel Easton, bought much of what isnow San Bruno, including the marsh- lands wheneSamFrendsco |nteruadona|Airport (SF[>) io |ocated.5 Charles Lux and the Town#fBaden The biggest chunk ofRancho Bur| lualac Burin, an area encompassing 1,700 acmes of what is now South San Francisco and part of Sam Bruno,was sold im1853toCharles Lux and his bwo|meos partner, Al- fned Edmondson. [n1,855, Lux and his new business partner, Henry Miller, bought another I,464 ~^ acres of Ranchn8ori Buh. |n185G^ Lux bought out Edmondson and ^ ' founded the settlement ofBaden, named after his home region in " ^' southern Germany. Baden, which was never more than a tiny village of six streets sandwiched between El Camino Real(then known asthe County �Road) and the future Figure 28.Town ofBaden smv��e�spx��n pnyn�mon Southern Pacific Peninsula rail- South road line, was only a short dis- tance away from Lux' Mansion (later demolished). Baden eventually became a small settlement of a half- dozen houses,a tavern/hotel/stage stop called Twelve Mile House(later demolished), and several dairies in the imedi���v�c�o�y/�~ urw��\.a immediate The firm nfMiller&LuxvvasCe|Mormia's|ar8estcatt|e-naisingopenation.Thepartnemh1povvnedthousonds of acres of pastureland on the Peninsula,as well as a slaughterhouse in San Francisco. Eventually Miller& Lux used their @ori Buh holdings as a way station to,fatten up cattle brought in from other parts ofCaii- fnrm[a prior to being shipped to their slaughterhouse in San Francisco's 8utchertovvn. When Charles Lux died im1Q87, Miller 0/Lux owned over 78(l0QU head ofcattle in California, Nevada,Arizona,and Oregon. Following Lux' death, Henry Miller bought out his partner's heirs, becoming the sole owner of the Miller / 8\ Lux Corporation. 5 Frank M.Stanger,Southfrom San Francisco.The Life Story of Son Mateo County(San Mateo,CA�San Mateo County Historical Association, zuas)'yy. 6 Baden,whose street plan still exists,consisted of A,B,C streets,which ran in a south west-northeast alignment,and z^'a1d'and 3rd streets, which intersected the letter streets, 'Linda Kauffman, V�r l� ��511M �� � �na��c ( HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTING February l0'20l6 Historic Resource Evaluation 310 to 314 Miller Avenue,South Son Francisco, South San Francisco Founded Ever since the Gold Rush, Sam Francisco interests had dominated California's meatpacking industry. Most local meatpackers bought cattle wholesale from California ranchers and processed them at a massive en- clave of slaughterhouses in Bmtoher1ovvn.1 Looking to break the San Francisco meatpacking monopoly, Gustavus Swift, a Chicago meatpacker, began looking for a suitable site in Northern California to establish a modern meatpacking facility and stockyard, In 1888,with assistance from his loyal Omaha-based deputy, Peter Iler, he selected Point San Bruno,part of Miller&Lux's holdings. Iler made an agreement with Henry Miller to buy 700 acres of land at Point San Bruno and several thousand additional acres located inland batm/aem Baden and Sam Francisco Bay. Swift then partnered with Louis Armour and several other Mid- western meatpackers imthe California venture, forming new company called the Western Meat [om- pamy. Henry MiU|er also had a stake im the businesn.s Aware that their project would attract the hostility of San Francisco's meatpackers, Swift and his partners p|ammedtobuiUdase|f'contained °connpanytovvn.°Svvift, anotoMousanti-unionbusinmss |nader,vvamted nothing to do with San Francisco's strong union culture. He felt that by building his own company town outside the city limits of San Francisco, where he would have control over who lived and worked there, he could avoid conflict with San Francisco's labor unions. In 1890, the Western Meat Company sent two agents from Omaha,William J. Martin and Ebenezer E.Cunningham,to guide the development of the new town. Desiring a separate land development arm apart from the meatpacking business,the men founded the South San Francisco Land and Improvement Company. The company's Articles of Incorporation pmo- posed endowing the new town with everything it needed, including its own water supply,gas and electri- cal lines, street and industrial railways, docks and wharves, acanay, a bank,a hotel, and residential subdi- visions where company employees could buy lots and build cottages for themselves." Though initially planned asa meatpacking town,the San Francisco Land and Improvement Company set aside other choice parcels to sell to other industries seeking land within close proximity of San Francisco. They called the planned new town "South San Francisco," in keeping with Swift's nomenclature for his two earlier ven- tures|nSouthOmahaandSow1hChica0o. Martin and Cunningham |e|d out the new city about a quarter-mile inland from the 80-acre meatpacking plant and stockyard on Point San Bruno.Separated from the industrial district by San Bruno Road and the planned Southern Pacific Raihoad's8ayshone Cutoff, the residential district was deliberately placed up- wind of the meatpacking plant to spare residents exposure to dust and odors. Surveyed in 189�0, South San Francisco Plat No. 1 was bounded bv Miller Avenue (including the lots on the north side of the street) and Armour Avenue tq the north, Division Avenue to the east, Railroad Avenue to the south,and Chestnut and Maple avenues to the west(Figure 29). It was laid out in a standard American-style gridiron,consisting of large rectangular blocks bisected by mid-block service alleys.The east-west avenues were given names associated with the history uf the site, including Lux, Miller, and Baden;as well as projected uses, inc|uding Railroad, Commercial, and Grand.The north-south avenues were named for trees, including Linden, Ma- ple, Spruce, etcetera.The 1890 subdivision map illustrates many of the amenities promised by the South San Francisco Land and Improvement Company, including a railroad depot at Grand and Division avenues, a streetcar line running along Grand Avenue,a Civic Center, a high school, and several reservoirs. 8Conf us!ngly,this part of San Francisco was once known as"South San Francisco."After t*efo"^uma°ftweTown*sowtmsvnFranu,cvin 1891,this nomenclature began to change,with Bayview-Hunters Point eventually taking its place. ^Linda Kauffman,South San Francisco(South San Francisco,CA:zs7o),a-4. 10 Linda Kauffman,South Son Francisco(South San Francisco,CA:1976),5. 0111MM Verl:,U��lc� � » < HISTORIC PRESER"T|UN CONSULTING February 10'20l6 Historic Resource Evaluation 310 to 314 Miller Avenue,South San Francisco, CA A I .a✓ /f -4 � x r /////,i� ;,,? o, ,r c. r,_� ,,.4 K z ;caw✓�,;,, r ,,,,,-° � /% / //��"@ 1 , r�J r / 111 �// J,�.»..//,��„ � /, /i>„,o rii ,.. ,;,,,,,, ,,..,,.,,,;: ..• i I;.,/,/� l,1 r f �%/%rb�����1/,KGs:.:.// rr x m � % ��i�%iii /ii/%/„� /ii/!%r ,,,� o///��i��r r, �,�✓ f Figure 29.Map of South San Francisco Plat No.1. Source:South San Francisco Historical Society South San Francisco Grows: 1891-1908 In 1891, the Western Meat Company began recruiting workers to work in South San Francisco. At first company agents recruited heavily from Swift & Co.'s own plants in Chicago and Omaha, offering those who wanted to make the move inexpensive house lots and assistance from local contractors to build a cottage. Several of the earliest residents were Irish-born butchers from Chicago, including Thomas L. Hickey and John E. Dunn, who built the first houses in 1891.The South San Francisco Land and Improve- ment Company soon spun off the residential real estate business to a local agent named J.T. Dunn, who along with company agent William J. Martin, operated J.T. Dunn & Co. Sales began in September 1891 and continued briskly into 1892, until a nationwide depression curtailed business for a couple of years. Nonetheless, Dunn & Co. continued advertising South San Francisco lots in focal newspapers and every Saturday company agents would meet trains at Baden Station and take prospective buyers to view the lots and the straggling town.They told the prospective buyers that the lots were quite large (most meas- ured 50 feet by 140 feet—almost three times larger than the average San Francisco lot)and that they were suitable not only for a cottage, but also a carriage house or a barn, with plenty of space left over for a kitchen garden or livestock. Agents also told prospective buyers that the South San Francisco Land and Improvement Company would build sidewalks and install water and sewer lines to each lot that it sold.As MMM e r IV)I�a ri c k 17 HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTING February 10,2016 Historic Resource Evaluation 3lUho3l4 Miller Avenue, South Son Francisco,CA they drove them back to the station, agents would head up Grand Avenue and point out the newly com- pleted houses and commercial buildings, including primary school, a post office, a newspaper office, a firehouse, and a jail." Though lot sales were slow during the depthis of the Depression of 1893-94, business picked up again in 1894 when theOrs1 major nevximdus1ryaftertbeWeste,mMeatConnpany,SteigerTerraCn1taamdPotery Works, built a new plant at Point San Bruno. Other new plants followed, includinBVV.P. Fuller Paint Com- pany in 1898.11 Though commuting to South Francisco from San Francisco was certainly possible, it was expensive and time-consuming and most employees in these companies moved tmSouth San Francisco. The single men mostly lived in company dormitories or residential hotels, including The Exchange, a large residential hotel and buisiness block located on the grounds of Western Meat Company,or the Metropol- itan Note|onGrandAvenue. K4eanvvhi|e,fami|[esbui|1compac1geb|e'nnofadmottagesa|ongGramd, M&|||er, and Baden avenues. The first area developed was north of Grand Avenue and it was called "Irish Town" on account of its predominant ethnic makeup.13 Early photographs of South San Francisco illustrate a somewhat ramshackle settlement consisting of pockets ofwood-frame cottages,false-front commercial buildings and saloons, and larger residential hotels (Figure 30). Figure 30.South San Francisco,ca.z90sz view toward south Source:San Mateo County History Museum Archives Linda Kauffman,"it was not uvcxmme'~co Peninsula Vol,mx.No.u(May zsr4 12 Frank M.Stanger,"The 8eginnings of South San Francisco,"Lo Peninsula,Vol.W,No.2(May 1971). South San Francisco Historical Society,images p�fAmericq:South Son Francisco(Charleston,SC:Arcadia Publishing,2004�,7. � � V��r r,Na l"ii ic k HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTING February l0'2Ol6 Historic Resource Evaluation 310 to 314 Miller Avenue,South San Francisco,CA Although it did not directly handle lot sales or house construction, the South ... r San Francisco Land and Improvement Company continued to play an active f role in the development of South Fran- Cisco between 1891 and its incorpora- �' � tion as a city in 1908. In addition to i jf`� /%/ ; /i�, f • street grading and utilities, the com- pany informally zoned the community and established minimum setbacks from the main streets. The company may also have had some influence over building design, by directing property buyers to work with particular contrac- tors. , Figure 31.200 Block of Lux Avenue,view toward north Though labeled a company town, South 'San Francisco does not meet a strict definition of the term. Unlike the true company towns built in New Eng- land and in the Piedmont region of the American South to house textile oper- atives,most housing in South San Fran- Cisco was not built or owned by the company. Nonetheless, superficially some older parts of South San Fran- Cisco do resemble a traditional com- pany town in that there are clusters of identical cottages appearing in groups of two, three, or more, such as a row of three matching cottages on the 200 block of Lux Avenue (Figure 31). Their Figure 32.Queen Anne cottages at 349(left)and 351(right)Baden Ave (originally) identical appearance sug_ nue;view toward south gests that they were all built at one time by the same contractor and that these contractors may have been working with company-imposed guidelines. Altogether,approximately 25 houses remain from this earliest period of South San Francisco's development (1891-1900) and nearly all are one-story,gable-roofed Queen Anne workers` cottages with bay windows, integral porches, and decorative shingle cladding in the front gable, similar to 310 and 314 Miller Avenue. Two of the best surviving examples include a pair at 349 and 351 Baden Avenue (Figure 32). The South San Francisco Land and Improvement Company actively encouraged employees of its sister company, Western Meat Company, to buy lots a,nd build cottages in South San Francisco. In addition to wanting to make money from the sale of house lots,the company and its corporate partners believed that homeownership made for a more dependable workforce. First off, homeowners were much less likely to change jobs because it was much more difficult to move away on account of having to sell one's property. Ver nck 19 HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTING February 10,2016 Historic Resource Evaluation 3U0mo314 Miller Avenue,South Son Francisco, CA Second, research had shown that homeowners were much less likely to participate in strikes because loss of income would enclangertheir real estate investments. Indeed,the local company newspaper,the South Son Francisco Enterprise, regularly presented "honor rolls"of local "workingmen"who had become proud homeowners." South San Francisco: 19O8-1Q2g South San Francisco grew quickly after 1900,especially following the 1906 Earthquake.Thousands of ref- ugees frnmn San Francisco streamed southward into northern San Mateo County, where many ended up starting afresh in Vista Grande(Daly City),Colma,South San Francisco,and San Bruno.South San Francisco saw a huge uptick in building permit applications in 1906 and 1907. Many of the newcomers got jobs at the new plants constructed by San Francisco industrialists in South San Francisco's burgeoning industrial district. As South San Francisco finally became eviab|9 community, the South San Francisco Land and Improvement Company announced that it would no longer build infrastructure and provide other munic- ipal services, Instead it encouraged residents to incorporate and to tax themselves for infrastructure and improvements. South San Francisco's residents agreed and overwhelming voted to become a city om Sep- tember 19, 1908. At the time of incorporation the young city had a population of 1,989, with 14 major industrial plants operating in the industrial district,which soon also included the Pacific Coast Steel Com- pany, Morgan Oyster Company, Shaw-BaLcherStee| Company, American Marble and Mosaic Works, En'terpriseFoomdry, and{5rnvuers' RiceCu.zs South San Francisco boomed in the 1920s, both as a consequence of the nationwide housing boom, and also because more industries continued to arrive in search of lower taxes, modern facilities, and Qnnd access tnSan Francisco. 0m|ihe other communities inSan Mateo County, South San Francisco alone had good deep water access. With full coffers, the City of South San Francisco began several infrastructure projects to enhance the city's port facilities. in addition to building several dozen piers and wharves at Point San Bruno, the City built o "ship canal" at the mouth nfCnima Creek to create additional industrial sites with deep water access. South San Francisco's port facilities were designed to function as an exten- sion SanFrumcKscn's,but\m|thmnuch |nvverdocka8efees.Thoughitwvasabomt10mi|esfromoSaoFramcioon's South of Market Area, where most of the railroad terminals, warehouses, and piers were located, for those who needed to get their goods into San Francisco, it was an easy matter because South San Fran- cisco sat astride the junction of the Southern Pacific's main Peninsula Line and the BaysNore Cutoff, e brand new line (built in 1985) that wrapped around the east side of San Bruno Mountain and into Sao Francisco's industrial belt.An undated map in a publicity brochure published by the South San Francisco Chamber ofCommerce proudly illustrates South Sam Francisco's strategic location vis a vis San Francisco (Figure 33). ~ Linda Kauffman,South San Francisco(South San Francisco,CA;uy7a),n* * Linda Kauffman,South San Froncisco(South San Francisco,Ck 1976),3-4. 20 lanck HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTING February l0'20l6 Historic Resource Evaluation 310 to 314 Miller Avenue,South San Francisco,CA Growing ever more prosperous from SanRafa �v WalnutCree.k Its manufacturing and port business, " aaran r South San Francisco's Board of Trus- Y causallto, 0 tees (City Council) raised $125,000 to .BE,� _'L FLY uai qo build a new city hall on the Civic Cen- `., � LAM" 'FOA " r7,a.ie. it ElYtI i tt' ar. , ..� ter reservation bounded by Miller, � r� -SAN� RAN i � 0 '1 � San7Ramo�; Maple, Grand, and Walnut avenues. 0r.09 =l'I',� �i°�I i In1hurst 10 Y,(PIP MENT Designed by the San Francisco 'archi- �0a'wr "`.`� -'',_1 tecture firm of Werner&Coffey,who hayward also designed the Carnegie Library SQUTHl SAN F A � NOl5C0; ilea arufo ,'? d 1, next-door, South San Francisco City �� ;pa, ari B6Jno „' % Hall was based on Independence Hall ilee­ in Philadelphia. South San Francisco City Hall opened on November 11, iva 1920." Additional civic amenities completed during the 1920s includedv�, z, Orange Park, which opened on the ; kI If oon Bay � banks of Colma Creek in 1925, and the first publicity sign on what soon Figure 33,undated map from a publicity brochure illustrating South San Francisco's strategic location. became known as Sign Hill. The fa- Source:South Sara Francisco Historical Society mous sign, which was visible from much of the surrounding area, read:"South San Francisco the Industrial City." In 1928,this sign was rebuilt out of permanent concrete materials." South San Francisco's residential districts expanded along with its increasing population. Between 1910, and 1920, the city's population grew from 1,989 to 4,411 --- more than doubling. During the 1920s, resi- dential developers began creating several new suburban residential tracts adjoining the town's original plat, including Parkway Terrace, a tract of several hundred Craftsman bungalows built on a series of con- tour-hugging streets just north and west of downtown. Nevertheless, aerial photographs taken of South San Francisco from the 1920s onward indicate that many vacant lots remained in the original town site. Though the reason is unknown,it is likely that as smokestacks proliferated east of San Bruno Road, people with adequate financial means moved farther west, away from the city's industrial district. Most of the city's most prestigious residential areas were located west of Orange Avenue,which became easily acces- sible after 1918 when the South San Francisco Railroad & Power Company initiated streetcar service as far west as the city's original boundary at Chestnut Avenue. Meanwhile, working-class factory hands tended to live on the east side, near downtown and within walking distance of the industrial district. Dur- ing the 1920s,. the most popular form of vernacular workers' housing were simple Craftsman bungalows, and during the late 1910s and early 1920s, hundreds were built along Baden, Commercial, and Railroad avenues south of downtown. Probably the least prestigious area was Irish Town, the area around the intersection of Linden and Miler avenues, where most of the earliest cottages were built between 1891 and 1908. 16 Linda Kauffman,South San Francisco(South San Francisco,CA:1976),25, Linda Kauffman,South San Francisco(South San Francisco,CA:1976),27. 21 VET r Pl an d HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTING February 10,2016 Historic Resource Evaluation 3l0to3l4 Miller Avenue,South San Francisco, CA South San Francisco: 1g28'197O Though the Depression affected South San Francisco, its effects were not as severe as in much of the country, mainly because new industries continued!to relocate to the city's industrial district,including the � ArnericamBrake and Shoe Fuundr� Linda N1ateriaUCormpnny, and the n�ahneChemnlca| [orporation. By 1940,South San Francisco's population was 6,629, representing a seven percent increase from the begin- ning of the decade. Many of the newcomers were Italian immigra,nts and Italian Americans from San Fran- cisco. The Italians gave South San Francisco a distinctive ethnic flair that continues to this day. An aerial photograph taken during the mild-1930s indicates that the city's original town site was more than 50 per- cent built-out, but that many vacant lots remained, especial:ly north of Grand Avenue (Figure 34). |ncoo trast,theGramdAxenuebusinessdistr|ctvvasso|id|ydexe|opedhnnmtheBayshoreHighvvay(fornner|ySan Bruno Road)tw Maple Avenue. Most of the city's most important buildings, including City Hall,the Carne- gie Library, the Women's Club, the Industrial Club, Hotel Metropolitan, Citizens' Bank, and the Bank of South San Francisco are visible.Though the city was still surrounded by pastureland,one can see evidence of continued land subdivision activity and development spreading outward from the edges of the city. Figure 34.Aerial view of South San Francisco,ca.zgJ5;view toward northwest Source:South San Francisco Historical Society " Linda Kauffman,South San Francisco(South San Francisco,CA:1976),39. 22 �� � a ri c k HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTING February l0^2016 Historic Resource Evaluation 310 to 2Q4 Miller Avenue, South San Francisco, During World War 11, South San Francisco's population more than doubled again, growing from 6,629in 1940to15,862 |m1948, and then surging tn19,351in195Q. South San Francisco's incredible population boom was largely the result ofan influx of defense workers employed by shipyards operated byBe1h|e- hemn Steel (formerly Pacific Coast 5tee|), Western Pipe and Steel, and Beloit Shipbuilding Co. Other longstanding industries, including Enterprise Engine and Foundry, Edwards Wire, etc. were also involved in the war effort. Doubling of the city's population in lessthan five years created a huge housing shortage. The federal government responded by building four housing projects for defense workers, including Lin- denville, a 720-unit complex housing 4,2Q0 people, as well as Palau Village, Cape Esperence Village, and Industrial Village.These developments were all operated bythe newlyfounded South San Francisco Hous- ingAuthority.19 In addition to government projects,many local propertyowners responded tothe demand for housing by constructing additional units on their own properties, either by bu:ilding additions to their houses or constructing a||'nievv dvve|hmgy on the rear of their lots. The arrival nf tens of thousands of defense workers in the Bay Area during World War ||transformed the region almost beyond recognition. Most did not go home after the war and their numbers only grew as additional newcomers arrived, lured west by the letters of friends and relatives already living in the Bay Area.The former defense workers were soon joined by thousands of returning veterans and San Francis- cans desiring a new house in the suburbs. Asalways, South Sao Francisco was in a good position to capi- talize on the demand,due in large part to its abundant undeveloped agricultural land, its healthy employ- ment base,and its proximity to San Francisco.One of the first tracts developed after the war was Paradise Valley,asprawling subdivision built in the once-pastoral valley between Sign Hill and San Bruno Mountain. Begun in 1945, Paradise Valley was soon joined by dozens of other new subdivisions, including Mayfair Village, Sterling Terrace, Sunshine Gardens, Rancho Buri Buri, Brentwood, and Westborough, a 530-acre master-planned community built in the city's newly annexed western hiU|s.ao Between 1950 and 1960, South San Francisco's population almost doubled yet again, surging to39,42@. Though South San Francisco had become much less of a company town and more of a typical residential suburb during the postwar period,it did not neglect its industrial infrastructure,which continued tosupply most of its tax base. Seeking to create more industrially zoned land, the City filled tidal marshlands be- tween SFO and Tanforan Park Racetrack in 1�55 for several new industrial parks,which by 1958 contained over 170 plants and warehouses.One of the biggest arrivals was the Golden Gate,Produce Terminal,which opened meairSFO|m l9G2."Asmanymf the older heavy industries atPoint San Bruno began closing during the 1960s, including Bethlehem Steel and Swift & Co. (both closed in I962), the City made plans to redevelop these vacant properties with state-of-the-art industrial/research parks. One of the largest was an industrial/office park built by the Boston-based real estate development firm of Cabot, Cabot, and o Forbes nn the site of Bethlehem Steel's shipyard. m Linda Kauffman,South Son opncucv(South San Francisco,CA:1o,n)'4m. m Linda Kauffman,South Son proncurn�spvm*San Francisco,CA:1976),50. u Linda Kauffman,South Son proncuco(South San Francisco,CA:zy7s)'47. 22 South San Francisco Historical society,imoges ofArnerico:South Son Francisco(Charleston,SC:Arcadia Publishing,2004),7. ��� �� �� ������ � � x * HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTING February lQ'2V16 Historic Resource Evaluation 31Dh,3l4 Miller Avenue,South San Francisco, CA South San Francisco: 1970-2015 Between 1970 and 1990, South San Francisco's population stabilized around 50,000. Though |nfiU sites existed in the industrial areas and in the older "East Side" area around downtown, the more desirable residential areas in the hills and along El Camino Real were built-out.After 1970,the demographic makeup ofSouthSanFranciaooa|snbegamtochange,evV|vingfrornenovemwhe|nning|ynon'HiopamicvwMlte(main|y Italian American) city to majority-minority city with large 4dam and Latino communities. in 1970, South San Francisco, which then had a population of 46,646, was almost 80 percent non-Hispanic white, with negligible African American and Asian populations, but with e small but growing Latino (largely Mexican) population. In 1990,with 54,312 residents reported, in the census,the non-Hispanic white population had shrunk to 43,9 percent,with a Latino population of 27.4 percent and an Asian population (largely Filipino and Chinese) of almost 24penCent.2a Since 1990, the population of South San Francisco has grown on average about 10 percent a decade. In 20O0, it hit the 6[\0O0 mark and by the end ufthe present decade |t could h,}t7[\O00.The city's growing population is largely the result of several factors, including South San Francisco's dose proximity to San Francisco, its na|etivo affordability in comparison with other more affluent suburban communities in San Mateo County, and most important, its rapidly growing biotechnology sector. South San Francisco's civic leaders have always played a strong role in the city's economic well-being.As mentioned earlier, as tradi- tional heavy industries closed down in the 1q60s,the South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency encour- aged private real estate interests 1u build industrial/research parks. The City also used economic incen- tives to encourage new industries, in particularly biotechnology, to relocate to San Francisco instead of San Francisco oir other communities further down the Peninsula.The first biotechnology company to open in San Francisco was Genentech, vvNcM began in a non-descript warehouse in 1976. It is now located at PointSan Bruno,where itoocupiesa tremendous campus facing San Francisco Bay.With 4,S0Qemployees, Genentech is South San Francisco's largest employer. South San Francisco,has over 100 other biotechnol- ogy conopenles,nmakingittbe|argeytdusterofbiotech in the world. Meanwhile,traditional light industry, including food processing,warehousing,and logistics still remain as important as everto the city's diverse economy.Though GovernorJerry Brown eliminated redevelopment agencies,South San Francisco created a successor agency which is now actively promoting the city's neglected but historic downtown, which has experienced a renaissance in recent years. B. Development qf31(l312, and 314 Miller Avenue As mentioned previously, 318,312, and 314 Miller Avenue are located just north of downtown South San Francisco in a neighborhood historically known as"Irish Tom/n.°This part ofSouth San Francisco was one of the first areas settled after the founding of the town in 1891 and it contains some of the oldest houses in the city. Very |ihL|e is kmovvm about the early history of the three subject properties. No block books appear to exist for South Sam Francisco for this period, and South San, Francisco Land and Improvement Company sales records dm not record who bought each individual lot. According to the Company's 1891 price list, 31[\ 312, and 314 Miller Avenue were all part of Block 126. 318 Miller constituted the western half of Lot 3 and 312 and 314 Miller Avenue were both part of Lot 4. In Irish Town many of the original 50' x 140' lots were soon re-subdivided into narrow 2S'x 140' lots.According to the price list,both Lots 3 and 4 had been sold in 1891,though towhom is not known. s3U.S.Census Bureau. = =N= Ve rpK anck 24 HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTING iFebn/ary 10'2016 Historic Resource Evaluation 318tm814h8UlerAvenue, South San Francisco, CA As mentioned previousky, two of the dwellings, 310 and 314 Miller Avenue, are Queen Anne workers' cottages. Based on their styling, form, and materials, it seems very likely that they were constructed not Kong after the initial sale of these lots in 1891. The residents of the three cottages are first listed in the 1900 Census, proving that they had all been built bythis point. The earliest known graphic depiction of the three cottages dates to19O5as they all appear /na panoramic photograph taken of South San Fran- cisco hommvvhatinpn»bab|yS/gmHiO.A |ar8ersectiunofthisimaQeisreproduoed |nFigure 30.The blown- up detail in Figure 35 shows the three dwellings very clearly, though from the north, which shows only their side and rear elevations.The photograph was definitely taken in late 19O5or early 1906 because the Bank of South San Francisco, which opened in19O5, iy visible at the corner of Linden Avenue endiGrand Avenue. In the larger view one can see a train traveling up the Bayshone Cutoff, another indication that the photograph was taken after 1905. However, the photograph was not taken after 1906 because the Cohen House at 340 Miller Avenue,which was built in this year, does not appear in the image. Figure 35.Detail of ca.zeo5 panorama of South San Francisco Source:San Mateo County History Museum Archives 191U Sanborn Maps The three cottages at 310L 312, and 314 Miller Avenue appear on the 1910 Sanborn maps, the earliest published for South San Francisco(Figure 36).The 1910 Sanborn maps back up evidence from the ca. 1905 photograph that prove that they were built before their official construction dates. The cottages are aill shown set back about 15'from Miller Avenue,which appears to have been a design guideline of the South Sam Francisco Land and Improvement Company. Several other houses that ntU� stand on the block that appear om the 1910 Sanborn maps include the adjoining dwellings ot3D6 and 3U8 Miller Avenue, a Victo- rian containing a pair mf flats at91l-13 Linden Avenue, and the Cohen House at840 Miller Avenue. Most of the subject block was vacant however. Though 310 and'! 314 Miller Axemue had srna8U sheds behind them,there do not appear to have been any secondary dwellings on the properties this early, 25 �� � v���U � xn� ��� HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTING February 10,2016 - Historic Resource Evaluation 310hm314 Miller Avenue, South Son Francisco, CA /r " � ~ ~' ~ ~ ' - � d � ~. LUX AV 211 z 314 312 Sic MnLLER AV- � Figure�1910 Sanborn maps showing,from right mleft,310,312,and 314 Miller Avenue Source:Sanborn Fire Insurance Company,courtesy San Francisco Public Library 310 Miller Avenue: 1980-1925 According to the San Mateo County Recorder's Office, 310 Miller Avenue was constructed in 1912.Clearly this is not true because it appears in the 1900 Census, the ca. 1905 photograph, and the 1910 Sanborn Map.According to the 19U0 Census, 31O Miller Avenue was home to the Lockhart family, including Archie (age 39), Elsie (age 40), and their two sons: Oswald (age 9) and Kenneth (age 6 months). Both Archie and Elsie were born in Ireland. Elsie immigrated to the United States in 1800 and Archie in 1882. Archie was employed as a day laborer and Elsie did not work outside the home. The Census form indicates that the Lockha � ren1edth�lrhome.�w � 4deoade later,the 1910 Census records Mr. Platt S. Case (age 40), his wife Lena May (age I9), and their daughter E|dreda (age 5). Mc Case, a native of New York, was employed at Western Meat Co. and Lena zs May did not work outside the home.The Cases were renters. The 1920 Census indicates that 310 Miller Avenue was home to Michael (age 41) and Ella (age 33) Gutscha|k. Michael was a native of Germany, who had immigrated tothe United States im1913. Hewas employed as a miller ot Grower's Rice Co. Ella was also a native of Germany.She arrived im191Z'suggest- ing that they had met and married in the U.S.The Gutschalks were the first known owners of 310 Miller Avenue, though Ut |s unknown when they purchased itorfrom vvhonm.za Between 1920 and 1922, theGutscha|kn bought the house next-door at 312 Miller Avenue and moved in. They appear to have retained ownership of 310 Miller Avenue. In 1922, 310 Miller Avenue was home to 21 U.S.Bureau of the Census,1900 U.S.Census for Township 3,San Mateo county,California. U.S,Bureau of the Census,1910 U.S,Census for South San Francisco,San Mateo County,California. California.U,S.Bureau of the Census,1920 U.S.Census for South San Francisco,San Mateo County, 26 �� 111��� ��m �U � � xa�i�� HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTING February 10,2016 Historic Resource Evaluation 310tp8l4 Miller Avenue, South Son Francisco, CA Carl Bucy, a steelworker. That same year, a secondary unit at 310 }f Miller Avenue, which faced onto Tamarack Lane(now 311 Tamarack Lane)'first appeared in official records. |n1B23itwas home toHassel C.Steele, a steelworker; Theresa Steele, his wife; and Julius 800shard,a millwright." 312 Miller Avenue: 1900~1925 According to the San Mateo County Recorder's Office, 312 Miller Avenue was originally built in 1907.This is also clearly incorrect because |t appears in the 19O0 Census and the ca. 19O5 photograph.According to the 19U8 Census, 312 Miller Avenue was home to the Fourcaus family, including John (age 27), Mary(age 25), and their two children: (i|UeQible — age 4) and Emily (age 3). Mr. and Mrs. Fourcauo were French immigrants who had immigrated to the United States in 1891.John was employed as a butcher at Western Meat Co. The Fourcams family owned 3l2 Miller Avenue. |tiy possible that they purchased the, property directly from the South San Francisco Land Improvement Company in 1D91, because they were living in the country as early as 1891, but it is not certain."' According to the 1910 Census, there was no return from 312 Miller Avenue, indicating that it was likely vacant. In 1920, the house was the residence of Rudolph (age 46) and Lottie (age 40) Uhl, and their son Albert (age 14).The Uh|s were all California natives of German descent. They rented the house from an unknown party. In 1922, as mentioned previously, Michael and EU|a Gutsoba|k moved into 312 Miller Avenue, which they had recently purchased. Also living with them at this address were James S. Black, a nni||vvurker; William D. Lyons, a cranemam; and Edna M. Lyons' William's wife. There were no secondary dwellings onthe lot on the 1925 Sanborn maps so it is likely that Black and the Lyons |k/ad in en addition at the back of the Vri8ina| cotta8e.zo 314M�U|er Avenue: 19O0-1925 According tothe San Mateo County Recorder's Office, 314 Miller Avenue was originaily built in 1906,This is clearly incorrect because it appears in the 1900 Census and the ca. 1905 photograph. According to the 1900 Census, 314 Miller Avenue was home to Cyrus LaBrea and ]ohm O'Connor. LeBree (age 21) was e single male employed an a telegraph operator by the Southern Pacific Railroad. His roemate, John O'Connor(age 24),was also a telegraph operator.The two men,who were both natives of California,were rentery.au According to the 1910 Census, 314 Miller Avenue was home to Louis (age 38) and Dacia Lavnnia (age 36\ Patten, and their son Frederick /age 11\. Louis was employed as a lineman by the South Sam Francisco Power& Light Company.The Pattens,who were all California natives, rented the property.sz in 1920\ 314 Miller Avenue was home tm Anthony(age 62)and Edna (age 43)Whitten, end their daughter Mabel (age 14). Anthony, a native of Maine, was employed asacarpenter at Western Meat Co. Edna was 32 a native of Michigan and did not work outside the home. o Index twRegister,San Mateo County,California,South San Francisco,Precinct No.7. 21u.S.Bureau vf the Census,zy000s.Census for Township m'San Mateo County,California. m index to Register,San Mateo County,California,South San Francisco,Precinct No.7. =u.s.Bureau nf the Census,190mu.s.Census for Township a'San Mateo County,California. a`US,Bureau o,the Census,1e1ou.s.Census for South San Francisco,San Mateo County,California. 32 U.S,Bureau of the Census,1920 U.S.Census for South San Francisco,San Mateo County,California. �� m ���� ���m ��U������ HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTING February l0'20l6 Historic Resource Evaluation 3l0to3114 Miller Avenue, South San Francisco, CA According to the 1922 San Mateo County Index to Voters, 314 Miller was home to several people, including William O. Lynch, asteelworker; Charles J. and Margaret Roberts, both retired; Homer TSmith, a butcher atWestern Meat Co.; and hisvvife Martha,ertha, who did notvvork ou��i�e the horne."They rented the house from Thomas Mason. 1925 Sanborn Maps The 1925 Sanborn maps show that more houses had been built onthe subject block since 1910 but it was still far from being built-out (Figure 37\. The subject properties displayed the same footprints asanthe 1910 Sanborn maps, suggesting that no major changes had occurred to the cottages themselves, but by 1925 both 310 and 314 K4l||er Avenue had acquired secondary units at the rear of their lots facing Tamarack Lame, including a two-story dvye(Nmg with a garage beneath at 310 }6 Miller Avenue /nuvv 311 Tamarack L \and a small, one-story \t t 314A Mil,ler Avenue (now 3I5 Tamarack Lane). -Lux- - *u - - . � ~. . . » ^ � > . . . Itl ] � - -� � ^ ^ ^ . ` 2 . , | " ` MxH ER Au . . " " - . Figure 3r1g25 Sanborn maps showing,from right nm left,310,312,and 3z4 Miller Avenue(in red) Source:Sanborn Fire Insurance Company,courtesy San Francisco Public Library 310 Miller Avenue: l925-195D According tothe 1930 Census,310 Miller Avenue was home toJosd(age 22)and Espexanza(age 20) Labra. The Labras were both immigrants from Mexico; ]os6 was employed at Pacific Coast Steel and Esperanza was e seamstress ata garment factory, Meanwhile, 310 Y2 Miller Avenue (now 311 Tamarack Lane) was home to Frederic (age 24) and Josephine (age 23) Her/era' and their son {)scar /age 7 months). The Herreram were also immigrants from Mexico; Frederic was employed by Pacific Coast Steel,. An examination of the Census schedules reveals quite afew Mexican immigrants living in Irish Town in I930, though many of them were likely deported during the Depression when the U.S. government "repa1riateW°tensofthousamdsofNAen[uanoationa|sandK&exicanArnahcanxtoMexico."Residents with Index to Register,San Mateo County,California,South San Francisco,Precinct No,7, U,S,Bureau of the Census,1930 U,S,Census for x San Francisco,San Mateo County,California. �B �� �1I����� ���r�,� � � «ari�� HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTING February 10,2016 Historic Resource Evaluation 310 to 314 Miller Avenue, South Son Francisco, CA Spanish surnames do not reappear in this part of South Sam Francisco again in large numbers umd| the 1960s. By 1938, 310 Miller Avenue was home to Alfred and Fay Amen. Alfred was a steel cutter at Bethlehem Steel.The 1940 Census provides some more information on the Amen household.Alfred was 36 yeairs old and a native of Toppenish, Yakima County, Washington. Fay was also a native of Toppenish. The Amens had a seven-year-oUd daughter named Mary. In 1940,310 Y2Miller Avenue was home to two couples from Arkansas and Oklahoma, likely Dust Bowl refugees who had fled to California seeking work in the 1930s. The couple included Scott(age I6)and Ruth(age 21)Stokes, both natives of Arkansas; and Henry(age 32) and Bernice (26) Fish. Bernice was Scott's syster, and also a native of Arkansas. Henry was an auto mechanic from {}N was VV.P. Fuller paint feotury." 512 Miller Avenue: 1,925-1950 According tu the 1,94DCensus, 312 Miller Avenue was still home to Michael and Ella Gutscha|k,who were by this point both retired; aswell as Michael's cousin, William Rugge (age 26), and William's wife, Ann Rugge (age 26).The Rugges were both natives of Germany and William was employed as a wire drawer at Edwards Wire Co. 1940 was the first year that a secondary dwelling at the near of the parcel was mentioned (312 A Miller Avenue — now 313 Tamarack Lane). In this year this dwelling was home to Raymond (age 31) and Opal (age 29) Foster and their son Joe Allan (age 5). The Fosters were natives of Arkansas and Raymond was employed as carpenter." 314 Miller Avenue: 1925-1958 According to the 194D Census, 314K4iNerAvenue was home 10 Martin (age 2G\and Zeha (age 27)Gordon; and Myron Hansen (age 24). All three were natives of Montana and Martin was employed as a yardman in the stockyards nfSwift&Co.,the successorto Western Meat Co.The 1940 Census reveals many people from the Midwest, especially Arkansas and Oklahoma, living in this part of South San Francisco.The Dust Bowl aind a failed sharecropping economy had resulted in a tremendous exodus of people from the Great Plains states to California,Oregon,and Washington during the 1930s, Manyended up working in shipyards and other defense plants during the 1930s and 1940s,and because of this South San Francisco appears to have been an important destination for this comnrnunity.ax Ca. 1835 Aerial Photograph, An aerial photograph taken of downtown South San Francisco ca. 1935 (see Figure 34 for the full view) provides some information on 310, 312, and 314 Miller Avenue (Figure 38). By this time all three properties had secondary dwellings facing Tamarack Lane, with 310 and 312 having two-story dwellings at 311 and 313 Tamarack Lone, and 314 having one-story cottage at 315 Tamarack Lane. Although the view is distant, it is possible to determine that 312 K4iU|er/4/enoe had been enlarged and expanded from a one-story cottage into e two-story dwelling. However, it still appears to have its original bay window at the first floor, which is now miysing. Meanwhile, 310 and 314 Miller Avenue look much as they do now, although 314 K8[|Ker Avenue had smaller wood windows on the front of the house. The photograph indicates that there were still many vacant lots in Irish Town, including one next-door to 314 Miller Avenue, where the City-owned parking lot is now located. m U.S.Bureau of the Census,1940 U.S.Census for South San Francisco,San Mateo County,California. 16 vs.Bureau of the Census,1s=ou.s.Census for South San Francisco,San Mateo County,California. � s Bureau of th Census,1940 U.S.Census for So th San Francisco,San Mateo County,California. �� �� 1111M ��r� U����� 29 � � n HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTING February lO'2U16 Historic Resource Evaluation 310 to 314 Miller Avenue, South San Francisco, CA f. e. r v q i° a 4Gi ti r o I i aw' Figure 38.Detail of ca.1935 aerial view of downtown South San Francisco Source:South San Francisco Historical Society 1950 Sanborn Map The 19501 Sanborn map, the most recent version available for South San Francisco, indicates that Block 126 had acquired several new single-family and multi-family dwellings since the 1925 maps had been published, including several along Tamarack Lane and a bungalow court at Maple Avenue and Tamarack Lane (Figure 39). The subject properties appeared much as they did on the ca. 1935 aerial photograph,. with two dwellings on each property. In addition, 312 Miller Avenue had a small, one-story shed at the center of the lot. A comparison of the 1925 and 19501 Sanborn maps also indicate that 312 Miller Avenue had acquired a rear addition. 3101 Miller also underwent a minor alteration involving the relocation of its main entrance from the north wall of the porch to the west wall and the resulting modifcation of the adjoining bay window. MMM 30 erPl an HISTORIC'PRESERVATION CONSULTING February 10,2016 Historic Resource Evaluation 310 to 314 Miller Avenue,South San Francisco,CA > 10 ZI Lan 2 ~~ . Figure 39.1gs0 Sanborn maps showing,from right tn left,3u0,312,and 314 Miller Avenue(in red) Source.Sanborn Fire Insurance Company,courtesy San Francisco Public Library 310 Miller Avenue: 1958-2015 Very little is known about the history of 310 Miller Avenue after 1950, largely because the 1940 Census is the most recent available. The Amens moved out not long after 1940. Michael Gutschalk, who bought it ca. 1Q2O, died July 2G, 1959^ao Not long after the property was purchased byAme,iQo and Louise Parent| of San Bruno. The Parentis,who were absentee owners, sold iton May 5' 1959to Darrell L and Norma J. K4omdfrans.39 The Mnndfrans, residents of San Bruno, were also absentee owners. On October 7, 1986, they sold 310 Miller Avenue to Jeanne Sarto[ William Cornfjo, and Gerald and Eleanor Stauffer." This consortium of absentee owners sold the property on December 12, 2003 to the South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency. On March 11, 2011, following the dissolution of redevelopment agencies statewide by Governor Jerry Brown,the about-to-be-defunct South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency sold the property to the City of South San Frandsoo.^z 312 Miller Avenue:195O-2015 Very little is known about the history of312 Miller Avenue after 1950, largely because the 194O Census is the most recent available. In addition, somewhat inexplicably the property does not appear |n the San Mateo County Recorder Office's LamdDucs Search Engine, making it impossible to complete a chain of title, Michael Gutschaikom/ned 312 Miller Avenue until his death in 1958. No subsequent owners are known until the City of South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency acquired it at an unknown date. From the early 1970s until the late 1990s, the two dwellings, which included a total of four units, were rented to a series of mostly Spanish-surnamed individuals, including members of the Sote|o, Diaz, Garcia, and Larie families, many mf whom lived at the property for decades. "California Death Index. 39 San Mateo Recorder's Office,Deeds on file for 310 Miller Avenue,South San Francisco. San Mateo Recorder's Office,Deeds on file for 310 Miller Avenue,South San Francisco, Recorder's San Mateo file for | u San Francisco. �� �� MOM ��r�U����� 31 � � n HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTING February l0'%8l6 Historic Resource Evaluation 3lQtm314 Miller Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 314 Miller Avenue:1950-2015 Similarly, |h1|e is knmvvm about the history of 314 Miller Avenue after 1950, largely because the 1940 Census is the most recent available. Sometime in the 1960s, 314 Miller Avenue was purchased by Robert J. and Nancy �PadH|a. The PadU|as, who lived in San Francisco, never lived at 314 Miller Avenue, instead renting it out to various tenants. On December 29, 1982, the Padih|am sold 314 Miller Avenue to a single man named Dr. Otto A]tdorfer.1z Dr. A|tdorfer, who occasionally lived at 314 Miller Avenue, constructed an addition on the rear ofthe cottage ca. 1991, renting that mm[t to various individuals during the 1990s, including members of the Mora, Mercado, and Agredann families. On December 20, 1999, Dr. A|tdorfer sold 314 Miller Avenue toAlex Lehr." Lehr, and his wife Denise V. Lehr, were absentee owners. On April 5,2005,they sold the prnpertytV Ed8arA.amd &gvda K4.Tiinided.*"Three years later,on January 25,2008, the TrinKdads sold 314 Miller Avenue to the South Saim Francisco Redevelopment Agency, which in turn, sold the property tn the City mfSouth San Francisco on March 11, 2011." C Alterations 310, 312, and 314 Miller Avenue have all undergone various alterations, with 310 Miller remaining the most intact, 312 Miller the least intact, and!, 314 Miller Avenue in the middle. As mentioned previously, South Sam Francisco Building Division, records are aU| in temporary storage while City Hall Annex in being remodeled, so a complete inventory of permitted alterations is impossible at this time. Alterations identified in the table below are of a general nature based on fieldwork and a limited number of historic photographs and maps. 310 Miller Avenue: Date of Alteration Scope of Work Two-story garage and secondary unit built at rear of property facing Ca. 1922 Tamarack Lane (now 311 Tamarack Lane). Relocation of main entrance from north wall to west wall of porch and Ca. 1950 modification of adjoining bay window. Ca, 1955 Rear addition added to ca. 1895 cottage. Majority of the original wo,od-sa,sh windows repilaced with aluminum Ca. 1960 counterparts on both 310 Miller Avenue and 311 Tamarack Lane. Some aluminum-sash windows replaced with vinyl counterparts on both Ca. 2005 dwellings.All doors replaced on both dwellings. 42 San Mateo Recorder's Office,iDeeds on file for 314 Miller Avenue,South San Francisco. m San Mateo Recorder's Office,Deeds on file for 314 Miller Avenue,South San Francisco. ^" San Mateo Recorder's Office,Deeds on file for a14 Miller Avenue,South San Francisco. m San Mateo Recorder's h San Francisco. �� �� MOM�m�� ���x ��l�����k HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTING February 10'2016 Historic Resource Evaluation 310 to 314 Miller Avenue,South San Francisco, 312 Miller Avenue Date of Alteration Scope of Work Ca. 1930 Second story added to original ca. 1895 cottage. Bay window removed and first floor of original cai. 1895 cottage pushed out and re-clad in stucco. Rear addition built on back of original cottage. New Ca. 1940 two-story,two-unit dwelling built at rear of lot,at 313 Tamarack Lane. Majority of the original wood-sash,windows replaced with vinyl Ca. 2000 counterparts. All wood doors replaced with vinyl counterparts. 314 Miller Avenue Date of Alteration Scope of Work Ca. 1915 Small, one-story cottage built at rear of parcel, at 315 Tamarack Lane. Most original wood-sash windows replaced with aluminum counterparts on Ca. 1960 both ca. 1895 cottage and ca. 1915 rear cottage. Ca. 1990 New addition constructed on the rear fagade of original ca. 1895 cottage. Some original wood doors replaced with vinyl counterparts; some original Ca. 2000 wood siding on primary fagade replaced with composite siding. D. Queen Anne Style 310 and 314 Miller Avenues are both modest Queen Anne workers'cottages,a popular housing type built by and for working and middle-class Californians across the state between ca. 1890 and ca. 1900. The Queen Anne style originated in England [n the 1O70sand itia primarily associated with the work ofthe architect Richard Norman Shaw, The name of the style references its primary inspiration, the vernacular architecture produced cluiring the reign of Queen Anne (1702-14). The original Queen Anne style repre- sented omama8gamnof|ate-med|evaUEng\ishfornnsb|endedw/ithirnporiedita||anRemaissenmeornament. Shaw,who became well-known for his widely published country houses of the 1870s,was very influential on American architects and builders during the last decades of the nineteenth century.The Queen Anne style first caught the attention of American architects and builders during the Centennial Exposition of 1876 in Philadelphia, where the British government erected two half-timbered buildings designed with gab\eroofs,turnedvvoodornament,andapp||edti|eaccents. Doringthe1O80s, the[lueem4nneox"Free Classic," style took America by storm, particularly for large summer residences in ream,1 areas outside Boston, New York, and Philadelphia. The style's picturesque ornamental detailing, including cormertor- mets, wraparound porches, lathe-turned posts, tiled chimneys, and gabled dormers, was well-suited for |arOe|otsvvherethehmusecou|dbeseen"imtheroumd."Grodua||8buQdersd|saenmUmatedtheoty|etnthe masses in the form of speculative rowhouses and cottages in nearly every American town and city of any size When the Queen Anne style reached California in, the late 1880s it instantly became very popular, espe- cially in the fast-growing cities of San Francisco, Los Angeles, Sacramento, and Eureka. In Cefifornia, the eI �� �� � ��� ��» �K � HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTING February lV'2016 Historic Resource Evaluation 2qUto3l4 Miller Avenue,South San Francisco, C4 style's most e nth usiastic ambassadors were the brothers Sam ue land Joseph Cather Newsom.Their a rchi- tecture firm of Newsom & Newsom designed the impressive Carson Mansion in Eureka, one ofAmerica's best-known Queen Anne-style houses. In more cramped urban conditions, especially in San Francisco's Western Addition and Mission District the Queen Anne style was paned down to its essential characteris- tics for lot-line hugging rowhouses. San Francisco's "Postcard Row" on Steiner Street showcases some of the best-known Queen Anne ruovhmusesin the United States(Figure 40\. Figure 4O."Postcard Row,"San Francisco Source:Christopher vevP|anck California's suburbs and smaller cities provided o middle ground be- tween the elaborate Queen Anne mansions of the resort areas nfthe East Coast and the tightly packed rowhouamsof San Francisco. |nthese areas, including the East Bay cities of Oakland,Alameda,and Berkeley; the Peninsula; and Santa Clara County,there emerged smaller,free- standing Queen Anne cottage type. Most were between 30' and 40' wide and about 50' to70" deep, though smaller examples were com- mon in San Francisco's outlying neighborhoods, where 25'+wide |ots were the norm. Nearly all were built atop raised basements that could be excavated later for a garage or storage. Queen Anne workers' cot- tages nearly all have a three-sided bay window in one corner ofthe primary fa�ade^ the primary entrance at the center uf the fagade, and one or two windows sheltered within a porch in the opposite bay. In San Francisco's tighter conditions this was often reduced to just a hay window and am entrance within a slightly recessed porch.The porch is usually supported bv1urned posts with decorative brackets.Almost al- ways the bay window is capped by peclimnented gable or dormer, Figure 4z.672Madrid Street,Sao where the majority 0f the decorative program (if any) isconcentrated. Francisco Roofs could either be hipped nr gabled ora combination of the two. In Source:Ch'1stopherverp|anck 34 le V � � »������ � � �� HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTING February l0'2016 Historic Resource Evaluation %AOto3l4 Miller Avenue,South San Francisco, CA warmer climates the high roof allowed heat to rise above the living area and the attic space could be built out with extra bedrooms if need be. Decorative features ofQueen Anne cottages often include lathe- turned porch co�|unons, scroll-sawn brackets,friezes milled tn resemble tile work,fishsca|e and other dec- orative shiingle cladding(usually in the gable), sunburst panels,foliate plaster moldings, and molded door and window casings. More modest examples of Queen Anne cottages have almost no ornament, such as this well-preserved cottage inSan Francisco's Excelsior District(Figure 41). V. Previous Evaluations In 1986, the South San Francisco City Council' appointed a Historic Preservation Commission to identify and register South Son Francisco's "most important sites and structures." The Historic Preservation Comnmiso|on[schargedvvithprotec1ingthesehistohcsitesandytructuresfrumn°meed|essmegiect,exter|or alteration that might destroy their historic and architec±ua| value, or demoKitiun."*a The Historic Preservation Commission maintains a list of landmarks, called "Historic Resources." The majority of the list consists of properties identified in the South San Francisco Historic Preservation Survey,completed in 1985-86 by the San Jose firm of Bonnie Barnburg &Associates. This survey built upon earlier official and unofficial efforts by local citizens and the South Sam Francisco Historical Society. Using grant from the state, in 1985, the City hired a team of consultants consisting ofBonnie @aonburg, Dr. Knox Mellon, Dr. Steven Payne, and VVi||iarn Zav|aris to complete a comprehensive survey of the oldest parts of the city predating World War|].This survey began im September 1085 and was completed in}moe1986.The survey was then adopted by the Historic Preservation Commission. The South Francisco Historic Preservation Survey used the Kalman Methodology, a qualitative and quantitative survey methodology that assigns numerical ratings to various categories, including potential architectural!, or historical significance or associations with: persons or events important in our collective past. The surveyors acknowledged that with the exception of several commercial and civic buildings like City Hall or the Bank of South San Francisco, the vast nna]orhx of South San Francisco's building stock represents modest vernacular typologies typically associated with an industrial community inhabited by working-class people. Given this fact, the surveyors stated in the survey methodology that many of the most significant properties[n South San Francisco are modest workers'dwellings, especially those dating back tn the 1890s, when South San Francisco was first founded asa company tovvn." 310 and 314 Miller Avenue were placed on the survey "Master List" in the 1985-86 South San Francisco Historic Preservation Survey, most likely due to their very early dates of construction. 312 Miller Avenue was not surveyed, presumably because it had obviously undergone extensive unsympathetic alterations. Because they were on the Master List, the surveyors prepared state Historic Resources Inventory forms for both 310 and 314 Miller Avenue. The inventory forms for 310 Miller gave the cottage an estimated construction date of 1890 and identified it as the residence of an A, Lockhart, "a foreman for Varnish works."The evaluator went on to write: "The home is significant for its assoication (sic)with the people who worked for the growing industries inSouth San Francisco."48 However, 310 Miller was not given a final survey rating and it is inexplicably not listed in w"Historic m=vvrc='~City uf South San Francisco Planning Division,Historic pre^ervauvn: ac- mss*u January z,'zm1a. 47 Bonnie L.Bamburg et al,South San Francisco Historic Preservation Survey(san Jose:1985-86),11.(April 1986). Avenue"Bonnie L,Bamburg,"Historic Resource Inventory Form for 310 Miller �� �� � M�����m v�� ;�U�����k HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTING February 1$'20l6 Historic Resource Evaluation 310 to 314 Miller Avenue, South Son Francisco, CA the City's List of Designated and Potential Historic Resources. See the Appendix Item 8 for the historic resource inventory forms for 31O Miller Avenue. The inventory form for 314 Miller Avenue provides an estimated construction date of 1875 for 314 Miller Avenue,even though this predateothe foundation ofSouth San Francisco bvl6 years.The brief evaluation states "314 Miller was inhabited byH.G. Trao[e who was a carpenter and Jesse Swift who worked at planing mill.The house is significant for its association with the working man and those who helped build the city."" In contrast to 310 Miller Aveniue, which seems to have been, inadvertantly left off the List of Designated and Potential Historic Resources, 314 Miller Avenue is on the list asa Potential Historic Resource with a rating of"5," meaning that it is"individually listed or is eligible for listing under the City's Historic Preservation Zoning See the Appendix Item B for the historic resource inventory forms for 314 Miller Avenue. \/|. Property Evaluation VerP|anok Historic Preservation Consulting evaluated the potential eligibility of310, 31Z, and 314 for list- ing |nthe California Register of Historical Resources(Cailifornia Register), which is the minimum threshmld for the properties to be classified as "historical resources" under the California Environmental Quality Act.m A. California Register mf Historical Resources The California Register isam authoritative guide to significant architectural, archaeological, and historical resources in the State of California. Resources can be listed in the California Register through a number of methods.State Historical Landmarks and National Register-eligible properties (both listed and formal de- terminations of eligibility)are autorriatically listed.The California Register also includes properties identi- fied in historical resource surveys with Status Codes of 1 to 5 and resources designated as local landmarks or listed by city nr county ordinance. Properties can also be nominated to the California Register by local governments, organizations, or private citizens. The eligibility criteria used by the California Register are closely based on those developed by the National Park Service for the National Register of Historic Places (National Register). In order to be eligible for listing in the California Register a property must be demon- strated to be significant under one or more of the following criteria: Criterion 1 (Event): Resources that are associated with events that have made a signifi- cant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history,orthe cultural heritage of California orthe United States. Criterion 2(Person): Resources that are associated with the lives of persons important to local, California,ornational history. Criterion 3 (Design/Construction): Resources that embody the distinctive characteristics of type, period, region, or method of construction, or represent the work of master, or possess high artistic values. Bonnie L.a"muvrg."Historic Resource Inventory Form for a1*Miller Avenue"(Apm1enm). 51)city of south San Francisco,'List of Designated and Potential Historic Resources"(December 21,1992)� 51 Section zuom*.1m the Public Resources Code,^wisounca|Resource m"meonm/ sources%20code.,kdf Accessed January 27,2016. ��� �a �� o����c � ��� � HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTING February 10'2$l6 Historic Resource Evaluation 310fo3\4 Miller Avenue,South Son Francisco, CA Criterion 4 (information Potential): Resources or sites that have yielded or have the po- tential to yield information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, Cali- fornia or the nation. In addition to meeting at least one of the four criteria, a property must retain integrity, meaning that it should appear much as it did when it achieved significance, i.e., when it was built. The seven aspects of integrity are: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship,feeling, and association. 31D Miller Avenue Built ca. 1O95, and possibly an early as189I when the lot was first sold hythe South San Francisco Land and Improvement Company, 310 Miller Avenue (only the cottage, not the rear dwelling) appears eligible for listing inthe California Register under Criterion 1 (Events) and Criterion 8 (Design/Construction). It appears eligible under Criterion 1, at the local level, as a dwelling constructed during the earliest phase of residential development following the founding of South San Francisco a�xa company town by the South Son Francisco Land and Improvement Company in; 1891. Built inone of the oldest residential districts of South San Francisco—an area traditionally known as Irish Town—the cottage housed generations of work- ing-class immigrants and native-born Americans employed in the many local industries at Point San Bruno. According to the San Mateo County Assessor's Office there are only eight properties in South San Fran- cisco constructed before 1900. Including 1900 yields only 26. Based on this information,310 Miller Avenue ia one of the oldest surviving buildings inSouth San Francisco.Similarly, it appears eligible under Criterion 3 as a moderately intact Queen Anne workers' cottage, a type that characterized nearly all of the first generation of residential development in South San Francisco, The building's primary fagade embodies several important characteristics of the style, including the gable roof,corner bay window, integral porch, spindle frieze, and decorative shingle pattern in the front gable. it has undergone several alterations,the most notable of which include the relocation of the main entrance,and the modification of the baywindow before 1950. 312 Miller Avenue Built ca. 1895, and possibly as early as 1891 when the lot wais first sold by the South San Francisco Land and Improvement Company, 312 Miller Avenue appears ineligible for listing in the California Register un- der any criteria. 312 Miller Avenue was rebuilt between 1930 and 1940 with alterations that more than doubled its size and removed nearly every feature of its original design, to the point where it is no longer recognizable asan189Qy-era workers' cottage. 314 Miller Avenue Built ca. 1895, and possibly as early as 1891 when the lot was first sold by the South San Francisco Land and Improvement Company, 314 Miller Avenue appears ineligible for listing in the California Register un- der any criteria due to diminished integrity. Similar to 310 Miller Avenue, 314 Miller Avenue was con- structed during the earliest phase of residential development following the founding of South San Fran- cisco by the South San Francisco Land and improvement Company in 1891. Since at least I900 it has housed several generations of workers in local industries representing most of the major ethnic groups that have called South San Francisco home over the last 125 years. Unlike 312 Miller Avenue,which bears no resemblance to its original design, 314 Miller Avenue is stNU recognizable as a Queen Anne worker's cottage, However, its primary fagade,which is the most important feature of the building, has undergone a number of incremental changes that have compromised its original', appearance, including the enlarge- ment ofthe original windows, the removal of the original vvimduvv trim, the replacement of the original double-hung wood sashes with aluminum sliders, replacement of the original wood stairs with brick stairs, 37 �� 1,)*� ���� � 11c 1 � ( HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTING February 10,2016 Historic Resource Evaluation 310 h»314 Miller Avenue,South San Francisco, CA the replacement of the original wooden porch balustrade with wrought iron,the replacement of the orig- inal vxmnd door with a new vinyl door, the removal of the original wood moldings from around the door, the replacement of the original rustic channel siding with imitation wood lapped siding, and the removal of all originaU ornament beneath the gable. The gable and cornice, and possibly the, frieze beneath the cornice appear tobe the only original features of tbefa�ade. Integrity As discussed above, of the three properties, only 310 Miller Avenue appears to retain sufficient integrity tn qualify lt for listing inthe California Register.Though 310 Miller has undergone several alterations,chief among them a rear addition and some minor changes to the primary fagade, it is still readily recognizable as an 1890s Queen Anne workers'cottage. 312 Miller Avenue bears no resemblance to its original design, having been substantially rebuilt between 1930 and I940. 314 Miller Avenue is still recognizable as Queen Anne worker's cottage but the majority mf the materials on its primary fa�acle have been replaced with incompatible materials. in summary, 314 Miller Avenue does not retain sufficient integrity to be listed in the California Register and it is probably no longer eligible for the City's List of Designated and Potential Historic Resources because most of the alterations listed above occurred after 1986. l/11.Evaluation ofProject-specific Impacts A. Project Description The proposed project,called Miller Avenue Senior Housing, is a joint undertaking of Beacon Development Group and the Rotary Club of South San Francisco. The project entails the demolition of all buildings and structures on the approximately half-acre site, including 31O, 31Z, and 314 Miller Avenue and 311, 313, and S15 Tamarack Lane, and merging the three parcels together with anexisting City-owned parking lot next door.The site would then be developed with a five-story, mixed-use building containing 81 one-and two-bedirmorm rental apartments for low-income seniors.The proposed building will be Type 1A(concrete podium) with wood-framing on floors 2-5. The first floor level will contain a lobby and an office and 39 parking stalls accessed by m vehicular entrance on Miller Avenue. Floors 2-5 xvl|I contain the residential units, as well as resident amenities, including a community room, an outdoor terrace, a laundry room, a fitness room, a lounge,and several outdoor terraces.The building will be massed as two separate rectan- gular volumes— one facing Miller Avenue and the other Tamarack Lane —with a sky bridge connecting them.The exterior of the building will be clad in contempor�ry materials, including l�rge-format porcelain tile on floor 1. Floors 2-5 will be finished in cement�laster,metal panels,and fiber cement siding intended to resemble wood — Vthamw|se known as "Herdi-board." Doom and windows will be made of powder- coated aluminum, and various other architectural elements, including the balconies and canopies,will be made ufsteel. Extensive glazing abovethemai|nemtrancevvD| heamp|oyedtofurtherdimnimishthebuHd- inm'smass[ng along Miller Avenue. Decorative steel grills will be employed along Tamarack Lane to protect access to the garage and to provide visual interest along this side of the building.At its highest point along Miller Avenue the proposed building will rise to68'-3°. The developer is a partnership of the Rotary Club of South San Francisco a!nd Beacon Development Group of Pleasanton, California. The architect is HK|T Architects of Oakland and the landscape architect is Van Dorm Abed Landscape Architects of San Francisco. The property is zoned DRC — Downtown Residential Core and it is in a 65" height and bulk district. The drawing set evaluated for this HIRE was prepared by HK|T and is dated August I8, 2015. MWM 3� �� ��Ua1 �n�� ��� HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTING February l0'2Ol6 Historic Resource Evaluation 310 to 314 Miller Avenue,South San Francisco, CA B. Status qf Existing Property uso Historical Resource According to Section 15064.5 (a) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a "historical re- source" is defined as a property belonging to at least one of the following three categories: ~ A resource listed in, or determined tn be eligible by the State Historical ResourcesCom- mnismimn, for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (Pub. Res. Code SS5024.1,Title 14CCR, Section 4850 etseq.); 0, A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Section 5020.1(k)of the Public Resources Code or identified as significant in an historical resource survey meeting the requirements of section 5024.1(g)of the Public Resources Code,shall be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Pobiic agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant; 0 Any object, building, structure, site, area, p,;ace, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to he historically significant orsignificant in the architectural, engi- neering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cul- tural annals of California may be considered to be an historical resource, provided the lead agency's determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the xvhn|e record. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be "historically significant" if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of His- torical Resources(Pub. Rms. CmdeSS5QZ4.1,Title 14 C[R, Section 4852). According to the analysis in this HRE,only one building on the site-31Q Mi||erAvenue—appears eligible for listing in the California Register. However, the building has not been formally determined eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission and it is not listed im South San Francisco's List ofDesignated and Potential Historic Resources. In order to meet the definition of "historical resource" under Section 15064.5 (a) ufCE[CA, the "lead agency" on this project — in this case the South San Francisco Planning Dlvlsion—*vou|d have to agree with the findings in this report and concur that 310 Miller Avenue is "his- torically sigmifioant.° C. Evaluation of the Project for Compliance with the Secretary of the/oterioKs Standards The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Illustrated Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (the Rehabilitation Standards and the Guidelines, respectively) provide guidance for re- viewing mxorkto historic properties.sz Developed by the National Park Service for reviewing certified reha- bilitation tax credit projects, the Standards have been adopted by local government bodies across the country for reviewing proposed work to historic properties under local preservation ordinances. The Re- habilitation Standards are a useful analytical tool ferunderstand:ing and describing the potential impacts of changes to historical resources, including new construction inside or adjoining historic districts. 52 U.S.Department of Interior Nationa I Park Service Cultural Resources,Preservation Assistance Division,Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation nn*xw/troted Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings,199o.The Standards,revised|nzn92,were codified o,sacraPart po.ain the July 12,1995 Federal Register(Vol.60,No.133),The revision replaces the 1978 and 1983 versions of 36CFR68 entitled The Secretary n/the Interior's Standards for Historic Preservation Projects. The 36 CFR 68.3 Standards are applied to all grant-in-aid development projects assisted through the National Historic Preservation Fund.Another set of Standards,36 CFR 67.7,focuses on"certified historic structures"as defined by the IRS Code of 1986.The Standards in 36 CPR 67.7 are used primarily when property owners are seeking certification for federal tax benefits.The two sets ofStondords vary slightly,but the differences are primarily technical and non-substantive in nature.,The Guidelines,how- ever, codified in the Federal 39 �� � �v�� �� � x ua n C� HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTING February l0'20l6 Historic Resource Evaluation 2O0tu314 Miller Avenue,South San Francisco, CA Compliance with the Rehabilitation Standards does not determine whether a project would cause a sub- stantial adverse change in the significance of a historica;l resource underCEQA. Rather, projects thetcmnm- p|yvv8ththeStandardsbenefitfromamegu|atorypresunnptionthattheyvvouldhave a |ess'tham-signUficant adverse impact oma historical resounce.aa Projects that do not comply with the Rehabilitation, Standards may or may not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource and would require further analysis to determine whether the historical resource would be "materially |nmpa|nad° by the project underCEQAGu/de8oes15064.5(b). Rehabilitation is the only one of the four treatments in the Standards(the others are Preservation, Resto- ration, and Reconstruction) that allows for the construction of an addition or other alteration to accom- modate a change in use orprmQrann.s«The first step in analyzing a project's compliance with the Rehabi|- itatlon Standards is to identify the resource's character-defining features, including characteristics such as design, materials, detailing, and spatial re|etiumships. Once the property's character-defining features have been identified, it is essential to devise a project approach that protects and maintains these im- portant materials and featupea— meaning that the work involves the "least degree of intervention" and that important features and materials are safeguarded throughout the duration ufconstruction." It is critical to ensure that new work does not result imthe permanent removal, destruction, or radical alteration of any significant character-defining features. The principle character-defining features of 310 Miller Avenue include its height and massing; its front end! side yard setbacks; its rustic channel siding; and the overall arrangement of its nf primary fapde and its Queen Anne ornamental detailing, including its angled bay window,pilasters,recessed porch,spindle frieze,intermediate and raking cornices,shingled gable, and window trim. The door and the window sashes are not oharactepdefin|ngfeatures because they have all been replaced.The ca. 1955 rear addition is also not a character-defining feature. |f this was a remodel vwe would analyze the proposed project for compliance under each of the 1UReha- bilitation Standards, but because the proposed project calls for the demolition of all six buildings on the site, including 31U Miller Avenue, it can beassumed ipsofacto thattheproject fails to comply with any nf the 10 Rehabilitation Standards. See Appendix Item A for a complete list of the Standards. D. Determination of Significant Adverse Effect under CEQA According to [E{}A, a "project vvithaneffect that may cause a substantial adverse change |m the signifi- cance of an historic resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the emvimmnmmnt"56 Sub- stantial adverse change is defined as: "physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historic resource would be mate- rially impaired."5'The significance of an historical resource is materially impaired when a project"demol- ishes ornnoterio|k/e|tersinanodversennannerthosephysica|characteristUcsofanhistor|ca| resourcethat convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the California Register...as 53 Csq^Gmmenmes subsection zan64.s(W(a). m|biv,pa. °|wU �CrQx Guidelines subsection zsus4.s(b). CEQA Guidelines subsection 15064.5(b)(I). 40 �� ���o a n c I< HISTORIC PNESERVAy|ONCONSU0NG February 10,2016 Historic Resource Evaluation 3lOto314 Miller Avenue,South Son Francisco,CA determined bva lead agency for purposes ofCECKA." 1 Thus, u project rnayalterastrmctorethatiscnno|d- eredah|storica| neaVurcabutsti|| nothaveasiQmificenLadweoeefhsctontheenvinonnnentasdefimedby CEQA as long as the alterations will not materially impair or undermine those physical characteristics the lead agency determines make the structure a historical resource to begin with. E Analysis mf the Project-Specific Impacts under C£{A As demonstrated above, this HIRE concludes that]18 Miller Avenue appears eligible for listing iothe Cali- fornia Register, and California Register eligibility defines the minimum threshold for historical resource status in Section 15064.5(a)of CEQA.Though the final determination regarding the property's significance resides with the South San Francisco Planning Division,the demolition nf31O Miller Avenue would appear to have a substantial adverse change on the resource, and therefore a significant effect on the environ- ment. Y/|||. Potential Mitigation Measures According to Section 15126,4(b)(1)of the Public Resources Code(CEQA Guidelines): "Where maintenance, repair, stabilization, rehabilitation, restmradom, preservation, conservation or reconstruction of the his- torical resource will be conducted in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment uf Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Re- constructing Historic Buildings,the project's impact on the historical resource wiH generally be considered mitigated below a level of significance and thus is not significant." Because the proposed project vvVu|d almost certainly have a significant effect onthe environment, mitigation measures may be required to mitigate the project's impacts 0oa |esx'tha#-sigmihcantimpact. Mitigation measures are typically developed on a case-by-case basis, providing the opportunity tutailor them to the significance of the resource. The most commonly adopted mitigation measures in California include: 1) documentation of the affected resource in conformance with Historic American Buildings Sur- vey (H/48S) standards, 2\ preparation of a yai|vage plan for significant features and materials, and/or 3) making a commemorative plaque or interpretive display. While in some instances HABS documentation alone may be judged by a lead agency to reduce a project's adverse effects to a less-than-significant level, it does not reverse the loss of the resource to a community's character and collective history. Section 15126.4(b)(2)of the Public Resources Code is clear in this regard: "in some circumstances,documentation of an historical resource, by way of historic narrative, photographs or architectural drawings,as mitigation for the effects of demolition of the resource will not mitigate,the effects toa point where clearly mo sig- nificant effectontbeenvinonmnen1\mou|doccwr.~ |nsuch|ostanceo[trnaybeprwdemttnconsidercnmnbin- [ngHA8SdncumentaLiomxv[thothermm|dgabonnnea,sunes, inc|uding an interpretive display and/or salvag- ing orreiocatimgtheresooroetofu||yrnitigatmthe |nssofthereyuurcetothecornnnomity. |mthesect|ons below we outline several possible mitigation measures that may mitigate the proposed project's impacts toa |ess-tham-siQnificentlevel. 58 CEQA Guidelines subsection 15064.5(b)(2). = 41 ����& � ===~===. � ������ HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTING February l0�'20l6 Historic Resource Evaluation 3l0fp3l4 Miller Avenue,South San Francisco, CA A. Historic American Building Survey/HA8S/Documentation On its own, documentation of a historical resource by way of a historical report, large-format black-and- white photography, and existing conditions drawings com,pleted according to HABS archival standards, is occasionally considered to be adequate mitigation for the loss of historical resources of lesser importance. The completed package is printed on archival media and sent to local and regional repositories for safe- keeping.The problem is that the resource is permanently lost to the community, and the completed doc- umentation package is not easily accessible to the general public, which is not familiar with this type of rmitigationmneaswma.so However, HABS Level documentation in concert with one or more other mitigation measures, such as an interpretive display, orsaIvaoe/relocation, is more likely to reduce the impacts of the project toaless-than-significant level. B. Interpretive Display A publicly-accessible interpretive display that documents and commemorates the history of a historical resource is a usually a very effective mitigation measure. In contrast to the HABS documentation package, which is stored away in a library or historical archives, an interpretive display is easily accessible to the, general public.An interpretive display can take the form of a kiosk or other permanent display containing panels of text, historic photographs, excerpts of historical reports and oral histories, and maps. It should be located in a public nroenm|'pubUicaU|yaccessible area where building occupants and passers-by may view|t and learn about thehisLoryof the site.An interpretive display[o typically designed byaprofessional exhibit designer with input from an architectural historian and/or historian knowledgeable about the property. Prior to implementation,the final interpretive display should be reviewed for completeness and accuracy by the lead agency and preferably an authority on local history, such as a member of a historical society ura community historian. C Relocation ondlor Salvage and Reuse of Architectural Elements Provided that it is feasible, the relocation of historical resource is clearly the best type of mitigation because the resource is ultimately not lost to the community. California law o||ovvs California Register- eligible or listed propertiesto be relocated,especiallyif it facilitates their preservation. |n California, many smalle,r-scale residential buildings have been successfully relocated and incorporated into various devel- opment projects.|fthmroiomospamafVrthebui|dingontheyite,ornofundstonestone[t,aprojectsponsor may offerto donate the buildingto a non-profit group,such as a historical society,orto the general public at large, provided that the building is successfully relocated nearby and restored. |f relocation is not fea- sib|e, <n some instances important character-defining elements ofa historical resource may besalvaged, and if appropriate, incorporated into the project.Salvaged elements may also be donated to a local non- profit organization, orat the very least, sold or donated toa local salvage contractor. It is our opinion that a mitigation package consisting of documenting 310 Miller Avenue to HABS stand- ards, combined an interpretive display and an earnest attempt to relocate the building to another site nearby,would mitigate the project's impacts toa less-than-significant effect. 59 The definitions of HABS-level documentation can be found on the National Park websim MM �� ���� ��r��a 42 � o � ��� HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTING February 10.2nY6 Historic Resource Evaluation 310 to 314 Miller Avenue, South San Francisco, CA IX. Conclusion The three subject properties: 310, 312, and 314 Miller Avenue, contain a total of six dwellings, including three ca. 18915 cottages facing Miller Avenue (310, 312, and 314 Miller Avenue) and three secondary dwellings facing Tamarack Lane, including 311 Tamarack Lane (built ca. 1922), 313 Tamarack Lane (built ca. 1940), and 315 Tamarack Lane (built ca. 1915). The three cottages facing Miller Avenue were con- structed during the earliest phase of development in South San Francisco, following its founding by the South San Francisco Laind and Improvement Company in 1891.Though no original building permits appar- ently smrvlveforthecoltages, censmsnacordaandh|s1nr|cphotographnindicatethattheyweretbereat least as far back as 1900, and probably earlier based on their Queen Anne styling, a design vocabulary popular in, California between 1890 and 1900. Based on San Mateo County Assessor data, the three cot- tages are probably some of the oldest buildings in South San Francisco, which in 1985 recorded only 26 properties built between l891 and I9U8. Census data and city directories indicate that all three cottages, as well as the secondary dwellings built later in the twentieth century, housed a succession of industrial workers employed in the factories, slaughterhouses, stockyards, and other inclustr4l plants at Point San Bruno. They included Irish, French, German, and Mexican immigrants, as well as native-born Americans. The three properties have undergone alterations, not the least of which were the additions of secondary dwellings at the rear of all three lots.Alterations to the cottages themselves have also been made, espe- cially 313M0|erm/hichisnn |mngerreno0n(zab|e. 310K4iU|erAxenue|sthemost[ntao1o{thethnee, metain' ingrnostofitsorigina| QoeemAnnedeoignfeatureoamdmateria|s.314K4i|AerAvenue,thoughstiU| recog- n[zabie as a Queen Anne workers' cottage, has undergone too many alterations tV qualify for listing the California Register. In summary, the only building that retains sufficient integrity is the cottage at 310 Miller Avenue,which in the opinion,of the author of this report,appears eligible for listing in the California Register under Criteria 1 and 3,at the local level of significance.The proposed project vvuu|dresu|timtbe demolition of 310 Miller Avenue, If the City of South San Francisco concurs that it is a historical resour,ce, we believe that the project's impacts may be mitigated to o less-than-significant effect through the im- plementation of the mitigation package described, above im Chapter VIII. 43 �� ��� �v�� ������ � � HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTING February 10'20l6 Historic Resource Evaluation 310ho3l4 Miller Avenue, South Son, Francisco, CA X. Bibliography A. Published Books, Articles, and Reports 0annburg, Bonnie,South Son Francisco Historic Preservation Survey:1985-2986 San Jose, CA: I986. Bancroft, Hubert H. History ofCnifornia, Volume yl San Francisco:The History Company, 18B6-1O9D, California Office of Historic Preservation. California Historical Resource Status Codes. Sacramento: 2003. Gebhard, David, Robert Winter, et al. The Guide to Architecture/m San Francisco and Northern Cm/ifbnn/o. Salt Lake City: Peregrine-Smith Books, 1985 Ed. Hynding, Alan. From Frontier to Suburb: The Story of the Son Mateo Peninsula. Belmont,CA: Star Publish- ing, 1982. Kauffman, Linda. "South San Francisco—A History." Undated typed manuscript on file at the San Mateo History Museum Archives. . "it was not byChance." Lo Peninsula,Vol. XV;, No. Z (May l97l\. .Iouth San Francisco:A History. South San Francisco, CA: Linda Kauffman, 1976. "Local Progress: South San Francisco."South Son Francisco Enterprise.January 4, 1896. Moore and DePue. The Illustrated History of Son Mateo County. Woodside, CA: Reprint by Gilbert Rich- ards, 1974. Sche||ens, Richard N. °South3aoFramdycuAccondingtotheNewepapers.° Undatedtypedmnanuscripton file at the San Mateo History Museum Archives. Scott, Mel. The Son Francisco Bay Area: /\ Metropolis in Perspective, Berkeley. University of California Press, 1959. South San Francisco Historical Society. Images of America: South San Francisco, Charleston, S[: Arcadia Press, 2004. SouthSanFramdscmLandamd |rnpnnvemmentCo.°TVHpnne-Seekero." UndatedbrmchureonM|eatthe5an Mateo History Museum Archives. Stanger, Frank &4. South from San Francisco. San Mateo, CA: Sam Mateo County Historical Association, 1963. . "The Beginnings of South San Fnancisco.° Lo Peninsula,Vol.XV|, No. 2 (May 1971\. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. National Register Bulletin 15/ How to Apply the National Register Criteriafor Evaluation. Washington, D.C.: rev. ed. 1998. �v�� 44 �� ��� vn����&°� H|S?OR|C PRESERVATION CONSULTING February 10,2016 bh»dc Resource Evaluation 310hm314Miller Avenue,South Son Francisco, CA U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. National Register Bulletin 16: "How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. Washington, D.C.: rev. ed. 1998. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Secretary of the Interior's StoncarosforRehob/0- tmtinnfJ /0ustmotedGu/de0nes/orRehob8itobogHistont8mildings. VVoyhington, D.C.: 1997. VVh7ffen, Marcus.American Architecture since 187D. Cambridge, K4ass.:The M.|Z Press, 1969. B. Public Records California Death Index: 194Q'1Q97. California Marriage Index, 198O-1985. California Passenger and Crew Lists, 1882'1957. CE[14 Guidelines subsection 15064.5(b). County of San Mateo, Office of the Clerk-Recorder: assessor records for 310, 312, and 314 Miller Avenue. San Mateo County Museum Archives: clippings files, maps, and historical photographs South San Francisco Historical Society: city directories, biographical files, map, and ephemera. U.S. Bureau of the Census. Records for San Mateo County Township 3 and South San Francisco, 190O-194O. C. Newspapers Oakland Tribune Son Francisco Call Son Francisco Chronicle Son Francisco Examiner Son Mateo Times South San Francisco Enterprise �� �� ��zr[)U� dk 45 HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTING February 10,2016 Historic Resource Evaluation 21Qho314 Miller Avenue,South San Francisco, CA X1. Appendix A. Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation B. Historic Resource Inventory Forms for 3]D and 314 Miller Avenue Rehabilitation Standard 1:A property will be used as it was historically or be given anew use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials,features, spaces and spatial relationships. Rehabilitation Standard 2: The historic character of property will be retained and preserved. The re- moval of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces and spatial relationships that characterize the property will be avoided. Rehabilitation Standard 3: Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or ele- ments fromnotherh{storicproper1ies,uvi|| motbeumdertaken. Rehabilitation Standard 4: Changes to e property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will bmretained and preserved. Rehabilitation Standard 5: Distinctive materials, features, finishes and construction techniques or exam- ples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. Rehabilitation Standard 6: Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature,the new feature will match the old in design, color,texture, and,where possible, nnaiteria|s. Replacement of missing features will be sub- stantiated bV documentary and physical evidence. Rehabilitation Standard 7: Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible.Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. Rehabilitation Standard W: Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such re- sources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will beundertaken. Rehabilitation Standard 9: New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not de- stroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property.The new work shall be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials,features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. Rehabilitation Standard 10: New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would beunimpaired. 46 �� �������� ���r��� �° �ma���� HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTING February 10,21016 n 0 iA1ZM—L0o H o. _ PAR Status U : A HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY D IDENTIFICATION 1, Common name: 2. Historic name: 310 Miller Avenue Street or rural address's So. San Francisco 94480 San Mateo , Clt Zip County Q1231123 - . 4. Parcel number. Melvin 'Lee 28 Camino WI-to S. Present Owner*'` dress: - Mlilbrae 94484 City Zip C3 rsfiip is. Public te' Residence Residence C 'Present .Ise. Original use:' DESCRIPTION Queen Anne Cottage 7a. Architectural styles 7b.. Briefly describe the present phydral appbarance of the site or structure and descAbe any major alterations from Its .original condition. A single story end gable residence with Queen Anne details that is ec ngu- lar in form and in oringal appearance. The end gable is filled with - fish- scale shingles. The facade is divided between •a bar with paired. windows and a recessed porch. The porch has a raw of spool work beneath the roof line. Sheathed in horizontal board, the structure exhibits its original character. C'ons-tru ctionvm ' stimatecl' Factual i i y )1. �ftitis n. 1 10 B l Ut 'lrnown d ` ^ , 1.1.. ptilapr6x.proil k size .6n fea 5 .. Frontage ' D epth or approx. acre , '`- 1 bete�s'i"tr vttagr (s 13. Condition: Excellent Good -- Fair Deteriorated - No longer in existence Minor 14. Alterations: X 16. Surroundings (Check more than one if'necessary) Open land. Scattered buildings Densely built-up Residential Industrial Commercial Other: X 1 Threats to situ Mane known—Private development Zoning 'Vandalism Public Works project Other: X 17. Is the structure: On its original situ Moved? . Unknown? 18. Related features: SIGNIFICANCE 19. 9rlefly state 'historical and/or architectural importance (include dates,events,and persons associated with the site.) This house was inhabited by A. Lockhart. Lockhart was a foreman for "garnish Works. The home is significant for its assoication with the people who worked for the growing industries in South San Francisco. Locational sketch map (draw and label site and surrounding streets,roads„and prominent landmarks)„ 20. Main theme of the historic resource: (if more then one is !VC?RTN checked,numbel in carder of importance.) .Architecture Arts& Leisure Economic/industrial—Exploration/Settlement ?Government Military Religion Social/Education Pd f )r 21, Sources(fist books,documents,surveys,personal interviews SanbdKt%V 11410, 1925 Sea San Francisco Museum Files A Field Guide to American Houses, McAlister April 1986 . -9 I l..ti 22. Date form preparefh i + �i ii By (name) ei4l v - L. " organizati24i Address 4 City ZIP Phone: 1 � v l • w r a ,s .. u4' ,✓ �^r i,a+ �., rpidf� �.:ra�r�� is ,1 for i, ,�,r t'"„��� r � � ��!���CPa��� bfa,�r*�A�u � �J����ry� x�: rA.0✓rz�ri��irr� ,+hullo,in�i�rv�wr�iv�ii�ic��,'16i��r�,r�P1���' >Y��( �� (��'• �,... �„� � 9ytli�r;•�ra�,.,"`'r 1'�����i�ar����r � �a�i'✓ � �' "������'�**���� r. � �:. M ( PP ��� � w}� a j u: F• t �'^ � ' �,`� ,-.�� ���� ' �e r.,wiry i��, �� �:�,y,�"� � J�"i}�� "'�,•»•����• ��. �� ���• I; �'� t, � ' V "�"`�"mar r✓riia�vuem��7 , , r( (� F � u� K ,c ���I1�glgl�Il �f•" d � ���u ,L /LI��r �,. f. J � .f� �n�' R�, .�d'4 Dr� F4�4n�, u n �il�lq �, � � � � (�� fa�ntt+�r�tl,,, Y�',,,�raui�i,„�,,,��V���.... �{�I�R�"�t,�� � �}"�?���.. „°^Y W • •m :,r::” ,, r 77 93. Condition; Excellent —Good ­)�—Fair_....,,„„ Deteriorated _ No longer in existence 14, Alterations* 15, Surroundings. (Check more than one if necessary) Open land _Scattered buildings densely built-up Flesidential SC Indu strial Commercial tither: 16. Threats to.site: Mane known Private development Zoning ' Vandalism Public Works project era 17. Is the structure: On its original site?—X Moved? �� Unknown? A- Related features: SIGNIFICANCE 19 Briefry state historical and/or architectural importance(include dates,events,and persons associated wilth the sltej 314 Miller was inhabited by H.G. `racie who' 'Was' a 'carpenter and`Jesse Swift who worked at a planing mill&^ The house is significant for its association with the 'working man and those who helped build the City. Locational sketch map(draw and label site and surrounding streets,roads,and prominent landmarks): ZQ. Main theme of the historic resource: (If more than one is A NORTH checked,number in order of importance,)' Architecture 1 Arts& Leisure Economic/Industrial 2 Exploration)Settie ent Government Military Religion Social/Education 21. Sources (List books,documents,surveys,personal interviews AaM e )8e to American Houses.Y McAlister V --Sanborn Maps 1910,. 19 5 South San Francisco Museum Files ' � 31d April 1986 22, pate form prepared :;lie By (name) fixt Iz. // Organiaatia t L , Cr Address: City Zip Phone: °v Attachment 2 Shadow Analysis City of South San Francisco Miller Avenue Senior Housing Design Review/ Use Permit Application Shadow Analysis 1. BACKGROUND In an urban environment, shadow is a function of the height, size, and massing of buildings and other elements of the built environment, and the angle of the sun. The angle of the sun varies due to the time of day (rotation of the earth) and the change in seasons (elliptical orbit). The longest shadows are cast during the winter (when the sun is at the greatest distance below the celestial equator) and the shortest shadows are cast during the summer (when the sun is at the greatest distance above the celestial equator). At the time of the summer solstice (which falls on June 21), the sun is directly overhead at noon (in the northern hemisphere), and the longest day and shortest night occur on this date. Conversely,the shortest day and longest night occur on the winter solstice (which falls on December 21). The vernal and fall equinoxes represent the halfway point between the shortening and lengthening phases at the solstices (which fall on March 21 and September 21, respectively). Therefore, measuring shadow lengths during the summer and winter solstices captures the extremes of shadow patterns that occur throughout the year. II. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING A. Site Context The proposed project is located in downtown South San Francisco, a suburban city in norther San Mateo County on three parcels that currently contain residential buildings (310, 312, and 314 Miller Avenue) and a, surface parking lot west of the residences on Miller Avenue (the "Project Site"). The applicant proposes to consolidate the parcels on the Project Site, demolish all existing structures on the Project Site, and develop a five-story, mixed-use building containing 81 rental apartments for lower-income seniors (the "Project"). The Project Site located one block north of Grand Avenue, South San Francisco's main commercial district, and approximately 125 feet west of Linden Avenue, which is also developed with urban commercial uses appropriate for a downtown setting. Directly south of the Project Site, across Miller Avenue, development consists largely of non-residential uses ancillary to the downtown business district. There is a surface parking lot that serves a branch of We[ls Fargo Bank, which is located at the southwest corner of Miller Avenue and Linden Avenue. To the west of the surface parking lot is a large multi-story parking structure. Miller Avenue is the approximate northern edge of the commercial portion of downtown South San Francisco, and development transitions to mostly residential uses north of Miller Avenue. An auto service station is located at the northwest corner of Miller Avenue 1 and Linden Avenue, then two residential parcels exist between the service station and the Project Site (with residential units fronting on Miller Avenue to the south and Tamarack Lane to the north), and two more residential structures are located directly west of the Project Site. North of the Project site is Tamarack Lane, a narrow alley. On the north side of Tamarack Lane across from the Project Site is a single-story multifamily residential development with approximately eight units. Single-family residences are located on either side of the multifamily building to the east and west with frontage on Tamarack Lane. There are no schools, parks, or other public open spaces in the immediate vicinity of the Project Site. There are also no shade-sensitive commercial uses, which would include pedestrian oriented outdoor spaces or dining areas, nurseries, and solar collectors, in the vicinity of the Project Site, B. Existing Shadow Patterns Existing shadows illustrated below in Figures 1 through 3 are based on an accurate 3D model of South San Francisco in the vicinity of the Project Site that identifies the specific building footprints and heights of existing structures on and around the Project Site. As discussed in more detail below, the existing buildings in and around the Project Site create shade and shadow patterns on other buildings in their immediate vicinity. At the summer solstice, as shown in Figure 1,the Project Site currently casts no shadow from its western portion, because the existing use is a surface parking lot. The existing residential uses on the eastern portion of the Project Site cast moderate shadows to the west in the morning, short shadows to the north at noon, and longer shadows that extend on the residential properties immediately east of the Project Site in the evening. Figure 1:Existing Shadow IPattems,Summer Solstice Lij, MT ,',',,JJNE 21,8 64M JUNE 21 12,DWM JUNE 21,5WPM At the winter solstice, as shown in Figure 2, the Project Site currently casts no shadow from its western portion, because the existing use is a surface parking lot. The existing residential uses on the eastern portion of the Project Site cast long shadows to the northwest in the morning, which shade Tamarack Lane. The shadows move more directly north at noon, and cast shadows across Tamarack Lane and onto a portion of the multifamily residential building 2 north of the Project Site. Although the shadows are longest in the evening and extend on the residential properties immediately east of the Project Site, all of the properties in the vicinity of the Project Site are completed shaded at this time. Figure,2.Existing Shadow Patterns,Winter Solstice Rill �7 17 'R P N MCEMBIER P9P9MBER 2t 12000 . ....... ............ .................. - 2-1 MAU ....... At the vernal and fall equinoxes, as shown in Figure 3, the Project Site currently casts no shadow from its western portion, because the existing use is a surface parking lot. The existing residential uses on the eastern portion of the Project Site cast moderate shadows to the northwest in the morning, which shade the southern edge of Tamarack Lane. At noon, the shadows point almost due north and extend across most of Tamarack Lane. The shadows are longest in the evening and partially extend on the two residential properties immediately east of the Project Site. Figure 3:Existing Shadow Patterns,Vernal and Fall Equinoxes I I El", 7 V's . ......... MARCH 211 rEMSa_R.21 8-39AM -,MARCH 21JSEF!TEA9 FY.21,12✓N ,MARPH2YSEFTEMHER2k4aOPM PROJECT EFFECTS A. Regulatory Framework The February 2015 Downtown Station Area Specific Plan ("Specific Plan") requires projects in the specific plan area, which includes the Project, to "[c]lonsider the impacts of shade and wind on open spaces, pedestrian corridors and retail streets in the massing and articulation of building facades." The Specific Plan's Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2013102001, used the following threshold to assess the Specific Plan's potential impact: "Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?" Read together, if a proposed project creates 3 substantial shade impacts on open spaces, pedestrian corridors, and retail streets, that proposed project would create shadows that "substantially degrade" the quality of the site and its surroundings, and a significant impact could result. In addition to open spaces, pedestrian corridors, and retail streets, this analysis discusses the Project's potential to incrementally increase shadows on schools; routinely usable outdoor spaces associated with residential units, such as yards or other outdoor seating areas; and shade-sensitive commercial uses,, which would include pedestrian-oriented outdoor spaces or dining areas, nurseries, and solar collectors. B. Methodgloff Shadow effects are dependent on several factors, including local topography, the height and bulk of proposed project's structural elements, sensitivity of surrounding uses, season, and duration of shadow projection. In determining the effects of shading, the locations of shade-sensitive uses in the surrounding area are identified, and shadows are calculated and plotted for representative hours during the winter solstice, summer solstice, and vernal and fall equinoxes. As initially proposed, the Project would have included 91 units and been more than 70 feet tall. After testing various designs, and in an effort to respond to comments expressing concern about the proposed height and bulk of the building, the Project's proposal was reduced to include only 81 units with a maximum height of approximately 68 feet. In addition, to break up the massing of the building, the Project will be massed as two separate rectangular volumes, one facing Miller Avenue and the other Tamarack Lane, Projected shadows,from the Project as currently proposed are graphically illustrated below in Figures 4 through 6. The existing array of shadows are show in gray on the Figures, and shadows that are projected to be case by the Project as currently proposed are overlaid in pink. As with the existing shadow illustrations, the Figures are based on an accurate 3D model of South San Francisco in the vicinity of the Project Site that identifies the specific building footprints and heights of existing and proposed structures on and around the Project Site. C. Shadow Analysis At the summer solstice, as shown in Figure 4, the Project would result in increased shadow coverage on the two residential properties directly west of the Project Site; however, these new shadows would move north and leave the two residential properties directly west of the Project Site almost completely unshaded by noon. At noon, the Project would cast short shadows onto a small portion of Tamarack Lane. At 5:00 p.m., the Project would result in increased shadow coverage on the residential properties east of the Project Site, but the increase would occur over the parking spaces for the residential units, not shade-sensitive portions of the properties. There also would be some increased shading on the commercial 4 property along Linden Avenue, but the service station is also not a shade, sensitive use. The increased shadows to the east of the Project Site would be transitory in the morning during summer solstice, no shade-sensitive uses would be impacted by noon or during the afternoon and evening. Therefore, the Project's increased shadow coverage during the summer solstice would not substantially degrade the Project Site or its vicinity, and it would result in a less than significant impact. Figure 4:Project Shadow Patterns,Summer Solstice H J �j JUNE 21,8-00AM JUNE 21,124)OPM JUNE 21,50" At the winter solstice, as shown in Figure 5, the Project would result in increased shadow coverage on the two residential properties directly west of the Project Site and across Tamarack Lane; however,these new shadows would move north and leave the two residential properties directly west of the Project Site mostly unshaded by noon. New shadows would be cast across Tamarack Lane at noon; however, Tamarack Lane is not a pedestrian corridor or retail street, and the shadows would not extend to the residential properties north of Tamarack Lane. Although the Project would cast long shadows to the northwest in the evening, all of the properties in the vicinity of the Project Site are completed shaded at this time under existing conditions, and the net increase in shadow coverage as a result of the Project would be negligible. The increased shadows to the east of thie Project Site would be transitory in the morning during winter solstice, no shade-sensitive uses would be impacted by noon, and during the afternoon and evening existing shadows already cover the properties in the vicinity of the Project Site. Therefore,the Project's increased shadow coverage during the winter solstice would not substantially degrade the Project Site or its vicinity, and it would result in a less than significant impact. Figure 5:Project Shadow Patterns,Winter Solstice FT AR Of f EE ' / �" �� 1r n//I VIN, P a _r :WI. /�Jiil � #///u......�'!�` ... °` ''Ikr w. ��wrvw�r�� ,ny,�...:__.,._ . _ a-. _. r'�� �'r��i' !"J�7 �� a r; ,�crrr✓%1� � � �jrh� / !ffiy; ;DECEMBER 21,9POAM C i .DECBMM.ZI,12901'M BER 21.49OPM 5 At the vernal and fall equinoxes, as shown in Figure 6, the Project would result in increased shadow coverage on the two residential properties directly west of the Project Site and across Tamarack Lane; however, these new shadows would move north and leave the two residential properties directly west of the Project Site mostly unshaded by noon. At noon, new shadows would be cast across Tamarack Lane at noon; however,Tamarack Lane is not a pedestrian corridor or retail street, and the shadows would not extend to the residential properties north of Tamarack Lane. At 5:00 p.m., the Project would result in increased shadow coverage on the residential properties east of the Project Site, but the increase would occur over the parking spaces for the residential units, not shade-sensitive portions of the properties. The increased shadows to the east of the Project Site would be transitory in the morning during the equinoxes, no shade-sensitive uses would be impacted by noon, and during the afternoon and evening no shade-sensitive uses would be impacted by noon or during the afternoon and evening. Therefore, the Project's increased shadow coverage during the vernal and fall equinoxes would not substantially degrade the Project Site or its vicinity, and it would result in a less than significant impact. Figure 6.Project Shadow Patterns,Vemal and Fall Equinoxes �4& M Or F" ro MAF�P�P 9 �� A 2 �9Fil:. L . M IV. CONCLUSIONS The proposed Project would cast new shadows on Tamarack Lane and portions of the residential properties in the vicinity of the Project Site. No new shadows would be cast upon open spaces, pedestrian corridors, and retail streets; therefore, the Project would not have an impact on these categories of shade-sensitive uses. The project would also cast some new shadows on residential properties west of the Project Site during portions of the morning; however, these shadows would be transitory in nature and leave the western properties unshaded by noon. To the north and east, the Project would result in incrementally new shadows on the non-shade-sensitive portions of residential and commercial properties, such as parking areas, roofs, and driveways. Because the Project does not have the potential to increase shadows on schools; routinely usable outdoor spaces associated with residential units, such as yards or other outdoor seating areas; and shade- 6 sensitive commercial uses, it would not substantially degrade the quality of the Project Site and its surroundings, and the Project would result in less than significant impacts. 7 Attachment 3 Transportation Impact Analysis f a � �i�/ill/i/'%ii '✓,/��%� il'f/ r ' � .N�r��,',,,. , �u��,>mi��,� f �, ,'✓I �4 Y , t e b � e u v „/�,/ r�/i� r r r � , ri lY4jll,�d� -r p �, /.r✓i r .,rx.,;'�r ',,,dv %';, .. „ ,,, 1A ✓........ ...... � ;?. 1'' ✓ t" �" `'` ab �!,�, 1,, ,�/,,°r �... . ,„ �ry„fj Transportation Impact Analysis 30,0 MILLER "ENUE SENIOR HOUSING PROJECT City t h San Francis Prepared Iby: Abrams Associates 1875 Olympic oul ard, Saute 210 " a n t Creek, CA 194596 0 A10AA Abrams Asso i s TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC. SEPTEMBER_ 2, 2015 Abrams Associates TRAFFIC ENGINEERING,INC, Miller Avenue Senior Housing Project in the City of South San Francisco TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 1) INTRODUCTION This transportation impact analysis describes the existing and future conditions for transportation and circulation both with and without the proposed project. The study presents information on the regional and local roadway networks, the pedestrian and transit conditions, and provides an analysis of the effects on transportation facilities associated with the project. This study also describes the regulatory setting; the criterion used for determining the significance of environmental impacts; and summarizes potential environmental impacts and appropriate mitigation measures when necessary. In addition, this analysis provides an assessment of the traffic operations at the site access. This study has been conducted in accordance with the requirements and methodologies set forth by the City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County, Caltrans, and the applicable provisions of CEQA. 2) PROJECT DESCRIPTION The 300 Miller Avenue Senior Housing Project is proposed to be developed on the north side of Miller Avenue between Linden Avenue and Maple Avenue. The site will be developed with 81 apartment units that will be restricted to seniors. It is proposed that all access to the project's parking garage will be from a driveway connecting to Miller Avenue which will replace an existing driveway on the site. Figure 1 shows the location, of the project and the surrounding roadway network. 3) ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING This section of the report describes the roadways, traffic conditions and other existing transportation characteristics in the vicinity of the project. The primary basis for the traffic operations portion of the analysis is the peak hour level of service at the key study intersections. Throughout this report, these peak commute hours will be identified as the AM and PM peak hours. 3.1 Project Study Intersections Based on the project's trip generation and the potential for traffic impacts an analysis of the nearby intersections of Linden Avenue with Miller Avenue and with Tamarack Lane was conducted. Figure 1 presents the location of the project study intersections where a detailed level of service analysis was prepared. Page 1 300 Miller Avenue Senior Housing Project TIA Ln CJ ct Z Cw LA Is's c a 1 4 ca +� I 3AV N3(1NI1 w LU uu w Z D D w w LU z° U Q m p z VA uu � 0 0 w 0 4 w� z QQ u J U c 2 a W p . (1) /// Z 0 Abrams Associates TRAFFIC ENGINEERING,INC. 3.2 Traffic Analysis Scenarios The study intersections were evaluated for the following six scenarios: • Scenario 1: Existing Conditions— Level of Service (LOS) based on existing peak hour volumes and existing intersection configurations. • Scenario 2: Existing Plus Project— Existing traffic volumes plus trips from the proposed project. • Scenario 3: Baseline (No Project) Conditions—The Baseline scenario is based on the existing volumes plus growth in background traffic (for three years) plus the traffic from all reasonably foreseeable developments that could substantially affect the volumes at the project study intersection. • Scenario 4: Baseline Plus Project Conditions—This scenario is based on the Baseline traffic volumes plus the trips that would be generated by the proposed project. • Scenario 3: Cumulative (No Project) Conditions—The Cumulative scenario represents Year 2040 conditions and was developed based on traffic forecasts from the San Mateo County Travel Demand Model. • Scenario 4: Cumulative Plus Project Conditions—This scenario is based on the Cumulative traffic volumes plus the trips that would be generated by the proposed project. 3.3 Existing Roadway Network As shown on Figure 1, the main roads that would be affected by the project are Miller Avenue and Linden Avenue. The following is a brief description of these roadways: • Miller Avenue—Miller Avenue is a two-lane local roadway in the City of South San Francisco. It extends west from Airport Boulevard and terminates at Chestnut Avenue. There are traffic signals at its intersections with Airport Boulevard, Spruce Avenue and Walnut Avenue but the remainder of the intersections are controlled by stop signs. • Linden Avenue— Linden Avenue is a two-lane local roadway in the City of South San Francisco. It extends north from San Mateo Avenue at the city limits and terminates at Airport Boulevard. There are traffic signals at most major intersections with the remainder of its intersections controlled by stop signs. 3.4 Intersection Analysis Methodology Existing operational conditions at the study intersections were evaluated according to the requirements set forth by the City of South San Francisco, Analysis of traffic operations was conducted using the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual(HC" Level of Service (LOS) Page 3 300 Miller Avenue Senior Housing Project TIA Abrams Associates TRAFFIC ENGINEERING,INC. methodology with Synchro software.' Level of service is an expression, in the form of a scale, of the relationship between the capacity of an intersection (or roadway segment) to accommodate the volume of traffic moving through it at any given, time. The level of service scale describes traffic flow with six ratings ranging from A to F, with "A" indicating relatively free flow of traffic and "F" lindicating stop-and-go traffic characterized by traffic jams. As the amount of traffic moving through a given intersection or roadway segment increases, the traffic flow conditions that motorists experience rapidly deteriorate as the capacity of the intersection or roadway segment is reached. Under such conditions, there is general instability in the traffic flow, which means that relatively small incidents (e.g., momentary engine stall) can cause considerable fluctuations in speeds and delays that lead to traffic congestion. This near- capacity situation is labeled level of service (LOS) E. Beyond LOS E, the intersection or roadway segment capacity has effectively been exceeded, and arriving traffic will exceed the ability of the intersection to accommodate it. Table 1 summarizes the relationship between LOS, average control delay, and the volume to capacity ratio at signalized intersections. Table 2 summarizes the relationship between LOS and delay at unsignalized intersections. For signalized intersections, The City of South San Francisco's LOS standards are based on the average delay for the entire intersection. The HCM methodology determines the capacity of each lane group approaching the intersection, The LOS is then based on average control delay (in seconds per vehicle) for the various movements within the intersection. A combined weighted average control delay and LOS are presented for the intersection. A summary of the HCM results and copies of the detailed HCM LOS calculations are included in the appendix to this report. For unsignalized (all-way stop controlled and two-way stop controlled) intersections, the average control delay and LOS operating conditions are calculated by approach (e.g., northbound) and movement (e.g., northbound left-turn) for those movements that are subject to delay. Operating conditions for unsignalized intersections are presented for the worst approach. 3.5 Existing Intersection Capacity Conditions The existing traffic volumes at these intersections for the weekday AM and PM peak hours are presented in Figure 2. Traffic counts at the intersections were conducted in August, 2015. Table 3 summarizes the associated LOS computation results for the existing weekday AM and PM peak hour conditions at these intersections. As shown in Table 3, both of the study intersections currently have acceptable conditions (LOS D or better) during the weekday AM and PM peak hours. 2010 Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C., 2,011 Page 4 300 Aliffer Avenue Senior Housing Project TIA Abrams Associates TRAFFIC ENGINEERING,INC. TABLE 1 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS Level of Average Delay Volume to Service Description of Operations (see/veh) Capacity Ratio Insignificant Delays: No approach phase is fully A used and no vehicle waits longer than one red < 10 < 0.60 indication, B Minimal Delays: An occasional approach phase > 10 to 20 > 0.61 to 030 is fully used. Drivers begin to feel restricted. Acceptable Delays: Major approach phase may C become fully used. Most drivers feel somewhat > 20 to 35 > 0.71 to 0.80 restricted, Tolerable Delays: Drivers may wait through no D more than one red indication. Queues may > 3,5 to 55 > 0.81 to 0.90 develop but dissipate rapidly without excessive delays. Significant Delays: Volumes approaching E capacity. Vehicles may wait through several > 55 to 80 > 0.91 to 1.00 signal cycles and long vehicle queues from upstream. Excessive Delays: Represents conditions at F capacity, with extremely long delays. Queues > 80 > 1.0,0 may block upstream intersections. SOURCES. 2010 Highway Capacity Manual,Transportation Research Board,2011, TABLE 2 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS Level of Average Delay Service Description of Operations (seconds/vehicle) A No delay for stop-controlled approaches. 0 to 10 B Operations with minor delays. > 10 to 15 C Operations with moderate delays. > 15 to 25 D Operations with some delays. > 25 to 35 E Operations with high delays and long queues. > 35 to 50 F Operation with extreme congestion, with very high delays and long > 50 queues unacceptable to most drivers. SOURCE: 2010 Highway Capacity Manual,Transportation Research Board, 2011. Page 5 300 Miller Avenue Senior Housing Project rJA ol � u Z u� W < L) ss38d,-D E I c �i ui ur uj w m Z w z w 21 z « J cr > o 0 H 0 (.) D 0- ui cra 0. z LU r%4 rn W (t)o — T a ~ 3AY N30V 3AV N30NII x � � w ( Z IIIItII11l,,� Il (�sZ 8£l�1� rI " 0 `W ��III D Z �bU- P M L) Abrams Associates TRAFFIC ENGINEERING,INC. TABLE EXISTING INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE CONDITIONS INTERSECTION CONTROL PEAK EXISTING HOUR Delay LOS 1 LINDEN AVENUE AT TAMARACK LANE Side Street Stop AM 0.4 A PM 0.2 A AM 10.8 B 2 LINDEN AVENUE AT MILLER AVENUE Signalized PM 16.7 B SOURCE: Abrams Associates, 2015 NOTES: HCM LOS results are presented in terms of average intersection delay in seconds per vehicle. 3.6 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Bicycle paths, lanes and routes are typical examples of bicycle transportation facilities, which are defined by Caltrans as being in one of the following three classes: Class /— Provides a completely separated facility designed for the exclusive use of bicyclists and pedestrians with crossing points minimized. Class //— Provides a restricted right-of-way designated lane for the exclusive or semi-exclusive use of bicycles with through travel by motor vehicles or pedestrians prohibited, but with vehicle parking and cross-flows by pedestrians and motorists permitted. Class /11—Provides a right-of-way designated by signs or permanent markings and shared with pedestrians and motorists. In the project study area there are existing bike lanes (Class 11) on Airport Boulevard. Sidewalks are provided on most streets in the area. 3.7 Transit Service Bus transit service in the area is provided by SamTrans. The following bus lines serve the project area: Local Bus Transit Lines 37: Alta Loma Middle School— Hillside Drive (twice a day— before and after school) 131: AirportlLinden— Serramonte Center(about every 15 minutes from approximately 6 AM to 11 PM) 133: AirportlLinden— San Bruno BART Station (about every 30 minutes from approximately 6 AM to 7 PM) Please note the nearest bus stops to the site are located on Linden Avenue at Miller Avenue. Page 7 300 Miller Avenue Senior Housing Project TIA Abrams Associates TRAFFIC ENGINEERING,INC. 4) REGULATORY CONTEXT Existing policies, laws and regulations that apply to the proposed project are summarized below. 4.1 State The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has jurisdiction over State highways, Any improvements to these roadways would require Caltrans' approval. This project will not have any effect on State Highways. 4.2 Local City of South San Francisco General Plan -The Transportation: and Circulation Element the City of South San Francisco General Plan addresses the location and extent of existing and planned transportation routes, terminals, and other local public utilities and facilities. The General Plan identifies roadway and transit goals and policies that have been adopted to ensure that the transportation system of the City will have adequate capacity to serve planned growth. These goals and policies are intended to provide a plan and implementation measures for an integrated, multi-modal transportation system that will safely and efficiently meet the transportation needs of all economic and social segments of the City. 4.3 Significance Criteria The City's level of service standard states that an impact is significant when the criteria are reduced from LOS A, B, C, or D to LOS E of F. Intersections that exceed this service level threshold are considered to be impacted and should be considered for mitigation. Exceptions to the LOS D standard can be made (subject to City approval)when there is no practical and feasible way to mitigate the lower level of service; and the uses resulting in the lower level of service are of clear, overall public benefit. It should also be noted that developments located within one-quarter mile of a Caltrain or BART station, or a City-designated ferry terminal, can be exempted from the LOS standards. According to CEQA guidelines, a project would also have a significant impact if it would: • Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including, but not limited to, intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths and mass transit. • Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to, level-of-service standards, and travel demand measures, or other standards established by a county congestion management agency for designated roadways. • Result in inadequate emergency vehicle access. • Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. • Result in an internal circulation system design that does not meet City standards, Page 8 300 Miller Avenue Senior Housing Project TIA Abrams Associates TRAFFIC FNGINEERING,INC. 5) IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 5.1 Project Trip Generation The vehicle trip generation for the project is shown in Table 4. The trip generation rates are based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) rates for the category "Senior Adult Housing—Attached' (ITE Land Use Code 252) taken from the 9th Edition of the ITE Trip Generation Manual. Downtown South San Francisco Residential Trip Generation - Since the project is located in a walkable downtown area with numerous bus connections the vehicle trip rate per unit is expected to be less than would be generated by a typical senior housing project. For this project, it is estimated that a trip reduction of about 10% could be applied to the unfiltered trip generation rate for the residential portion of the project. The ITE trip generation rates are based on surveys of primarily suburban locations and this reduction would help to account for walk, bicycle, and transit trips. However, to be conservative, no reductions were applied to the trip generation used for this analysis. It should also be noted that elimination of the existing single family homes on the site could potentially reduce the peak hour trip generation by 3 to 4 trips during the peak hours. However, since it was not verified if the homes are currently occupied (and to be conservative) no trip reductions were taken to account for the removal of the existing single family homes on the site. As shown in Table 4, the project is estimated to generate 16 new vehicle trips during the AM peak hour and 20 trips during the PM peak hour. The trips generated by this proposed development are estimated for the peak commute hours which represent the peak of"adjacent street traffic". The total trip generation reflects all vehicle trips that added to the surrounding roadway system, both inbound and outbound. TABLE TRIP GENERATION CALCULATIONS Land Use ITE Size ADT AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Code In Out Total In Out Total ITE Attached Senior Housing Rates- 252 3.44 0.05 0.15 020 0.13 0.12 0.25 Trips per Unit Senior Housing Trip Generation U8n1 its 279 4 12 16 11 9 20 1 . SOURCE: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual (9th Edition) and the Trip Generation Handbook(2" Edition) 5.2 Project Trip Distribution The trip distribution assumptions have been based on the existing traffic count data including daily directional volume and peak-hour turning movements, the San Mateo County travel demand model, and knowledge of the surrounding area such as commute patterns and the overall land use patterns in the area. Page 9 300 Miller Avenue Senior Housing Project TIA Abrams Associates TRAFFIC ENGINEERING,INC. 5.3 Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Conditions This scenario evaluates the existing conditions with the addition of traffic from the proposed project. A comparison of the capacity calculations for the conditions with the addition of traffic from the project is shown in Table 5. The corresponding LOS analysis calculation sheets are presented in the Traffic Analysis Appendix. As shown in Table 5, all of the study intersections would continue to have acceptable conditions (LOS D or better) during the weekday AM and PM peak hours. Please note that the LOS results included in the technical appendix also include detailed queuing calculations to verify there would be no queuing problems expected with addition of traffic from the proposed project. TABLE EXISTING PLUS PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE CONDITIONS PEAK EXISTING EXISTING PLUS INTERSECTION CONTROL HOUR PROJECT Delay LOS Delay LOS i LINDEN AVENUE AT TAMARACK LANE i Side Street Stop AM 0.4 A 1.1 A PM 0.2 A 1.4 A AM 10.8 B 11.6 B 2 LINDEN AVENUE AT MILLER AVENUE Signalized PM 16.7 B 17.4 B SOURCE: Abrams Associates, 2015 NOTES: HCM LOS results are presented in terms of average intersection delay in seconds per vehicle. 6.4 Baseline Intersection Capacity Conditions Traffic conditions for the baseline scenario were developed by applying a general background traffic growth of 1% per year to the existing traffic volumes based on the assumption that the project completion date would be 2017. Table 6 summarizes the associated LOS computation results for the Baseline and Baseline Plus Project weekday AM and PM peak hour conditions. The corresponding LOS analysis calculation sheets are presented in the Traffic Analysis Appendix. As shown in Table 6, with the addition of traffic from the proposed project the project study intersection would continue have acceptable conditions (LOS D or better) during the weekday AM and PM peak hours. 5.5 Baseline Plus Project Intersection Capacity Conditions The Baseline plus proposed project traffic forecasts were developed by adding project-related traffic to 'the baseline traffic volumes. As noted above, Table 6 summarizes the LOS results for the Baseline Plus Project weekday AM and PM peak hour conditions. This scenario assumes there would be no changes to the existing roadway network. Please note that the corresponding LOS analysis calculation sheets are presented in the appendix. As shown in 'Table 6, all of the study intersections would continue to have acceptable conditions (LOS D or better) during the weekday AM and PM peak hours. Again, please note that the results of the detailed queuing calculations are included in the technical appendix to verify there would be no queuing problems expected with addition of traffic from the proposed project, Page 10 300 Miller Avenue Senior Housing Project TIA Abrams Associates TRAFFIC ENGINEERING,INC. TABLE BASELINE PLUS PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE CONDITIONS PEAK BASELINE BASELINE PLUS INTERSECTION CONTROL HOUR PROJECT Delay LOS Delay LOS LINDEN AVENUE AT TAMARACK LANE Side Street Stop AM 2.1 A 2.4 A PM 1.9 A 2.8 A A 13,4 B 14.3 B 2 LINDEN AVENUE AT MILLER AVENUE Signalized FM 18.9 1 B 1 19.5 B SOURCE. Abrams Associates, 2015 NOTES: HCM LOS results are presented in terms of average intersection delay in seconds per vehicle. 5.6 Cumulative (2040) Intersection Capacity Conditions The 2040 cumulative volumes were developed based on future volume forecasts that assume a 0.5% per year increase in traffic, which is consistent with the general plan buildout forecasts and the couintywide travel demand model. The results of the associated intersection LOS computations for Cumulative intersection operations are shown in Table 7. The detailed LOS calculation sheets for each study intersection are presented in the Traffic Analysis Appendix. As shown in Table 7, both of the project study intersections would continue to have acceptable conditions (LOS D or better) during the weekday AM and PM peak hours. 5.7 Cumulative Plus Project Intersection Capacity Conditions The projected intersection turning movement volumes for Cumulative 2035 plus project conditions at the study intersections were developed by adding project-related traffic to the cumulative traffic volumes. The results of the associated intersection LOS computations for cumulative intersection operations, as well as cumulative operations with the addition of project traffic are shown in Table 7. The detailed LOS calculation sheets for each study intersection are presented in the Traffic Analysis Appendix. As shown in Table 7, both of the project study intersections would continue to have acceptable conditions (LOS D or better) during the weekday AM and PM peak hours. TABLE CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE CONDITIONS PEAK BASELINE BASELINE PLUS INTERSECTION CONTROL HOUR PROJECT Delay LOS Delay LOS AM 4.4 A 5.2 A I LINDEN AVENUE AT TAMARACK LANE Side Street Stop PM 5.9 A 6,7 A AM 16.8 B I7.9 B 2 LINDEN AVENUE AT MILLER AVENUE Signalized PM 20.7 c 22.6 C SOURCE: Abrams Associates, 20,15 NOTES: HCM LOS results are presented in terms of average intersection delay in seconds per vehicle. Page 11 300 Miller Avenue Senior Housing Project TIA Abrams Associates TRAFFIC ENGINEERING,INC. 5.8 Internal Circulation and Access No site circulation or access issues have been identified that would cause any traffic safety issues or any unusual traffic congestion or delay. The internal volumes would be light enough so that no significant conflicts would be expected with through traffic and'; vehicles backing out or maneuvering within the parking garage. It should be noted that a five foot by five foot triangular clear area on the right hand side of the garage exit may be required. This would help ensure that motorists can see pedestrians approaching on the sidewalk from the right. If the garage was a one-way exit this clear area would be required on both sides but since there would be an inbound lane that should provide sufficient space/visibility in the left-hand direction so the 5x5 foot clear area may only be needed on the right-hand (west) side of the garage exit in this case. 6.9 Parking This section discusses the City of South San Francisco's zoning and estimated parking demand for the project. The project plans to provide the parking required according to the City's Municipal Code within the on-site parking garage. As per the City's Municipal Code (Section 23E.36.080) the minimum off-street parking requirement for residential units in this area equates to one space per unit in the downtown area. With 81 units this equates to a requirement of 81 spaces. However, this requirement is for standard apartments and does not account for ther reduced requirements for senior housing. Please note that California Assembly Bill 744 (AB 744) would specify that Cities should require affordable senior housing projects to provide no more than 0.5 spaces per bedroom, which would equate to a requirement of 41 parking spaces for this project. Please note that AB 744 was passed by the Assembly on August 31, 2015 and is expected to go before the Senate in September 2015. It should be noted that the proposed parking garage would be secure and not be available to the public. The entire garage would be private and gated near the main entrance. Only residents and designated employees would have access to the parking garage. Residential Parking Demand Based on ITE Parking Generation Rates -To provide additional justification for the parking demand analysis, Table 8 also provides a summary of the parking demand results using the average ITE parking generation rates for apartments in a Central Business District (CBD) taken from the 4th Edition of the ITE Parking Generation Manual. As shown in Table 8, the parking demand generated by the residential portion of the project would be forecast to be approximately 48 parking spaces for the residential component based on the ITE data. However, it is important to note that the ITE rates should be considered the maximum potential parking demand since they are primarily based on surveys of senior housing projects located in a suburban setting. Table 8 Residential Off-Street Parking Calculations Using Parking Data from the Institute of Transportation Engineers No. Scenario Data Source Land Use Size Parking Required Ratio Spaces ITE Parking Attached I Proposed Project Demand Rates Senior 81 units 0.59 48 I 1_ Housing _ Page 12 300 Miller Avenue Senior Housing Project TIA Abrams Associates TRAFFIC ENGINEERING,INC. Residential Parking Demand in Downtown South San Francisco - For this location near a central business district with good transit access the parking demand is much less than the typical ITE rate in the Parking Generation Manual. This is based on many of the same characteristics that are discussed in the trip generation section. The availability of transit, the use of bicycles, and the attractiveness of walking in the mixed-use downtown environment typically results in reduced vehicle trip generation and an associated reduction in the need for parking. Since South San Francisco has numerous opportunities for public transportation and since the residents are not all expected to have personal vehicles, it is anticipated that a substantial portion of all travel will occur by walking, bicycling, and through the use of public transit. Public Parking Surveys - In order to evaluate the local parking situation on-street parking occupancy surveys were conducted based on the standard traffic engineering guidelines for a study area specified by the City of South San Francisco. This survey includes a detailed inventory of all on-street and public off-street parking within two blocks of the project site. The study involved a block-by-block survey of the number and types of spaces, and the parking occupancy on a weekday afternoon and also a weekday evening. These surveys were taken for both metered and non-metered spaces. The occupancy of any potentially available public off-street parking in the area were also inventoried. The results of the study are presented in Figure 3 which shows the study area and the particular streets that have been studied. The number of parking spaces on each block-face are shown. As noted, there are about 333 on- street parking spaces located on blocks within two blocks the project and about 418 off-street parking spaces in various public parking lots within the study area. The studies found that during the afternoon, there are about 628 spaces (84%) that are occupied, and about 123 spaces available. During the evening, there are about 604 occupied spaces, which is an occupancy rate of 80%, and about 147 available on-street spaces. Figure 4 shows the results of the parking occupancy surveys. Summary of Findings on Parking - Based on these studies, it is our recommendation that the City consider making the findings that the proposed parking garage for the project meets City Code, and is reasonable and appropriate. The justification is as follows: 1) The project is proposing to meet or exceed the requirements for bicycle parking. 2) There are numerous shopping, employment, and education centers in the area. 3) There is public transportation available in the project area including bus stops less than one block from the site that provide access to three different SamTrans bus routes that provide connections to BART and Caltrain. 5.10 Pedestrian and Bicycle Conditions The proposed project would not generate a significant increase in pedestrian traffic in the area (in comparison to the existing volumes) given the size of the proposed project. In addition, the proposed project would not significantly impact or change the design of any existing pedestrian facilities and should not create any new safety problems in the area. The proposed project would also not significantly impact any existing bicycle facilities, including the nearby bicycle lanes on Airport Boulevard. The project will add some pedestrians and Page 13 300 Miller Avenue Senior Housing Project TIA 0 a cC3 z � J rL W w l Z_ N 4� v' uuw�m�mimus, ,;; m eo s m t3 � us ouumUoouuu� iuv PJ in < L r.. �I �I momiMlml dAJ 6L r k�SS3t , iowouuwwoii�i CCS l3 � G7 N CL cJ � r°4 CL V- + r + + C a 3AV N30NI1 Z Ma uj LAJ w z :D I z LIS Z Uj V N w d CL j < w W � C77 � l7 co M M co co V- !— + 0- Z C. Z Q � w W U C UL -.. 0 C Z+c 9 z 0 it cn © P 000111 W 0 ��mm iho in imi im�uuoim�m m ONO 0- y, z C3 i- 4) eCf z ,U w a vi w 6 E' -L.rL.- J CLIO" �✓M �wryrw y�ry Iwr� .wwrr Mai ca 0. LO N ga wp r } U � r t[7 CL f V- + cR r C14 A C z 0 ro tiav dd n N D LO N h'sf UdpU91 R � N {� q.�trrr (+. �lp��!yy .-. ��`z) it iw7`9) 9 E J CL D 6AS war+ N a a ooas w J o� I- 4— Z na J rr�qy J c v/ C Wain' N n.n N 00 m 00 V) ay r m 0 0 to z !n e- 0: 4 G 0. Z Q rn < w} CU W � 0 Q tL b,. _t V2 - M C LL C E a� .� IL u`r, r y t r 1 v E z 0 7A I (E'V) 'p I (Z"p) t' 1 (8'9) Z i! F D z Abrams Associates Muric ENGINEERING,INC. bicyclists who will utilize sidewalks and bicycle facilities in the area. But in relation to the existing conditions, the proposed project would not cause substantial changes to the pedestrian or bicycle traffic in the area and would not significantly impact or require changes to the design of any existing bicycle or pedestrian facilities. 5.11 Transit The proposed project would not interfere with any existing bus routes and would not remove or relocate any existing bus stops. The proposed project also would not conflict with any transit plans or goals of the City of South San Francisco. Based on the size of the project, it is not forecast to cause a degradation of the level of service (or a significant increase in delay) on any roadway segments currently being utilized by bus transit in the area and, as such, no significant impacts to transit are expected. 5.12 Summary of Transportation Issues and Potential Improvement Measures TRA Demolition and construction activities associated with the proposed project would result in an increase in traffic to and from the site and would require an appropriate construction management plan developed and approved by the City of South San Francisco. The increase in traffic as a result of demolition and construction activities associated with the proposed project has been quantified assuming single phase construction period of 18 months. Heavy Equipment Heavy equipment transport to and from the site could cause traffic impacts in the vicinity of the project site during construction. However, each overweight/oversized load would be required to obtain all necessary permits, which would include conditions. Prior to issuance of grading and building permits, the project applicant would be required to submit a Traffic Control Plan. The requirements within the Traffic Control Plan include, but are not limited to, the following: truck drivers would be notified of and required to use the most direct route between the site and U.S. 101, as determined by the City Traffic Engineering Department; all site ingress and egress would occur only at the main driveway to the project site and construction activities may require temporary traffic controls as determined by the City Engineer. Specifically designated travel routes for large vehicles would be monitored and controlled by flaggers for large construction vehicle ingress and egress. Any debris and mud caused by trucks would be monitored daily and may require instituting a street cleaning program. In addition:, several loads of heavy equipment being hauled to and from the site each month would be short-term and temporary. Employees The weekday work is expected to begin around 7:00 AM and end around 4:00 PM. The construction worker arrival peak would occur between 6:30 AM and 7:30 AM, and the Page 16 300 Miller Avenue Senior Housing Project TIA Abrams Associates TRAFFIC ENGINEERING,INC. departure peak would occur between 4:00 PM and 5:00 PM. These peak hours are slightly before the citywide commute peaks. It should be noted that the number of trips generated during construction would not only be temporary, but would also be substantially less than the proposed project at buildout. Based on past construction of similar projects, construction workers could require parking for up to 20 vehicles during the peak construction period. Additionally, deliveries, visits, and other activities may generate peak non-worker parking demand of 5 to 10 trucks and automobiles per day. Therefore, up to 30 vehicle parking spaces may be required during the peak construction period for the construction employees. Furthermore the Traffic Control Plan requires construction employee parking be provided on the project site or other provisions will need to be made for off-site parking, subject to approval of the City Traffic Engineering Department, Construction Material Import The project would also require the importation of construction material, including raw materials for the building pads, the buildings, the parking area, and landscaping. Based on past construction of similar projects, importing this material is estimated to require substantial amounts of truck traffic. Under the provisions of the Traffic Control Plan, if importation and exportation of material becomes a traffic nuisance, then the City Engineer may limit the hours the activities can take place. Impacts of Construction on Pedestrians and Bicyclists The project would most likely require temporary closures of sidewalks adjacent to the site for safety. This would require a detailed plan for detouring pedestrian traffic. This plan will need to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. Construction traffic would not be expected to cause significant impacts to bicyclists in the project area. All access would continue to take place from one driveway on Miller Avenue. The review of traffic operations at the driveway indicates there would be no significant changes to the traffic volumes, delay, or safety on Miller Avenue with the addition of traffic from the proposed project. It was also verified that during construction the traffic accessing the site would not be expected to substantially exceed the peak hour volumes forecast to be generated by the proposed project itself. In general, the pedestrian and bicycle operations on Miller Avenue would not be expected to change significantly during construction beyond the addition of some truck traffic to the area. Traffic Control Plan The Traffic Control Plan would indicate how parking for construction workers would be provided during construction and ensure a safe flow of traffic in the project area during construction. This analysis assumed construction of the entire project in one phase to identify the potential worst-case traffic effects. Each phase will be subject to a Traffic Control Plan and oversight by the City Engineer and construction traffic is not forecast to exceed the post construction traffic conditions created by the proposed project. As a result the potential construction traffic impacts have been adequately addressed through the project impact analysis. Therefore, the demolition and construction activities associated with the proposed project or its Page 17 3411 Miller Avenue Senior Housing Project T)A Abrams Associates TRAFFIC ENGINEERING,INC. individual phases would not be expected to lead to noticeable congestion:, in the vicinity of the site or the perception of decreased traffic safety resulting in a less-than- significant impact. Mitigation Measure(s) None required. TR-3 Impacts related to site access and circulation. Based on a review of the proposed site plan it was determined that the internal garage circulation should function well and should not cause any safety or operational problems. The project site design has been required to conform,to City design standards and is not expected to create any significant impacts to pedestrians, bicyclists or traffic operations. Therefore, impacts related to site access and circulation to the proposed project would be less-than-significant. Mitigation Measure(s) None required. TR-4 Impacts regarding emergency vehicle access on and surrounding the proposed project site. Sufficient emergency access is determined by factors such as number of access points, roadway width, and proximity to fire stations. The land use plan for the proposed project would have one main entrance on Miller Avenue and emergency vehicle access would be subject to approval of the fire department. All lane widths within the project would meet the minimum width that can accommodate an emergency vehicle; therefore, the width of the internal roadways would be adequate. Therefore, the development of the proposed project is expected to have less-than- significant impacts regarding emergency vehicle access. Miti-gabon,Measure(s) None required. TR-5 Impacts relating to the presence and availability of adequate parking. The proposed project is expected to provide a sufficient amount of parking to accommodate employees and residents and to ensure consistency with the City requirements. Therefore, the proposed project is not expected to create parking impacts on the surrounding areas, and impacts related to adequate parking would Ibe less-than- significant. Mitigation Measure(s) None required. 5.13 Mitigations and Improvement Measures Based on this analysis there would be no significant transportation impacts according to established standards and no off-site traffic or transportation mitigations would be required. Page 18 300 Miller Avenue Senior Housing Project TIA Abrams Associates Iddill 1AA TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC. MEMORANDUM Date: February 19, 2016 To: JI.P.Stocco Beacon Development Group From: Steve Abrams Subject: Addendum to the Transportation Impact Analysis for the 300 Miller Avenue Senior Housing Project The purpose of this memorandum is to provide additional information on trip generation and potential transportation impacts associated with a ground floor use that was not analyzed in the previous transportation impact analysis (TIA). As per your request we prepared this addendum to the TIA to review the new designation: of 2,000 square feet of ground floor area as Rotary meeting space. It is our understanding that in addition to Rotary meetings this meeting space could also potentially Ibe used for non-profit board meetings, Chamber of Commerce meetings, and other meetings such as clubs or neighborhood associations. It would also be available for the City if there was ever a need for a community outreach meeting but these would not be regularly occurring. Beyond these uses it is anticipated the space would otherwise be used by residents of the project for occasional meetings or classes. The meeting space would apparently only be used intermittently by non-residents and would not be made available for regularly scheduled events that could potentially increase traffic during the peak commute hours. In addition, based on the trip generation generated by similar sized recreational/educational space the 2,000 square feet meeting space would not be forecast to generate more than about 25 trips per day when meetings are occurring. Using commonly accepted trip generation sources the 1875 Olympic Boulevard, Suite 21 0 - Walnut Creek, CA 94596 • 925.945.020:1 - Fax: 925.945.7966 Abrams Assocites Page 2 of 2—300 Miller Street TIA Addendum a TRAFFIC ENGINEERING,INC. space would not be expected to generate any more than about 5 to 10 trips during any one hour during the peak commute periods. Based on the analysis of traffic operations conducted for the overall project it is clear that this amount of traffic would not change any of the conclusions in the TIA for the project. In this case there were no borderline conditions identified in the project area where the addition of this amount of traffic would have the potential to trigger new impacts. In addition, based on our review of on-street parking conditions in the area and the site's proximity to public parking lots, the designation of 2,000 square feet of ground floor area as meeting space would not be expected to result in any significant impacts to parking conditions in the area. In summary, any activity generated by the meeting space would be expected to be intermittent. Based on our review there would be no traffic or parking problems expected as frequent or regular use of the space on a day to day basis by non-residents is not anticipated. If there are any questions, or if additional information is needed, please don't hesitate to contact me at (925) 945-0201. Attachment 2 Shadow Analysis City of South San Francisco Miller Avenue Senior Housing Design, Review/ Use Permit Application Shadow Analysis I. BACKGROUND In an urban environment, shadow is a function of the height, size, and massing of buildings and other elements of the built environment, and the angle of the sun. The angle of the sun varies due to the time of day (rotation of the earth) and the change in seasons (elliptical orbit). The longest shadows are cast during the winter (when the sun is at the greatest distance below the celestial equator) and the shortest shadows are cast during the summer (when the sun is at the greatest distance above the celestial equator). At the time of the summer solstice (which falls on June 21), the sun is directly overhead at noon (in the northern hemisphere), and the longest day and shortest night occur on this date. Conversely, the shortest day and longest night occur on the winter solstice (which falls on December 21). The vernal and fall equinoxes represent the halfway point between the shortening and lengthening phases at the solstices (which fall on March 21 and September 21, respectively). Therefore, measuring shadow lengths during the summer and winter solstices captures the extremes of shadow patterns that occur throughout the year. 11. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING A. Site Context The proposed project is located in downtown South San Francisco, a suburban city in norther San Mateo County on three parcels that currently contain residential buildings (310, 312, and 314 Miller Avenue) and a surface parking lot west of the residences on Miller Avenue (the "Project Site"). The applicant proposes to consolidate the parcels on the Project Site, demolish all existing structures on the Project Site, and develop a five-story, mixed-use building containing 81 rental apartments for lower-income seniors (the "Project"). The Project Site located one block north, of Grand Avenue, South San Francisco's main commercial district, and approximately 125 feet west of Linden Avenue, which is also developed with urban commercial uses appropriate for a downtown setting. Directly south of the Project Site, across Miller Avenue, development consists largely of non-residential uses ancillary to the downtown business district. There is a surface parking lot that serves a branch of Wells Fargo Bank, which is located at the southwest corner of Miller Avenue and Linden Avenue. To the west of the surface parking lot is a large multi-story parking structure. Miller Avenue is the approximate northern edge of the commercial portion of downtown South San Francisco, and development transitions to mostly residential uses north of Miller Avenue. An auto service station is located at the northwest corner of Miller Avenue 1 and Linden Avenue, then two residential parcels exist between the service station and the Project Site (with residential units fronting on Miller Avenue to the south and Tamarack Lane to the inorth), and two more residential structures are located directly west of the Project Site. North of the Project site is Tamarack Lane, a narrow alley. On the north side of Tamarack Lane across from the Project Site is a single-story multifamily residential development with approximately eight units. Single-family residences are located on either side of the multifamily building to the east and west with frontage on Tamarack Lane. There are no schools, parks, or other public open spaces in the immediate vicinity of the Project Site. There are also no shade-sensitive commercial uses, which would include pedestrian-oriented outdoor spaces or dining areas, nurseries, and solar collectors, in the vicinity of the Project Site. B. Existing Shadow Patterns Existing shadows illustrated below in Figures 1 through 3 are based on an accurate 3D model of South San Francisco in the vicinity of the Project Site that identifies the specific building footprints and heights of existing structures on and around the Project Site. As discussed in more detail below, the existing buildings in and around the Project Site create shade and shadow patterns on other buildings in their immediate vicinity. At the summer solstice, as shown in Figure 1, the Project Site currently casts no shadow from its western portion, because the existing use is a surface parking lot. The existing residential uses on the eastern portion of the Project Site cast moderate shadows to the west in the morning, short shadows to the north at noon, and longer shadows that extend on the residential properties immediately east of the Project Site in the evening. Figure 1:Existing Shadow Patterns,Summer Solstice ---—------- cJ' 71 ---------- ­11 -f JJNE A&DOAM ,',)JLINE 21,12ADWM JUNE 21,50" At the winter solstice, as shown in Figure 2, the Project Site currently casts no shadow from its western portion, because the existing use is a: surface parking lot. The existing residential uses on the eastern portion of the Project Site cast long shadows to the northwest in the morning, which shade Tamarack Lane. The shadows move more directly north at noon, and cast shadows across Tamarack Lane and onto a portion of the multifamily residential building 2 north of the Project Site, Although:the shadows are longest in the evening and extend on the residential properties immediately east of the Project Site, all of the properties in the vicinity of the Project Site are completed shaded at this time. Figure 2:Existing Shadow Pattems,Winter Solstice ti ban- J MOEMWR Z,9:QQA1r .......... W<*MWR 21,IRPOPM ........................ At the vernal and fall equinoxes, as shown in Figure 3, the Project Site currently casts no shadow from its western portion, because the existing use is a surface parking lot. The existing residential uses on the eastern portion of the Project Site cast moderate shadows to the northwest in the morning, which shade the southern edge of Tamarack Lane. At noon, the shadows point almost due north and extend across most of Tamarack Lane. The shadows are longest in the evening and partially extend on the two residential properties immediately east of the Project Site. Figure 3:Existing Shadow Patterns,Vernal and Fall Equinoxes J! �n, PL REUNION pill WIN!"111,05,1—TT- t T 05 PT r rm, 79A MARCH 2 -304M MARCH 211��F��Z�1� M H 211SEP BER ZL 4POPM ARC- PROJECT EFFECTS A. Regulatory Framework The February 2015 Downtown Station Area Specific Plan ("Specific Plan") requires projects in the specific plan area, which includes the Project, to [clonsider the impacts of shade and wind on open spaces, pedestrian corridors and retail streets in the massing and articulation of building facades." The Specific Plan's Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2013102001, used the following threshold to assess the Specific Plan's potential impact: "WoUld the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?" Read together, if a proposed project creates 3 substantial shade impacts on open spaces, pedestrian corridors, and retail streets, that proposed project would create shadows that "substantially degrade" the quality of the site and its surroundings, and a significant impact could result. In addition to open spaces, pedestrian corridors, and retail streets, this analysis discusses the Project's potential to incrementally increase shadows on schools; routinely usable outdoor spaces associated with residential units such as yards or other outdoor seating areas; and shade-sensitive commercial uses, which would include pedestrian-oriented outdoor spaces or dining areas, nurseries, and solar collectors. B. Methodology Shadow effects are dependent on several factors, including local topography, the height and bulk of a proposed project's structural elements, sensitivity of surrounding uses, season, and duration of shadow projection. In determining the effects of shading, the locations of shade-sensitive uses in the surrounding area are identified, and shadows are calculated and plotted for representative hours during the winter solstice, summer solstice, and vernal and fall equinoxes. As initially proposed, the Project would have included 91 units and been more than 70 feet tall. After testing various designs, and in an effort to respond to comments expressing concern about the proposed height and bulk of the building, the Project's proposal was reduced to include only 81 units with a maximum height of approximately 68 feet. In addition,to break up the massing of the building, the Project will be massed as two separate rectangular volumes, one facing Miller Avenue and the other Tamarack Lane. Projected shadows from the Project as currently proposed are graphically illustrated below in Figures 4 through 6. The existing array of shadows are show in gray on the Figures, and shadows that are projected to be case by the Project as currently proposed are overlaid in pink. As with the existing shadow illustrations, the Figures are based on an accurate 3D model of South San Francisco in the vicinity of the Project Site that identifies the specific building footprints and heights of existing and proposed structures on and around the Project Site. C. Shadow Analysis At the summer solstice, as shown in Figure 4, the Project would result in increased shadow coverage on the two residential properties directly west of the Project Site; however, these new shadows would move north and leave the two residential properties directly west of the Project Site almost completely unshaded by noon. At noon, the Project would cast short shadows onto a small portion of Tamarack Lane. At 5:00 p.m., the Project would result in increased shadow coverage on the residential properties east of the Project Site, but the increase, would occur over the parking spaces for the residential units, not shade-sensitive portions of the properties. There also would be some increased shading on the commercial 4 property along Linden Avenue, but the service station is also not a shade sensitive use, The increased shadows to the east of the Project Site would be transitory in the morning during summer solstice, no shade-sensitive uses would be impacted by noon or during the afternoon and evening. Therefore,the Project's increased shadow coverage during the summer solstice would not substantially degrade the Project Site or its vicinity, and it would result in a less than significant impact. Figure 4:Project Shadow Patterns,Summer Solstice IN KIM N ............. ME 211 JUNE 21,I,ZO" JUNE 21,5MPM At the winter solstice, as shown in Figure 5, the Project would result in increased shadow coverage on the two residential properties directly west of the Project Site and across Tamarack Lane; however, these new shadows would move north and leave the two residential properties directly west of the Project Site mostly unshaded by noon. New shadows would be cast across Tamarack Lane at noon; however, Tamarack Lane is not a pedestrian corridor or retail street, and the shadows would not extend to the residential properties north of Tamarack Lane. Although the Project would cast long shadows to the northwest in the evening, all of the properties in the vicinity of the Project Site are completed shaded at this time under existing conditions, and the net increase in shadow coverage as a result of the Project would be negligible. The increased shadows to the east of the Project Site would be transitory in the morning during winter solstice, no shade-sensitive uses would be impacted by noon, and during the afternoon and evening existing shadows already cover the properties in the vicinity of the Project Site. Therefore, the Project's increased shadow coverage during the winter solstice would not substantially degrade the Project Site or its vicinity, and it would result in a less than significant impact. Figure S:Project Shadow Patterns,Winter Solstice /Z lej PF 11 11 11 11"1 1,R///, V/ 1A R MII I DECEMBER 21,120OPM MR 21,4Q," P.ECEMBE G� R 2t QO�M 5 At the vernal and fall equinoxes, as shown in Figure 6, the Project would result in increased shadow coverage on the two residential properties directly west of the Project Site and across Tamarack Lane; however, these new shadows would move north and leave the two residential properties directly west of the Project Site mostly unshaded by noon. At noon, new shadows would be cast across Tamarack Lane at noon; however,Tamarack Lane is not a pedestrian corridor or retail street, and the shadows would not extend to the residential properties north of Tamarack Lane. At 5:00 p.m., the Project would result in increased shadow coverage on the residential properties east of the Project Site, but the increase would occur over the parking spaces for the residential units, not shade-sensitive portions of the properties. The increased shadows to the east of the Project Site would be transitory in the morning during the equinoxes, no shade-sensitive uses would be impacted by noon, and during the afternoon and evening no shade-sensitive uses would be impacted by noon or during the afternoon and evening. Therefore, the Project's increased shadow coverage during the vernal and fall equinoxes would not substantially degrade the Project Site or its vicinity, and it would result in a less than significant impact. Figure 6:Project Shadow Patterns,vernal and Fall Equinoxes CC /14 rp IN A��3OW 7 WKt!_VPE j?_1QPFY.__.__..... i -MAKH.V 121149Y!M IV. CONCLUSIONS The proposed Project would cast new shadows on Tamarack Lane and portions of the residential properties in the vicinity of the Project Site. No new shadows would be cast upon open spaces, pedestrian corridors, and retail streets; therefore, the Project would not have an impact on these categories of shade-sensitive uses. The project would also cast some new shadows on residential properties west of the Project Site during portions of the morning; however, these shadows would be transitory in nature and leave the western properties unshaded by noon. To the north and east, the Project would result in incrementally new shadows on the non-shade-sensitive portions of residential and commercial properties, such as parking areas, roofs, and driveways. Because the Project does not have the potential to increase shadows on schools; routinely usable outdoor spaces associated with residential units, such as yards or other outdoor seating areas; and shade- 6 sensitive commercial uses, it would not substantially degrade the quality of the Project Site and its surroundings, and the Project would result in less than significant impacts. 7 Final EIR CHAPTER 11 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program January 2015 SECTION 11.1 Introduction 11 .1 INTRODUCTION The Final Environmental Impact Report for the South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Project (Stare Clearinghouse No. 2013102001 identified mitigation measures to reduce the adverse effects of the proposed project in the areas of air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, public services, recreation, and transportation/traffic. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that agencies adopting environmental impact reports ascertain that feasible mitigation measures are implemented, subsequent to project approval. Specifically, the lead or responsible agency must adopt a reporting or monitoring program for mitigation measures incorporated into a project or imposed as conditions of approval. The program must be designed to ensure compliance during applicable project timing, e.g. design, construction, or operation (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6). The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (NIMRP) will be used by City of South San Francisco staff responsible for ensuring compliance with mitigation measures associated with the proposed Plan. Monitoring will consist of review of appropriate documentation, such as plans or reports prepared by the party responsible for implementation or by field observation of the mitigation measure during implementation. 11 .2 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MATRIX Table 11-1 (Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix) identifies the mitigation measures by resource area. The table also provides the specific mitigation monitoring requirements, including implementation documentation, monitoring activity, timing and responsible monitoring party. Verification of compliance with each measure is to be indicated by signature of the mitigation monitor, together with date of verification. City of South Son Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department 11-1 SCH No.2013102001 era 0 / r p p +cy f? O i; 0 E 47 m c> ca eu o C2 0LU0C] va i _ Q7 -E c %,� E T U c p 7-/, c •- w jai r cAa as en [a» / ._ CL -CJ w PROM/ r% ry R c c i rir � PP 04 CD cy / % aJ GI C_1 .� •C = 'ta ?'•.."=- c tra c o ry ,ca c Tca x q} vi co . cti .'� r� c[ O o as to za as c E i riri m �''' � � "ca c � ran in 'py».^ ii rca c cz c�sa c cs m c m v, c[a m eo us a7 cc' a as qy < cu a`a a c ea ea ' . m ea as c cz m vi E e` C i/m:i' // tss -va w c. y t2 ° a7 C� w.- c a—�i q,, o� p .o E Ly LU CL c ri' / 4L, cu ar m ar � F n) c,� c u cL._ 2 cu c cu V) o f c o E n 0 C3 ar U cy o ar ar ca o < CD C j/irr IlRrr C 0 rHY/ CL CL a// p 0 (i%r i 49 pt " ��//i StlC// a7 dr 0 C p ri / LU d CL :E co a? cr c c =3 r r Co r ua LU cold (D „-c„- © a/7 r/fir ICL cm CL C:tr r C7 5 rri/ri r rri rr /%N/ 0 cL /; / % C)(n ° " CD CD �•sc ti � � M / ra �„ ° c iv w as sri o ® ar o cu co E acs c q o ccs � 0 c� > - C7 . p nt!r ;rar r iiii, c w o CO c au5i ca vi o. co CL r r r r%a m ar ° °J o r / �/// ca arncar rcis " - - r/oil 7 = c r r iiiii is m m -a ° as a ,r��D�i �. C�7 4y o ,,.. ty Car 'GT Q. "Ur 'C N. c a7 c to i' 2 /lri��iarrr c ay Cu m CO _ a� m v� E .{? . s� :c E 'o c ray c Co €ten o - / i%aarii no (D ai � o. 3 cs m 2 rn c `o /i�.rr%a�/rr - ( E 2r - _ cu � � �� � as • ca � m -' rip rr�r/ as cn sz m m E a ar ° .c ar r/4iC% MINES 4C CD cu a a c "� /Li MINES CO co cK E a' e`z � a' ��1g, r r r� rr ia� c t o ar `gin O) �'fi�a //� ,-'° a3 0 'E `v sic "o .; c� io " aci as iu E a.,t� - �r r/ror c E r„r =/r/� m w o _o c cs ,o 3 c� �n o m 11"”, ai � aci c er aEa a .`-" E Cl)`l w C7 as v ar := ° c c -col C " a�Bi °'.Q C? ® cy o o as v ' o s � css _ �`? E cu o CL sa `m I- c as ar rrr cua to o ar ar o c E ca c �c es a' cy as co ° Q. c m �°' ° . Ey w r qi _ c„ o c E cr E ca rn .0 Ol ol ® € 4s �. u�r cU c`a "n Y Cl- & "o. c � Co c (D - o o soar sx v°i c E `- Poll c as"i c E Q © c . c w m � z .F o �_ ua v � E sn zs w m as ca ar c tai c w e� ca sry -ca o call a� -c ° � � '.e o E ss a crr as a citi ui o � 0 cca aai c ca m ca t ar cu *- v � u-7 a, a"'i cs cam. iZ �? ° `�° Q T c�LS as E a E c c U) ar S a chi w .as E o a> E cn cr sn w o ar acs c o o cs c w o as m y c3 cn ? as N c E c ca as o sa n. c`y vci v c c c ccy •�, ca as 'v "'' w." a., ar as s7 un cti5 +� ar .. car o ca C ar ¢u im o as - o acs a E c � a ar o � C a vJ E ar err ar J C) ° w c E uci c , ° v rn w e a "' ea o _ ax 'a -'"c c E cu q i/J fe p 0 2 y a) dy ac c h1 .. C C1. ?a M, p7 J �^ "�'9 �' L4S a) �y � EC C 7 CO) o c i o ar is o o C? o Y 4 Cn �' c c 7 M is a i m c U ce Ca m t7 0 or g - cn ss ar = .c? Gu m co c -� Ca cs ° ty ° o ar � as c c E . W c a 2 .E "0 LO �. <lA V'9 dl ` "o �' 9 C (D '� cn 0 KU "� m �y L3 t CO a} ar Q 62 c -a c m ° °_..' a3 c °- c w m La CY aci cD nun . o CO ocs o c a E y c> "a cn ¢ E rn E 2 -: as O U wco`i mC mC ¢ <C .o cs ° s' sa E ® ° c Q tv sx ' , •c E :" as aa'i -� as n p sl cp cc .c ar 0- v GL w Cl. O U c 0 Q as a7 - ° c c r i sra ci o o a N E b cv ra 4 ui C6 _ °�� „`"o-`� � c°r3 4 � � o = E cir � 0 o rz. S3 u 'u. _. _..... a us ex LO a Q a� u lm c a ! a C R/ of%i, /, i/ � A�% %� tU r//iri,// ,, �) v /Wyexl C /�j j/i 0 /% 01 ' �i� N // E 0 LU /, "ivojO ia%%// ����� o �� k /Q, CL Al iv °ice%/ as wra o ca © a o aca "J, i ,rQ1 / /,/ m >Z cc v %/iii r/� i/v��iii 1- } E v; cC o F= a % a o`w c u c7a �i%i/ iii w (n c o .o _ � E E 0 iii �i ' ca c= v i/ //vvv scs 3 cu `o ca 75 co i , o c as cZa x � � E 4 E va o �' , C ! / iia vi y s c c_n m e cQi is O i v �/ijwa to as r>a t� as o U) rn ( 'cm (n rn L3 v a� as o o as o o as rno tfi, as Cn o, �, c � Ls , v, � � mro � o �/, �/ / o o "� m o m o o c sa w o ui o u m , i#I!' /v� �fC, -r=s � o ci "t7 A. c -rs ry -c^r a .c -0 -c3 c sn u_, eL c E era cn U) t o c ar c c c m o -0 c u C1 �`m���# i✓�i/v�/ ca w acs c c c o cd — ca c c a3 o pry cu Ch a C> pt .� 0 m o � ea des as c sn CD ro m c Q3 co o r ai O d C�a ' '" '' o c io o to n c as c° - c 'ua u as a3 . ` as s= cv c as ° as cn as as o sn �c 4s w v i//Qy iii cn a cry E o es ur a ur ? ua cn . r> <n c a o ax vii o sac c c as c m m cn ra o c c ` any o a as c ctis o a w m m -c �`'r - w as Cj o r.7 c c E cu ci CL c c c c I' m oy. LL' ca o m co-c3 — m cow as css as co rsa a c� m p m a w c E c c � E CL c c o Ca 0 as ry ar p .1 „C 'ira 'ira ,c yo 'ua •° 'ua 'ur 'sn ecF7 :t "C „ w Z7 C C3 Z'3 a) .0 (� s.. U - f0. 'CS as :O O 'C7 ;73 •C .0 .0 c U YL e> `c c� c 32 -a m o _ ,cn tC� CD as o L m c as � as � ° �C ° ay cn � `—t � °' � t o as 7 Q 0 �t o F- m e cC ua E �C .- G �t a ¢ ¢ s n L7 xZ ara 4� co ai N `A64, C) sn c C) ' c s m y ca CD U sh ;,. vi o/M w o %'% Mg//, 2 � CN C b I, �- Vii,%/f //i!/, a V) LL co RIM i%g 0 0 n Ml gw jN r co c cL c Q cn cm, a) fl. x c Q Q � D s N Q ° ._ 2 a) E O Coo ._ .Q CL a} c E N c Z3 a> Q•~ O ECI. Q C7 Sa c N y co E o zs o- > vi E ° a 2S c a N v._ E _ (D u Q aii/ , // crr c N Q C a U 16 � is � az � uD as U � E aEi a> CD d)c 4 as s D c c to O E � C as d as [7 Q a Q — 70 � C2 a7 -p c C3 E ,ar,,, o o ' ©eta 00 °7 //// _ /" 1j"" i > ° ¢ a -b C)vcsc a (D ou . c� ER ¢ � a2 o s cs� Q � � ° a E � cod o ID 0 o , j '� Sa > ? c q� q U ' U E /i�G; ,// c c`�r• w OL U� 0 E a r) > 0) U as ®c ' as o 0 Rear a� U C az o r 'a V p,. c {p} C1:� N c! c J (D �» u cs c a o° (D.' j o °'' U E °U ' Q E - a6a E E C Q ai cc ,U E 1 a� �g ° "- as o ' ai E E U ; o �' .�?'� v to a a v q1 a � a; o �' E UUaz oca — �` p" m O o'° u a aUi ° u as o c � � Uc`a. ocQ aQ 'i -, LU w Ul) C7 c r 04 ri U E Q CD 0 �_� °> c7 0 Eca a 'F o f a o N i rip E c, 0 r r W �0u00 W � v- O 0 ,/�// CD CL E /oC/ a7 q7 T3 C) © c WWI E i 0 - o r(i� (D N O ®R/', U U LU / G C cn o cn 0 0 CD CL g c o P/M iss c g 2 cry O C3 W SD // 2 r % ca Los Rf N a7 g} »� CL r].. C f„y �r r1._ as E E "C7 / CL CM Cr E L1 r� ' ."jri 4 C53 0 u7 27 C L (3 Q7 co c W 0 Q) m. O m 75 S a ar�y m sz Cc C., ft ca. Q cu ea c o t ° ° arc ui c' cn rn us as cu /i N cfi rro�ir ca /% as •- c + ° m "' a1 a7 c � � c � -- � a� "CM a? + �/%�rr [ E oa ca c C 3 C cu en r� a� @ %�/% cu u7 �' a7 ecs . E c �c m c r//fig a E o c� m / � < o ca ac"i -° `m-' v �a ~ con ,q 2�ca °- %/// cn a7 70 t _` cn c ns in a7 co /ir cu as rz c a7 .rrr rr �., t.-. }C 47 C Ul a) C.A a) i[6 _ .r,� I.iJ Co c ° ac o a7 ca c `� co ' n. a7 - f F c ID O1 /%r /ii%%//i rn ° w i ca cn = cn W c c � CF1 O o o ca c+ ua C7 n5 .'D oQ us CU Q �} cc -0 ._ m N c C a7 � J W U a CL N _ C�J C7 J UA L3 S9 = c cuy o E @ cs a� a7 ° = c za a7 ccs ra o _c �' ca co r t c a7 con t o © t✓3 w c� a7 OC; C u) -p ecs a7 ui c cs e s a7 0 ra. M ; M m acv Z p o c •c `ns s r o C=3 •E > Q7 Cie °r + % c m tts cn , 3 ca a7 o E en "iii a a7 eu W t° o ""o e✓} aEs ._ 0 fl7 o ."- a7 E � � un cQ � c.7 r,7. _ C C6 p_" f" CJ f41 w..' 417 . co Cri c y o aC Q m • o E Q ° uci c G '�'; /r ;�C "0 m cn cry F- CU CO W cn �' ,«".. "� 417 CJ N w .0 b „ < 0 ct) 41 o O � � � «O a F° ra E -moo a) .> uo7 "' 0 `u � � o M n`� d � E -C) ?p. �,....�`' C 3 'tn to Fell. C.7 In N �'7 '° 'Lg Cn �, C6 ? c M CL c rn d vs aa) 1 CD E °n ac7 ' as a7 ,L C a7 c17 C!1 E cn 0 c j w o E E us 15 ss ca 2 u7 [ .- �n a7 La ,ea ts� a CL< M .� m V o a7 v as -� o n m v > o o rn»_ z �^ C57 - Q cn o o co m o co C] m w cis ° a o x c x U o .cz c m ¢ p� CD m ,a",.... CL— C7 "p a} �.. 0 -0 '� ca CL c r M* rae "' .fn E ~ ° .E •� _ as C] o a v c as c da o �. U'i ',r-.'X .'� SII :.. �..� R7 <n N. a7 C . E O . -' cW 7 '-'. 5" •cs a7 elY C '�; ;n N J"� a7 yry "� ` C CV ' C3 rte-. Cn a3 cn, Ln T us Ce4 O -C7 CCS L N U 26 0 C1 �. o a7 _ a7 = as o < :E o E E F- CJ r1a [3 s cti° r5 a m uo Gl as o = w l� W u7 S a F- r1 U E ccs ro cn 2 'sr7 d E cn as U V) ch u E a rG Hiii// ' r a Qa` p Z dX � U Q 0 CI W 0 Q cn ri r N O CD- % J i%w� tU C7 Z l cl 4 r 01 c`" rrrrrr'��r c u z a_ r' rr /i, ui cn U a ass ° c cis a c Q 'Cfi j/irri co o -0 . t ns o aCOi c o cv c` a as z� us as c3 c ° (D o rr� rrii r C cu � rc�)ceta 0 ca i' ji/ ca ca cc vs ca .� a E 'a c v °> m id. L ® a`'i cn aCi c " oar _ CL w 0 CL c"ccsa v 2 lu - m _0 —uyr as °�' °E ai a as i�p 'ii/riir c '° = c� r a � , as E .ma c E -Fu cn//r c o 20*8 o E cc s a G / M a ° i n E' (s a "'%/ U) c`a ri) w cn 0 cs a) s as c cu a5 w cc E v Cm du=,' LLi ca c c E cs E c um c cma a c ID ca c_ coa c°�co 'd 'f3 .0 Rf COQ .'� N 2 6 f� N C3 /r ° CL CL fc`2 sts C[1 c ccra �+ a�i Q cs"' C as 4�3 J U3 as as as CD / ri o m 0) CL 0 cc o m c a as avo ' u as ®Z v F co cis ? Cam? ;' acs ate' cam,. as m a q cca c as tts pa ca �c cr L � p /l o as cis a5 c, c cis o °u�—e ° .� . 'c Ua rn '[� ' '[7 LL. U) !: E cn ca W C 0 c5 ° ass ° t3s = +� Ca cas c Ls D c c E L F . cn w . m cSOS U- pis es p a a p � nz so c Gc ai " m nos (� T- v es 4 ca ea m ns c co 0 cc v .`a � aLUS cra aci c = •[is `s -s cs•i N rn Cr c Co c -ca E O 0 c C c U cas'us ass "cn ° ci cn as ra a 'm O to ' 2 -0 CL<C "c to .— °a ca 2 -a C 3 '0 us E as E w O N 7F, C4 rii r" ` co as M 0 aoi 1 V ca - E as 1 p o E ° E E ° c E CO co E ay ca c E as CL ° cEi i CL E :E 0 coo as c� a°i ca -E E CJ ° _ ° a E > ` ;aL°U0a d W V0 uvC c O � C5 C ii i//// CL ui gg t) f /i„//i CL c it / 6 S ,i X75 Z 10 c” c' " 0 /i w, c ii / c //ii X14' m O ° p t O en r, CCo N QJ CL m 0 CYI C? a) C7f chi .0 U •C�, .�^/ al ,S] N t p ° ° 0) — ° _ CD occ mi ca °1 ��— u� / m as c m "a as �' sa `cis Eli_0 as ci _s .° o E/ m cs 0 ua e� a c n 8 -0 ° m° w W ,= e - y M � ° c CD ' °— 0 — cm� m m c -2 S r'u €L n ° cu as _ ,_ v a csr o c°i o ai c v i //i/ c .� C7 .�.. ._ ... •,� ux ,.,,,.. .r co •0 � � /i °- ca a`i'e r+ °n ' cis g .c_a s �y a � us ° ° c m _ ._ an m as E c _ o as a, a r / y m ca �, c° v m U) c a ° Q ca X a a aria "a N 0. 0 ° „Q �5 5, s as cu �° ° `c ° zu rcn sa _ 0, aw'i cu cri cn ua ° Fn .Q w ui ca 7 > °cn -0 C1� �i/ar cn ca cu s aa, iQ rar o �n c+ n-� Q � ua cum s' Q � m C >,.� � © 5 cu 05 � ? `� ° en <�17 f1) CZ Ct. C i m ° c o c� in cz © ° co �s c) as m rn o a) "D E c Er-0 0 m ° � w .v_a a: ° ca nr 45 co ED Zia ', cLu is m ` .� c °9 cu ra � ° 2 " ° c c Q> ° � o a? ° rn m '° 5 p ° c°�. "ua �o 'c f2 c rn c m e caas y y o !.8 ' �gV1°j • •' L .C? a �G a' c cs -ca d ca CJJ.... .. i O7 —CL 0 cu 2 c as m a� E as _ O'i 2 O '"CS CTi cn p cn C3 zs Ga - ° cu o ° ca -- a> as ° ecs c> o ° r°s m > ° „°� ° ami OL pia m � ° 'S 5 m- m w o •c—° ) €7 4 r ", Ct as 2 'y— c- c c �1 m ay ca as ° u � c4a vi m ° y o ' c ° ca s ro .c ra m `v? ra m —� ",' p K!' ° cu p ua +3' � -@ c as � 4) ". CJ ate] U > Ci rO -cs c6 (D G7 a) C77'_, ° ui N / U '15 u g / Z3 C3 C c CU a> c m a> c o a) c o a> cCU a> c E cu ca •- E a7 ca •E E as ca -E E o c> •- E � Ll -A E 'E Q E "E CZ E " sa E .E cL vy ° E ° o E ° ° E ° ° E ° ° E C a7 Ka C as C w C w m C a9 CO'" O O N N O O N d [? N m C°-ti EG. a7 ° d N Q E 0OS 00 0L C> 0 0 WU0 0 wC) 0 OLaJ0M un 0 N Q c°i E / 0 0 0 0 o U / u^ O L CV CD rd � C3 / 4 C a _ w o o v cc 0 w C Cz o ® m co m d cc C1. �a o � fld d v ai C7 CJ 0 R > S c CL co v C7 ca ai ca ° o o cu o ° O C cn LyJ wv c co U C4 U) E-0 ce in a) nA1 c7 LU „ •«," a) C7 .0 �7. d�.. TJ C C'7 -t/7 sn .� c (!) ..... (D Sri /i a> .-+ D.. fC5 = C iU • ° ui W u E m - 'w a a � p-0 w cl t>A _ ° � cq a> CL cr co E ua , y w `i ales Co cn 76 Cd E ° v y c> Cf / m -an ca a = as v> v v a> a9 E E cv v ce i E Q aim // Cn E (� e> rn E c ca its Z '' in c> as ° c> c — � ,> t7s a ii/41 C C"a c� m crs = za 0 cu E a> v c cu o CL �i CM ///o ��/' a> m as us c c G'J en .` '" -� c tE iiw-: , / cu a> as CO a> m ' C> is as © _ -ca cz `C air 0 =ea = cn m .c cD +_ p -C Gv ', _ V) cu OL aiC �., / ®... C_ t'a N in -r;.) C N �� CL ui ? ;. c w ° N O ID ca -o as w A E, . p ° • 7' .r? 0 " rL E m a°> C IL E m E is a> � n oQl c> d a3 cn o Q �� "c E ° Cs> �? s a rn o t t° co c _ Ry c°i c ° c c + Oo CA a> o ai c`°5> ti us Cu ME o .2 Y *- r°>n a> n a> > j O * CL c aE> r> a> ay `� m as E ° ° -0 M � .o --E o a> a c e p g E "- °, eEn ° cE°> ° C tits `� 0 c2 � cs cn � � t�7 0 •" ix a> c E a> o � Z5 CS a s C CL m � Cl) c �- w a> C� ttt = L ° a> as rn 0 rte' E a, �° ° i3 Cyf1 w ru'a w c r v .5 W E ° ® 0 *' E v as c l-ra U ° C. ° as m o vy a> _ � a> M co C7 t as as cg o is cx � c u en a E C� ° iaa o > > — > a> ° as cs c°n as y o w a> ass c t _ r , ° �> h c '° •* cn Cz a> ui U c� va'i -E a> ^d ° > av> ar, ai' s 05 c cy u1 i; _. ai en ro 2n a> e1 C7 LL cn CL cy � .� aj 4 ° a> t� y o ° (� ac> S � S Cl 'i E c 0 ua 4 -2 . 'a u Cc'i� � i W E � ua 4 � (~j as w o y r`t'i3 a> .E a> 'c � t S x © c ey c�a m Ca [6 5 'Co Ca .� a) E aos 2 cs • E ,ea E as e� 'E E cw o E o E a CL oc as oc as °c 2u m oc w is °c as v cam. o E 7 0. o f ca o f >a o E o E W CAD + v ra o v v o o v v cs o v as 0 o v v v Ca v 0 LlJtJ0 ' 0W U 0 W0M GtLUCJM 0W0fn � n CL va c o o 0 OL C C C C:o o +� a> W 0 aa) Cl) n7s, Gl c a f' U S o 0 (3 � v ccs a H=- i CL IL ' //f. I r Qy O Q Q O Q R5 iCS Ca, sq Ca •CB RS r' C2. C.} Ci G3 �` C2 CL s.- Ep C E C E E i ice aa) ma vvi va o o rte-- ,' c1 E vva w.� co E Ere ress c ca. � Q E _ s h^- o G- trr C C17 `° v cri aos ,E Z "0 E cvi o v E 0 — 'i , cz E a c n r�si .� i„�r E w E t3s — v all o cry 4m�,... oc°c v o a — m U3 a>v n`a cis c v C za v E rn m v v + as q res c , Yr r„ cn E � a� v rra r„ M a (D / ca c as — � @ ”' °' v is v � - W 7�+ C -CS °- '^.. _c '� 8 L n m a, 3 ( N v con . -o ``z m a cu [� ca `s ru c m ii/ C7 Cn F w 't3 0 � �}.• 0 a) 2 -5 co �.. l`e GS o ,..- Ctf tU C2 3c a� to _ w c Ca da CQ a) ra v �- _ r QL ea c w � > yr as . v v o e m ty — UJ — rn cr' C CD s_ caaia c>3 r a ro 4 c iv ca LI 15 1 dvC9 v `� vs o -0 -c •° ra a ° c, N r3a curs e c +:i v rn "'� r ex o ass m-� v wn c c oe za cis cvi era 'Cl ccs ` ` c vs .E q - ei c co `rs C c eri v, m P c + c C2 cu y..' � Cil -2 Cb -O � d � � � � co a a5 � � � � O � '� �' in � ...,. .w.. -L3 CCo dS C.7 "C CCi t=- C © �, O O N tU Q7 o y rid 4 — as F CL ` °— �r m y as s n m C� W w m m c W. 65 ,ca €ca cs Ctis ay rn 'C7 .r* - — r = e.s c µa rta O _ z= "C' cU' a as .E ass eis m avy ' ns -t:; c a Z rce '� .e - o ua o v t7 c �, w o as oa w ro � " .c •c' ' ss E m Q as m as � '� vn u- ua v V ° ca ca .o cis us toss c a' cca c� lb 1 m sLL cs c: cs E oa E ua v vs o ' ca �' (n O t cro o C5 cvi r ca c �e p n_ � n ? c -0 cza cu m .01 a o KC v v nvi c c W as c as .0 as .c O N E bo opus �, � �m � e�r �sCL _ � a �s -a m � � ? _U ad d rs o o m io y tt o c c' E E m -v r3 'n ass o Q E Mu CD c p d— + c s cv o v ra c ty ra ® C} U LU m >, C E E , E w E O o E 7 C p E 0, I.jQo d W C30 CL 0 C3 '515 z ri "C ti1S �p 0 c3 o o O > / % 7 iGC/ io ' o O L) �Sa ' w / aa) a�a U U ( ne; c cis o o — o in .sca as > , CL c� > co j ' 0 U) c o m ° o •- m -o ,ia (n CD -0 cz o ,C ca w a� c r-.. -6 7E -2- 3: cu cu CD CD 0 m CL o — w CD W — 2 � m In p N CS C`S a3 US CD E US m >cCsa.�° ° '—� 4 m c E ec co m cu cu En CC' w o as 7 o E o !' p a cs — zs CU p Q> w c rf m° ' coi i j a� CL va E cn m c o us V5 U q7 — N cn o c°]a o cu !] Q i Q' ' as c F ca C CXS N 0 OL° v5 v 11-0 `a I � cu � rcn � as > � c O c ci ° ca w �n p 0 C c c2 E c or— cu cr c Q c" 0 a3 _ c — 'Fb in in c CD ,52 ° o c '' � C c� saw a> E EL c •"= o' E C (D 0 . --- ° as cN�a .o cy c aka cr U) ua ° `]US E Cr v ttg c a7 cn a c' .° R ° U W co Cr 0 cu a co _c o U vW c cs o C ua sa C 3 o «. . 0 ca 0 u Ln x rrrrr Ma c C14 c 07 m c m m c cu 7 m 'C d a> 0 E a, v E 11 p ri 3 -C E = c O CSR Q ° Z CL cp E Q o E J Ln a. o 0 a) 0 u ° as q� U c 0 r a i C o rr m zs n "r' a, 0 c i% % ° 3 °CL algae ° as o RM rrrr Z' ✓ rrrir r ' =3° cn Z %rrri, <5 u5 Q L) 0 """ /3 i r Ly i it/rr in .,� m ca ° r b, > co goy CL m CL c 0 CU w� 0 m rn as ',r 0 m - � - � m ow c au) a, 2 `J CO cy i" c L E m as E m y ° rcn °c as ea "o E 'r „�„ ° CD ° c "y m L m ° o as `” c ax o n a m +. v_� "ia i �"rrr r ess da - as t,CD n / ° 11J J c v9 raj C a7 v ° .-� q CL E :z Lu 0-d K.t -� .O 47 rn 0 Y � N ca .(n m a cu cv c cn, a> m C' c /I r/r/� (�j ...•,. Lo Lo ii C (6 a) C a1 C17 'C S ,v L U r, r cs res "'r to .° � css L rn ° m c a � Jz m ° � ay as cn � as r� rr rr c -c � � m o - � �r %o rrrr y ou a, ° y ~� cEn c5 ° CD m`c ° Rs csr as c m p m v c o c� � L c /r r as sr x as c 3 u ° ° m x m c° Lm "' ay c cn c >, ° a) as c ami ass c°' o a� L m a� sy 01 - — as a) ,cy "' °—' u-°i ai ,c°a rs ccr c ca ° CO ° m c Q r rr m °a ° is a`a II u°i uma va c ' ° c 4 (D 0 c a} "o CO cs 2 c 'm c c c� o ay er c c c esr� 0 ° c m ° ' cn r°n �- N T c m c as E a' as -- ct5 `vs Ls [O cll r %, cu m m c c 'm c :2 = m r m y L> c cn ° rn }' X, cn as 76s v o E rsr s' p w .c 6 � m `= o c ca c CL c`° a ax c`u q Q m n o u°., a c ° O ; ca E _ `o `a m m .d w° c a cn p cv aEr c L ' E > S cm a} (S5 CU 'ems—il' ai " '. .'�? C1. Q a3 cIi -"'" m ° > A -0 W E C " Moo c R3 E �"� � ° a.} L 'O � x ° m c m 10 0 c •c c � — � ° c x� as 0 c� - ay ay �_ ca gu 'F °c' c -c-" ° ' mar `va" o -rte �„.. va ° va c.,. :�, c N cr ty U ° c4 �,�. ° ... E o a) S2 p c O 3 c ? `n? . i' . o �p ',0 z E E E E p o c 0 ® m 0 u° ° COD- "' c -0 -S ° 2+s � �E v cn -0 CO p � U r p C4 i / U E cn .. �c ;CAF/ c m ° E w ° ° ° w ° ai E Cx Ems' E E � E ' ° E —° 'C v tyC ca t�cu ' 0-„CS CL S9 Cm'-.C) CL_a 0 CD© W C) 0 Ca EL 0a. 0n- O CJ > p0 q) r r C rr � E /r iii C C � s"ca rr 0 ° ° cs 0 V'R r ° a m m ° 0 ns © a CO ° o c as eca 0 rn `° w o a2 w c ? csy raa 9 ca. sa cmi m "E e°ys ° u � U ° o 'a.c v ° cs°i. caaa i KM ' c ay ° .mac ay �+ "mac c w Cy .pyc 0 ° o ' 0 C;3) r V5 in v o //rte o a E U c a aci w ccu _ a ar E - E E u� 7 > > E E o- c z E 3 m C � cu CJ m tJ .E C7 - Q .� � � a7 co to tQ c G N m > 7 as ' as ° ay c m a, za acy aft _ / % n � ° c r, E ar m c llI ca m `n ,g .o ca `-V n� m F- a; c Z:- c ° � w // CO a CfJ / "MV,i a5 a�.y C cu c Cc O acs e .O c�AImn rc r�y -J E m y w W by cL ra p c C 0 CID ILL m m m° c (D 10% E c um ° cca u n m rn L `° m m c la ° c cv c as o x r' m a cc m ° ° q CL iii%%ii (D L) m �s _cn m °a E ° cm� Ta o 0 o c cis �7 U c as aua -c _ ° cs i,ii _ CCn / ,rii///�i p) _nc Q„_, c Cn.N 4CU -0 '� � � Cl) � .7 �. t1. 7f t? �rr/r c2 c ro a' 'F m U c� cm a "7 " c ° y IL C r c oy a' m c m7 v cr T3 m e ° c E cs E c M `n m 'o o ate' c v� ° a' -0 °W c Q? C // ' aEa as cv c y mn csa _`o_ "fl' a cu Q ° cr' w O c3 °C O % •, o `� c c ''> G•,i c`i :. w c c_ca -ra c '3 ca m c Q.- E c+ E ca �J CnC� CL c o w ' k CD '� �z c o gy Cy .0 o - ay C7 m CL E C n t5 Lm c ® I EC) �d '�o 05 a & °ray ! a m 3 � rn c ei ° m c o ° c E ° ° cu - cc'i B ay " c ig ' C ss Co cu Fes.. E ' c •g ca c y CJ is E ay m w C3 c o ca as cy _ ay' ca ay c E cy ai c ay as E "as r) m °�y c sa ay ' 45 [a in rri G at as ° q m° aa, p aD ° ca as D �7 tsa ° �uy cr.c a ak `R' rs '� E = ra r-„ a (1) m .Q cs c to z� m aci c� m R to c ay c � 2 to 3 m c c o> !s rry rm ¢ .(a 2 is rr c + m ay Z rr7 o E �a _ n(� aL7 `p ru ° u ° nw-i V) C7 C7 14. d ' a is uy -a 2 E c Gti � E � E w c . w e cs sa w a> m - m eu va In � rn 0 c ra un � c7 a � y c ay � 0 rcn O U E ?L o a' _ it E _ _ _ Ct �C o va o va o rra o cn Q ua m ".w� r� 00. c ° ° CL Z e 0 w a w e w w CL o w "C ] Q d CL 0 IL C] fL G] [1. rya e 0 S 0 CL N.. � D) w c O c]. e � � ° 3 e ' o i CL CL CL x Ve wa was w aka CD p 0 ° g 0) aia a'S N � r Gl es o C� u rn a a a c uj r w w iu as as w as w as S ^ e m a-- 2 w m Q w m O w Ctl 0 w m :5 am w °' C} " i w 0 tm U..J C�1 07 CTi, co C..I7 f-- Qy C tin fl? U C� pi 0 cd cf3 ^ N o m -� '23 Ca cc-- °� N o o cco -_ ��� o U m ^C N O U CL doh � �- owl �.° C = Q7 60.I woa �y +, cs Q ccs o 'C to o cca [3 " v o w .? � ca oa co o s, ¢� w a awi I—D cw`u w' cwu Cr ua va rn en ua W AC c c N c c c qcj C. ° o o E °— E 7 Z w M. E E a �[.'. CZ. kn r® ca � � ,09 w U CD o c �- cu Z�co s w m w ccm c C"o _ 0 IM- ? - 9 2 c ' �a -uu Ca3 a s�cu CL eO c 'r c O 1 C7 c7a "C3a7a w w CL r° c»ca. a> o o c aci ca c w c s3 ' E ccu p c cs w 'S 0 o w cs z3 o w GL ay c GU c cs ¢ w s] w aoa w a , . w c as � o 0 0 m c6 w °O C oa -3, _ E 0. 4.� ccra ccs o w Q c as ca E 0 o- Q as c c C w 'c3 `a —w em u• IE w _ o c M: -cu °> ar as. as c > ca °'zs t �C; o as c o w cs o f o ca w a? c css o cis ar o c n ._ w 23 o m t3 C CU w zc� ` c e ° c Gea o o ° 3 a[ c p - c w c w m ai o n rca N cola O. w ° 0 w 'C7 m ?a °' CD p ° =3 m .0 -0 w ca c n c c •C= C -N w E er ° cta w cn rn c mm (U C> o w D o c = c ,I w e va css w 3 ca ra rn o w w co w m cn as o zo I p ' ua3 va -c CD w ca c e3a c Gr ess r.. w �j cc res cwa g w ac—i m a E ® c c` o ¢ o s o c c a C1 o c w c ua � t a1 raa w ccca o �C d ® 0 -cs w co o cf4a Z�7 m U? rn m �s n G�7, csa ua 2a C; w c t_? ,p e¢ O CO, Q °� •rj, co c q) {3 [!a, o w — as r w w w b w 3 w p ,� .r ass E eas .�. E cyn.. ca c ct a`s .r" E C> 75 2a o o G cis ' 0 > a CL a 0 rE o_m CL o.¢ o a h° M U u L is -, i i'/i/ � 'G%%'' d�7 C3 Q r a f17 p an d N d N p a7 C�1 w Q Coll tS CL r/ a) = w a> a> :3 a7 (D 0 jn /i/ O Q) l r ri / // 7 0 0. O l Q > 2 0 0 7 > y U a7 a9 a> a7. a7 mm, D viii/// � 0 �5 f:) �^ CY dl7 q 'd (l3 0 q lV " (p ',G� fti3 r a7 137 a7 N �" RU C17 t? 'viii r r 4? fl. "C j /r ri C11 . Q Q7 c 4lD _ _ — LLJ _ f�t7 ,«�Cl„ N R7 O _ f�SS O Q t17 ri a � O S> M a G €1:> V �J> cn a7 'C7 CT) f�fJ a7 t�3 a7 C�> C77� SC!_7 a> U L7>� t!7 �? U C>7 C�a 0. CL co� i ® U C17 •� C7 Q> O C11 QQ7 O tg °C 47 [R ' `1> W //j' i r . rJ7 �m c(o - e t7' B) C9' cu� W (T T cri o c (u e) . Q . c c U - E U) v� u� Mac C � C a�7 c emu a u�7 c a) c a�7 /!ii/i p, a, 2u w a7 m as a7 w CD Q7 iu a) E E E CL CL cL"� %r' C'S. 'p � 1� ° CL o �' D d' IGC7 %i/r c5 . C� . Sa . C7 . w lid G pi/A 16 E ME C'u u co r as c o�-2 as _ ' Q 2 CD w A2 a > za j c ° "cn q c to o O ¢ "C7 o ro Q o C13 aca c Ir a €v q7 x jf', ao> r c � c°s � �e � � � � E f/ ,�/ c acv) 6r c 2 �C zs ED CL O v o E e> a7 ai ai m `� e3 /,, — ` E c c m m ai py /oii r .05 o p ri0c, % .--- w W a7 m L L m E CD CL cm r!7 � u7 N CSS v E > O o 0 i 4° cn, °as c cn cn o E 0 -0 c c `n c /% � .. CL CL cu FIT— 12 a o d� /jii c c n+ "° 3 co / mac in a> o `° ' ctcs as cc CD O is E .cam c c o f m c7 �c c> p tm v> w ^ y c to E KC cs _ -< o . c 0 ap r-- r CG6 Z as o ° c °a7 ° c asp �> o ° cr> n o a> �3 CL �, � c arm r c �ro °D er v v � Z LU Vn rD E j5 CD 0 0 CL S? 'L K78 ctl 0 Q- Vi.. 011 QC ,r r/ a) o Q // C rip W Q 10 (7 A /r 5 �r / I.4_. ui 4 v CL Men •� C1 C3 Q S, M cm m IV cu 0. E 2 v; G % 0 a c n Ci i cs > at E 9 ; i%i i c a) co a %j E Co CL i/ ry tt- _ 0 U gg, SC m U sri �3 E � ' ` � a E � U LO CU Mu p . O rC CO c c .. vi CD 0 U C'4 E p D c U § i c 0 E Z- -E D E E 0 u 'o C: 0 U E 0 u U.J Off E E IL U 2 ,L :E Ln :E o 0. < 0 V) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .L� u R U cw LU Z Ln C5 0 [-- z U ou