The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2006-01-25 e-packet AGENDA ;REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR MEETING MUNICIP AL SERVICE BUILDING COMMUNITY ROOM WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 25, 2006 7:00 P.M. PEOPLE OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO You are invited to offer your suggestions. In order that you may know our method of conducting Agency business, we proceed as follows: The regular meetings of the Redevelopment Agency are held on the second and fourth Wednesday of each month at 7:00 p.m. in the Municipal Services Building, Community Room, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California. Public Comment: For those wishing to address the Board on any Agenda or non-Agendized item, please complete a Speaker Card located at the entrance to the Community Room and submit it to the Clerk. Please be sure to indicate the Agenda Item # you wish to address or the topic of your public comment. California law prevents Redevelopment Agency from taking action on any item not on the Agenda (except in emergency circumstances). Your question or problem may be referred to staff for investigation and/or action where appropriate or the matter may be placed on a future Agenda for more comprehensive action or a report. When your name is called, please come to the podium, state your name and address for the Minutes. COMMENTS ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES PER SPEAKER. Thank you for your cooperation. The Clerk will read successively the items of business appearing on the Agenda. As she completes reading an item, it will be ready for Board action. JOSEPH A. FERNEKES Chair RICHARD A. GARBARINO, SR. Vice Chair MARK N. ADDIEGO Boardmember PEDRO GONZALEZ Boardmember KARYL MATSUMOTO Boardmember RICHARD BATTAGLIA Investment Officer SYLVIA M. PAYNE Clerk BARRY M. NAGEL Executive Director STEVEN T. MATTAS Counsel PLEASE SILENCE CELL PHONES AND PAGERS HEARING ASSISTANCE EQUIPMENT IS A v AILABLE FOR USE BY THE HEARING-IMPAIRED AT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETINGS CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL AGENDA REVIEW PUBLIC COMMENTS CONSENT CALENDAR I. Motion to approve the minutes of January 11, 2006 2. Motion to confirm expense claims of January 25,2006 ADJOURNMENT REGULAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING AGENDA JANUARY 25, 2006 PAGE 2 AGENDA CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR MEETJNG MUNICIPAL SERVICE BUILDING COMMUNITY ROOM WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 25, 2006 7:30 P.M. PEOPLE OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO You are invited to offer your suggestions. In order that you may know our method of conducting Council business, we proceed as follows: The regular meetings of the City Council are held on the second and fourth Wednesday of each month at 7:30 p.m. in the Municipal Services Building, Community Room, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California. Public Comment: For those wishing to address the City Council on any Agenda or non-Agendized item, please complete a Speaker Card located at the entrance to the Council Chamber's and submit it to the City Clerk. Please be sure to indicate the Agenda Item # you wish to address or the topic of your public comment. California law prevents the City Council from taking action on any item not on the Agenda (except in emergency circumstances). Your question or problem may be referred to staff for investigation and/or action where appropriate or the matter may b,~ placed on a future Agenda for more comprehensive action or a report. When your name is called, please come to the podium, state your name and address (optional) for the Minutes. COMMENTS ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES PER SPEAKER. Thank you for your cooperation. The City Clerk will read successively the items of business appearing on the Agenda. As she completes reading an item, it will be ready for Council action. JOSEPH A. FERNEKES Mayor RICHARD A. GARBARINO, SR Vice Mayor MARK N. ADDIEGO Councilman PEDRO GONZALEZ Councilman KARYL MATSUMOTO Councilwoman RICHARD BATTAGLIA City Treasurer SYLVIA M. PAYNE City Clerk BARRY M. NAGEL City Manager STEVEN T. MATTAS City Attorney PLEASE SILENCE CELL PHONES AND PAGERS HEARING ASSISTANCE EQUIPMENT AVAILABLE FOR USE BY THE HEARING IMP AIRED AT CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INVOCATION PRESENTATIONS · Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance, Shuttle Pass Program - Executive Director Christine Maley-Grubl and Shuttle Program Manager Michael Stevenson AGENDA REVIEW PUBLIC COMMENTS ITEMS FROM COUNCIL · Announcements · Committee Reports · Consideration of request from County Clerk Warren Slocum to support the option to conduct an all mail ballot election for the June 2006 Gubernatorial Primary CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Motion to approve the minutes of January 11, 2006 2. Motion to confirm expense claims of January 25,2006 3. Resolution authorizing the execution of an updated mid-day commuter taxi vendor agreement for the Downtown Dasher Program with Peninsula Yellow Cab Company 4. Resolution awarding construction contract to Shelterbelt Builders, Inc. for the Oyster Point Hook Ramp Wetland Mitigation Planting Project in the amount of$35,924.10 5. Resolution approving the Stonegate Estate Subdivision final map and authorizing the recordation of the map, approved DCC&R's and related documents PUBLIC HEARING 6. Consideration of Park Station Lofts, located at 1410 El Camino Real, a use permit, general plan amendment, rezoning, tentative subdivision map, and affordable housing agreement for a 99-unit condominium complex in the BART Transit Village Zoning District; Applicant: SummerHill Homes; Owner: Hmmonious Holdings (P03-0092: AHA03-0001, GPA03-0001, ND03-0001, RZ03-0001, SA03-0001, UP03-0016 & ZA03-0003) 7. Consideration of Terrabay Phase III Terraces, located on San Bruno Mountain, an amended development agreement, construction of a mixed-use development, including 351 residential units in high--rise (180- units), townhome and loft configuration, a 295,000 sq. ft. office/or 300--room hotel/or an optional 180-unit condominium and 357,500 sq. ft. retail. Applicant/Owner: Myers Development (P04-0117: DAA04- 0001, EIR04-0002, GPA04-0001, SPA04-0001, and ZA04-0004) - Conduct public hearing and continue to February 8, 2006 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA JANUARY 25,2006 PAGE 2 ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 8. Resolution authorizing additional funding for demolition of Orange Park greenhouse structures and awarding a contract to Ferma Corp. in the amount of$585,000 9. Resolution authorizing the establishment of procedures concerning the handling of cases involving juvenile curfew offenders related to enforcing SSFMC Chapter 10.44, Minors-Curfew LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS 10. Motion to waive reading and introduce an ordinance amending SSFMC Chapter 10.64, declaring vehicle sideshows a public nuisance COUNCIL COMMUNITY FORUM ADJOURNMENT REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA JANUARY 25, 2006 PAGE 3 - (i ~ . ~~ (~ c ~ ~ t,) c 91l~~ Staff Report AGENDA ITEM #3 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: January 25, 2006 Honorable Mayor and City Council Susan Kennedy, Assistant to the City Manager RESOLUTION APPROVING THE UPDATED MID-DAY COMMUTER TAXI VENDOR AGREEMENT RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution approving the updated Mid-Day Commuter Taxi Vendor Agreement between the City of South San Francisco and Peninsula Yellow Cab Company and authorizing the City Manager to execute the agreement. BACKGROUNDIDISCUSSION In the year 2000, an effort was made to motivate employers East of 101 to encourage their employees to use commute alternatives. The City of South San Francisco, the South San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, and the Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance in cooperation with Peninsula Yellow Cab, began to offer a Mid-Day Commuter Taxi Service Program (Downtown Dasher) to employees east of Highway 101. The original contributions included $6,000 from the City of South San Francisco, $6,000 from the Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance and $500 from miscellaneous employers during the fIrst year. To date, the initial funding has sustained the project, providing a total of3,312 trips since June of 2000. In its 2005-06 budget, the City of South San Francisco budgeted $6POO toward this program. In order to keep the program operating, it is appropriate to approve an updated agreement between the City of South San Francisco and Peninsula Yellow Cab, the assigned vendor to this program. The substantive terms of the agreement remain the same, however, the payment per trip will increase from $7.00 to $10.00 to allow for the signifIcant inflation that has taken place over the years. The approval of this updated agreement will allow South San Francisco to continue to encourage commute alternatives while also providing easy access during the day to downtown businesses by employees east of 101. Staff Report Subject: (Updated Mid-Day Commuter Taxi Vendor Agreement) Page 2 FISCAL IMPACT The funding for this program is allocated in the City's 2005-06 budget. The ongoing allocation of funds will be at Council's discretion and actual disbursement offunds may not be required annually, depending on the number of program participants. CONCLUSION Approval of this updated agreement will provide a worthwhile service benefiting both employees and employers east of 101 as well as positive business impacts to our downtown merchants with no parking impact during the middle of the day. It also encourages commute alternatives and reduces the number of mid-day automobile trips in South San Francisc:o. By: jav-[~ Susan E. Kennedy - Assistant to the City Manager Attachment: Resolution Agreement RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN UPDATE TO THE MID-DAY COMMUTER TAXI AGREEMENT GOVERNING TIlE "DOWNTOWN DASHER" PROGRAM WHEREAS, in 2000, the City, working in cooperation with the South San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, the Peninsula Traffic Relief Alliance and Peninsula Yellow Cab, established a program to offer a mid-day commuter taxi service program (also known as "Downtown Dasher"); and WHEREAS, it is appropriate to update the Agreement to reflect increased operation costs due to inflation; and WHEREAS, funding for the program in the amount of $6000 is allocated in the City's Fiscal Year 2005-06 budget. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council hereby authorizes the exel~ution of an updated Mid-Day Commuter Taxi Vendor Agreement with the Peninsula Yellow Cab Company. BE IT FUR THER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute the contract on behalf of the City of South San Francisco. * * * * * 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 meeting held on the day of , 2006 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk 802606-1 MID-DAY COMMUTER TAXI VENDOR AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, dated , 2006, by and between Peninsula Yellow Cab ("Vendor") and the City of South San Francisco ("City"), is made with reference to the following facts: A. The City of South San Francisco ("City"), and the Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance ("Alliance") desire to encourage employers in the East of 101 Business Park ("Business Park") to encourage the use of commute alternatives by offering a Mid-Day Commuter taxi Service Program ("Taxi Service") for their employees; and B. The Alliance will manage the day-to-day operations ofthe Taxi Service; and C. City desires to contract with Peninsula Yellow Cab ("Vendor"), to provide taxi rides to qualified employees employed by a Participant ("Individuals"') and possessing a Taxi Service V oucher ("Voucher"); and D. Vendor is equipped to provide the service. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: A. RESPONSIBILITIES OF VENDOR 1. Vendor agrees to provide and maintain insurance, as described in South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 6.72.090, and to provide City with evidence of insurance, including all required endorsements. 2. Vendor agrees to make a minimum of two taxis available for Taxi Service between the hours of 11 a.m. and 2 p.m. during the normal five day work week. Vendor is not required to operate Taxi Service on mutually agreed upon holidays. 3. Vendor agrees to pick up riders with reservations at designated shuttle stops in Business Park and take them to one of two designated downtown drop-off locations. Vendor is not required to take Taxi S,ervice riders to any destination other than designated stops. 4. Vendor agrees to accept Vouchers issued by Alliance in exchange for providing Taxi Service to Individuals. Mid-Day Commuter Taxi Vendor Agreement -1- April 13, 2000 5. Vendor agrees to train and instruct all drivers and dispatch operators regarding this Taxi Service program and the processes and procedures to follow when accepting Taxi Service vouchers and providing Taxi Service to Individuals. 6. Vendor agrees to make every effort to pick-up Individuals within five (5) minutes of the request for Taxi Service. 7. Vendor agrees to charge $10.00 per Individual, per round trip, for a period of not less than one (1) year, and that no tip will be required or included in the cost of the trip charged by the Vendor. However, drivers may accept gratuities offered by riders. 8. Vendor may carry more than one Individual with a valid Voucher per trip, providing there is safe and adequate seating with seat belts. 9. Vendor agrees to save and return to Alliance all Vouchers received, and bill City monthly, based on Vouchers received, as described in Attachment A. B. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CITY 1. City agrees to pay the Vendor within 30 days upon receipt of an approved invoice from the Vendor, which includes a copy of qualified Vouchers that have been redeemed for rides by qualified Individuals. 2. City will not be responsible for paying any invoice that does not include a copy of original and qualified Vouchers as a receipt of the eligible ride(s) taken. C. HOLD HARMLESS Notwithstanding the existence of insurance coverage required of the Vendor by this Contract, Vendor shall indemnify, keep and save harmless the Participants and their directors, officers and employees and the Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance, and their, City representatives, board, officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers from any and all suits, claims or actions for any injury to persons or property (including to the Vendor), or for any breach of this Contract, or for any violations of federal, state or local laws or regulations that may occur, or that may be alleged to have occurred, arising from the performance of this Contract by the Vendor caused by the act or omission of Vendor or its officers, employees, subcontractors or agents. Vendor further agrees to defend any and all such actions, suits or claims and pay all charges of attorneys and all other incurred costs and expenses. If any judgment is rendered against the City, or the Alliance, or any of the other entities or individuals enumerated above in Mid-Day Commuter Taxi Vendor Agreement January 20, 2006 -2- any such action, Vendor shall at its sole expense, satisfy and discharge it. This indemnification shall survive termination of the contract. D. NOTICES All notices, demands, requests, or approvals from Vendors to the City of South San Francisco shall be addressed to: Susan Kennedy, Assistant to the City Manager P.O. Box 711 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94083 Phone: 650 829-6603 All notices, demands, requests, or approvals from City to Vendor shall be addressed to: Peninsula YeHow Cab 204 Baden Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 ATTN: Joe Gilio Phone: 650/588-2131 Fax: 650/871-6874 E. RECORDS: Vendor shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to costs, expenses, receipts and other such information required by City, or Alliance that relate to the performance of services under this contract for three years and shall allow City, or Alliance to inspect or audit those records at any time. F. TERM: The term of this contract shall commence on , and shall continue indefinitely, unless the funding for the Taxi Service is exhausted or the program terminated earlier as set forth herein. Vendor shall be immediately notified by telephone and mail if and when funding is exhausted. G. TERMINATION: Mid-Day Commuter Taxi Vendor Agreement January 20,2006 -3- City shall have the option, at their sole discretion and without cause, of terminating this contract by giving seven days' prior notice to Vendor as provided herein. Upon termination of this contract, City shall pay that portion of compensation specified in this contract that is earned and unpaid prior to the effective date of termination. We, the undersigned, have read and agree to the aforementioned: THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO: Name Title Date VENDOR: Name Title Date Mid-Day Commuter Taxi Vendor Agreement January 20, 2006 -4- ATTACHMENT A BILLING PROCEDUID~S 1. Make a photocopy of all vouehers (one half), as proof of services provided for the SSF Mid-Day Commuter Taxi Program. 2. Invoice City at the rate of $10 per round trip voucher for the previous month's service. 3. Mail or hand deliver complete packet to the City, by the 5th of each month, for payment within 30 days of invoice date. 4. Send original vouchers, a copy of the invoiced month's reservation sheet, and City invoice copy to the Alliance. Procedures may be updated as circumstances require it. Mid-Day Commuter Taxi Vendor Agreement January 20, 2006 -5- ~'t\\ s~ ~s (0 0 >< C;; t:. C') v 0 0tlIFO'f!,.~"'~ AGENDA ITEM #4 Staff Report DATE: January 25,2006 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Marty VanDuyn, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: OYSTER POINT HOOK RAMP WETLAND MITIGATION PLANTING PROJECT: ENGINEERING FILE NO. 50-13231-9710, PROJECT NO. ST-05-4, BID NO. 2394 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution awarding the construction contract of the Oyster Point Hook Ramp Wetland Mitigation Planting Project, Engineering File No. 50-13231-971 0; Project No. ST -05-4; Bid No. 2394, to Shelterbelt Builders, Inc. of Berkeley, CA, in the amount of $35,924.10. BACKGROUNDIDISCUSSION: The project is located on Bayshore Boulevard from Sister Cities Boulevard to the city limits with the City of Brisbane. The construction project involves the creation of new wetlands, restoration and enhancement of existing wetlands, weed removal within the wetlands area, and providing for wetlands planting, minor site grading, hydro-seeding and erosion control. This project was a requirement of the City's permit from Army Corp of Engineers (ACOE) for the Oyster Point Hook Ramp project. Due to impacts to the existing wetlands, ACOE required mitigation of the wetlands with a 3 to 1 ratio. Wetlands Research Association is the wetland consultant to the City responsible for the design. On October 25, 2005, staff advertised the notice to invite bids for the subject project to the following construction plan rooms: San Francisco Builders Exchange in San Francisco, CA Peninsula Builders Exchange in San Carlos, CA Santa Clara Builders Exchange in Santa Clara, CA Alameda Builders Exchange in San Leandro, CA Staff Report Subject: OYSTER POINT HOOK RAMP WETLAND MITIGATION PLANTING PROJECT: ENGINEERING FILE NO. 50-13231-9710, PROJECT NO. ST-05-4; BID NO. 2394 Page 2 of3 Also, staff mailed the bid packets and invited the following companies to submit a bid proposal for the subject project: West Coast Wildlands of Pacifica, CA Central Coast Wilds of Santa Cruz, CA Rana Creek Habitat Restoration of Carmel Valley, CA Restoration Resources of Rocklin, CA Staff opened bids on November 18, 2005 and 2 bids were received. Below is the summary ofthe bids: Engineers Estimate (Per WRA Consultants): Bids: Shelterbelt Builders, Inc. of Berkeley, CA Ecological Concerns, Inc. of Santa Cruz, CA $32,000.00 $35,924.10 $50,394.00 FUNDING Shown below is the cost breakdown for the project budget: Construction Construction Contingency (15%) Construction Administration (10%) Total Project Budget $35,924.10 $ 5,380.00 $ 3,590.00 $44,894.10 This project was included in the Cit:f of South San Francisco's 2005 -2006 Capital Improvement Program as part of the US 101 Off-ramp and Oyster Point Hook Ramp project. The remaining project funds for the US 101 Off-ramp and Oyster Point Hook Ramp project are sufficient to cover the total project budget cost of this construction project. Attached is the bid summary. CONCLUSION The project will create, restore and enhance the wetlands at the base of San Bruno Mountain as part of the environmental mitigation required by the construction of US 101 Off-ramp and Oyster Point Hook Ramp projects. The contractor, Shelterbelt Builders of Berkeley, CA, has done numerous wetlands mitigation projects for the Cities of Berkeley, Oakland, San Francisco, Alameda, El Cerrito and San Mateo; National Parks Service, California State Parks, Friends of Five Creeks, Friends of Albany Hill, and Alameda County Resource Conservation District, and is familiar with the requirements ofthis project. Staff checked their references and found them to be satisfactory, and is recommending the project be awarded to Shelterbelt Builders of Berkeley, CA. Staff Report Subject: OYSTER POINT HOOK RAMP WETLAND MITIGATION PLANTING PROJECT: ENGINEERING FILE NO. 50-13231-9710, PROJECT NO. ST-05-4; BID NO. 2394 Page 3 of3 ~ By' . Marty VanDuyn Assistant City Manager Approved bd~ '(~ M.Nag City Manager Attachments: Resolution Bid Summary Spreadsheet Location Maps RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION AWARDING A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR OYSTER POINT HOOK RAMP WETLAND MITIGATION PLANTING PROJECT TO SHEL TERBELT BUJIT..DERS, INe. OF BERKELEY IN THE AMOUNT OF $ 35.924.10 WHEREAS, staff recommends that the City Council award the construction contract for Oyster Point Hook Ramp Wetland Mitigation Planting Project to Shelterbelt Builders, Inc. in the amount of$ 35,924.10; and WHEREAS, sufficient funds for this project are included in the City's 2005-2006 Capital Improvement Program budget. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council hereby awards the construction contract for the Oyster Point Hook Ramp Wetland Mitigation Planting Project to Shelterbelt Builders, Inc. in the amount of$ 35,924.10. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute the contract on behalf of the City of South San Francisco. * * * * * 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 meeting held on the day of , 2005 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk 802530-1 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO OYSTER POIINT HOOK RAMP WETLAND MITIGATION PLANTING PROJECT FILE NO. 50-13231-9710 PROJECT NO. ST-05-4, BID NO. 2394 BID SUMMARY: ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE SHEL TERBEL T BUILDERS, INC. ECOLOGICAL CONCERNS, INC. Bid Item Item Description Estimated Quantity Unit Price Total Unit Price Total Unit Price Total 1 Mobilization I LS $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $500.00 $500.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 2 Wetland 2 Scope of Work 1 LS $6,300.00 $6,300.00 $7,874.20 $7,874.20 $10,491.61 $10,491.61 3 Wetland 3 Scope of Work 1 LS $11,200.00 $11,200.00 $12,596.70 $12,596.70 $12,396.74 $12,396.74 4 Wetiand 4 Scope ot Work I LS $5,600.00 $5,600.00 $6,171.85 $6,171.85 $9,537.00 $9,537.00 5 Wetland Restoration Scope of Work 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,757.40 $5,757.40 $9,162.00 $9,162.00 6 Plant Guarantee I LS $2,700.00 $2,700.00 $3,023.95 $3,023.95 $4,807.00 $4,807.00 TOTAL $32,000.00 $35,924.10 $50,394.35 ge f ... . LOtA TIONMAP .. . N.OT TO SCALE , ~. MAP SITE - ~'t\\ s4# ~& (0 ("l ~ ...... p ~ v 0 C'.4.lIFO-p.."'f.\.~ AGENDA ITEM #5 Staff Report DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: January 25,2006 Honorable Mayor and City Council Marty VanDuyn, Assistant City Manager THE STONEGATE SUBDIVISION FINAL MAP (SA-OI-012) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council, by motion, adopt a resolution approving the Stonegate Estates Subdivision final map and authorizing the recordation ofthe map, approved Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (D.C.C.& R.'s) and related documents. BACKGROUNDIDISCUSSION The Stonegate Estates is located at the intersection of Hillside Boulevard and Ridgeview Court. The Subdivision Final Map will subdivide the property into 16 single- family townhome lots. Each lot will be served by private roads, sewers and storm drains. The proposed private street will connect to Stone gate Drive, an existing stub-street intersecting Hillside Boulevard. The lots will be served by public utility easements that overlay the private street, dedication of which is being accepted by the City on behalf of the public. No easements, roads, utilities or other improvements are offered for dedication to the City of South San Francisco or to be maintained by the City within the boundaries of the subdivision. The Sub-divider has submitted a bond to guarantee construction of required off-site utilities, landscaping and frontage improvements to accommodate the proj ect. CONCLUSION The City Engineer and the City's Technical Reviewer, with the concurrence of all affected City Departments and Divisions, have determined that Stonegate Estates Subdivision Final Map, improvement plans, D.C.C.& R's and related documents are in compliance with the Subdivision Map Act, the City's Subdivision Ordinance and all applicable tentative map conditions of approval. The final map and D.C.C. & R's have been signed by the Sub-divider. Subject: THE STONEGATE SUBDIVISION FINAL MAP (SA-OI-012) Page 2 of2 The recommended motion will accept the Final Map and authorize recordation ofthe Final Map. The attached resolution will approve the final map, and authorize the recordation ofthe Stonegate Estates Subdivision final map, D.C.C & R's and related documents. By: APProved:.~ \ (. ~ \ . Nagel City Manager Marty VanDuyn Assistant City Manag r Attachment: Resolution Final Map Location Map RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, ST ATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE STONEGATE SUBDIVISION FINAL MAP AND AUTHORIZING THE RECORDATION OF THE MAP, APPROVED DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS (D.C.C.&R.'S) AND RELATED DOCUMENTS WHEREAS, staff recommends approval of the final map and the recordation of the Stone gate Subdivision final map, D.C.C.& R.'s and related documents. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council hereby finds that the final map conforms to all applicable laws and regulations and approves the Stonegate Subdivision Final Map and authorizes the recordation of the map, approved declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions (D.C.C.& R's) and related documents. * * * * * 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 meeting held on the day of _, 2005 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk OWNBBS' ACKNOWLBDGKINT --", ) ClIlIIIY ", ) . ::r- _ . AlII ...__~ - llIIU .... A ~Y"""'" _Y _ ... (ell ..... ... .. _ _",__ ~.._~_._. - ........ AlII . .. WT 'NY""" -...........,............ ~ _ 'llAT8I' ~--"---'-'III =:=r.r..l:r.'" lIIlII -.-. c-. _ _ _ AlII CIffll:UIL -. IIlIrMn __ .... IIlIrMn .... -_ ", 1IlIrMn__ ...... NCI ", __ Ciiiiii ~ DPOBT NOD A -.. _ _ _ UIII _ _1lIUIlIMMa", =--===A"=ft~~.......1C __IM_",__ :' _'l1li81 ... _ _ __IIA_'" ~ 1IU III -._UIII_________ :=n.~~~ ----=::::IHII. :.;;".~~= :.-I~~",_DO..:r: -- --_AU._.._~III",_ - '... · - - --- - "-S'" UIII L_ ---",---~_._-- .... - -..- -&-..... -_ AlII ~_. ------_MD_____ '\en' A" .. _ _ _ _......", -...... ..-. ...... ........ E.u.1. AlII _ _ .. ", 1IlI __ ", LIllI , ..... _ --. -----.------..- - - 'P.II&,"III _ UIInY _ _ _~_ AlII ........ ", _ ...,.. _ _ ..... ", _ _ ", LIllI , ..... . --. - ---- -........ - _ _ 'P.u&." III-_-----~_AIII ........ ", - ...,.. - _ III:UIMI ..... ", _ _", LIllI' _ .--. - - --- -........ - - -,.,...," 111____ __ _~__ ........ ", - - ...,.. - _III:UIMI ..... ", - _", LIllI' _ .--. - - ---........... - - _ '-u.I." 1II11-.:Y.... AClIII_ _ _.....",_ _", LIllI' _ M --. - -....... __ 111_ crrr",__ "'-- AU. ~ __",.... _ ___ .......", UIII ... _ .. IIt1tJIW .. __. .. -- - _1lIUIlIMMa", _ ____ - --- . - CIIY. _ _..-- UlIIIY III --..--. --- ~ Ill:.. A CM-. ~-.Ift . -... ~ OWNBBS' ACKNOWLImGMBNT -- ", ) ClIlIIIY ", ) . ::r- --=. AIII.:n..__~-'- .. A ~Y~ .--Y - ... (ell..... ..... _ _", IA__ ~.._~_._. - ......., AlII . .. 1MT 'NY __ -"'.~-~AIII1IMT. ~--"---""III ..::::r.m=r.'" lIIlII -.... AC8. __ _ _ CIffll:UIL -. IIlIrMn __ .... 1IlIrMn_ -- ",........ -- '-AI. NCI ", __ ClIlIIIY T15U~ S'lA'DIIINT ----.----- "'__M.Y_",,____ ", CIffll:UIL _ _IM_ ~ ~_ __.AIII_._~___ __ AlllAU.___..._ __lAY -. ILA. 1ft 1IUl: TBUl:u":'S ACKNcnrumGIIBNT --", ) ClIlIIIY ", ) . ~ B. A IIIDIW~-:-AIII""'-""__ ", ~Y~ ~Y-." (ell..... ..... _ _", IA__ =:=l...~~ ~. "1IMT'NY__ _.... ~ -~_1IMT.~ --..---....111- 8IlIIY .... ..,., ", lIIlII _ .... AC8. __ _--..r. _ lIT _ _ CIffll:UIL -. =-=-- .... IIDfM\"I _ -_ ", IllIl'MV'I __ -- 110\_ Zlu...luR'S 8'l'ATIIID'l' --------_."111__- e ---- - -- - - - - -..",....- -.---"--o1ILL_____",A Q -- AIII_ _...... __ ell ....IIT. - -- ell 111_ ~-==- _IM_", ~-"'_~AIII _eIl....~_ ~.-.: _ --...--. . [~.- . ...,.. Fe __ DAB -- 12/.11" STONEGATE ESTATES _A_",LIIII' _.",__,__ eIl1lMT - _ ___ -.-_.... _... l" - . IIIIlUIK .. ", ..... AT ~ .... _ IIA_ ClIlIIIY_ _.- _ _.-",__ -~----._- _lMrca:m. _ --- - .-. ~ ...., - a.. s...... Ie. __ . UMt....-.- CMMIIIA -.-,,,,. IM_ C. ..... ..0&. _ ........ _II. ., crrr ---.n. 8TA'J I___IIIAW__ fIIIlL_", -'-__wr: 'llAT____ _ __. --..r___" __eIl_ ___. AlII"" __ ____ ~ 1IMT AU. ~. ~.r~-.=r.-r."'-=~a::a --..- IIA. 1lAZAW, crrr _ crrr",___ - -- ........-.._ COUIftY BBCOIIDD'S S'lA'DIIINT IU_ .._______ IMY'" AT_.__......AT - .............. - ", _ ClIlIIIY ", _ 1M" __ ", ~ ... - __", ft.. II. ""-' CIIY _.... --- :-:r"'''''Ac:.:.. - 'I'ICBNICAL _..__"8 8l'A'IBIIBhT 1- __1IMTIIlAW _ _ _ AIII'WMT"'_ .--Y~--._"-,,,-- .", _ CM-. ___ _ ICl" crrr CUBrs 8'I'A'I'8IIDrr ~ ft.. II, ""-' crrr ~ ", _ crrr ", _ _ fIIMICIIllQ, _IM_ ~ CM-. ___1IMT___ --. - crrr _ __", _ --. HaD 011 :: iiiifiIr'=:-", _ _ .r~=~u:-ocu:m -~----_-. STONEGATE ESTATES _A_.w.,_Z.__'__ e11111AT -- - .... -.-. ... 1111' IIlL .. --""".-A'l"-__IIA_ ClIlIII'I~ u.. _ _u..._. .... ..------ _IIA_ ClIlIII'I_ fIF"__ _.-.. _ IllIUI ..... __. ___ IllIUI .... LlIr ... AIM l.. &1.....11:. -. - . ..,......-.- -- ~ ~ . PlIIIII ........ .. G) ~_ _JCE8 . ".:.== 1.1_ G) == ==~III1'IIlL' o __CIl_ P.&II.& ..... __...._ P.&U. .....___ P..... ...uc UIIIIY _ 1.1tM. -.:Y..u ~_ GO IlMIM. ..- --... ---- urr.. - - - ........... ---- -... .. ~ oUIII___, LANDS 01' ,/ IlI.UIJe CHURCH 01' GOD, INC DEED DOCUWENT 1llI144808 I~ w- III - 8CAL& f'. 10' ~ ~ - ttt P.... - 4IJI .... _ .==-41'1 LOT a ILOCK 1 MAP 01' STClfeGAlE IlIJGI! UNIT NO. 1 YClLlIIe .. PAGE 3lS (;") <I 10 C' ~ "");.1 J .~/> o >;.L ,> iQ ~;;;.' fry (/) j,. ",'; ,-',,' " 1r:> >'> Q) :.p X r;if /-', ....." "'~~~ :-4~ ~('v: \~." > "'"'....' Jo'''' """ ~<1 ')/~ "Q "1/ \~ // )" "" / .i::~..f>--o ,,~X /, f '-'" " ., ..;J!o // ,c..,l?' """ "" ~ /"-.. '\/ ./ ... ...0' <::t"":,,, ./A"" >''','' ('~ ,/ / . <' ....-\ -..,:"":) ,i" ',,/ "........'. c.,,;') v./ // ~ - " ,.,/,/ <.'~ \"c"Q> / /, "', "'" ". i'.." )Iv.. "\. '.= 1 /(j;D ......, '''x'~...", " "', /V "-. "<" ", '",. C5'~" "", " ',,' / ", " /70 "'\. ", /' /", "'" ,/ ", / // .'>.,....., ..... ,/ '",. "-"'" ' ~ " ". .. ^ ~" "",,," ~~. ''''''''~ >; >/" " /,,- ,,',.. S"", .,>' , / /' "...). '. .:Y, c> ", /<"1 \ \ /' /' JJ.,_..._"V'/ "'" ""<:'1~- "', ". ~I, ,. '< ).\,;'br;y'~" '\. / I J;/ "', .,< / /'>.. ""'" 'y / , ! ;' ~ ""'"j \,<' /" /"j(, 9' /' ',>< ", "Yct'(L ,/ ,/ '),. ",/ "< ". . ~,~'.. ~ // '\,/' '\ \,' """ "- // '" "-""" /'. . // /' .....,...., /' \\~, '.~ /jj /....~ /'....., ,// X ...... '\..... : ~ / '..... .~'.....~ .....,.... // / 'yf I ,1. ! / // / \ , \ ;[ ~WLtef./ ""- " ".......,,/,-,_~-vEL ,: / '".",""!!..__n-_,l...,_.,,,,~,~,, _........i__mNL.....-,.,// ,......~t:,. ,/ \~, 'A ~...'! j .....~ / . / ' /1 '-.....// / -" / \ / /" "- v/,," ':j' ']?'~_ /~ '. ~-, ~--7 . /~ ____\v<\,\ / i l:;:~\-.t'_-~':(('~0 /'-"3/i'sj,>J/ 0~~/~\','~,::: '; ~--- I I i I I 'f!H8s/N C:..~---) -:j <"--: Y ,<:,--:;//'~\. .:/ /'''''''''''''',/'-:.-1 //Iflk ~1-'4~-r'Si-2,~>i ( (y'~ <"'!! ch "JE:fJeJ. I ! I I !:J;>~./ 'B",Ce-.4;"""'; ,j )S;:- '" i j .g.)! i~~" Ii"" I ,t i /,'''''''.z '10- ",f ! ~! tb i ! I 0$",,1 I . . / ; 'fi9>q, ,,/ "'- , " , ,... . I : " / ".//<,,',/ ' / \ f 7' I .- ;:;:: I .J"- , !U! ' ! '~"',A " ,/ "_,, \ 1 I ,t(,..... I C'I I Q:,! 'v I . { ! '1 V .g:-f'. /( ''''j /;' ('~ ! Ji i!!! !;!""f-,.j ! J !! /' 'E:r"-'-( , , /'\."'~ / ) '! !-,..i .:?jil"" 5r!": i cP f '-"""..-1. if! / // ",--, " ,/, -<. . I. "., I , . , j / / f /7 i / t / A l-S~-jJ/l'3/!J7.'.trftfli / i "",' i \(\\','\u\n r;~........,.,_ J -............." .:h. i : ""'~l { I : f. ,::; i '-.1 ,,!""\. \ CP: J~~~=I::t11----('lh~~1I1t2:1-t! ln \\--\ \ ; ~ldcf.. ~!I 0!! ;! Ii! I I".r'~"~" \ --I J) I ;' / '~'Vf:~l/l"~,,_,,,._ f / / / / / ,I ! / ~ ~~-_-'Y.......! m / /,."""L r / ' , 12 "_, 1 J ,! .! . "~" "!"'" ," ! . I.. -4: _ ~if 77tllif,lll.L );/ (/-L/)~ /,) "~""'A jl ;Ii'fl. '.f--....... .~/ j 1/"""-.", /.... / / '-,q"I~.- i " i I I I' , I f I' i i X\ Y/' / ,.,y\ ~ 'x: :' Ic/' " /' , If'.t:;.. , " 'I I' "" / ' / ( ) ...../" ./ ,.....",.~,( j ! i ~! ! f ;..'".,.... f ! f'~..... ~ j / A ' I(i-) J I -- , ).>. I ! '~"'-" '\ ' \ , /' , / (1), \" I . I i rf7 ! S:: b. I "~'.. J ' \ \ ; / j<,., / ! G::,' .r- \'0' f /'I k.i..' I rry i 7 !! ".'" X ' \ f ~ /' '::tf' , ; i i ("'1-..../....! ! r,fi ~ I ! \/ \ \ \/, .'....... /\, /y<.,!::t .I' f / : ;' ! 'i""..'r,.~~ r~!! /\ \ ~ .,,! ....... .,..../ .7 ./(!f! I r' '! f f 1........, r'I' I / \ \, ,'0 "', /0"" /. / '/' """'I';! ! ' -......... I I I { < I...." . /, '.. '~ '~. ; '-......, "'-... . , ", """"" '..,-..., ......hINDS,ii. L ..LAf./ ,/ / ,lI"'r,!~....t~:~::....;t.. ""~,:'''''''' ".,;: ('<j/~~~<~:::::~:l/i~{.(..j .... I"1V~ f ~ J;.~,/ /'x6'~<, J!: f\ " .... "...., f f 1 ~ ".,-.../., If, I'!.," ! ',,,,,-,,,,.. J -""'._-..._" -;?.... f / , 'AVC:,...",,\ /':~:~>"';~'~' "",~j<.i./'. '..'< ".....1./.,,1,' "".7...,.'"II',.'!i.,,,/f~'1'" ....~).!.:':,".r~:~,..,{~<.!~- ...,/...,..~\. ! ..' /\ ---< ~~____! f' (,j ./ /r-,.; ~)</~.::,....!.l.l~l~)' ~. 7 ~. ~~~~J,-!,--i!IJi /-!/) '., '~._, o -~ // " /;;) C(..VD" ',.,..... "...." , '...../ ", ''(9^ '~~" / /' ~ ! 'I j I'-i.,\/ / , f / , , .j ! -"" \.......N''\ , STONEGATE SUBDIVISION CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT . ENGINEERING DIVISION 315 MAPLE AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 ~ AGENDA ITEM #6 Staff Report DATE: January 25, 2006 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Marty VanDuyn, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: PARK STATION RESIDENTIAL PROJECT AT 1410 EL CAMINO REAL Case Number: P03-0092, MND03-0001, GPA03-0001, SA03-0001, RZ03- 0001, UP03-0016, and AHA04-0001 Ownership: Hmmonious HoldingslBART-SamTrans Applicant: Summerhill Homes RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Councill) approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration, including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; 2) adopt an Amtmdmient to the General Plan; 3) waive reading and adopt an Ordinance to amend the Zoning Map and the Transit Village Maps TV-Ol and TV-02; 3) approve P03-0092, Use Permit and Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map For Condominium Purposes; and 4) adopt the Affordable Housing Agreement. BACKGROUND: In August 2005, Summerhill Homes submitted a revised application to demolish two existing structures and develop a 99-unit high-density residential condominium project on two parcels, totaling 2.04-acres. Currently, there are two aging structures located at 1410 El Camino Real which contain five residential units. The applicant would demolish the existing buildings in order to construct the proposed high-density proj ect. The condominium complex would consist of a mix of 52 one bedroom and 47 two bedroom units. Security measures would be included as part of site construction. The applicant has not requested a State mandated density bonus or financial incentives for residential development. The proposed project, with a residential density of 49 units/acre, would be consistent with the permitted overall residential density in the Transit Village Zoning District (50 units/acre). The November 17,2005 Plarming Commission staff report provides the complete project description. Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Subject: Park Station Transit Village Project Date: January 25,2006 Page 2 The proposed project includes the following entitlements: Use Permit to construct a 99-unit condominium complex over a podium garage on one site ]located in the SSF BART Transit Village Zoning District; General Plan Amendment to change the designation of the parcel owned by BART/SamTrans from "Public" to mixed "Community Commercial" and "High Density Residential" uses; Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Map to reclassify a portion of the lot owned by BART/SamTrans from "Planned Commercial" to Transit Village Zone and change the allowable building height; Affordable Housing Agreement; and a Vesting Tentative Map For Condominium Purposes. Location The proposed project is located on two pm~cels between the BART Parking Garage and Camino Court. The 1.25-acre parcel at 1410 El Camino Real is currently owned by Hmmonious Holdings and is located in the Transit Village Zoning District. The second 0.79-acre parcel is owned by BART/SamTrans and is located in the Planned Commercial Zone. The applicant has applied for a lot line adjustment to merge the two parcels into a single 2.04-acre site. The applicant is also requesting a General Plan Amendment and Rezone to incorporate the BART/SamTrans site into the Transit Village Zoning District. The project is subject to the design guidelines and standards of the South San Francisco BART Transit Village Plan, which promotes high- density residential development near the BART Station. DISCUSSION: Project Description Summerhill Homes is proposing to construct 99 condominium units over a podium on a 2.04-acre site. The condominium homes would be "for sale" only, with 20 percent of the units (20 units) designated affordable for low and moderate income households. The units occupied by low and moderate income households would be essentially the same as units occupied by market households and dispersed throughout the building. Security measures would be included as part of site construction. Additionally, Summerhill Homes entered into an Agreement with Legal Aid and relocated the families previously residing in the existing units. Parking and Circulation The developer is proposing to install 121 parking spaces on the site. One hundred eighteen parking spaces will be located in the parking garage and three surface parking spaces will be located next to the entrance on BART Drive. The entry to the parking structure will be from El Camino Real. The garage ramp was redesigned to provide a 55 feet long level hmding to allow for stacking and to maintain a proper sight line for ingress and egress. The project will also provide emergency vehicle access (which is a requirement of the Fire Department) and a service road from BART Drive. The applicant also proposes to install 16 tandem parking stalls in the garage. Guest parking and loading/unloading will be from the BART Drive. Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Subject: Park Station Transit Village Project Date: January 25,2006 Page 3 Recreational Amenities The proj ect will include a central court, community room, seating areas, the linear park improvements, and a recreational area. In addition, the develop,er will create a linear park easement on the O.4-acre area of the BART/SamTrans property. The developer will coordinate the design, construction and maintenance of the improvements in the Linear Park area with City staff. The project data is provided in the following table: P . DID rOlect eve opment ata Acreage 1410 E1 Camino Real 1.25 acres BART/SamTrans Parcel 0.79 acres Total 2.04 gross acres Number of Residential Units One Bedroom Units 52 units Two Bedroom Units 47 units Total 99 units Residential Density 49 units/acre net (50 units/acre is permitted) Buildings Number of Buildings Two, Four-story buildings Building Height Two, Four-story buildings on a single podium (approximately 50 feet high from the average grade to the mid-point of roof) Number of Parking Spaces Standard Stalls 97 Tandem Stalls 16 Handicap Stalls 3 Guest Stalls 5 Total 121 (99 narking spaces is permitted) Residential Parking Ratio 1.2 spaces per unit Affordable Units 20 Consistency With The South San Francisco General Plan The General Plan designates the 1410 El Camino property for mixed-use commercial/retail and high-density residential uses. High-density residential uses are considered appropriate uses under this designation. The BART /Samtrans parcel is currently designated as a "Public" use in the General Plan. With approval of the General Plan Amendment, the entire proje:ct would be consistent with the General Plan policies promoting transit-oriented development within the one-quarter mile area adjacent to the BART Station. Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Subject: Park Station Transit Village Project Date: January 25,2006 Page 4 Consistency With The Transit Village Zo.ning District 1410 El Camino Real is located in the South San Francisco BART Station Transit Village Zoning District and is subject to the development and design st,mdards set forth in Chapter 20.27, Transit Village Zoning District, which designates the site as TV -C, Transit Village Commercial and TV -RH, Transit Village Residential, High-Density. The Municipal Code permits the parking ratio for high-density residential projects to range from 1.0 to 1.7 per unit. The BART/SamTrans parcel would be rezoned from Planned Commercial to TV-C and TV - RH. Additionally, the Transit Village Zoning District maps (TV -Oland TV -02) would be amended to incorporate the new parcel and change the permitted height from a mix of 45 feet and 55 feet to 50 feet for the entire site. By adopting the Zoning Amendment, the entire project would be consistent with the development and design standards identified in the Transit Village Zoning District Ordinance. Consistency With The EI Camino Real Redevelopment Plan The proposed project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the El Camino Real Corridor Redevelopment Project Plan, amended in 2001, to 1) create and develop high-density residential development adjacent to the South San Francisco BART Station and to 2) replan, redesign and develop areas which are stagnant or improperly used. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission held public hearings on November 3, November 17 and December 15, 2005. At the first public hearing, Planning Commissioners reviewed the environmental analysis and took public comments on the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed mixed-use transit village project. The Commission also identified several architeetural issues that needed further clarification or refinement. At the second public hearing, the Planning Commission identified additional site planning and architectural issues that needed further clarification or refinement. During the first two public meetings, the Planning Commission asked the developer to provide additional information and respond to several issues, including: . More detailed drawings . Better renderings · Perspectives along El Camino Real and BART Drive . Profile to give a 3D street perspective · Give a clearer example of the visual impact in reference to the existing development · Increase the setback and landscaping area along El Camino Real · Provide information regarding the pricing for the market rate units · Show window box details (materials) · Discuss parking issues The developer responded to the Planning Commission comments and provided additional information, illustrations and explanations at the December 15,2005 public hearing. The applicant moved the building Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Subject: Park Station Transit Village Project Date: January 25,2006 Page 5 back five feet along both El Camino Real and BART Drive. BART also submitted a letter stating that the Agency will work with Summerhill Homes to provide supplemental parking, as requested by the Planning Commission. On December 15,2005 the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the project, subject to the Conditions of Approval. The~ Planning Commission also recommended that the City Council encourage the applicant to enter into a permanent shared parking agreement with BART to provide supplemental parking. Mitigated Negative Declaration In accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and City policy, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared to determine whether the proj ect may have a significant effect on the environment. The MND was distributed for a 30-day comment period from October 5, 2005 to November 7, 2005. The City received comments from Caltrans, SamTrans, the Department ofFish and Game, and letters from Steve Yale and Yvonne Yu both at 1400 El Camino Real. The comments and the response to comments have been incorporated into the MND. The MND also analyzed the potential cumulative air quality impacts from the proposed project. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council 1) approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration, including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; 2) adopt an Amendment to the General Plan; 3) waive reading and adopt an Ordinance to amend the Zoning Map and the Transit Village Maps TV-Ol and TV-02; 3) approve P03-0092, Use Permit and Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map For Condominium Purposes; and 4) adopt the Affordable Housing Agreement. By: Marty VanDuyn, Assist Approved: i Attachments: 1. City Council Resolution with Exhibits 2. Ordinance 3. Planning Commission Resolution without Exhibits 4. Location Map and Existing Parcels 5. Affordable Housing Agreement 6. Planning Commission Staff Report, December 15,2005 7. Planning Commission Minutes, December 15,2005 8. Planning Commission Staff Report, November 17, 2005 9. Planning Commission Minutes, November 17, 2005 Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Subject: Park Station Transit Village Project Date: January 25,2006 Page 6 10. Planning Commission Staff Report, November 3, 2005 11. Planning Commission Minutes, November 3, 2005 12. Correspondence from the Applicant, Interested Individuals and Agencies 13. Site and Building Elevation Phms, dated January 13, 2006 AT1'ACHMENT 1 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION WITH J1:XHIBITS RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO: 1) APPROVING P03-0092 AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MND03-001, TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT Olr IDGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TRANSIT VILLAGE PROJECT ON A 2.04 ACRE SITE LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF EL CAMINO REAL AND BART DRIVE IN THE PLANNED COMMERCIAL AND THE TV TRANSIT VILLAGE ZONE DISTRICTS; 2) APPROVING SA03-000, THE VESTING SUBDIVISION MAP FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES, RELATED THERETO; AND, 3) ADOPTING SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP A03-0001 TO MODIFY THE DESIGNATION OF A 0.79 AlCRE SITE LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF EL CAMINO REAL AND BART DRIVE AND ADJACENT TO THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO BART STATION TRANSIT VILLAGE ZONING DISTRICT IN THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO FROM PUBLIC USE TO MIXED COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL AND IDGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL USES WHEREAS, the South San Francisco Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearings on November 3, 2005, November 17,2005 and December 15, 2005; and WHEREAS, as required by the "Use Permit Procedure" (SSFMC Chapter 20.81), the City Council makes the following findings in support of the request to approve a high-density residential transit village project on a 2.04-acre site located at the intersection ofEl Camino Real and BART Drive in the TV Transit Village Zone District. These fmdings are based on public testimony and the materials submitted to the City of South San Francisco City Council which include, but are not limited to: the site: plans, floor plans, elevations and color and materials boards, prepared by MY &P International; Preliminary Landscape Plans, prepared by Guzzardo Partnership, Inc., and a revised Vesting Tentative Map for Condominium Purposes, dated October 24, 2005, prepared by Charles Davidson Company; Affordable Housing Agreement; Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration, Park Station Lofts and Response to Comments; Planning Commission staff reports dated November 3,2005, November 17,2005 and December 15,2005; testimony received and revised plans presented at the November 3, 2005, November 17,2005 and December 15,2005 Plamung Commission meetings: and testimony and materials received at the City Council meeting of January 25, 2006. 1. The subject site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the land use being proposed. The suitability of the site for development was analyzed thoroughly in the South San Francisco General Plan Environmental Impact Report and the environmental document prepared for the project. 2. The project is consistent with the General Plan, which designates the property for mixed-use commerciallretail and high-density residential uses. High-density residential use is considered an appropriate use under this designation. The - 1- -2- 4. The proposed project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the El Camino c. The proposed project complies with the City development and design standards for street frontages, parking garage locations, building design, open space areas, pedestrian-orientation and project amenities, established in Section 20.47.040, Regulations and Standards in the Transit Village Zoning District. b. The proposed project will provide a ratio of 1.2 parking spaces per residential units and, thus, meets the City's parking standards, established in Section 20.47.040, Regulations and Standards in the Transit Village Zoning District and Chapter 20.74, Off-Stre:et Parking and Loading Regulations. a. The proposed project will not exceed 50 residential units per acre and, thus, meets the City's maximum density requirement of 50 units per acre for a high-density residential project, established in Section 20.47.040, Regulations and Standards in the Transit Village Zoning District. 3. The proposed project meets or exceeds the City's minimum standards and requirements, established in Chapter 20.27, Transit Village Zoning District, which designates the she as TV -C, Transit Village Commercial and TV -RH, Transit Village Residential, High-Density. The project is meets or exceeds the following zoning standards: d. Policy 4.2-G-1 0 - Exempt development within the one-quarter mile of a Caltrain or BART station or a City-designated ferry terminal from LOS standards. c. Implementing Policy 3.4-1-3 - In partnership with property owners, area residents, and BART and other agencies, de~velop the approximately 8-acre McLellan Boulevard Extension area as a pedestrian-oriented spine fronted by active uses. b. Guiding Policy 2-G-7 - Encourage mixed-use residential, retail, and office development in centers where they would support transit, in locations where they would provide increased access to neighborhoods that currently lack such facilities, and in corridors where such developments can help to foster identity and vitality. a. Guiding Policy 2-G3 - Provide land use designations that maximize benefits of increased accessibility that will result from BART extension to the city and adjacent locations. following policies specifically support the proposed project: Real Corridor Redevelopment Project Area, and specifically with the following: a. To create and develop high-density residential development adjacent to the South San Francisco BART Station. b. To replan, redl~sign and develop areas which are stagnant or improperly used. 5. An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project in accordance with the provisions of CEQA, attached hereto as Exhibit B. Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project, which will reduce all the identified impacts to a less than significant level. The City has also prepared the Response to Comments, incorporated herein as Exhibit B, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, November 2005, attached hereto as Exhibit C. 6. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and as required by Public Resources Code section 21081, the Negative Declaration found that there are no significant impacts from the proposed General Plan Amendment. 7. The proposal will not be adverse to the public health, safety, or general welfare of the community, nor unreasonably detrimental to surrounding properties or improvements; and WHEREAS, the applicant has requested that the City approve a lot line adjustment to create one parcel from portions ofthrlee separate parcels that make up the 0.79-acre BART parcel for acquisition purposes. . The Final Map will merge the 1410 EI Camino Real parcel with the BART parcel. The proposed project would require the City to designate the 0.79-acre site, currently part of the South San Francisco BART property and located at the intersection ofEI Camino Real and BART Drive, from Public Use to mixed Community Commercial and High- Density Residential; and WHEREAS, Section 65300 et seq of the State Planning and Zoning Law (Division 1 of Title 7 of the California Government Code) requires every city to adopt a comprehensive, long- term general plan for the physical development of the City which bears a reasonable relationship to the planning and development of the city; and, WHEREAS, on October 13, 1999, the City of South San Francisco City Council adopted the South San Francisco General Plan in accordance with state law and the guidelines of the State Office Planning and Research General Plan Guidelines; and, WHEREAS, the General Plan Update consists of the mandatory and optional elements each containing goals and policies. The elements in the General Plan Update are Land Use, Planning Sub-Areas, Transportation, Parks, Recreation and Services, Economic Development, -3- -4- WHEREAS, the fmdings and determinations contained herein are based on all competent and substantial evidence in the record, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the project. The findings and determinations constitute the independent findings and determinations of the Planning Commission and the City Council and are supported by substantial evidence in the record, including the General Plan adopted in 1999 and environmental WHEREAS, the City prepared responses to comments on environmental issues received during the public review period and at the public hearing, which responses clarify, amplify, and make minor corrections to the information contained in the Park Station Negative Declaration, providing good faith reasoned analysis supported by factual information. The comments were distributed to or otherwise made available to the Planning Commission, responsible agencies, and other interested parties; and, WHEREAS, the Park Station Project Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for a 30-day public/agency review period beginning on October 5, 2005. Public notice of the availability of the Park Station Negative Declaration was published in a newspaper of general circulation and mailed to agencies. In addition, all persons who had requested notification were mailed a notice; and, WHEREAS, the Park Station Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and WHEREAS, on August 23, 2001, the South San Francisco City Council adopted the South San Francisco Transit Village Zoning District and Plan, whJlch is internally consistent and compatible with all elements of the City of South San Francisco General. Plan; and WHEREAS, on October 13., 1999, the South San Francisco City Council certified the South San Francisco General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) as part of the South San Francisco General Plan; and WHEREAS, General Plan Implementing Policies 3.4-1-3, 3.4-1-5, 3.4-1-6,3.4-1-7,3.4-1-8, 3.4-1-9, 3.4-1-10 and, 3.4-1-11 that require the establishment of a pedestrian-oriented transit village, with transit-supportive development requirements, within Y2 mile of the South San Francisco BART Station; and, WHEREAS, General Plan Guiding Policy 3.4-G-3 in the South San Francisco General Plan Planning Sub-Areas Element states "Develop the South San Francisco BART station area as a vital pedestrian-oriented center, with intensity and mix of uses that complement the area's new role as a regional center"; and, WHEREAS, the South San Francisco General Plan's Planning Sub-Areas Element includes policies, programs, and standards develop a pedestrian-oriented transit oriented development center; and, Open Space and Conservation, Health and Safety, and Noise; and, documents supporting the General Plan, the staff reports and consultant reports submitted at the Planning Commission meeting on November 3,2005, November 17,2005 and December 15, 2005 and the Park Station Mitigated Negative Declaration related thereto, and at the City Council meeting of January 25, 2006: NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby fmds as follows: The General Plan Amendment, which implements a land use reclassification of one 0.79-acre parcel located at the intersection of Ell Camino Real and BART Drive is internally consistent and compatible with all elements in the City of South San Francisco General Plan. Analysis: The proposed General Plan Amendment would assist the development of a quality high density residential project adjace:nt to the South San Francisco BART Station. The proposed amendment would be consistent and c~ompatible with the existing policies in the General Plan. The General Plan Guiding Policy 3.4-.0-3 in the South San Francisco General Plan Planning Sub- Areas Element states "Develop the South San Francisco BART station area as a vital pedestrian- oriented center, with intensity and mbe of uses that complement the area's new role as a regional center". The General Plan Implementing Policies 3.4-1-3, 3.4-1-5, 3.4-1-6,3.4-1-7,3.4-1-8,3.4-1-9, 3.4-1-10 and, 3.4-1-11 require the establishment of a pedestrian-oriented transit village, with transit-supportive development requirements, within ~ mile of the South San Francisco BART Station. 1. Documents and other material constituting the record of the proceedings upon which the City's decision and its findings are based are located at the Planning Department of the City of South San Francisco in the custody ofChiefPlanner,ThomasC. Sparks; and WHEREAS, on August 23,2001, the City Council adopted the South San Francisco BART Transit Village Plan and Zoning District; and WHEREAS, Policy 3.4-G-3 in the South San Francisco General Plan Planning Sub-Areas Element states "Develop the South San Francisco BART station area as a vital pedestrian- oriented center, with intensity and mix of uses that complement the area's new role as a regional center"; and WHEREAS, the applicant has requested that the City approve a lot line adjustment to create one parcel from portions of thn~e separate BART parcels for acquisition purposes. The proposed project would require the City to reclassify a 0.79-acre site, currently part of the South San Francisco BART property and 10Gated at the intersection ofEl Camino Real and BART Drive, from Planned Commercial to TV Transit Village Zone District; and WHEREAS, staff reports, dat(~d November 3, 2005, November 17, 2005 and December 15,2005 incorporated herein by reference, were prepared for distribution to the Planning Commission review, which reports d~:scribe and analyze the Park Station residential project and proposed reclassification; and -5- -6- City Clerk ATTEST: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: NOES: AYES: 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 meeting held on the _ day of , 2006 by the following vote: * * * * * * * NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Ci~.go~cil hereby 1) approves P03-0092, subject to the Conditions of Approval contained in 1IIIi:'1I, and Mitigated Negative Declaration and Response to Comments MND03-000l, as contained herein in rI and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program containc~d in _ 2) approves SA03-000l, the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map for Condominium Purposes connected with the application; and 3) adopts South San Francisco General Plan fUuendment GP A03-000 1 to modify the designation of a 0.79 acre site located at the intersection of EI Camino Real and BART Drive and adjacent to the South San Francisco BART station Transit Village Zoning District in the Gity of South San Francisco from public use (Transportation Center) to mixed community commercial and high density residential uses, attached as Exhibit D. WHEREAS, the fmdings and determinations contained herein are based on all competent and substantial evidence in the record, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the project. The findings and determinations constitute: the independent findings and determinations of the City Council and are supported by substantial evidence in the record, including the General Plan adopted in 1999, the staff reports and consultant reports submitted at the Planning Commission meetings on November 3, 2005, November 17,2005 and December 15, 2005, and the proposed General Plan amendment and Negative Declaration related thereto, and the staff reports, testimony and materials presented to the City Council at its meeting of January 25, 2006. Park Station Transit Village Residential Project And Tentative Subdivision Map For Condominium Purposes PROPOSED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL P03-0092 AND SA03-000 1 A. Planning Division requirements shall be as follow: 1. The project shall be complete:d substantially as indicated on the attached site plans, floor plans, elevations, and color and materials board, revised December 15, 2005 prepared by MV &P International, Inc.; Preliminary Landscape Plan revised December 15, 2005 prepared by Guzzardo Partnership, Inc.; and Vesting Tentative Map For Condominium Purposes, revised October 24, 2005, prepared by Charles W. Davidson Company, except a.s otherwise modified by the following conditions: 2. The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures outlined in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Park Station Project. 3. Final Landscaping Plans - Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall prepare fmallandscape and litigation plans for the entire project are, including the rear public open space area and the private common and recreation areas - such as potential common area, play .:u-eas, BBQ area, or spa areas - for review and approval of the Planning Division. The landscape plan shall incorporate all the conditions identified in this resolution. . 4. The applicant shall submit, with the building permit application, a final color and materials board that shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board and the Planning Commission prior to issuance of any building permits. 5. Approval of exterior colors on the submitted materials board shall be subject to the review of field mock-ups of sample colors on specified materials, and shall be subject to approval by project design team and City of South San Francisco Planning Division prior to application on the actual building. 6. Master Sign and Design Program - Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a comprehensive sign program. The sign program shall include the temporary sales office, banner signs, linear park signage, and monument or gateway signage. The Master Sign and Design Program shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board prior to issuance of a building permit. 7. All future signage for residential uses shall be subject to separate review and approval by the Planning Division. -7- . - 8- . a. The Applicant/Project Sponsor shall comply with the Engineering Division's "Standard Subdivision and Use Pemlit Conditions for 1. STANDARD CONDITIONS Should the Planning Commission approve this development and Parcel Map, we request that the following items be included in the Conditions of Approval for the Park Station Lofts, case number P03-0092: B. Engineering Division conditions shall be as follows: (Planning Division contact: Michael Lappen, Senior Planner (650) 877-8535) 14. The applicant shall comply with all Standard Conditions of Approval. 13. Park Fee_- The applicant or developer shall pay the park fee, per SSF Municipal Code Chapter 19.24. 12. Child Care - The applicant or developer shall pay the Childcare fee, per SSF Municipal Code Chapter 20.115. 11. Transportation Demand Management - The applicant shall submit a TDM plan which encourages residents to use public transportation and promotes the City's transit oriented development policies. The TDM plan could include bike racks, participation in shuttle and rideshare programs, and a bulletin board that would inform residents of public transportation opportunities. 10. Easement on BART Drive - Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall execute an agreement with BART for automobile and emc~rgency vehicle access from the project site onto BART Drive. 9. Easements - The final map shall clearly indicate the extent of all common easements on the property. The applicant shall include an "open space" or "linear park" easement for the City in the area that is adjacent to the South San Francisco BART Linear Park right-of-way. 8. The applicant has agreed to install and maintain linear park improvements on the 0.4 acre area adjacent to the SSF Bart Linear Park. The type, location and design of the proposed improvements in the area adjacent to the linear park shall be subject to a separate review and approval by the Parks and Recreation Department and the Planning Division. The developer shall include the provision for the installation and maintenance of the improvements in the CC&R's. The applicant has agreed to install and maintain improvements along El Camino Real and BART Drive as designated in the Vesting Tentative Map for Condominium Purposes and the Final Landscaping Plans. PROPOSED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL P03-0092 AND SA03-0001 Page 2 PROPOSED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL P03-0092 AND SA03-0001 Page 3 Townhouse, Condominium and Apartment Developments with Private Streets and Utilities", consisting of eight pages. These conditions are contained in the Engineering Division's "Standard Conditions for Subdivisions and Private Developments" booklet, dated January 1998. (Copies of this booklet are available at no cost from the Planning and Engineering Divisions). b. The subdivider/property owner shall comply with the requirements of the Engineering Division's "Standard Conditions for Tentative Parcel Maps", as contained in the Engineering Division's "Standard Conditions for Subdivisions and Private Developments" booklet, dated January 1998, in connection with thl~ processing of a parcel map for the subject project. 2. SPECIAL CONDITIONS a. One empty, one and one-quarter inch, PVC, four conduit duct bank and one additional two inch, PVC conduit and mid- and end-of-run pull-boxes, shall be installed along the entire project frontage ofEI Camino Real, in order to accommodate future communication services within the City. b. In connection with the grading, development, building construction and occupancy of the subject development, the subdivider shall prepare and submit for City approval, three copies of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for both construction and post-construction activities, that will result in the filtering of storm water runoff, so as to prevent silt, debris and toxic materials from being discharged, transported or blown from the site and entering adjacent public or private property, or the public storm drain system. c. The Subdivider shall reimburse the City for all costs to plan check and inspect the subject development in accordance with the City's Master Fee Schedule. d.. Prior to completing the last phase of the development, the subdivider shall repair or reconstrul:;t any damage to the EI Camino Real sidewalks, curbs, gutters and paveme:nts, along the entire frontage of the project, to conform to current City standards. This work shall be performed at no cost to the City of South San Francisco, in accordance with City standards and to the satisfaction of the City's Construction Manager. e. The driveway on El Camino Real shall be posted with an R1 -"Stop" sign and a Right Turn Only" sign. The driveway to the BART access road and exits from the garage shall be posted with an R1 "Stop" sign. -9- 3 -10- a. Parking lots, (including parking lots with carports), circulation areas, aisles, passageways, recesses and grounds contiguous to buildings shall be provided with high intensity discharge lighting with sufficient wattage to provide adequate illumination to make clearly visible the presence of any person on or about the premises during the hours of darkness and provide a safe, secure environment of all A. Exterior security lighting 2. Multiple Family Dwelling Units The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 15.48 of the Municipal Code; "Minimum Building Security Standards" Ordinance revised May 1995. The Police Department reserves the right to make additional security and safety conditions, if necessary, upon receipt of detailed/revised building plans. The applicant is recommended to pay particular attention additional security requirements below. 1. Municipal Code Compliance C. Police Department conditions shall be as follows: (Engineering Division contact: Dennis Chuck, Senior Enginee:r (650) 829-6660) 1. The proposed yearly Homeowner's Association Budget shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval, as to the adequacy of the estimated common area improvements and infrastructure maintenance and capital improvement replacement and repair services. h. The subdivision's common area infrastructure shaH be owned and maintained by the subdivision's homeowners association, not the City of South San Francisco. The subdivision final map shall contain a statement that no improvements within the boundaries of the subdivision are being dedicated to the City, within the proposed utility or other easements shown on the final map. g. The applicant shall pay their fair share contribution to assist in signalizing the Mission Road/Evergreen Drive intersection. The City Engineer estimates that the applicant will contribute approximately 5% of the cost of the signalization improvement, or $12,500. This contribution shall be paid for prior to issuance of the building permit per Initial Study/Park Station Project, Mitigation Measure 10. . f. All access from EI Camino Real to the subject site shall be accomplished by right turns into the site and right turns out of the site. PROPOSED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL P03-0092 AND SA03-0001 Page 4 PROPOSED CONDITIONS OF PU>PROV AL P03-0092 AND SA03-0001 Page 5 persons, property and vehicles on site. Such lighting shall be equipped with vandal- resistant covers. b. The lower level parking area will have sufficient lighting levels to provide a safe environment. c. All exterior doors shall be provided with their own light source and shall be adequately illuminated at all hours to make clearly visible the presence of any person on or about the premises and provide adequate illumination of persons exiting the building. d. Exterior doors, perimeter, parking area and canopy lights shall be controlled by photocell or timer and shall be left on during hours of darkness or diminished lighting. e. Parking lot lights shall remain on during the hours of darkness. f. The lighting required in subsection (a) of this section shall be installed according to project specific illumination levels prescribed, and a lighting plan reviewed and approved by the Police Department. g. Photometries are required tor this site plan to illustrate lighting levels for all areas of this project. 2. Landscaping Landscaping shall be of the type alld situated in locations to maximize observation while providing the desired degree of aesthetics. Security planting materials are encouraged along fence and property lines and under vulnerable windows. 3. Numbering of Buildings a. There shall be positioned at each entrance of a multiple family dwelling complex an illustrated diagrammatic representation of the complex, which shows the location of the viewer and the unit designations within the complex. The illuminated diagrammatic representation shall be protected by the use of vandal-resistant covers. In addition, each individual unit within the complex shall display a prominent identification number not II::SS than two inches in height, which is easily visible to approaching vehicular and pedestrian traffic. The numbers shall be of contrasting color to the background to which they are attached. b. Monument signage is required, to provide Public Safety responders the ability to locate an individual building or unit quickly. All signage shall be designed to meet the desired aesthetics, as well as provide the ability to locate key landmarks readily. -11- -12- 5. Provide medical evacuation elevator per CBC Chapter 30. No elevator shunt trip. 4. Provide additional fire hydrant, 1500 GPM to be located on Bart Drive. 3. Comply with all requirements for community room classified as an assembly. 2. Annual fire permits required for assembly community room and fire alann system. 1. Fire sprinkler system per NFP A 13 with class III standpipe outlets at each stairwell landing. Riser shall be installed within building shell. Discharge to sanitary sewer. D. Fire Prevention conditions shall be as follows: (police Department contact, Sergeant E. Alan Normandy (650) 877-8927) c. Additional security measures more stringent and site specific than those stated elsewhere in this chapter may be required by the Planning Commission or City Council as conditions of approval of a use permit, specific plans or precise plan, in projects of a more complex nature than the typical residential, commercial or industrial developments. Such additional security measures shall be made based on the fact that the project is of a highly complicated nature, which may significantly and adversely affect the City's ability to respond to security and/or other emergency situations within the project. b. All highly portable, easily resalable property should be inventoried and marked with a distinctive identification numbers for recognition purposes (e.g., driver's license information or company name). a. A security keypad system shall be used for the security gate. A code will be provided to the Police Department, so as to allow unfettered access to the complex and common areas at all times. The Police Department only uses keypad codes to minimize the issuance of keys or cards and potential future loss of such items. 6. Additional Security Measures The applicant shall provide adequate onsite parking for residents and visitors of the property. The plan shall illustrate the project will not adversely affect the surrounding properties. 5. Handicapped parking spaces shall be clearly marked and properly posted. All entrances to the parking area shall be posted with appropriate signs per 22658(a) CVC, to assist in removing vehicles at the property owner or manager" s request. 4. Traffic, Parking, and Site Plan PROPOSED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL P03-0092 AND SA03-0001 Page 6 PROPOSED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL P03-0092 AND SA03-0001 Page 7 6. Provide emergency illumination. 7. Buildings that are four or more stories in height, but not 75 feet or more in height, shall also comply with the following: a. Products of combustion detectors shall be provided in all mechanical equipment, electricaa, transformer, telephone equipment, elevator machine or similar rooms. Detector(s) shall be located in the air conditioning system. Activation of any detector shall initiate the fire alann system and place into operation all equipment necessary to prevent the recirculation of smoke. b. A smoke control system meeting the requirements of Chapter 9 and Section 1005.3.3.7 of the Uniform Building Code shall be provided. c. A manual fire alarm system shall be provided that will alann both audibly/visually throughout the building if activated and also alert the Fire Department via an approved monitoring station. The fire alann system shall be provided with a public address system and an outside remote annunciator. d. Standby power shall be provided and must conform to Section 403.8 of the California Building Code. 8. Provide secondary means of apparatus ingress due to inability to access recessed building areas. Road to hold imposed weight of 68,000 pounds. 9. Provide approved fire road to rear of building. 10. No combustible materials allowed on-site until access road and water supply has been approved by the fire department. 11. All fire protection systems to be submitted to Fire Prevention for plan review and fire permits. 12. Signage for lobby and entry from Bart road to be determined. 13. Knox Box key system for aal building entrances. 14. Signage for lobby and entry from Bart road to be determined. 15. Provide horizontal wet standpipe connections on south side of building. (Fire Prevention Division contact Bryan Niswonger, Fire Marshal (650) 877-8535) E. Water Quality Control conditions shall be as follows: -13- -14- 10. A construction Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan must be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a building permit. A copy of the NOr must be included in the SWPPP. 9. Fire sprinkler system test/drainage valve must be plumbl~d into the sanitary sewer system. This must be included in plans and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit. 8. Trash handling area must be covered, enclosed, and must drain to the sanitary sewer system. This must be included in plans and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit. 7. Roof condensate from air conditioner needs to be routed to the sanitary sewer system. This must be included in approved plans. 6. Applicant must complete a NPDES Impervious Surface Data Collection Worksheet prior to the issuance of a permit. 5. The applicant must submit an Operation and Maintenance Information for Stonnwater Treatment Measures signed maintenance schedule for the stormwater pollution prevention devices installed. a Vegetated/grass swale b. Catch basin runoff directed to infiltration area c. Brick-on-sand pathways d. Use of vegetation for water retention 4. Recommend the incorporation of: 3. Stonnwater pollution prevention devices are to be installed. A combination of landscape based controls and manufactured controls are preferred. Existing catch basins are to be retrofitted with catch basin inserts or equivalent. Specific plans must be submitted and approved prior to the issuance of a building pennit. 2. The onsite catch basins are to be stenciled with the approved San Mateo Countywide Stonnwater Logo. 1. A plan showing the location of all storm drains and sanitary sewers must be submitted and approved. The following items must be included in the plans or are require:ments of the Stormwater and/or Pretreatment programs: PROPOSED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL P03-0092 AND SA03-0001 Page 8 PROPOSED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL P03-0092 AND SA03-QOO 1 Page 9 11. Plans that include the location of the concrete wash out area and location of the entrance/outlet of tire wash during construction must be submitted and approved prior to the issuance of a building pennit 12. A grading and drainage plan that demonstrates adequate drainage on the property must be submitted and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit. 13. An erosion and sediment control plan must be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a building pern:ut. 14. Applicant must pay a sewer connection fee at a later time. This fee will be based on 99 equivalent dwelling units and charged at the equivalent dwelling unit rate in effect when the permit is issued. (Water Quality Control contact Cassie Prudhel (650) 829-3840) SA03-0001: Vesting Tentative Map For Subdivision Purposes A. Planning Division conditions shall be as follows: 1. The applicant shall submit Declaration of Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions to the Planning Division prior to recordation of the Final Map. 2. The Declaration of Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions shall include provisions for the installation and maintenance of the linear park improvements that are located within the project property. 3. The applicant has agreed to install and maintain improvements along EI Camino Real and BART Drive as designated in the Vesting Tentative Map for Condominium Purposes and the Final Landscaping Plans. -15- -16- e. The proposed yearly Homeowner's Association Budget shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval, as to the adequacy of the estimated common area improvements and irrfi'astructure maintenance and capital improvement replacement and repair reserves. d. The subdivision's common area infrastructure, including the roadway, sewer, and drainage improvements, shall be owned and maintained by the subdivision's homeowners association, not the City of South San Francisco. The subdivision final map shall contain a statement that no improvements within the boundaries of the subdivision are being dedicated to the City, within the proposed utility or other easements shown on the final map. c. EI Camino Real street shall be posted "NO PARKING AT ANY TIME" where appropriate, along the entire frontage of El Camino Real. b. Traffic control signs, pavement markings and s1ripings shall be installed by the developer subject to the approval of the City Engineer. a. The developer shall install (on a 2" galvanized steel pole), a "STOP" sign and a "RIGHT TURN ONLY" sign at the project's exit onto El Camino Real. In addition, a "ONE WAY" sign shall be: installed on the EI Camino Real center median opposite the exit and the applicant shall request (and fund if necessary) CalTrans to prohibit parking on the east side ofEl Camino Real. 2. SPECIAL CONDITIONS The Developer shall comply with the Engineering Division's "Standard Subdivision and Use Permit Conditions for Townhouse, Condominium and Apartment Developments with Private Streets and Utilities", consisting of 8 pages. These conditions are contained in the Engineering Division"s "Standard Conditions for Subdivisions and Private Developments" booklet, dated January 1998, (copies of this booklet are available at no cost to the applicant from the Planning and Engineering Divisions). 1. STANDARD CONDITIONS Should the Planning Commission and the City Council approve the Park Station Condominiums, we request that the following items be included in the Conditions of Approval for Tentative Subdivision Map No. P03-0092 and Parcel Map No. 03-0003: B. Engineering Division conditions shall be as follows: PROPOSED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL P03-0092 AND SA03-0001 Page 10 PROPOSED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL P03-0092 AND SA03-0001 Page 11 f. In accordance with current City Ordinances and the Standard Conditions, storm water pollution. control devices and filters (such as a Stormcepter or CDS unit) shall be installed within the site drainage outfall system from the subdivision to prevent pollutants deposited within the site entering the public drainage system and eventually San Francisco Bay. Plans for these filters and anyon-site retention facilities shall be submitted to the Engineering Division and the City's Environmental Compliance Coordinator for review and approval. g. The tentative map shows that the proposed building is being constructed on top of a City's sanitary sewer easement. This easement must be vacated prior to approval of the final map. The applicant shall submit documentation acceptable to the City Engineer verifying that the properties north of the subdivision have no objections allowing the City to vacate the easement and that they will not require sanitary sewer service from this sewer system in the future. h. Prior to approval of the final map, the proposed lot line adjustment must be approved by the City and recorded by the County. A copy of the approved and recorded lot line: adjustment must be sent to the City Clerk. 3. OFF-SITE IMPROVMENTS Various off-site improvements will be required to be constructed by the subdivider, such as intersec:tion conform modifications, sidewalk and curb and gutter repairs and sewer, storm drain and utility connections and modifications within the El Camino Real right-of-way. Prior to the City Council approving the fmal map for the subject subdivision, the subdivider shall enter into a subdivision improvement agreement to secure the installation of all public improvements. Alternately, the subdivider may obtain an encroachment permit from the Engineering Division and post cash deposit to secure the performance and payment of the work within the public street and easement rights-of-way as shown on the approved improvement plans, prior to filing the fmal map for approval by the City Coundl. 4. EL CAMINO PLAZA ASSESSMENT DISTRICT a. This proposed subdivision is located within the EI Camino Assessment District. Prior to filing the Final Map with the City, the Subdivider shall pay all of the outstanding assessment that has been levied on the parcel being subdivided. . b. Alternately, the assessment district parcel will have to be re- -17- J -18- 3) A parking and traffic safety plan shall be prepared and implemented. 2) All areas subject to public travel shall be provided with adequate street and area lighting meeting the Police Department's requirements. 1) All construction areas shall be completely fenced off from areas accessible by the visiting public. a. Prior to receiving a temporary certificate of occupancy for a model home within the subdivision, the developer shall submit for the City staffs review and approval a plan that will address at a minimum, the following items: The subdivider will likely request temporary occupancy of one or more homes to be used as models. Also, the subdivision's permanent residents will probably want to move into their homes before heavy construction within the project is complete. Either request could result in the public and/or residents being impacted in various health and safety ways by the construction activities. 6. TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT OCCUPANCY b. The inspection costs will be billed monthly. The Subdivider shall pay City invoices within 30 days of their receipt and shall pay all outstanding charges prior to receiving an Occupancy Permit for the homes. a. In order to compensate the City for our inspection costs, the developer shall pay the hourly costs for services provided by the City's Construction Inspection staff, on a time and materials basis, in connection with the development of the subject subdivision improvements. The Engineering Division provides limited inspection services for the construction of the private streets and utilities within the subdivision, that are not inspected by the City's Building Division or the developer's civil and geotechnical engineers. 5. INSPECTION apportioned to conform to the proposed condominium air spaces. The Subdivider shall initiate, pay all fees and costs, and prepare all documents, including the County auditor's reports, as required to apportion the assessment district to conform to the new condominium air spaces. All apportionment documents shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval, and all assessment district fees and changes paid, prior to filing the Subdivision Map with the City. PROPOSED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL P03-0092 AND SA03-0001 Page 12 PROPOSED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL P03-0092 AND SA03-0001 Page 13 4) Pavement, Icurb, gutter and sidewalks shall be provided within the model home complex. b. Prior to receiving permanent occupancy permits for the homes within the subdivision, the developer shall submit for the City sta:frs review and approval a plan that will address, at a minimum, the following items: 1) All construction areas shall be completely fenced off from the portion of the site occupied by the new residents and subject to public access. 2) All street lights within the occupied portion of the subdivision shall be operational and lit. 3) All traffic signs and pavement markings within the portion of the site accessible by the public shall be installed in accordance with the approved plans. 4) All site improvements within areas subject to public access shall be complete in accordance with the approved subdivision improvement, grading, drainage and utility plans. 5) Hours of construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Friday (excluding holidays). -19- -20- MITIGATION NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND RESPONSE TO COMM:ENTS EXHIBIT B -22- Response: Traffic and circulation issues were addressed in the Traffic and Transportation section of the Initial Study. The traffic analysis on which the Initial Study is based assumed the d~velopment of the Solare residential units, Trader Joe's and the Costco project. The Initial Study noted that the proposed Park Station project would add additional vehicles to local roadways, but would not increase traffic during evening peak hours to a significant level based on standards contained in the South San Francisco General Plan. Comment 2: With the opening of the Solare project and Trader Joe's, traffic could present a problem. Costco is also a problem because they sell inexpensive gas. On weekends there are at least 20 cars trying to enter the Costco parking lot. With the increase in traffic caused by the project, is the project's sponsor willing to address this problem? Response: Comments regarding the height of the proposed building the adj acent Solare complex, the density of the project and the need for increased setbacks are noted. These are not environmental issues that are addressed in a CEQA document, but will be considered by the South San Francisco Planning Commission and City Council at public hearings. Comment 1: The proposed project is too tall considering the massive structure of BART parking lot and the Solare complex next to Costco. The proposed project would include purring 99 units on 2.04 acres ofland and would result in crowding. Other nearby projects have a similar number of units on a larger lot. Also, the Solare project is not in harmony with the surroundings. The structure should be set further back from El Camino and include more greenery. Although the applicant has been cooperative with neighbor concerns, the plan still needs more modifications. 2) YvonneAh You Response: Encroachment permits will be obtained by the project developer from Caltrans and all of Caltrans design standards will be met. Comment 2: Driveways constructed within Caltrans rights-of-way shall be in accordance. with Caltrans standards, not the City standards, as indicated in the Initial Study. City of South San Francisco/l.)ark Station Project Response to Comments ' November 2005 Page 2 along EI Camino Real. The traffic signal at the El Camino Real/BART intersection currently accommodates the flow of northbound traffic through the intersection and also into the BART station. Although motorists may occasionally face delays entering or exiting the proj ect driveway because of the traffic on EI Camino Real, the traffic'signal at EI Camino Real/BART should provide adequate clearance time for motorists to safely enter and exit the project driveway in the future. City of South San Franciscol r-'ark Station Project Response to Comments ' November 2005 Page 3 Comment 3: Parking is going to be a problem, with 121 parking spaces for 99 units. In the Camino Court development there are 217 spaces for 96 dwellings. Even though public transit is nearby, SamTrans is an unreliable system and BART has cut service. Residents will need a car for local shopping needs. The concept of reducing vehicle use is good but cannot work unless the, local transit system supports it effectively. Response: The commenter's concerns about parking are noted, however, the proposed proj ect exceeds the City of South San Francisco parking standard of 1 space per dwelling unit. 3) Stephen Yale Comment 1: The commenter notes that the new design of the proj ect is more attractive than the previous one, but the footprint and overall mass of the buildings are little changed. Response: Comments regarding the mass and footprint of the proposed building is noted. This is not environmental issue that is addressed in a CEQA document, but will be considered by the South San Francisco Planning Commission and City Council at public hearings. Comment 2: The commenter notes a concern about the afternoon shading of Camino Court. The shadow study present to the Planning Commission was inaccurate since it did not accurately portray the location of the existing and proposed buildings. Shading of Camino Court by the Park Station building could be mitigated by limiting the Park Station building to 3 floors and not four. Response: The commenter's concern regarding shading of the Camino Court building is noted; however, the Initial Study did not identify this as a significant environmental impact. Shade and shadow issues could be considered by the South San Francisco Planning Commission and City Council at public hearings on this project. Comment 3: The Park Station project should include more parking, since BART is unlikely to grant parking privileges to Park Station residents. Camino Court residents have found enforcement of parking regulations an annoyance. It is likely that Park Station residents will park in Camino Court parking lots. The Camino Court project exceeds City parking requirements at 2.3 spaces per unit. Of specific concern is guest parking. One option would be to decrease the number of units, to replace on-site recreational uses, such as the bocce court, with more parking, or to reconfigure the rear portion of the site to increase parking. -23- -24- Response: The Park Station project contains 99 units. A previous design of the project did include 121 dwellings but was scaled back based on discussions with the City and neighbors. The City of South San Francisco elected to continue to use the previous traffic report since any identified impacts would be conservative. Comment 1: Caltrans staff received a traffic study for the project that identified a 128- unit residential project. This report contains a cover letter dated January 27, 200~ indicating that the proj ect was downsized to 121 dwellings. The current proj ect under consideration now contains 99 units and the traffic study notes it is appropriate for the project. Please clarify if the current proposal has been changed from 121 units and submit proper do~umentation. 4) Caltrans (November 9, 2005) Response: The comment is noted and no further response is required since this is an opinion on the underlying project and not an environmental topic. Comment 5: The commenter's overall impression is that the developer is trying to so too much with too little land in the wrong place. It looks like a plan for apartments in an urban setting rather than condominiums in a transit village setting. Response: The commenter's concerns regarding the design of the project in the context of adj acent structures and the proposed setbacks are noted. These are design and aesthetic issues and are not CEQA related. Design and aesthetic issues can be considered by the Planning Commission and City Council during the public hearings for the proj ect. Comment 4: The commenter notes that although separation between the Park Station and Camino Court buildings have been maintained there is still concern about the design of the proposed project. Due to the slope of the property, the height ofthehuilding is really 65 feet from the back of the building, although it is 50 feet from the front. The 50-foot height in front without a setback would contrast with the BART parking garage ad Camino Court buildings that do have landscaped setbacks. The adjacent building at Camino Court is two stores at the front and rear and graduated to three stores in the center, in contrast to the more rectangular big box design of Park Station. Response: The commenter's concerns about parking are noted, however, the proposed project exceeds the City of South San Francisco parking standard of 1 space per dwelling unit. City of South San FrancisctI/r-'ark Station Project Response to Comments . November 2005 Page 4 EXHIBIT C MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM -25- Biological Resources: Conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources or any ado~ted Habitat public streets___ Mitigation Measure 2: Prior to Issuance of a demolition pelmit, the project developer shall submit a plan for approval by the Parks and Recreation Director that will reduce loss of protected trees on the site to a less-than-significant level. The Plan shall indicate the number, species, The developer shall submit a copy of the plan to the Building Division and the Planning Division. The Plan shall be subject to the approval of the Parks and Recreation Director. to Issuance of a demolition Planning Division prior The developer shall provide a letter to the I tv 0\ I e) d) c) b) at least twice a day. Water or cover stockpiles of debris, soil, sand,or other materials that can be blown by the wind Cover all hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain as least two feet of fioeeboard. Sweep daily all paved access road, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. Sweep streets daily if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent Ai.' Quality: Would the project violate any air quality standards? Mitigation Measure 1: The following measures are recommended for inclusion in construction specifications to control fugitive dust emissions: a) Water all active construction, areas Monitoring/Reporting Action The developer shall submit a copy ofthe plan to the Building Division and the Plamung Division. The Plan shall be subject to the approval of the Chief Building Official and the Chief Planner. Approval prior to Issuance of a building permit Effectiveness Criteria Mitigation Monitoring_ Table Impact Mitigation Measure Timing Mitigation Monitoring Table Park Station Project November 13, 2005 Page 1 Mitigation Monitoring Table Park Station Project November 13, 2005 Page 2 MonitoringlReporting Action Mitigation Measure Mitieation Monitorin2 Table Impact Timing pennit. Effectiveness Criteria Anytime during project construction A resource protection plan conforming to CEQA Section 15064.5 is prepared by a qualified archeolog)stand/or paleontolog)st and approved by the South San Francisco Chief Planner. IfhistOlic, at"cheolog)cal or Native American materials or artifacts are identified during project constrUction, work ou the project shall cease nntil a resource protectiou plan conforming to CEQA Section 15064.5 is prepared by a qualified archeologist atld/or paleontologist and approved by the South San Francisco Chief size of trees to be replanted with locations for replatltiug, either on or off the project site if suitable space does uot exist ou the project site. A replatlting of2 replacement trees for each protected tree to be lost is recommeuded. Mitigation Measure 3: Ifhistoric, archeolog)cal or Native Americatl materials or artifacts are identitIed duriug project constmction, work on the project shall cease uutil a resource protection plan couformiug to CEQA Section 15064.5 is prepared by a qualified archeologist aud/or paleoutologist atld approved by the South San Francisco Chief Planner. Project work may resume in compliance with such plan. If human remains are euconntered, the County Coroner shall be coutacted immediately and the provisions of State law carried out. Conservation Plan or Natural Community Preservation PlatlS? Cultural Resources: Cause a substantial adverse impact or destruction to at-dleological resource? I IV "'l I Prior to issuance of a grading pemlit. - The Plan shall be Reviewed and approved by the SSF Water Quality Control Platmer. The plan shall be prepared by a registered civil en.gineer and be consistent with City of South San Francisco and Mitigation Measure 4: Contract specifications for tIus project shall require the preparation and implementation of an erosiou control platl for all portions ofthe project that would involve trenching, Geology and Soils Is the site subject to substantial erosion and/or the loss of topsoil? I IV 00 I Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Create a significant hazard to the public or the enviromnent through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the enviromllent. Mitigation Measure 5: Prior to issuance of a demolition pelmit by the City of South San Francisco, the project developer shall comply with the following: a) An asbestos survey of existing structures shall be perfoffiled consistent with National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollution guidelines. Ifwarranted, a remediation plan to remove asbestos shall be prepared and implemented by a qUHlilled contractor. Necessary penllits shall be ohlainedfrom the Bay Area Air Quality Management DistIict, the State Department of Toxic Substances Control and other affected agencies. excavation or stockpiling of dirt. The plan shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and be consistent with City of South San Francisco and Regional Water Quality Control Board guidelines and standards. Monitoring/Reporting Action Regional Water Quality Control Board guidelines and standards. The Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the SSF Water Quality Control representative. Provide the appropriate documentation to the SSF Building Division and Planning Division for review and approval. Approval by the Chief Building Official and the Chief Planner. demolition permit. Prior to issuance of a Effectiveness Criteria representative. Mitigation MonitorinK. Table Impact Mitigation Measure Timing IVlIugauolllV10llitorillg Table Pa..k Station Project November 13, 2005 Page 3 Mitigation Monitoring Table Park Station Project November 13, 2005 Page 4 Timing Effectiveness Criteria Monitol"inglReporting Action Mitigation Measure Mitie:ation Monitorin2 Table be A lead-based paint survey shall conducted by a qualified contractor. If lead-based paint is encountered, remediation requirements as outlined in Cal OSHA and other applicable regulatory agencies shall be followed. b) Impact Prior to issuance of a grading permit. Approval by the Water Quality Control Inspector and the Chief Planner. Provide the appropriate documentation to the SSF Water Quality Control and Planning Division for review and approval. Mitigation MeasUl'e 6: Prior to issuance of a grading pennit for the project, the project developer's civil engineer shall submit a drainage and hydrology report, identifying existing peak hour and total stormwater runoff from the site, direction of flow, anticipated peak. hour and total stormwater lUnoff at full project buildout, and the ability of downstream drainage facilities to accommodate stormwater increases. If necessary, the report shall identify specific measures to provide drainage improvements to meet City of South San Francisco and San Mateo County Flood Control District drainage criteria to ensure that all drainage impacts are less-than-significant and no flooding would occur off the project site. The reQ0l1 shall be apgroved by the South San Hydrology and Water Quality: Substantially alter drainage patterns, including streambed courses such tat substantial siltation or erosion would occur? I N \0 I I W o I - Noise: Would the project expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of stmldards established in the General Plan or other applicable standard? Hydrology and Water Quality: Substantially degrade water quality? Francisco City Engineer. Mitigation Measure 7: The project developer's civil engineer shall prepare a Stonnwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) adhering to City of South San Francisco and Regional Water Quality Control Board standards to assure adherence to surface for both construction and 10ng-telID operational phases of the project. The SWPPP shall incorporate the most recent Best Management Practices, including, but not limited to provision of stOlID water filters, frequent sweeping of the site, labeling stonn drain inlets, and adding a pennanent cover over solid water dumpsters. Mitigation Measure 8: Final building plans for all residential buildings shall include provisions for reducing interior noise levels to state and local exposure levels and ensuring that exterior spaced comply with City of South San Francisco noise exposure levels. Methods for complying with interior noise levels include but are not limited to sound-rated window, noise insulation and similar features. Methods for meeting City Provide the appropriate documentation to the SSF Building Division and Planning Division for review and approval. Monitoring/Reporting Action Effectiveness Timing Criteria Approval by the Prior to Chief Building issuance of a Official and the building Chief Planner. penult. Prior to issuance of a building penDit. Mitigation MonitorinB- Table Impact Mitigation Measure Mitigation Monitoring Table Park Station Projed November 13, 2005 Page 5 Mitigation Monitoring Table Park Station Project November 13, 2005 Page 6 MonitoringlReporting Action Mitigation Measure Miti~ation Monitoring Table Impact Timing Prior to issuance of a building permit. Approval by the City I Prior to Effectiveness Criteria Approval by the Chief Planner. Provide the appropriate documentation to the SSF Planning Division for review and approval. Provige the appropriate exterior noise exposm-e levels may include constmction of noise barriers, use of buildings to shield outdoor areas and similar featm-es. Final building plans shall be stamped by a qualified acoustical consultant that the plans comply with City of South San Francisco and State of Califomia exterior and inte1ior noise standards. Mitigation Measure 9: Pllor to issuance of a grading pelmit, the project developer shall prepare and submit a Construction Noise Management Plan to the South San Francisco Planning Department. At a minimum, the Plan shall address hom-s of constmction operation to be consistent with the City's noise ordinance, a requirement for providing mufflers on all gasoline or diesel-powered equipment, reliance on electrically powered tools and similar requirements. The Plan shall specify a noise coordinator with a 24-hour contact person to be posted prominently on the project site. The Plan shall be approved by the Chief Planner prior to issuance of a grading pemlit. Mitigation Measure 10: The proj ect Noise: Substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels without the project? TransportatiQn and I W f-\ I I VJ IV I capacity? permits. Transportation and Mitigation Measure 11: A second access Traffic: Result in shall be provided into the site, either via a inadequate second full-access drive, an emergency vehicle access or similar accessway. If an emergency vehicle access or other accessway is provided, the location, size and design of the access shall be approved by the SSF Fire Department. emergency access? Provide the appropriate documentation to the SSF Fire Department and Planning Division for review and approval. The EV A shall be incorporated into the approved site plan for the project prior to approval of the entitlements. Subject to Planning Commission approval of the proj ect entitlements. Traffic: Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial to existing traffic load and street developer shall make a fair share contribution to assist signalizing the Mission RoadJEvergreen Drive . intersection. The contribution shall be made at or prior to issuance of building MonitoringlReporting Action documentation Engineering Division for review and approval. issuance of a building pennit. Effectiveness Criteria Engineer. Mitigation Monitoring Table Impact Page 7 It'1lugauon IVlomtortng Table Park Station Project November 13, 2005 Mitigation Measure Timing EXHIBIT D GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT -33- .J n !" ! ~. ~.. \~~':~:~~~~c.~j';'~i::"--""'~:==~"~ ~t1,;"~:J~l'I~*'QoI.". ~H, ;r:o.;. :.l~Y'" c r) M ~ n A.t: "7 ,,! M ~, ...."N...'^. ....._.~..~.~.;.,~. \..-."..." I W fl::o. I , ; -1 ': . L :...._ __"_ (M i '. ! I : ,t \: . : 'I _; i' -If, 1 r \ i I I' -'~ -,,-- ",-j.. 'i ! I h t . t I! ,1- _---:r....------- J..--- ; I L ---: ' 1 \..., '" .. > I ...1-"..........- ,., t---.- ii' \ 'i-->-----~'~~'----T- i -1W )~;~(~~~BA.~1J~jl:m~ta rig y.p u't)ltdlf{~'r1~ po ttati~ ~/~~ ~ :~-' ~(~ - - '-" '~i ..... ',' t::.:,:~~~~1F~~:i:T".~'\,'l r:',rln .t"~'i~~(~, .,~;.\ ,~,;-~'::~ :'~~.---E~'~ .-~~~~~.- r -----!:.4__.'.:.:-! I _~":~~.~:~""""".I f, 'c< .~jI; \. ~.;;~:'.:._"- --::" '-. . ;~-"_/ ~. " . lJ---___;"~_____ ---f :1- - ._"4~. ..- - -,' - -:~~, ':'''':'\:~- _:::-..;-~---';.------:~'l... . "- - D..lr"JlI2 --- __ ----r___.:::>~-__-_----....-----:""O'....- ~ , . '..., . . I ". _ - , '..."'" . I . "";#:.' . .... ~ \ t._~17f" . .L ~- \ ~_ \ ',' ... ',',' """ <>- ,.. 1__ -~ --~~-:-~: ~ "-1'. ...... ,.,H-....~ ..-.....,>r.1 . / ~, .. r t. 'Ot;);III';S ffll.<i!> l)'1~ " ~'" I I'; ;Q'-"l"" (tr t" '''''''~'I:: "I I ' ~$ ~~j,!)If'<'!'-m-:o\I"f;!N;:~'" '- 11 I ~ H,a-rfflO'f1ioUS Hold.ing$t !l!,)! Mi~ed-Hi~~~;g~m~"ity ~~sid~HtI~t~ ./ 'CO'. mm"u"fl'J...t'y..,C.A~m.;a;r"e'I.~.' :-I_L_j . / . I . -: . '. vv r-ITI ~ ; .Ct.. '1.~' ~;:;., .:' i ,:,l~W~; }.'::'{."J.. } ,. I I I ! '. ''''''''-' """t~~ '..-..'......-......1..- 1_'_";;"; ~ ~~~~t:f~", ~ H"'!.:1'; ';"I'!I'''. , i~~E(Gi;f ,~~ : t ; ., j . ~~ l' ~ ~ ~ . i l i ! i I ;. " I .; ! I I I I I , I I m >< 00. ,.-+ -. :J CO G)-o CD Q) :J .., CD ~ ID en - ,.-+ -u~ - o. ~ :J Or CD 0 en~ _. en co :J Q) ,.-+ o. :J en Park Station Lofts Amended General Plan Designation ---_._-~_...__...-,...................- ....- ~~r. i ~ ~~ . ':r !!:n . h, .~~~ t~f,. ~~..~~' .~rJ ~:. ""' :....~.M...__... ll~l'r~~i !~~-7 '.~;;~~~. 'I,.~~ h.. 'i~ .. ~;~;. . ,Stfr ~~~ "'Pip. .~l'~ !!(~rnrt! :'l)wr', tU",-..c.;:: i 1,lo't'i.:uhr.lr:l ,,:IJtf:""~, ~l 1;~' ~ ....i~M .,..:... T";.Ji(' - -t.. -'-- ---: ,1 ....~._.......i..~....,..._.l -it ... ......i-;~..._.....,.._.....; ;::-:c;~;-~CO~'-f::-----l _l.--$ i",~ -~ ",1 ..- ........ c: w. -a .- U) CD ,.", L' u.. 1:::'3 1 '.' O' \::.' ....~....."..'.. ,... ',,', ," .. L " ',' ".' ~:~.'" ~l'C)f;~ :;0: .~.t. :ID ~.;~:. ~.......... ~.~.': Lf ~. : ..t; E C) E'. -- :: ::J:.,p t:"\- -au '(1) t)( ~ .' l,._ ,,' ..--. {..,;...":"'...... .~.: CtS . .... (J ",1..- ,.,',' \rU" E I -...-t--' ,--~-~-_...... ; i I ~; l' iP . . 1 ~ ; .}~ '" / 'y -- . ~-;:'if:/ "'of....' / -35- -1 , "----j 1 -' f." t'Cf! ~:\' :~: :1=- "'," ;.:.'\ '" c- itl,ll ~ ~~~ :~;~~ ;.10:.,'" i~L <h! ~~ri~ lh:' ~ ~H: c:::.e: ;.;:c '" '" ., t.\~." m ATTACHMENT 2 ORDINANCE ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO ZONING MAP TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF A 0.79-ACRE SITE, LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF EL CAlvllNO RERAL AND BART DRIVE AND ADJACENT TO 1410 EL CAMINO REAL, FROM PLANNED COMMERCIAL (P-C) TO TRANSIT VILLAGE RESIDENIAL, HIGH DENSITY (TV-RH) ZONE DISTRICT WHEREAS, the 0.79-acre site is designated "Planned Commercial" in the 1999 General Plan; and, WHEREAS, the proposed development generally complies with General Plan goals and polices, specifically General Plan policy 3.4-G-3, which encourages the development of the South San Francisco BART station area as a vital pedestrian-oriented center, with a intensity and mix of uses that complement the area's new role as a regional center. The Transit Village District also implements General Plan Implementing Policies 3.4-1-3, 3.4-1-5, 3.4-1-6, 3.4-1-7, 3.4-1-8,3.4-1-9,3.4-1-10 and, 3.4-1-11 that require the establishment ofa pedestrian-oriented transit village, with transit-supportive development requirements, within Y2 mile of the South San Francisco BART Station.; and WHEREAS, on November 3, November 17, and December 15, 2005 the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco held du1y noticed public hearings and recommended that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance amendment; and WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report analyzing the impacts of the General Plan update was prepared and certified by the City Council of South San Francisco on October 13, 1999, in accordance with the provisions ofCEQA; and WHEREAS, an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project in accordance with the provisions of CEQA. Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project, which will reduce all the identified impacts to a less than significant level. The City has also prepared a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS The City Council hereby amends the City of South San Francisco Zoning Map for 1410 EI Camino Real by changing the zoning designation of the 0.79-acre site, currently part of the South San Francisco BART property located at the intersection of El Camino Real and BART Drive, from Planned Commercial (P-C) to Transit Village Residential, High Density (TV-RH), attached as -36- -37- Mayor As Mayor of the City of South San Francisco, I do hereby approve tre foregoing Ordinance this day of , 2005. ABSENT: ABSTAIN: NOES: AYES: Adopted as an Ordinance of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting of the City Council held the day of, 2005 by the following vote: Introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of South San Francisco, held the _ day of .,2005. * * * * * * This Ordinance shall be published once, with the names of those City Councilmembers voting for or against it, in the San Mateo Times, a newspaper of general circulation in the City of South San Francisco, as required by law, and shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after its adoption. SECTION 3. PUBLICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of this ordinance, including the application of such part or provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, provisions of this ordinance are severable. The City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase hereof irrespective of the fact that anyone or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be held unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable. SECTION 2. SEVERABILITY Exhibit A, and amends the Transit Village Overlay Map TV -02 by changing the allowable maximum height from 55 feet in the front portion of the site facing El Camino Real and 45 feet in the rear portion of the site facing Colma Creek to 55 feet for the entire site, attached as Exhibit B. EXHIBIT A EXISTING ZOINING AND PROPOSED REZONING LAND USE MAP TV-Ol -38- ',' [I/' /. ,._"~ ,'.-'~ff11 \ '{, , _ Ii-' t "''l.''~,'':'.~.!noro'''''~'_~ ~.t li!~' _~','1" ! .,'i~+'_";;;;'~ ",)~~t{..!: 'l~ H :d ~~'>:..:; f \1 1 i :" ...1"-r I /r' , 1'1" 1'1 . ;:,'j /;.:~~"r'. tn."'.,-.."'.~....~".;;i...o. ..U. .5... .HO.I..,..jiOgS1.'-'~.!,-',.:. i..J........'..... i ,~ Z-! .~."" ....."A."J ." . .. . "" -' '-'--1"'1."" i .' L ,r,' !..- ~.,. / TraoRs'if,r.Village' Zone 11--r-tr~~';r~~' ., . .. . ,I '_ . . I ....---------.-. '--. --------- .--.......--.....-.....,..."'.'f'"";--.-...-----\ -.--........1 I ' J ! ....--.-, -- - l t 'I f "fr.'l .;'_.\1" -'~) ., .>> -', ,..!:!y..",:::>~~,. i ( I II I! ,'" -"" '. . I ; , I, I 1 I, I " I I ~ : I.! '.' ' .' - - 'i~f.~:: ~~ =-. \:~=~];~~~~:~~?:<r:. ".'~:=;-:;;- . . t .A M f '" 0 ('! E S ! 0 f. ., f) ~ DO >.i ".11 , I W '" I , , .i{.1" tpIr'I'~~ n:~ I 'i\':'-- '1 l' ,!: : -,__~,-;---__ __._ f I 'I !!.j., .________~__L__________ ;.)'It<~' .r: \ . \:~ -- -~.: .L==t7- ~ . {: '-t -;~~~.- ./];;,;/'" .-" \ ' t t I: .', ... ,." ":"'.,,.:,,,,.,,0', . "j' :- : - "'v:; n._or.lP<<.cf \ :\. : .. fl,' {~__ "," \"" '. Moa':"I).!).-M.Itl'il' -....~..., '.. ,,',:. I t'/'-l'~'>;" --1__ "';{ -,-- /,f~~~7: -"",_,,L~;,~: ", ,_ ',' . ~ \'.\~" ,-\:,L__~\ ~.~--~r~~:~-;,;~~ie~~.~~ ----~~~~~-:~ii-~:=:~~.,~~,Br~~p~~~~~;-~fQl:\~QJ;l~ .' """"~-----_~_ --:T-"'"'""~.,.:::~~::-:::~.~.::--.;~'-"'}i ~Cd'~~:"'~c\ ~-. ie' .......- "'1 i rJ " --l .. -.-....." , .~-'-.J . " ~~~.-~ , , ~ r1.o..tr.l~'~"r.(If.I ~:~-~~. .- ; i ! .1. i,;~,:,--.. t r IlJ ~~~~~t::r~ "'!'::. ,:~~~~ , n ....r-'itc....iL/lo:t<\;i.-.J!1J&" ~-~.~~"~~f;:" :~'~:e ~:if.~~l ~~ a i I ~. ! ~ i ~ ~ if ~ , ~ ~ l ~ m X -. en r-+ -. :J CO N o ::J -. ::J c.c "1J w '"""'I ^ en r+ W r-+ -. o ::J r o ;::p en Park Station Lofts Proposed Rezoning TV-01 ~\: . '~;.>' . ;< '-'. . _,~~ . .....;'..H.. . .,r.._.....';.:','.~. :..~,.~l.,.:.,.:..r~.,'.~..:,..,"... :.~,..,..\...:..;.i.......~. :"-::t-----+~~]! -~ ..~.~,/ ';:;:. ;~:-~L::=::~~cD=::tr:~~T 1 ~,..,;; ) _.,-:'-.... ..... ..;.-,.... _..N. _.... ..i:~-~"'}-"';.j ~ 'j. "~' .~ . ,. .0 N CD ; C)Ii co a:: i _. I ~. 2>.::! '" F*-i 5 ~. .- --. CJ!) c: .. m s.... .. L- "1: ~~.~ 'i ..t' I I ~ ~ I- ~ <0:: . CD I. F , :1 - /1,.... ~, -~ ."l. ~/./~L-:~~; ~~ f=t 1~--!__1 !, Fr;..~.~.: ~~ ::.~.~~~) !:J ii :'~.~I f ~:s~ t . ~~ .:'1,' ~;~ : ;; i~ " i l:S, l <' -i ; ~5f f~~~" ~1" 1 r ~, ';~~.' ,'Y~ i >- i 1 ai~ . ~~~~:::::.: ~..! l~ ! l'~t.,,, t / r .~~ ,/#~..! ' ., . I " I I , ..... '.'-"77- L_.,:' \ ~ . ',i -...1, .' ~. ~, ~ -40- .__ __._.... ~.,...,_______................H ___.. H.__. ii' .t.1 ~~~ :.<;r;j;" .t,' .~: :'!'!il.ii' d R .;. ~ ~ ......J,..~,..~..._~;., ~..."'....'~ ~ "ptllf':, (t'UWO Wi "1 'i:JI/'li ik ~~. fi~.1 ~i~ i:'it~ !l'~~br i ,urtt, ;1~~c;'~1 :r:;' ;:~~.; ~~)~ .-,,-,,1, '1.~ ....'f' ..::.~!.'~ .~~. I_ _..:... .-.-. - a" .... " :i i:' f; -' ...':;"" c; ..., ,.- ~; .'~ ,~ ~ .. .,., S~~~ '/IYll~ '~J~ ~.~~ .mii ~i~ i!~.iw t!r,,, r::.' (;... o~ oz.:" :!ito; '" 4' "- C. r ~~~ ..~~ !i~ -41- MAP CHANGE TO MODIFY THE TRANSIT VILLAGE HEIGHT MAP TV-Ol EXHIBIT B Rl03-0001 Map change to modify the maximum allowable height on the subject site, ndicated on TV-02, n the Transit Viii age Zone L~ CJ 2S PIlOt JgJ 's mr .. 4S PM _ 5SFtft E3 TV Dimia S<< D.Jm6 ... Gr.mJ 1'I.m,. '" l' ~" ,,/ ,//<,.<// / _ I.'<t... ", ..... ' . -..... ,...,~..../,./ /: ... ," ~. :!' /. ''''. " ..../...'. //.. ........>... .... .... .....", -<,,/Ll ,/.>-~~ ,";r.f:~", _'..-<;<..\ "'-":>' ~ ,'!7- /- ..(' ,,/;/[, '" ,,/ '<.... / ,/ .., '../' "',. '.', ,/ / " /' /"'. '" //--: ..) '- / ..)//.:.../ '.,'//.,.'-, \..' . ','. '/../'/. ..~. ". //.'. " ,..,j/IA\S./<..')//',. .::':? ....", '" ./. >(. " //. ':'. .... ..' /.;" '-, '..... ,.''Y..,. / ,'.' .,'j /'. . . '.t' ...... ,. 'j.' . ~ "'. /. / "- \" ',,' \. - '. /y '.' :~: " ,,' 1/-' -:~., ",,~ ,-"". . "A'f /....'... '.'. '.'. d.\ .!7.', '.'''.'''. ,/ /. '. '.' \,,->'::': ",'~ ",', '..;'" ." i\?/'>' ..//~/>(.'.~::' t. "'/.1/"-,' <" -~,/' /f,. ...,('_ -'. ......../- t /:~ ,."-,(",.",,./ .;.f:....-..,,'~'",__.<'...7./ I . . ...... ..7./........,.. '.' /~.,< I /. .....f' . '.' ..~!'< . JF"..' y /, Y". ..~. · ,,(~;<)/ <S~ '.~~~'~,",,/ ' / .. /' /''' I I { L ~.J-,~~;:' ^" -~" .,' \ f ". , . , I I \ , \ , . I I ~ tv I TV-02 Height Zones Soulh San Francisco BARTTtar'ltlf VlI~ Plan \lbn Meter Vvillams Pollack Keyser Maston Aatodalee lMl-II 8< Bhalla South San Fr<:II'lClsco BART TR::lr\tH ~ Plan Yon Meter Wiliams PoIoek I<4'lYMf M:nIon Aaeodatee Dv~tt & BIle/llo TV -02 Height Zones I fI:>. W I / /' /' /." . . ~ , ,...../ . / J.'/ ,r.v;'., ,../. . .'. ' " ~ ,. . ;t~ .' '. "". /. -..." "" - - - /:t;;F'~JIIt _ _ _... . :...... .',' ./ /:.. '" ':'.' '''''.") " "" -- i{';' ", "'~, / _ " '-',,"~" - ~-s~ ""......, <:;/ (.. ,.'....;/',,/..'. '.'/ './ /. ',.., ""', .. ". " ...., /1' // 1 '- "l?;' ".' r, /.,. 0' /'.'/" f ". '" -- , ",.y',..'".....,,, 1", " ',/ ./. /.. x. ".'. '.... /.. "<""~'. .'.' /. '.'. '.".." "", 36'" .l.' /" (., )' . '. "', '., ...., " " . y " . v' ': / /.' "';' " '. /'/ / ,(r \,:' ? /"',1' /', '. .///., ,'...''", ""', V /." ';',. /".. "ft. '." '.'" /.....' ..:, .'. ... >'" . "/'" '. '2('" , /', Y. , . . .,' " ' / \ / '. /,'.. ...." / / , '" ... 'y,' '';. ..' '#:'~; /", 'lb >" '. ' . ".... '." .... . '../ .' '/ F ", ",V '. r '.... ,". /: '/ /', . "<~'/<':" .{~ /', .,/ / .. ,,. V'" "'. /,' <( ,/.. .... . " ./ iV, "'//'.. '<, , \ '<>;<);)~'>/<:f; If,( ">''/'' '/'@ , r',<.>~,.,)'//(, , "'-... ....". ~ , , '. '" ,/ 0' '" . ..' " \ ",,'><:, ,)>>/. ' ./ ~S' """ >,. ? LeQend c::J 25 FONt lliPiif;:1 3$ I'm _ 4~ F.et _ 'jF""r 13 n'Distria Sir D]m<f....GonJ 1'Itm,." J' RZ03-0001 EXisting perm tted maximum heights in the Trans it Village Zone ATTACHMENT 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION WITH EXHIBITS RESOLUTION NO. 2647-2005 PLANNING COMMISSION, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO STATE .OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL: I) APPROVE P03-0092 AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MND03-001, TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF mGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TRANSIT VILLAGE PROJECT ON A 2.04 ACRE SITE LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF EL CAMINO REAL AND BART DRIVE IN THE PLANNED COMMERCIAL AND THE TV TRANSIT VILLAGE ZONE DISTRICTS; 2) APPROVE SA03-000, THE VESTING SUBDIVISION MAP FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES, RELATED THERETO; 3) ADOPT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP A03-0001 TO MODIFY THE DESIGNATION OF A 0.79 ACRE SITE LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF EL CAMINO REAL AND BART DRIVE AND ADJACENT TO THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO BART STATION TRANSIT VILLAGE ZONING DISTRICT IN THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO FROM PUBLIC USE TO MIXED COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL AND IDGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL USES; AND 4) ADOPT RZ03-0001 TO RECLASSIFY A 0.79-ACRE PARCEL FROM PLANNED COMMERCIAL TO THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO BART TRANSIT VILLAGE ZONING DISTRICT AND CHANGE THE ALLOWABLE MAXIMUM HEIGHT ON THE ~UBJECT SITE, INDICATED ON TRANSIT VILLAGE OVERLAY MAP TV-02, IN THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING AREA. WHEREAS, the South San Francisco Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearings on November 3,2005, November 17,2005 and December 15,2005; and WHEREAS, as required by the "Use Permit Procedure" (SSFMC Chapter 20.81), the Planning Commission makes the following fmdings in support of the request to approve a high- density residential transit village project on a 2.04-acre site located at the intersection of El Camino Real and BART Drive in the TV Transit Village Zone District. These fmdings are based on public testimony and the materials submitted to the City of South San Francisco Planning Commission which include, but are not limited to: the site plans, floor plans, elevations and color and materials boards, prepared by MY &P International;. Preliminary Landscape Plans, prepared by Guzzardo Partnership, Inc., and a revised Vesting Tentative Map for Condominium Purposes, dated October 24,2005, prepared by Charles Davidson Company; Affordable Housing Agreement; Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, Park Station Lofts and Response to Comments; Planning Commission staff reports dated November 3,2005, November 17,2005 and December 15,2005; and testimony and revised plans presented at the November 3,2005, November 17,2005 and December 15,2005 Planning Commission meetings: 1. The subject site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the land use being proposed. The suitability of the site for development was analyzed thoroughly in the South San Francisco General Plan Environmental Impact Report -44- -45- c. The proposed project complies with the City development and design standards for street frontages, parking garage locations, building design, b. The proposed project will provide a ratio of 1.2 parking spaces per residential units and, thus, meets the City's parking standards, established in Section 20.47.040, Regulations and Standards in the Transit Village Zoning District and Chapter 20.74, Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations. a. The proposed project will not exceed 50 residential units per acre and, thus, meets the City's maximum density requirement of 50 units per acre for a high-density residential project, established in Section 20.47.040, ~~gulations and Standards in the Transit Village Zoning District. 3. The proposed project meets or exceeds the City's minimum standards and requirements, established in Chapter 20.27, Transit Village Zoning District, which designates the site as TV-C, Transit Village Commercial and TV-RH, Transit Village Residential, High-Density. The project is meets or exceeds the' following zoning standards: d. Policy 4.2-G-I0 - Exempt development within the one-quarter mile of a Caltrain or BART station or a City-designated ferry terminal from LOS standards. c. Implementing Policy 3.4-1-3 - In partnership with property owners, area residents, and BART and other agencies, develop the approximately 8-acre McLellan Boulevard Extension area as a pedestrian-oriented spine fronted by active uses. b. Guiding Policy 2-G-7 - Encourage mixed-use residential, retail, and office development in centers where they would support transit, in locations where they would provide increased access to neighborhoods that currently lack such facilities, and in corridors where such developments can help to foster identity and vitality. a. Guiding Policy 2-G3 - Provide land use designations that maximize benefits of increased accessibility that will result from BART extension to the city and adjacent locations. 2. The project is consistent with the General Plan, which designates the property for mixed-use commercial/retail and high-density residential uses. High-density residential use is considered an appropriate use under this designation. The following policies specifically support the proposed project: and the environmental document prepared for the project. open space areas, pedestrian-orientation and project amenities, established in Section 20.47.040, Regulations and Standards in the Transit Village Zoning District. 4. The proposed project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the EI Camino Real Corridor Redevelopment Project Area, and specifically with the following: a. To create and develop high-density residential development adjacent to the South San Francisco BART Station. b. To replan, redesign and develop areas which are stagnant or improperly used. 5. An Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project in accordance with the provisions of CEQA, attached hereto as Exhibit B. Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project, which will reduce all the identified impacts to a less than significant level. The City has also prepared the Response to Comments, incorporated herein as Exhibit B, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, November 2005, attached hereto as Exhibit C. 6. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and as required by Public Resources Code section 21081, the Negative Declaration found that there are no significant impacts from the proposed General Plan Amendment. 7. The proposal will not be adverse to the public health, safety, or general welfare of the community, nor unreasonably detrimental to surrounding properties or improvements; and WHEREAS, the applicant has requested that the City approve a lot line adjustment to create one parcel from portions of three separate parcels that make up the 0.79-acre BART parcel for acquisition purposes. The Final Map will merge the 1410 EI Camino Real parcel with the BART parcel. The proposed project would require the City to designate the 0.79-acre site, currently part of the South San Francisco BART property and located at the intersection of El Camino Real and BART Drive, from Public Use to mixed Community Commercial and High-Density Residential; and WHEREAS, Section 65300 et seq of the State Planning and Zoning Law (Division 1 of Title 7 of the California Government Code) requires every city to adopt a comprehensive, long- term general plan for the physical development of the City which bears a reasonable relationship to the planning and development of the city; and, WHEREAS, on October 13,1999, the City of South San Francisco City Council adopted the South San Francisco General Plan in accordance with state law and the guidelines of the State -46- -47- WHEREAS, the City prepared responses to comments on environmental issues received during the public review period and at the public hearing, which responses clarify, amplify, and make minor corrections to the information contained in the Park Station Negative Declaration, providing good faith reasoned analysis supported by factual information. The comments were distributed to or otherwise made available to the Planning Commission, responsible agencies, and other interested parties; and, WHEREAS, the Park Station Project Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for a 3D-day public/agency review period beginning on October 5, 2005. Public notice of the availability of the Park Station Negative Declaration was published in a newspaper of general circulation and mailed to agencies. In addition, all persons who had requested notification were mailed a notice; and, WHEREAS, the Park Station Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and WHEREAS, on August 23, 2001, the South San Francisco City Council adopted the South San Francisco Transit Village Zoning District and Plan, which is internally consistent and compatible with all elements of the City of South San Francisco General Plan; and WHEREAS, on October 13, 1999, the South San Francisco City Council certified the South San Francisco General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) as part of the South San Francisco General Plan; and WHEREAS, General Plan Implementing Policies 3.4-1-3, 3.4-1-5, 3.4-1-6, 3.4-1-7, 3.4-1-8, 3.4-1-9, 3.4-1-10 and, 3.4-1-11 that require the establishment of a pedestrian-oriented transit village, with transit-supportive development requirements, within ~ mile of the South San Francisco BART Station; and, WHEREAS, General Plan Guiding Policy 3.4-G-3 in the South San Francisco General Plan Planning Sub-Areas Element states "Develop the South San Francisco BART station area as a vital pedestrian-oriented center, with intensity and mix of uses that complement the area's new role as a regional center"; and, WHEREAS, the South San Francisco General Plan's Planning Sub-Areas Element includes policies, programs, and standards develop a pedestrian-oriented transit oriented development center; and, WHEREAS, the General Plan Update consists of the mandatory and optional elements each containing goals and policies. The elements in the General Plan Update are Land Use, Planning Sub-Areas, Transportation, Parks, Recreation and ,Services, Economic Development, Open Space and Conservation, Health and Safety, and Noise; and, Office Planning and Research General Plan Guidelines; and, WHEREAS, the findings and determinations contained herein are based on all competent and substantial evidence in the record, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the project. The fmdings and determinations constitute the independent fmdings and determinations of the Planning Commission and are supported by substantial evidence in the record, including the General Plan adopted in 1999 and environmental documents supporting the General Plan, the staff reports and consultant reports submitted at the Planning Commission meeting on November 3,2005, November 17,2005 and December 15,2005 and the Park Station Mitigated Negative Declaration related thereto: NOW THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco hereby finds as follows: The General Plan Amendment, which implements a land use reclassification of one 0.79-acre parcel located at the intersection ofEI Camino Real and BART Drive is internally consistent and compatible with all elements in the City of South San Francisco General Plan. Analysis: The proposed General Plan Amendment would assist the development of a quality high density residential project adjacent to the South San Francisco BART Station. The proposed amendment would be consistent and compatible with the existing policies in the General Plan. The General Plan Guiding Policy 3.4-G-3 in the South San Francisco General Plan Planning Sub- Areas Element states "Develop the South San Francisco BART station area as a vital pedestrian- oriented center, with intensity and mix of uses that complement the area's new role as a regional center". The General Plan Implementing Policies 3.4-1-3,3.4-1-5, 3.4-1-6, 3.4-1-7, 3.4-1-8, 3.4-1-9, 3.4-1-10 and, 3.4-1-11 require the establishment of a pedestrian-oriented transit village, with transit-supportive development requirements, within ~ mile of the South San Francisco BART Station. 1. Documents and other material constituting the record of the proceedings upon which the City's decision and its findings are based are located at the Planning Department of the City of South San Francisco in the custody of Chief Planner, Thomas C. Sparks; and WHEREAS, on August 23,2001, the City Council adopted the South San Francisco BART Transit Village Plan and Zoning District; and WHEREAS, Policy 3.4-G-3 in the South San Francisco General Plan Planning Sub-Areas Element states "Develop the South San Francisco BART station area as a vital pedestrian- oriented center, with intensity and mix of uses that complement the area's new role as a regional center"; and WHEREAS, the applicant has requested that the City approve a lot line adjustment to create one parcel from portions of three separate BART parcels for acquisition purposes. The proposed proj ect would require the City to reclassify a O. 79-acre site, currently part of the South San Francisco BART property and located at the intersection ofEl Camino Real and BART Drive, from Planned Commercial to TV Transit Village Zone District; and -48- -49- NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the South San Francisco City Council 1) approve P03-0092, subject to the Conditions of Approval contained in"', and MitigatedNegative Declaration and Response to Comments MND03-0001, as contained herein in _181 the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program contained in _1'12) approve SA03-0001, the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map for Condominium Purposes connected with the application; 3) adopt South San Francisco General Plan Amendment GP A03-000 1 to modify the designation of a 0.79 acre site located at the intersection ofEl Camino Real and BART Drive and adjacent to the South San Francisco BART station Transit Village Zoning District in the City of South San Francisco from public use (Transportation Center) to mixed community commercial and high density residential uses, attached as Exhibit D; and 4) adopt an ordinance, attached as Exhibit E, to reclassify a 0.79-acre parcel from Planned Commercial to the South San Francisco BART Transit Analysis: The proposed reclassification and map change to the Transit Village Overlay Map TV- 02 would assist the development of a quality high-density residential project adjacent to the South San Francisco BART Station. The South San Francisco BART Transit Village Zoning District implements the goals and policies of the South San Francisco General Plan adopted in December 1999. The Transit Village District implements General Plan Guiding Policy 3.4-G-3 which encourages the development of the South San Francisco BART station area as a vital pedestrian-oriented center, with intensity and mix of uses that complement the area's new role as a regional center. The Transit Village District also implements General Plan Implementing Policies 3.4-1-3, 3.4-1-5,3.4-1-6,3.4-1-7,3.4-1-8,3.4-1-9,3.4-1-10 and, 3.4-1-11 that require the establishment of a pedestrian-oriented transit village, with transit-supportive development requirements, within Y2 mile of the South San Francisco BART Station. The above described reclassification of the subject 0.79-acre site from Planned Commercial to South San Francisco BART Transit Village Zoning District and Anlendment to the Zoning Ordinance are internally consistent with the South San Francisco General Plan. NOW THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco hereby finds as follows: WHEREAS, the findings and determinations contained herein are based on all competent and substantial evidence in the record, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the project. The findings and determinations constitute the independent fmdings and determinations of the Planning Commission and are supported by substantial evidence in the record, including the General Plan adopted in 1999, the staffreports and consultant reports submitted at the Planning Commission meetings on November 3,2005, November 17,2005 and December 15,2005, and the proposed General Plan amendment and Negative Declaration related thereto. WHEREAS, staffreports, dated November 3, 2005, November 17,2005 and December 15,2005 incorporated herein by reference, were prepared for distribution to the Planning Commission review, which reports describe and analyze the Park Station residential project and proposed reclassification; and Village Zoning District and adopt the map change to Transit Village Overlay Map TV-02 to change the allowable maximum height on the site in the City of South San Francisco planning area. BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED that the resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption. * * * * * * * I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco at the regular meeting held on the 15th day of December, 2005 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Giusti Commissioner Honan, Commissioner Prouty, Commissioner Romerq Commissioner Siro, Vice Chairperson Zemk~ and Chairperson Teglia NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None A TrEST: /s/ Thomas C. Sparks Commission Secretary Thomas C. Sparks - 50- ATTACHMENT 4 LOCATION MAP AND EXISTING PARCELS Park Station Lofts Location ,....~................ . . . .. ....""'"" ,. . .. . +. +. +. +. .. Camino Court -51- -........ -.....-.... -..... l ~ ~----~~-~"-:~~-:_~,,!. . ~I i ~._------:__- -. -~- _.j~ j ~;~ I! iji if' f, Ir'---"-' --" c.,Z ....-: ~.) .,.~: l!~ . ~~~ 1: ~~I~j ~~~~J jf:t:!""1 ~~ai - itj Ii ....(.. ~',~ '" " :: Q1... .;:' ~.. '.r r , I .r.t "', -----1 ~ .- - - .-~...~~..J . t.:l' ~I .~ I .~ : i+., *.... 'f"~:" ~ a. ......~. ~ -,. '.~. ~ -t ~':c: ~ :~,:~ .in -----c-, - ct> ' ~ 1- ~~ c P 'N.) 0-' '-, k,,ij ,... " """ j.-'; ~ :01" en i(")~ ..,... i-, -L iCD 0 iW".. - ;; ,]:,} I... A _. ~.:.~..ii.. ~ , ~~ 0'" ~-.~ ~~ ~~; ~.. . C L:." ,,:,1,,::=-+.r_~;2~~. <.j. ~. I......._~ .. ,~....._~ ~ ........... ... .._...... .. ....__..mP.... JJ ~____..~._J____!'"....__.J..M_~o;:.:. -zs- '~~...,., ....,..-...-. .. l~ F :/ ~ ~ ~ :, ~ I 1 . 'J .'. i , .I "1 'I . -:.-::.,ll.... ~ "i q , i .~ 1M , ...:....- :::1~. .... ~.~. '" \ .1 i , F~-j , Ii - -- --,----- J;.'t, Sle~Jed DUnS!X3 ...;; ..~~ ;'-:;j "'Jl 1 _. . '::"~7' !'flt,otfl ~f<I];I'; ~4IJ'~~ 1_101ot ~~(:?~'F!! ~;!>II.':; :'I("'~1!: QI!l:;.11 ;~i; i~'o1 ~,~~ ". "'~ il3~ ,.~~~ ~~~i l~{ ...~~:~ .." '~i" ..;~~_.~y~ ...... ~1I ~ .....l~u ~ '-.m I1lftWCT"'si i!i ?i~ U'lM , . ~ ~ Sij01 uO!lelS ~Jed ATTACHMENT 5 AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT RECORDING REQUESTED BY: DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMlC AND COlv.1MUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 400 GRAND AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 "WHEN RECORDED MAlL TO: DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITy DEVELOPMENT CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 400 GRAND AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 Documentary Transfer Tax $ EXEMPT County-of San Mateo City of South San Francisco ~ Right of Way Agent AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND SUMME-Rmb-:b--H-Q-MES,-l.LC This Agreement is entered into this _day of ,2005, by and ' between the City of South San Francisco ("City"), and SummerHill Homes, LLC ("Developer") as a condition of approval of the development of the real property described in Exhibit A attached hereto (the "Project Property"). RECITALS WHEREAS, Chapter 20.125 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code sets forth the requirements for Inc1usionary Housing ("Inclusionary Housing Ordinance"); and WHEREAS, the Developer is planning to construct condominiums on the Project Property (the ''Project'') and has submitted site development plan for the Project; and WHEREAS, the Developer is required by the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to set aside twenty percent (20%) of new housing as low- and moderate-income level housing; and WHEREAS, the Developer proposes meeting this requirement by selling the required number of Below Market Rate Units; and SummerHill Homes, Inc. - Affordable Housing Agreem - 5 3 _ Page 1 Page 2 SllmmP.THill Homes, Inc. - Affordable Housing AgreelDl _ 54 _ 2. The Below Market Rate Units shall be affordable to lower income households guaranteed by deed restrictions or other enforceable covenants running with the land. One (1) of the one-bedroom and one (1) of the two-bedroom lower income units shall be affordable to households between 50 and 60 percent of unadjusted median income for a San Mateo County household in the San Francisco Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area, published annually by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (as adjusted annually, the ''Base Median Income"); three (3) of the one-bedroom and one (1) of the two-bedroom lower income units shall be affordable to households between 60 and 70 percent of unadjusted median income; one (1) of the one-bedroom and one (1) of the two-bedroom lower income units shall be affordable to households between 70 and 80 percent of unadjusted median income; two (2) of the one-bedroom and two (2) of the two-bedroom low- to moderate-income units shall be affordable to households between 80 and 90 percent of unadjusted median income; one (1) of the one-bedroom and two (2) of the two- bedroom low- to moderate-income units shall be affordable to households between unadjusted 90 and 100 percent of median income; three (3) of the one-bedroom and two(2) of the two-bedroom low- to moderate-income units shall be affordable to households between 100 and 110 percent of unadjusted median income. 1. As a condition of developing and constructing ninety-nine (99) condominiums on real property located in South San Francisco, which property is more particularly described in Exhibit A, incorporated herem. and attached hereto ("Project Property"), Developer shall designate twenty (20) condominiums as Below Market Rate Units, including a fractional unit, and shall make these units available for sale as Below Market Rate Units. Forty percent (40% of the Below Market Rate Units shall be set aside as lower income units and sixty percent (60%) of the Below Market Rate Units shall be set aside as low- to moderate-income units. The number of Below Market Rate Units shall be equal to twenty percent (20%) of the total number of condominiums to be built upon the Project Property and identified in Exhibit B. . AGREEMENT NOW THEREFORE, the City and the Developer agree as follows: WHEREAS, this Affordable Housing Agreement is required as a condition of future discretionary permits for development of the Project Property and shall be recorded against the Proj ect Property; WHEREAS, the Inc1usionary Housing Ordinance requires the Developer's plans and the City's conditions regarding inclusionary housing be set forth in an Affordable Housing Agreement; and WHEREAS, the City has agreed that onsite sale of the Below Market Rate Units will be sufficient to meet the requirements of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance; and 3. With respect to the. fractional unit, Developer has elected to provide an additional Below Market Rate Unit affordable to a household with an income of not less than fifty percent (50%) of unadjusted Median Income and not more that one hundred ten percent (110%) of unadjusted Median Income. 4. The Below Market Rate Units shall be located on the Project Property, within close proximity to the El Camino Corridor and the Downtown. The Developer and the City acknowledge this is an ideal area for such Below Market Rate Units as it is in close proximity to and has access to employment opportunities, urban services and transportation facilities. 5. Occupancy of the Below Market Rate Units shall be established. concurrently with occupancy of the market rate units located on the Project Property. This requirement shall be effective as of the date the first unit is occupied on the Proj ect Property. This requirement for the Below Market Rate Units shall remain in effect even in the event all market rate units on the Project Property become unoccupied. 6. Resale restrictions for Below Market Rate Units shall be recorded in the form. attached hereto as Exhibit C upon close of escrow for said Units. The Below Market Rate Units shall remain restricted and affordable to the designated income group(s) for a term of fifty-five (55) years. The term shall begin the date each Below Market Rate Unit is sold and shall apply to all subsequent buyers. 7. Developer shall sell the Below Market Rate Units to income eligible owner- occupants pursuant to Section 2. Developer shall work with the City and/or the City's First Time Homebuyer Administrator to identify and qualify eligible buyers for said Units. At the time of sale Developer shall pay an administrative fee to reimburse the City for all administrative /processing costs and fees incurred in processing the sale of the Below Market Rate Units, which may include First Time Homebuyer Administrator fees and costs and processing fees for First Time Homebuyer loans by the City to eligible buyers. 8. The Project Property's Below Market Rate Units shall remain owner-occupied units. In the event that the entire Project Property changes from for sale units to for rent units, the Project Property's Below Market Rate Units shall be bound by a Rent Regulatory Agreement, which agreement is subj ect to City Council approval. 9. Developer shall indemnify, defend with counsel selected by the City, and hold harmless the City and its officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers from and against any and all losses, liability, claims, suits, actions, damages, and causes of action arising out of any personal injury, bodily injury, loss of life, or damage to property, or any violation of any federal, state, or municipal law or ordinance related to the implementation of this Agreement and/or the sale of the twenty (20) Below Market Rate Units. SummerHill Homes, Inc. - Affordable Housing Agreem _ 5 5 _ Page 3 Page 4 SummerHill Homes, Inc. - Affordable Housing Agreem, - S 6 _ 17. If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this Agreement is invalid, void, or unenforceable, the provisions of this Agreement not 16. If a party to this Agreement brings any action, including an action for declaratory relief, to enforce or interpret the provision oftbis Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees in addition to any other relief to which that party may be entitled. The court may set such fees in the same action or in a separate action brought for that purpose. 15. The laws of the State of California shall govern this Agreement. In the event that either party brings any action against the other under this Agreement, the parties agree that trial of such action shall be vested exclusively in the state courts of California in the County of San Mateo or in the Bnited States District Court for the Northern District of California. 14. Any amendments to this Agreement shall be processed in the same manner as an original application for approval pursuant to Section 20.125.150 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. Nothing, however, shall prevent the body granting final approval of the proj ect development, from modifying the location and phasing of inclusionary housing as a condition of approval for the project. 13. All obligations relating to a Below Market Rate Unit shall transfer from Developer to the buyer of such unit and its assigns upon sale of such Below Market Rate Unit. Upon the sale by Developer of all Below Market Rate Units, Developer shall be released from., and shall have no further obligations under this Agreement. Such release shall be effective upon the final sale and shall not require any further action or documentation by any party to this Agreement. 12. Developer and subsequent buyers shall provide City, or its assigned, a first right of refusal in the form attached hereto as Exhibit C to purchase the Below Market Rate Units if any of the individual units, are offered for sale at any point during the fifty_ five (55) year affordability period. The notice of offer to sell a B:MR unit shall be submitted in writing to the Director of the Department of Economic and Community Development. Within thirty (30) days of its receipt, the City, or its assigned, shall indicate its intent to exercise the first right of refusal for the purpose of providing affordable housing, and close escrow within ninety (90) days. 11. This Agreement shall run with the Project Property and shall be binding on the parties hereto and their successors and assigns. This Agreement shall be recorded on the Project Property upon :final map recordation or, if a map is not being processed, prior to the issuance of building permits for the Project Property. 10. Developer shall pay an administrative fee to reimburse the City for all administrative /processing costs and fees incurred in processing the affordable housing plan, which may include reasonable attorney's fees and cost, and implementing the requirements of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. so adjudged shall. remain in full force and effect. The invalidity in whole or in part of any provision of this Agreement shall not void or affect the validity of any other provision of this Agreement. 18. Any notice or demand shall be made by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, or reliable overnight courier to the address of the respective parties set forth below: Developer: SummerHill Homes, LLC, a California Limited Liability Corporation 777 California Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94304 Attn: Elaine Breeze Telephone: (650) 857-0122 Facsimile: (650) 857-1077 City: City of South San Francisco - City Clerk 400 GTand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 19. Notwithstanding any previous provision oftbis Agreement, the terms of this Agreement shall be interpreted in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 20.125 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first written above. OWNER: CITY: SummerHill Homes, LLC, a California Limited Liability Corporation CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Elaine Breeze Senior Vice President Barry M. Nagel, City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: Steven T. Mattas, City Attorney SummerHill Homes, Inc. - Affordable Housing Agreem _ 5'7 _ Page 5 Page 6 SummerHill Homes, Inc. - Affordable Housing Agreem _ 5 8 _ Exhibit C Form of Resale Restriction and Right of First Refusal Agreement for Below Market Rate Property Exhibit B Housing Plan and Matrix Exhibit A Legal Description Exhibit c Form of Resale Restriction and Right of First Refusal Agreement RECORDING REQUESTED BY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 400 GRAND AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 400 GRAND AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 Documentary Transfer Tax $ EXEMPT County of San Mateo City of South San Francisco 181 SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE RESALE RESTRICTION AND RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL AGREEMENT FOR BELOW MARKET RATE PROPERTY This Resale Restriction and Right of First Refusal Agreement for Below Market Rate Property ("Agreemene) is entered into as of this _ day of ,20_, by and between the CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO ("CITY") and ("OWNER"). RECITALS WHEREAS, Chapter 20.125 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code sets forth the requirements for Inclusionary Housing ("lnclusionary Housing Ordinance"); and WHEREAS, the developer is required by the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to set aside twenty percent (20%) of new housing as low- and moderate-income level housing; and SumerHill Homes, Inc. - Exhibit ~Fonn of Resale Res1 ~ 59 _md Right of First Refusal Agreement SumerHill Homes, Inc. - Exhibit C-Fonn of Resale Res~ -60 _ md Right of First Refusal Agreement 2 4. Misrepresentation of Fact as a Material Breach. OWNER hereby declares and agrees that the financial and other information previously provided to the CITY for the purpose of qualifying to purchase the Premises was true and correct at the time it was given and remains true 1. Premises. The real property which is the subject of this Agreement is commonly known as , more fully described in the legal description attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit "A." Said real property ("Premises") is hereby designated as a Below Market Rate Unit ("BMR unif) and shall be subject to the terms and conditions herein set forth. 2. Occupancy and Ownership Restricted to EIiQible Households. As used in the Agreement, the term "Eligible Household" shall mean a Household which has a household income not to exceed % of the unadjusted median yearly income for a family of (~, in San Mateo County as published by the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) from time to time. In the event that the income determinations are no longer published, or have not been updated for a period of at least 18 months, the CITY may develop such other reasonable methods as it may choose to determine the income restrictions. During the term of this Agreement, OWNER must occupy the Premises as his or her principal residence. The OWNER shall be presumed to be occupying the Premises as his or her principal residence if the OWNER is living in the Property for at least ten (10) months out of each calendar year. By purchasing Premises subject to the Agreement, owner and all successive owners and assigns, hereby acknowledge that the Premises is restricted to owner-occupancy by an Eligible Household and shall not be leased to a non-owner without the written consent of the CITY. Transferee shall execute an agreement under the terms of which the transferee shall assume all of the obligations and duties of owner and agree to be bound by the restrictions of this Agreement 3. Supersession. This Agreement shall supersede any and all resale agreements, deed restrictions and other similar conditions and/or restrictions previously imposed on the Premises whether or not such previous agreements or restrictions were recorded. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the benefits received by the OWNER, OWNER and CITY agrees as follows: WHEREAS, this Resale Restriction and Right of First Refusal Agreement for Below Market Rate Property is required as a condition of discretionary permits for development of the Project Property and shall be recorded against the Below Market Rate Units; and WHEREAS, the intent of the CITY is to preserve the number and availability of affordable homes in the program for persons with low or moderate incomes for the longest feasible time; WHEREAS, the City has agreed that onsite sale of the Below Market Rate Units will be sufficient to meet the requirements of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the developer is meeting this requirement by selling the required number of Below Market Rate Units; and and correct as of the date of this Agreement, or, in the alternative, the financial and other information has been updated to be true and correct today. OWNER further understands that any material misstatement or misrepresentation shall be deemed to be a material breach of this Agreement and shall be grounds for declaring a default, terminating the Agreement, or seeking other such relief and remedies as are appropriate under the circumstances. 5. Conditions of Transfer. For purposes of the AgreemOent, "Transfer" shall mean any voluntary or involuntary sale, assignment or transfer of Ownership or any interest in the Premises, including, but not limited to, a fee simple interest, joint tenancy interest, life estate, leasehold interest including any rental of the Premises, or any interest evidenced by a land contract by which physical possession of the Premises is transferred and OWNER retains title. Any transfer of the Premises shall be subject to the conditions set forth in the Agreement. OWNER may not lease or rent the Premises for any period of time without the express, prior, written permission of CITY in accordance with Paragraph 2. Transferee shall execute an agreement under the terms of which the transferee shall assume all of the obligations and duties of OWNER and agree to be bound by the restrictions of this Agreement. 6. Prohibited Transfer/Default. Any transfer which is not in substantial compliance with the above conditions shall be deemed a "Prohibited Transfer". Upon receipt of any evidence of a Prohibited Transfer or any other violation of the terms of this Agreement, CITY shall give written notice to the OWNER specifying the nature of the violation. If the violation is not corrected the satisfaction of the CITY within ten (10) days after the date of the notice, or within such further time as CITY determines is necessary to correct the violation, CITY may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for specific performance of the Agreement, for an injunction prohibiting proposed sale, lease, rental or transfer in violation of this Agreement, for a declaration that the Prohibited Transfer is void, or for any such other relief as may be appropriate under the circumstances. 7. Senior Lien Holder. Any attempt to transfer title or any interest therein in violation of these covenants shall be void, provided, however, that any deed restrictions herein shall be subordinate to a mortgage ("First Deed of Trust") held by a Senior Lien Holder and/or a federally or state chartered bank or savings and loan association qualified to do business in the State of California which mortgage was obtained at the time OWNER purchased the Property ("Senior Lien Holder"), CITY and OWNER acknowledge and agree that this Agreement is subject and subordinate in all respects to the liens, terms, covenants and conditions of the First Deed of Trust and to all advances heretofore made or which may hereafter be made pursuant to the First Deed of Trust held by a Senior Lien Holder including all sums advanced for the purposes of (a) protecting or further securing the lien of the First Deed of Trust, curing defaults by the OWNER under the First Deed of Trust or for any other purpose expressly permitted by the First Deed of Trust, or (b) constructing, renovating, repairing, furnishing, fixturing or equipping the Premises. The terms and provisions of the First Deed of Trust are paramount and controlling, and they supersede any other terms and provision hereof in conflict therewith. In the event of a foreclosure or deed in lieu of foreclosure of the First Deed of Trust, any provisions herein or any provisions in any other collateral agreement restricting the use of Premises to low or moderate income households or otherwise restricting the Owners ability to sell the premises shall have no further force or effect on subsequent Owners or purchasers of the Premises. Any person, including his or her successors or assigns (other than the OWNER or related entity of the OWNER), receiving title to the Premises SumerHill Homes, Inc. - Exlubit C-Form of Resale Res1 ~ 61 _md Right of First Refusal Agreement 3 SumerHill Homes, Inc. - Exln"bit C-FoIID. of Resale ReS1 ~ 6' 2 .md Right of First Refusal Agreement 4 B. Acceptance. CITY, its designee or assignee shall have sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of OWNER's notice to exercise the right of first refusal to accept OWNER's offer to sell the Premises. This acceptance shall be in writing, and personally delivered or sent by first class mail through the United States Postal Services, addressed to the OWNER of record at the A. Notice of Offer to Sell. Whenever the OWNER no longer desires to own the Premises, OWNER shall notify CITY of their intent to offer the property for sale in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. Such notice shall be in writing, and may be personally delivered or sent by certified/return receipt, first class mail through the United States Postal Service, addressed to Economic, and Community Development, CITY of South San Francisco 400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 94080. OWNER's offer to sell may be withdrawn by OWNER, provided that notice of withdrawal has been received by CITY or its designee, in writing, prior to acceptance by CITY or its designee. 11. Resale Procedures. 10. Rioht of First Refusal. Except as provided herein, OWNER hereby grants and gives the City of South San Francisco or its designee or assignee a right to purchase the Premises under conditions set forth below. CITY, at it sole discretion, may assign this right to an individual buyer who meets the CITY's eligibility qualifications to participate in the program. CITY reserves the right to reassign the right to another eligible, qualified buyer in the event the initial designee fails or is unable to complete the transaction. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no assignment or reassignment of this right shall extend any time limits for performance under this Agreement without mutual, express and written agreement signed by both the OWNER and any assignee. 9. Covenant Runnina with the Land. The terms and conditions set forth herein are intended to run with the land and shall bind OWNER and all successors, heirs, grantees and assigns, unless and until superseded by subsequently recorded Agreements. These terms and conditions shall be made part of each deed subsequently recorded and shall bind each successor in interest until the earlier of (a) fifty-five (55) years from the date of recordation, or (b) the recordation of a subsequent and superceding Agreement. Each successor in interest shall assume the rights and obligations set forth and herein undertaken by OWNER in this Agreement. This Agreement and the covenants contained herein shall survive delivery of the Deed. 8. Attornevs' Fees. OWNER hereby agrees to reimburse CITY the full cost and expense, including staff time and attorneys' fees and costs, incurred by CITY in an effort to correct any default or enforce any violation of the terms of this Agreement, and OWNER further understands and agrees that if such funds are not reimbursed, in addition to other available legal remedies, CITY may deduct same from the proceeds upon resale of the Premises. through a foreclosure or deed in lieu of foreclosure of the First Deed or Trust shall receive title to the Premises free and clear from such restrictions. Further, if the Senior Lien Holder acquires title to the Premises pursuant to a deed in lieu of foreclosure, this Agreement shall automatically terminate upon the Senior Lien Holder's acquisition of titis, provided that the CITY shall not have cured the default under the First Deed of Trust, or diligently pursued curing the default as determined by the Senior Lien Holder, within the 60-day period provided in such notice sent to the CITY. official address of the Premises. For purposes of fulfillment of the terms of this procedure, the notice of intent to sell the premises shall be deemed to be an offer to sell, and the exercise of the right to purchase by the CITY or its designee or assignee shall be deemed to be an acceptance of that offer. Acceptance by CITY or its designee or assignee shall constitute a legally binding contract for the transfer of title, and once accepted, the offer to sell may not be withdrawn without the express, wntten consent of the party who accepted the offer. C. Escrow. Within thirty (30) days of the date of acceptance, an escrow account shall be opened by the CITY or its designee or assignee. CITY reserves the right, at any time during this process, to subsequently assign its right to purchase to an individual who is eligible and qualified to participate in the program. Once opened, an escrow must be closed within thirty (30) days, unless both parties mutually agree, in writing, to an extension of time. In no case shall the time between receipt of an offer to sell and the date of close of escrow exceed ninety (90) days, unless both parties mutually agree, in writing, to extend that date, or if for any reason the time periods herein are tolled. 12. Transfer bv Owner if Richt of First Refusal is not exercised. In the event the City or its designee do not exercise its Purchase Option within sixty (60) days of the OWNER's notice pursuant to Paragraph 11, the OWNER may offer the Residence for sale to an Eligible Household who meets the income criteria for the BMR unit and at a price within the BMR restrictions set forth in Paragraph 14. The proposed buyer must purchase the property subject to this Agreement and will be required to execute, acknowledge and record an agreement under the terms of which the transferee shall assume the obligations and duties and agree to be bound by the restrictions orthis Agreement. The OWNER must submit proof of the buyer's eligibility to the CITY for review and approval prior to close of escrow. 13. Owner's Oblioation to Cooperate. At all times, OWNER shall ensure that the Premises are clean and in good repair, and available to be shown to prospective buyers. OWNER shall cooperate with the City of South San Francisco and its respective officers, employees and representatives. Failure to comply with these conditions shall be deemed a matenal breach of OWNER's obligations pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, and upon determination by the CITY that OWNER has failed to comply with any of the above conditions, CITY shall notify OWNER that the time periods stated herein shall be tolled, and the applicable time periods extended accordiFlgly, until OWNER has complied with all of the conditions of this Agreement. Acts by OWNER which shall be deemed to be a breach of this obligation include, but are not limited to, failure to make the Premises available for showing to prospective buyers upon reasonable notice, willful or deliberate actions to dissuade prospective buyers from purchasing the Premises, and failure or refusal to return telephone calls, complete forms, provide required reports, or perform other actions ordinarily required by a party to a real estate transaction in a timely manner. In addition to tolling the applicable time periods, the CITY may pursue any other remedies for breach based upon this section. 14. Purchase Price. The purchase price shall be paid in cash at the close of escrow or as may be otherwise provided by mutual agreement of buyer and seller. The purchase price of the Premises to an Eligible Household shall be fixed at the lower amount as determined by using the following two methods: Sum.erHill Homes, Inc. - Exhibit C-Form of Resale Res, _ 63 _and Right of First Refusal Agreement 5 SumerHill Homes, Inc. - Exln"bit C-Form of Resale Rest ~ 6: 4 _md Right of First Refusal Agreement 6 15. Wood Destrovinq Pests and Ora an isms. OWNER shall bear the expense of providing a current written report of an inspection by a licensed Structural Pest Control Operator. All work recommended in said report to repair damage caused by infestation or infection of wood-destroying pests or organisms found and all work to correct conditions that caused such infestation or infection shall be done at the expense of the OWNER. Any work to correct conditions usually deemed likely to lead to infestation or infection of wood-destroying pests or organisms, but where no evidence of infestation or infection is found with respect to such conditions, is not the responsibility of the OWNER, and such work shall be done only if requested by the buyer and then at the expense of the buyer. 16. Real Estate Transfer Disclosure Statement. OWNER is obligated to provide the CITY with a full disclosure of the condition of the premise under Civil Code Section 1102, et seq. The CITY will provide the OWNER with a Real Estate Transfer Disclosure form which shall be completed by the ($ ). Base Resale Price: The price at which the OWNER purchased the BMR unit shall be adjusted by the percentage increase or decrease in the median annual income for a family of four in San Mateo County. The percentage increase or decrease shall be computed for the penod that the BMR unit is held by OWNER beginning on the date the OWNER acquired the Premises based upon the date of recordation of the deed conveying the Premises. This adjusted Base Resale Price shall be increased by the market value, .if any, of any documented, permanent capital real estate or fixed improvements approved by CITY. No price adjustment will be made except upon presentation to the CITY of written documentation of all expenditures made by OWNER for which an adjustment is requested. The adjusted price shall be decreased by the amount necessary to repair any damages and to put the unit into a sellable condition, including items such as paint, cleaning, construction repairs, and to bring said unit into conformity with all applicable provisions of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. The value of pnce adjustments shall be reasonably df?termined by the CITY. B. Based upon Median Family Income (MFI). Original Sale Price of Premises: A. Fair Market Value. CITY or its designee or assignee shall have an appraisal made by an appraiser of its choice to establish the fair market value. The OWNER, at his or her own expense, may also have an appraisal made by a qualified appraiser of OWNER's choice to establish the market value. If OWNER elects to obtain their own appraisal, the time period during which the CITY has the option to periorm pursuant to this Agreement shall be tolled for the period of time between the time the CITY obtains an appraisal and OWNER submits a separate appraisal. If an agreement cannot be reached as to the fair market value, the average of the two appraisals shall be deemed the market price, unless the difference between the two appraisals is greater than ten (10) percent of the amount of the higher appraisal, in which case CITY has the option of requesting a third appraisal be conducted by a qualified appraiser agreed upon by both CITY and OWNER, who will make an independent appraisal without knowledge of the results of the first two appraisals. The amount of the first two appraisals which is closer to the amount determined by the third appraiser shall be deemed the fair market value for purposes of this Agreement. OWNER and submitted to the CITY with the OWNER's notice of intent to sell. The OWNER shall cure all noted deficiencies in accordance with Paragraph 18. 17. Deferred Maintenance. Any purchase price determined through the use of this method shall be adjusted by decreasing said price by an amount to compensate for deferred maintenance costs, which amount shall be determined in the following manner. Upon receipt of notice of OWNER's intent to sell, CITY or its designee or assignee shall be entitled to inspect the Premises. CITY or its designee or assignee shall have an opportunity to determine whether any violations of applicable building, plumbing, electric, fire, or housing codes or any other provisions of Title 16 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code exist 18. Prooerty Deficiency. In the event deficiencies are noted, the CITY or its designee or assignee shall obtain estimates to cure the deficiencies. The OWNER shall cure the deficiencies in a reasonable manner acceptable to CITY or its designee or assignee within sixty (60) days of being notified of the results of the inspection, but in no event later than close of escrow. Should OWNER fail to cure such deficiencies prior to the scheduled date of close of escrow, at the option of CITY, its designee or assignee, escrow may be closed, titled passed and money paid to the selling OWNER, subject to the condition that such funds as are necessary to pay for curing such deficiencies (based upon written estimates obtained by CITY, its designee or assignee), shall cause such deficiencies to be cured, and upon certification by CITY of completion of work, escrow holder shall utilize such funds to pay for said work. Any remaining funds shall be paid to the selling OWNER. No other payment shall be due said OWNER. 19. Assianment of Riaht to Purchase. In no event shall CITY become in any way liable to OWNER, nor become obligated in any manner, by reason of the assignment of its right to purchase, nor shall CITY be in any way obligated or liable to OWNER for any failure of CITY's designee or assignee to consummate a purchase of the Premises or to comply with the terms of any purchase and sale agreement. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to obligate CITY to purchase any unit in the event that a buyer participating in the BMR program fails to complete actions to close escrow. 20. CITY Consent to Lease. Until such time as the CITY's right to purchase is exercised, waived, or expired, the Premises and any interest in title thereto shall not be sold, leased, rented, assigned, or otherwise transferred to any person or entity except with the express written consent of CITY or its designee, which consent shall be consistent with the CITY's goal of creating, preserving, maintaining, and protecting housing in South San Francisco for persons of low- and moderate-income. This provision shall not prohibit the encumbering of title for the sole purpose of securing financing; however, in the event of foreclosure or transfer by deed in lieu of foreclosure, the provisions of this instrument shall govem. This provision shall not prohibit acquisition through foreclosure or acceptance of a deed in lieu of foreclosure by Fannie Mae on any mortgage it purchases, pursuant to its participation in the Community Partnership Program. 21. Exemot Transfers. The following transfers of titie or any interest therein are not subject to the right of first refusal provisions of this deed: transfer by gift, devise, or inheritance to grantee's spouse or issue; taking of titie by surviving joint tenant or a surviving spouse of community property; transfer of title to a spouse as part of marriage dissolution proceedings; acquisition of titie or interest therein in conjunction with marriage; transfer pursuant to provision of any Fannie Mae mortgage as described above; provided, however, that with the exception of Fannie Mae acquisitions through SumerHill Homes, Inc. - Exhibit C-Form of Resale Rest ~ 6' 5 _ and Right of First Refusal Agreement 7 SumerHill Homes, Inc. - Exhibit C-Fonn of Resale Re~ - 66 - and Right of First Refusal Agreement 8 23. Entirety of Aoreement. This Agreement comprises the entire agreement between the parties, and no other terms or conditions shall be deemed to apply, unless by a mutually executed, written amendment, modIfication or superseding agreement which references this Agreement. OWNER covenants that he or she has not,and will not execute any other agreement with provisions contradictory to or in opposition to the provisions hereof, and that in any event, OWNER understands and agrees that this Agreement shall control the rights and obligations between and among the parties and respective successors. foreclosure or acceptance of deed in lieu of foreclosure, these covenants shall continue to run with the title to said Premises following said transfers. An instrument shall be executed, acknowledged and recorded by the transferee containing the following covenant: "This property is subject to the terms and provisions of that certain 'Agreement and Deed Restrictions Regarding Resale Controls for Below Market Rate Property'. Transferee, on behalf of transferee, and by transferee's successors and assigns, covenants and agrees to be bound by, and to perform in accordance with, such Agreement, and to include this covenant in any further transfer of the property." 22. Default and Foreclosure. OWNER covenants to cause to be filed for record in the Office of the Recorder of the County of San Mateo a request for a copy of any notice of default and of any notice of sale under any deed of trust or mortgage with power of sale encumbering said Premises pursuant to Section 2924b of the Civil Code of the State of Califomia. Such request shall specify that any such notice shall be mailed to the City of South San Francisco, Economic and Community Development, 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, Califomia, 94080. Any notice of sale given pursuant to Civil Code Section 2924f shall constitute a notice of intent to sell hereunder and CITY may exercise its preemptive right prior to any trustee's sale, judicial foreclosure sale, or transfer by deed in lieu of foreclosure. In the event OWNER fails to file such request for notice, CITY's right to purchase shall run from the date CITY obtains actual knowledge of a sale or proposed sale. CITY or its designee or assignee shall have the right to cure any such notice of default. The exercise of such right to cure shall in no way affect the operation of the notice of default as a notice of intent to sell by OWNER. CITY, its designee or assignee, shall be entitled to recover all costs incurred in curing such default from OWNER. Such costs shall be paid through escrow from the proceeds of sale if the sale is consummated. If the sale is not consummated and OWNER retains ownership of the Premises, CITY, its designee or assignee, shall be entitled to recover its costs directly from OWNER. None of the foregoing shall be interpreted to impair the right of the FNMA (Fannie Mae) to take legal action under the terms of its First Deed of Trust or to require FNMA to send default or foreclosure notice to any third party. In the event CITY fails to exercise its preemptive rights to purchase or prevent foreclosure or trustee's sale, a completed action of foreclosure or trustee's sale shall render this Agreement and the restrictions imposed thereby to be null and void and of no further force or effect. In the event CITY elects not to exercise its right to purchase upon default, any surplus to which OWNER may be entitled pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 727 shall be paid as follows: That portion of surplus (after payment of encumbrances), if any, up to but not exceeding the net amount that OWNER would have received after payment of encumbrances under the formula set forth above had CITY exercised its right to purchase the Premises on the date of the foreclosure sale, shall be paid to OWNER on the date of the foreclosure sale; the balance of surplus, if any, shall be paid to the CITY in order to compensate the CITY for the loss of the BMR unIT and to preserve the purposes of the CITY's Below Market Rate Housing Program. 24. Severability. If anyone or more of the provisions contained in this Agreement shall for any reason be held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect, then such provisions shall be deemed severable from the remaining provisions contained in this Agreement, and this Agreement shall be construed as if such invalid, illegal or unenforceable provision(s) had never been contained herein. 25. Distribution of Insurance and Condemnation Proceeds. Except as may be required to satisfy the first claim of the FNMA pursuant to the Community Partnership Program, in the event that the Premises consist of a unit in a condominium project and the condominium project is destroyed and insurance proceeds are distributed to OWNER instead of being used to rebuild; or in the event of condemnation, if proceeds thereof are distributed to OWNER; or in the event of termination of the condominium, liquidation of the association and distribution of the assets of the association to the members thereof, including OWNER, any surplus of proceeds so distributed remaining after payment of encumbrances of said Premises shall be distributed as follows: That portion of the surplus up to but not to exceed the net amount that OWNER would have received under the formula set forth above had CITY exercised its right to purchase the Premises on the date of the destruction, condemnation valuation date, or liquidation, shall be distributed to OWNER, and the balance of such surplus, if any, shall be distributed to CITY. 26. Nonwaiver. With the exception of the CITY's right to exercise a right of first refusal to purchase the Premises, pursuant to Paragraph 10 hereinabove, the failure of the CITY to take an action to enforce a right or to seek a remedy under the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall not be deemed to be a waiver by the CITY to take such action or enforce any rights IT may otherwise have pursuant to this Agreement. 27. Notices. All notices required herein shall be sent to the following addresses: CITY OWNER: Economic and Community Development City of South San Francisco 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 By acceptance of this deed, OWNER accepts and agrees to be bound by the covenants contained herein. DATED: Signature of OWNER Print or Type Name Print or Type Address of Unit DATED: City of South San Francisco Barry MI. Nagel, City Manage SumerHill Homes, Inc. - Exhibit C-Form of Resale Res - 67 -and Right of First Refusal Agreement 9 SUMMERHILL PALO ALTO, CAUFORNIA PARK STAT SOUTH SAN FRANOSCO, CALIFORNIA HOMES I ON SHflUII IOTAHICAlftAMl COMMON fMMl ~.=1~"""" ~~...... em, !5L.~~. == 2~. ~..., ;:r,:;;;;;;;;:..~..... ~;;;r ,",-_';r,;:.........". ........... -...... ......... ~toIIh~' Y~Tohh :::::=~,- ~_T_ RblflhlDltpkhlalOJl ~ YlbUtndnlU'lflentunl ~~ I 0\ 00 I SKVAlILTActI '" . . o ~ i J . AbJACfNT Itt5IOEHTW. a.....r,..Al\KINlISTMICf\RlI ; en rTiT': lXKTJfG MMfAQl! SWAll TO - t SOUTH WlrllAfICISCO tMT ~ 1.IfIINI p,QI{ JIAI.NlO'" "ATHf\'tOT"NlrOF~ -_10 SOIJtH IAN RAfIOKO IAIIT ~: UIfAlI PAM........ NEWOIIUM8frAl. MUAlFEHa wmt~lUAHDI'llA5JUS Cftm UAlHTfIWKf..am -.......- [ lmrel~ I .aoca _All COUIIT , ~ NIW OWNAMtN'tAl,. METAl fttKI J ..tq........wmtT,!I;fIt!S}'."tCO'.AIt; .- IUTMCM IMMI "'"""""- """" -.... - ...,.......... ="-:'::':=~.-::'-::r::'':=.... I I e=l?";."...- - iF" afftdtfd....*,....., 1hrOdgh~1wchrII..-. .....beItt.... .............!rtMNdhm ...................".IJeeI...... ..,....r-..==-.......... .....-- ...........efI5s.1t1te..AlltfnlfJldulltIe............"',...tlu.l7Ie -.......... """'"""".... Jot.. ~ ........... J ". lh. """"-.... on hi.:....,I__~ =";t,. p"'ng"...h t.J"~. .......-- 0 :.::;'.":.;:;;......- -- =-~ r--'\-- J -- . .. " .. 50 SQher=lfI' - SCHEMA TIC LANDSCAPE PLAN liTHe GUZZARDO JULY 29, 2005 PARTNERSHIPINC. .......... -......--. "'-., ..... SaIl'11hdIto" CA 'un L-1 T41',"<<i12 F4t,m!OO] \Zf9fDr;- ATTACHMENT 6 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DECEMBER 15, 2005 .~:' ,_ _./l."~t Planning Commission Staff Report DATE: December 15, 2005 TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: PARK STATION LOFTS RESIDENTIAL PROJECT: 1410 EL CAMINO REAL Case Number: P03-0092, MND03-0001, GPA03-0001, SA03-0001, RZ03-000l, UP03-00l6, and AHA04-0001 Harmonious Holdings/BA.RT -SamTrans Summerhill Homes Owners: Applicant: RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution recommending that the City Council 1) approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration, including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations; 2) adopt an Amendment to the General Plan; 3) adopt an Amendment to the Zoning Map and the Transit Village Maps TV-01 and TV-02; 3) approve P03-0092, Use Permit and Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map For Condominium Purposes; and 4) adopt the Affordable Housing Agreement. BACKGROUND/DISCDSSION: This staffreport supplements the project information, statements of project consistency with the General Plan and Transit Village Plan, and discussion regarding the project amenities presented in the November 17, 2005 staff report and staff presentation. Summerhill Homes is proposing to construct 99-condominium units over a podium on two parcels, totaling 2.04-acres. Currently, there are two aging structures located at 1410 EI Camino Real which contain five residential units. The applicant would demolish the existing buildings in order to construct the proposed high-density project. The condominium complex would consist of a mix of 52 one bedroom and 47 two-bedroom units. Security measures would be included as part of site construction. The applicant has not requested a State mandated density bonus or financial incentives for residential development. The proposed project, with a residential density of 49 units/acre, would be consistent with the permitted overall residential density in the Transit Village Zoning District (50 units/acre). The November 17, 2005 Planning Commission staff report provides the complete project description. (See Attachment 4) -69- -70- Mitigated Negative Declaration In accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and City policy, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared to determine whether the project may have a significant effect on the environment. The MND was distributed for a 30-day comment period on from October 5, 2005 to November 7, 2005. The City received comments from Caltrans, SamTrans, the Department of Fish and Game, two letters from Steve Yale at 1400 El Camino Real, and Yvonne Yu at 1400 El Camino Real. The comments and the response to comments have been incorporated into the MND. The MND analyzed the potential cumulative air quality impacts from the proposed project. The attached resolution included a confirmation on the General Plan "Statement of Overriding Considerations" regarding the cumulative impacts on air quality. The developer will respond to the Planning Commission comments and provide additional information, illustrations and explanations at the December 15, 2005 public hearing. The applicant has submitted a letter to the Planning Commission explaining that the revised drawings will show that the building has been moved back five~ feet along both EI Camino Real and BART Drive. BART has submitted a letter stating that the Agency will work with Summerhill Homes to provide supplemental parking. (see Attachments 7 & 8) . More detailed drawings . Better .renderings · Perspectives along EI Camino Real and Bart Drive . Profile to give a 3D street perspective · Give a clearer example of the visual impact in reference to the existing development · Increase the setback and landscaping area along EI Camino Real · Provide information regarding the pricing for the market rate units · Show window box details (materials) . Discuss parking issues The Planning Commission held public hearings on November 3 and November 17, 2005. At the first public hearing, Planning Commissioners reviewed the environmental analysis and took public comments on the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed mixed-use transit village project. The Commission also identified several architectural issues that needed further clarification or refinement. At the second public hearing, the Planning Commission identified. additional site planning and architectural issues that needed further clarification or refinement. During the November 17, 2005 public meeting, the Planning Commission asked the developer to provide additional information and respond to several issues, including: Planning Commission Public Hearings Page 2 of3 STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission SUBffiCT: Park Station Transit Village Residential Project DATE: December 15, 2005 p STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: Park Station Transit Village Residential Project DATE: December 15,2005 Page 3 of3 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution recommending that the City Council 1) approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration, including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations; 2) adopt an Amendment to the General Plan; 3) adopt an Amendment to the Zoning Map and the Transit Village Maps TV-01 and TV-02; 3) approve P03-0092, Use Permit and Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map For Condominium Purposes; and 4) adopt the Affordable Housing Agreement. Respectfully Submitted, //J / ?~~r(., . IMichael L n Senior PI er Attachments 1. Location Map 2. Planning Commission Resolution with Exhibits 3. Affordable Housing Agreement 4. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated November 17, 2005, with attachments 5. Planning Commission Public Hearing, November 3,2005 6. Correspondence regarding the Project 7. Letter from BART, dated December 8, 2005 8. Letter from Elaine Breeze, dated December 8, 2005 9. Tentative Parcel Map for Condominium Purposes 10. Site and Elevation Plans -71- ATTACHMENT 7 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES DECEMBER 15, 2005 Planning Commission Meeting of December 15, 2006 PUBLIC HEARING 8. Park Station Lofts SummerHill Homes/applicant Harmonious Holdings/owner 1410 EI Camino Real P03-0092: AHA03-0001, GPA03-0001, ND03-0001, PM03-0003, RZ03-0001, SA03-0001, UP03- 0016 & ZA03-Q003 (Public Hearing Continued from December 1, 2005) Use Permit to construct a 99-unit condominium complex over a podium garage on a site located in the SSF BART Transit Village Zoning District in accordance with the SSFMC 20.27 and 20.81; General Plan amendment to change the designation of the lot owned by Bart/SamTrans from "Public" to mixed "High Density Residential and Commercial"; Rezoning request amend land use map(TV-01) and height zone map (TV-02) to reclassify a portion of the lot owned by BART/SamTrans and located in the Planned Commercial Zone from P-C-L to Transit Village Zone in accordance with the SSFMC 20.87; Tentative Parcel Map to merge two lots into a single parcel in accordance with SSFMC Title 19; Tentative Subdivision Map to create 99 condominium units in accordance with SSFMC Title 19; Affordable Housing Agreement in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.125 and Negative Declaration ND03-0001 Chief Planner Sparks presented the staff report. Assistant City Attorney Spoerl noted that the Planning Commission resolution references a Statement of Overriding Considerations that needs to be omitted because it is not needed as part of the environmental review. Elaine Breeze, SummerHill Homes, and the DKS Environmental team gave a presentation addressing the Commission's comments from the December 1st meeting. Mrs. Breeze noted that the EI Camino Real setbacks were increased by 5 feet. She also gave a breakdown on how the homes would be priced according to the market when the homes are ready for occupancy in 2007. Marc Spencer, DKS Associates, added that BART has agreed to have discussion on parking overflow and possibly using the BART structure for parking. Mr. Marc Spencer and Paul Lettieri went into detail on building fai;CIde details and the lanclscaping aspects of the project. Public Hearing closed. Chairperson Teglia asked if the Bocce Ball Court had been removed. Ms. Breeze noted that they explored the Bocce Ball courts and there was more excitement for the open space from residents in current developments and felt that this was the best option. Recess called at 8:35 p.m. to view the model of the Park Station Lofts project. Recalled to order at 8:45 p.m. Commissioner Sim and Check Tang discussed the detail of the stoop effects and the landscaping along BART Drive. Chairperson Teglia asked what the possibility of continuing the planting strip along EI Camino to the BART area covered by four trees. Mr. Lettieri noted that this could be done if BART and the City do not have any issues with it. Commissioner Honan asked that the CC&Rs have a clause that the balconies not be used for storage. Ms. Breeze noted that this will be addressed in the CC&Rs. Commissioner Prouty noted that by increasing the setback along EI Camino Real they have lost some bedrooms and felt that this also caused the loss of some parking spaces. He was concerned with losing more spaces because the development does not have enough parking spaces. Ms. Breeze noted that the parking spaces will be assigned through the deed. Commissioner Prouty asked that the applicant continue working with BART to have a solution S:\MLVCute.s\:1:<-:lS-OS R."pC ML,^,utes.cloc -72- "page 3 ofs page -'1- of 5 -73- .5:\MLV\.Utes\:t::2-1.5-05 R.PC Mlv..utes.G:loc Public Hearing opened. Development Agreement (DA05-0004) Tentative Parcel Map to resubdivide a 15.75 acre lot into 5 parcels with reciprocal parking and access easements throughout, and a Planned Unit Development to allow creation of lots which do not abut a dedicated public street. Use Permit and Preliminary TDM Plan to construct a phased development consisting of four office/R&D buildings totaling approximately 534,500 SF, 5,500 SF of ancillary commercial space, and related landscaping improvements on a 15.75 acre site at 249 East Grand Avenue in the Planned Industrial (PI) Zone District in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.32,20.81,20.84,20.85,20.120 and 19.60 9. 249 East Grand office/R&D Project Georgia Pacific Corporation/Owner James H. Richardson/Applicant 249 East Grand Ave. POS-0019: DAOS-0004, DROS-0043, EIROS-0001, PMOS-0002, PUDOS-0001, TDMOS-0001 & UPOS-OOOS Recalled to order at 9:18 p.m. Recess called at 9:10 p.m. Motion Prouty I Second Sim adopting Resolution 2647-2005 recommending that the City Council approve P03-0092: AHA03-0001, GPA03-0001, ND03-0001, PM03-0003, RZ03-0001, SA03-0001, UP03-0016 & ZA03-0003. Ayes: Commissioner Giusti, Commissioner Honan, Commissioner Prouty, Commissioner Romero, Commissioner Sim, Vice Chairperson Zemke and Chairperson Teglia. Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None Approved by unanimous roll call vote. Consensus of the Commission recommendina that exolore use of BART oarkina for the Park Station Lofts oro;ect and review of the olantina strio on BART Drive site and exclusion of the Statement of Overridina Considerations. Commissioner Romero noted that he would not like to condition the applicant. He was concerned with the lack of parking. He pointed out that BART has not been cooperative with the City but could commit to the City and cooperate with the parking if it is necessary. Chairperson Teglia clarified that he is not suggesting a third party condition. He noted that it is of interest between BART and Park Station Lofts and if it cannot be secured then BART would not get their sale. He stated that in order to get this approval it should be triggered upon getting the agreement. Chief Planner Sparks noted that the Commission make it clear that they want to staff to find a mechanism to accomplish this. Chairperson Teglia suggested adding a condition that the developer secure some assurance from BART that the residents will be able to use their parking. Jennifer Renk, Seifel, Leviit and Weiss Law Offices, noted that BART has shown a willingness to discuss with the applicant and the Homeowners Association the possibility of entering into an agreement only if there is a problem. She asked that the Commission not condition the project based on an agreement that they do not know if the parking will be an issue. Chairperson Teglia felt that the sale of the BART property benefited BART and felt that there needs to be some assurance to allow the guest parking in the structure. Chief Planner Sparks noted that the Commission can add a condition to the project but was unsure of how the City would enforce such a condition. Assistant City Attorney Spoerl suggested that the Commission recommend this to the City Council for review. for the lack of parking. Planning Commission Meeting of December is, 2006 r: ATTACHMENT 8 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT NOVEMBER 17, 2005 Planning Commission Staff Report DATE: November 17, 2005 TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: PARK STATION LOFTS RESIDENTlALPROJECT: 1410 EL CAMINO REAL Case Number: P03-0092, MND03-0001, GPA03-0001, PM03-0003, SA03-0001,~03~0001,~03-0003, lJ.P03-0016,and AHA04-000 1 Harmonious HoldingslBART -SamTrans StaDIDerbillHomes Owners: Applicant: REC01v.lMENDATION: It is recomrilended tha:tihe Planning Commission recommend that the City Council l) approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration, including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and .statement of Overriding Considerations; 2) adopt an Amendment to the General Plan; 3) adopt an Amendment to the Zoning Map and the Transit Village Maps TV-Ol and TV-02; 3) approve P03-0092, Use Permit and Tentative Parcel Map For Condominium Purposes; and 4) adopt the Aff~rd.able Housing Agreement. BACKGROUND: In August 2005, Summerhill Homes submitted a revised application to demolish two existing structures and develop a 99-unit high-density residential condominium project at 1410 El Camino Real and on a portion of the comer site owned by SamTrans and BART. The revised project includes the following entitlements: Use Permit to construct a 99-unit condominium complex over a podium garage (with 121 parking spaces) on one site located in the SSF BART Transit Village Zoning District; General Plan Amendment to change the designation of the parcel owned by BART/SamTrans from "Public" to mixed "Community Commercial" and "High Density Residential" uses; Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Map to reclassify a portion of the lot owned by BART/SamTrans from "Planned Commercial" to Transit Village Zone- .and change the allowable building height; Affordable Housing Agreement; Vesting Tentative Map For Condominium Purposes; and a lot line adjustment to merge two lots into a single parcel. -74- -?5- The proposed transit village project is located in the EI Camino Real Corridor Redevelopment Project Area, adjacent to the newly opened South San Francisco BART Station. The corridor contains a mixture of residential neighborhoods, office buildings, industrial sites, and neighborhood and regional commercial retailers. The Corridor's largest retail centers are the Safeway Store on South Spruce Avenue, the Chestnut Center, Trader Joe's, and Costco. The new Historical Character. The proposed Park Station residential project -is a culmination of ten years of planning and redevelopment on the El Camino Real Corridor near the new BART Station. The City's General Plan policies and zoning standards promoting a mixed-use project respond to the State of California's housing laws and the city's need to provide a modem shopping center near residential neighborhoods. The General Plan policies and Transit Village Zoning District standards provide the developer with specific guidelines for high-density residential complexes near the BART Station. . Section 1: The EI Camino Real Corridor This staff report is divided into three sections. Section 1: The EI Camino Real Corridor, includes a background and summary of the goals of the EI Camino Real Corridor Redevelopment Plan., the 1999 South San Francisco General Plan., and the Transit Village Zoning District. Section 2: Project Description, includes the proposed project description, project consistency with the General Plan, Redevelopment Plan, and the Transit Village Zoning District standards, a summary of the proposed Development Agreement, and a summary of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Section 3: Planning Commissioner Comments,' includes a summary of the Planning Commissioner comments during the November 3, 2005 public meeting and staff responses. DISCUSSION: The proposed project is located on two parcels between the BART Parking Garage and Camino Court. The 1.25-acre parcel at 1410 EI Camino Real is currently owned by Harmonious Holdings and is located in the Transit Village zone. The second 0.79-acre parcel is owned by BART/SamTrans and is located in the Planned Commercial zone. The applicant has applied for a lot line adjustment to merge the two parcels into a single 2.04-acre site. The applicant is also requesting a General Plan Amendment and Rezone to incorporate the BART/SamTrans site into the Transit Village zone. The project is subject to the design guidelines and standards of the South San Francisco BART Transit Village Plan., which promotes high-density residential development near the BART Station. Location Page 2 of9 STAFF REPORT TO: Plalming Commission SUBmCT: Park Station Transit Village Residential Project DATE: November 17, 2005 STAFF REPORT" TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: Park Station Transit Village Residential Project DATE: November 17,2005 Page 3 of9 housing developments along the El Camino Real corridor include Promenade, Greenridge and Fairfield Residential. The 1993 EI Camino Real Corridor Redevelopment Plan The South San Francisco BART Station has provided the impetus for transformation of the corridor, particularly on vacant and underutilized parcels near the station site. Adopted on July 14, 1993, the redevelopment plan for the EI Camino Real Corridor was prepared in response to the , planned BART extension through South San Francisco, just east ofEI Camino Real. The plan focuses on redevelopment of key parcels along the northern section of the corridor, including the 26-acre Macy's Service Center and the County Government Center, as well as annexation of the 30.9 acre McLellan Nursery Site. The EI Camino Real Corridor Redevelopment Plan and General Plan Amendment changed land-use policies to permit the following: · Develop high-density residential, with housing densities of at least 30 units per acre along the BART line itself. · Redevelopment project area 'established to fund a full subway configuration for BART through South San Francisco The Redevelopment Plan was expanded in 2001 to include commercial properties on El Camino Real south of Chestnut Avenue and Willow Gardens. The South San Francisco General Plan Update Between 1997 and 1999, the Planning Commission and City Council had the opportunity to review the existing land use policies along the El Camino Real and prepare policies that promoted balanced commercial, office and residential land uses near the BART station. The General Plan Update process identified several redevelopment objectives for the El Camino Real Corridor, including: . Create strong neighborhood centers that are vital for stabilizing residential neighborhoods. . Recognize that redevelopment can provide the opportunity to create a new visual identity for EI Camino Real in the city. In 1999, the City Council adopted the South San Francisco General Plan, which contains specific policies and programs that promote "transit oriented development" -- balancing high-density residential development and commercial uses -- in the area around the BART Station. -76- -77- The developer is proposing to install 121 parking spaces on the site. One hundred eighteen parking spaces (including three guest spaces) will be located in. the parking garage and three surface parking spaces will be located next to entrance on the BART Drive. The entry to the parking structure will be from EI Camino Real. The garage.ramp was redesigned to provide a 55 foot long level landing to allow for stacking and maintain proper sight line for ingress and egress. The project will also provide emergency vehicle access (which is a requirement of the Fire Department) and a service road from BART Drive. Guest parking and loading/unloading will be from the BART Drive. Parking and Circulation Market Rate and Affordable "For Sale" Units The condominiUm homes would be "for sale" only, with 20 percent of the units (20 units) designated affordable for low- and moderate-income households. .The units occupied by low- and moderate-income households would be essentially the same as units occupied by market households and dispersed throughout the building. Security measures would be included as part of site construction. Additionally, Summerhill Homes entered into an Agreement with Legal Aid and reloca~d the families previously residing in the existing units. Summerhill Homes is proposing to construct 99-condominium units over a podium on a 2.04- acre site. Currently, there are two aging structures located at 1410 EI Camino Real which contain five residential units. The applicant would demolish the existing buildings in order to construct the proposed high-density project. The condominium complex will consist of a mix of 48 one bedroom and 51 two-bedroom units. Security measures would be included as part of site construction. The proposed residential density (49 units/acre) does not include any request for a density bonus and would be consistent with the permitted overall residential density in the Transit Village Zoning District (50 units/acre). Section 2: Project Description In 2001, the City Council, Planning Commission, Design Review Board, developers, property owners, regional agencies, and residents undertook a collaborative process to implement the General Plan and create the Transit Village Zoning District. The City held a series of Planning Commission Subcommittee meetings, technical meetings with stakeholders, a community meeting at EI Camino High School, an Open House at the Magnolia Center, several Planning Commission study sessions and public hearings, and City Council public hearings. Ultimately, at the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the City Council adopted a Zoning District that promoted a ririxture of high-density residential and commercial uses in the transit village area and quality design standards. Transit Village Zoning District Page 4 of9 STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: Park Station Transit Village Residential Project DATE: November 17, 2005 STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: Park Station Transit Village Residential Project DA 1E: November 17, 2005 Page 5 of9 Recreational Amenities The project will include a central court, community room, seating areas, the linear park improvements, and a recreational area. In addition, the developer will create a linear park easement on the O.4-acre area of the BART/SamTrans property (See attachment). The developer will coordinate the design, construction and maintenance of the improvements in the Linear Park area with City staff. ,The project data is provided in the following table: Pr' D 1 tDat oleet eve o1Jmen a Acreage 1410 EI Camino Real 1.25 acres BART/SamTrans Parcel 0.79 acres Total 2.04 gross acres Number of Residential Units One Bedroom Units 48 units Two Bedroom Units 5 1 units Total 99 units Residential Density 49 units/acre net (50 units/acre is permitted) Buildings Number of Buildings Two, Four-story buildings Building Height Two, Four-story buildings on a single podium (approximately 50 feet high from the average grade to the mid-point of roof) Number of Parking Spaces Standard Stalls 97 Tandem Stalls 16 Handicap Stalls 3 Guest Stalls 5 Total 121 Residential Parking Ratio 1.2 spaces per unit Affordable Units 20 Consistency With The South San Francisco General Plan The General Plan designates the 1410 EI Camino property for mixed-use commercial/retail and high-density residential uses. High-density residential uses are considered appropriate uses under this designation. The BART/SamTrans parcel is currently designated as a "Public" use in the General Plan. With approval of the General Plan Amendment, the entire project would be consistent with the General Plan policies promoting transit-oriented development within the one- -78- -79- · The proposed project will not exceed 50 residential units per acre and, thus, meets the City's maximum density requirement of 50 units per acre for a high-density residential project, established in Section 20.47.040, Regulations and Standards in the Transit Village Zoning District and General Plan Policy 2-1-19. · The proposed project will not exceed a height of 50 feet and, thus, meets the City's maximum height requirement of 55 feet for the site, established in Section 20.47.040, Regulations and Standards in'the Transit Village Zoning District · The proposed project will provide a ratio of 1,,2 parking spaces per residential units and, thus, meets the City's parking standards, established in Section 20.47.040, Regulations and Standards in the Transit Village Zoning District. · The proposed project complies with the City development and design standards for street frontages, parking garage locations, building design, open space areas, pedestrian . orientation and project amenities, established in Section 20.47.040, Regulations and Standards in the Transit Village Zoning District. Subject to approval of the General Plan Amendment and Rezonlng application, the proposed project would meet the City's minimum standards and requirements, established in Chapter 20.27, Transit Village District, which would designate the entire site TV-RH, Transit Village Residential, High-Density. The proposed project would meet the following standards: Consistency W'zth The Transit Village Zoning District 1410 EI Camino Real is located in the South San Francisco BART Station Transit Village Zoning District and is subject to the development and design standards set forth in Chapter 20.27, Transit Village Zoning District, which designates the site as TV-C, Transit Village Commercial and TV-RH, Transit Village Residential, High-Density. The BART/SamTrans parcel would be rezoned from Planned Commercial to TV -C and TV -RH. Additionally, the Transit Village Map (TV -Oland TV -02) would be amended to incorporate the new parcel and change the permitted height from a mix of 45 feet and 55 feet to 50 feet for the entire site. By adopting the Zoning Amendment, the entire project would be consistent with the development and design standards identified in the Transit Village Zoning District Ordinance. · Guiding Policy 2;.03 - Provide land use designations that maximize benefits of increased accessibility that will result from BART extension to the city and adjacent locations. · Guiding Policy 2-G-8 - Provide incentives to maximize community orientation of new development, and promote alternate transportation modes. · Policy 4.2-G-lO - Exempt development within the one-quarter mile of a Caltrain or BART station or a City-designated ferry terminal from LOS standards. quarter mile area adjacent to the BART Station. The following policies specifically support the proposed project: . Page 6 of9 STAFF REPORT TO: Planning COmmission SUBJECT: Park Station Transit Village Residential Project DATE: November 17,2005 STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: Park Station Transit Village Resid'entia! Project DATE: November 17,2005 Page 7 of9 Consistency With The El Camino Real Redevelopment Plan The proposed project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the El Camino Real Corridor Redevelopment Project Plan, amended in 2001, to 1) create and develop high-density residential development adjacent to the South San Francisco BART Station and to 2) repl~ redesign.and develop areas which are stagnant or improperly used. Mitigated Negative Declaration In accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and City policy, a. Mitigated Negative Declaration (1v.IND) has been prepared to determine whether the project may have a significant effect on the environment. The MND was distributed for a 30-daycomment period on from October 5, 2005 to November 7, ~005. The City noticed adjacent property owners and residents and informed interested agencies of the comment period and that the Planning Commission would hold a public hearing on November 3,2005. The MND analyzed potential visual impacts, air quality impacts, geology and soil impacts, hazardous materials, noise, public services, traffic, and utilities. On the basis of the MND it has been determined that although the proposed project could have a significant adverse effect on the environment, there will not be a significant adverse effect.in this case because the mitigation measures in the Mitigated Negative Declaration have been mcorporated into the project. The City has received comments from Caltrans, SamTrans, the Department of Fish and Game, Steve Yale from 1400 El Camino Real, and Yvonne Yu from 1400 EI Camino Real. Caltrans sent a second letter on November 9,2005, after the completion of the public co:rnri1ent period. The City. is currently preparing responses to the comments from the agencies and individuals. Staff will provide a summary of the comments during the public hearing. Section 3: Planning Commissioner Comments . During the November 3, 2005 public meeting, Planning Commissioners asked staff and the developer to respond to several issues, including: · The applicant is using the O.4-acre un-developable portion of the BART/SamTrans parcel to gain additional units. · The applicant has not set aside an appropriate amount of "open space" envisioned by the Transit Village Plan. · The visual impact on El Camino Real should be addressed. The applicant should investigate increasing the setback on El Camino Real. · The applicant may not have provided enough parking to support the development. · The applicant should investigate entering into a partnership with BART to provide additional guest parking spaces. . · Tandem parking may be problematic. -80- -81- 1. Location Map Attachments Respectfully Submitted, It is recommended that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council 1) approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration, including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations; 2) adopt an Amendment to the General Plan; 3) adopt an Amendment to the Zoning Map and the Transit Village Maps TV-Ol and TV-02; 3) approve P03-0092, Use Permit and Tentative Parcel Map For Condominium Purposes; and 4) adopt the Affordable Housing Agreement. RECOMMENDATION: The Status of the BART/SamTrans Parcel The O.79-acre BART/SamTrans parcel. includes the southeast comer of EI Camino Real and BART Service Road and the open-space area adjacent to the Linear Park The PG&E Substation would not be incorporated into the project area. The City Attorney has prepared.a memorandum addressing the BART/SamTrans sale; which indicates that BART was obligated to give the City a "first right of refusal" on the property. (See attachment) . An updated solar study. · An explanation of the "buyer profile" for the proposed project. · Additional illustrations showing the proposed linear park improvements, that will be constructed and maintained by the developer, on the O.4-acre "linear park" easement, including fence details, lighting and benches.. · A plan view and rendition showing the revised comer elevation at the intersection of BART Drive and EI Camino Real. The developer will respond to the Planning Commission comments and provide additional information, illustrations and explanations at the: November 17, 2005 public hearing. The presentation will include detailed descriptions and illustrations of the following site plan and architectural components: Page 8 of9 STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: Park Station Transit Village Residential Project DATE: November 17,2005 STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: Park Station Transit Village Residential Project DATE: November 17,2005 Page 9 of9 2. Planning Commission.Resolution with Exhibits 3. Affordable Housing Agreement 4. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated November 3, 2005, with attachments 5. Draft Minutes, Planning Commission Public Hearing, November 3,2005 6. Correspondence regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration 7. Mitigated Negative Declaration 8. Tentative Parcel Map for Condominium Purposes 9. Revised Site and Elevation Plans -82- ATTACHMENT 9 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES NOVEMBER 17, 2005 Planning Commission Meeting of November 17 9. Park Station Lofts SummerHill Homes/applicant Harmonious Holdings/owner 1410 EI Camino Real P03-0092: AHA03-0001, GPA03-0001, ND03-0001" RZ03-0001, SA03-0001, UP03-0016 8r. ZA03-0003 Use Permit to construct a 99-unit condominium complex over a podium garage on a site located in the SSF BART Transit Village Zoning District in accordance with the SSFMC 20.27 and 20.81; General Plan amendment to change the designation of the lot owned by BartjSamTrans from "Public" to mixed "High Density Residential and Commercial"; Rezoning request amend land use map(1V-01) and height zone map (TV-02) to reclassify a portion of the lot owned by BARTjSamTrans and located in the Planned Commercial Zone from P-C-L to Transit Village Zone in accordance with the SSFMC 20.87; Tentative Parcel Map to merge two lots into a single parcel in accordance with SSFMC Title 19; Tentative Subdivision Map to create 99 condominium units in accordance with SSFMC Title 19; Affordable Housing Agreement in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.125 and Negative Declaration ND03-0001 Public Hearing opened. Senior Planner Lappen presented the Staff Report. Elaine Breeze, SummerHill Homes, replied to comments made by the Commission on November 3rd. · Moving building back -They did not move the building back but redesigned the frontage with layered effects on the ground planes with planting, a lower stepped wall, recessed windows in conformity with the 1V Plan (Transit Village) which emphasized bringing a strong urban design to the ECR edge. · Open space - The setback from the property line is 34' 7" which provides a good setback for pedestrian access off the back of the units. · Solar study - They updated the solar study which demonstrates that the shadow is from the Camino Court residential project and Park Station Lofts will not cast a shadow onto Camino Court. · Parking requirements - The parking requirements are being met. She added that studies show increase in ridership and the use of car decreases over the years that someone lives in a transit oriented development. . Giving parking spaces to other residents - A provision in the Homeowners Association to allow the residents to provide a switch or rent their empty space:. . BART parcel - the number of units being proposed is 99 units and with the density bonus the developer would be able to have 111 units but they are not pursuing this number. . Bocce ball court - The Bocce Ball court can be removed and the Commission can decide if they want to replace it with 8 guest parking spaces or a recreational lawn area. Christopher Mohr, Executive Director of the Housing Leadership Council, encouraged the Commission to approve the residential project because it would add more homes to the area. Del Schembari encouraged inclusion of more native plants in the project and in the linear park. Public Hearing closed. Paul Lettieri, Landscape Architect, noted that they have tried to continue with the vision of the linear park and have included native species along EI Camino Real. Commissioner Honan questioned how many of the 20 affordable units are one and how many are two bedroom units. Mrs. Breeze noted that there will be ten of each. Chairperson Teglia questioned what the maximum density on the Harmonious Holdings property was. s:\MLVI-...teS\1::l-:l7-05R."PC MLVI-...tes.c;joc -83- "p~ge -+ ofT P~0e5 ofT -84- S:W.""ute.s\1i-1:Y....05R.PC M.""ute.s.cloc Mrs. Breeze asked the Commission could discuss if they would prefer the guest parking stalls, open lawn area or leave the plan as a bocce ball court. Chairperson Teglia and Vice Chairperson Zemke felt that they would not like to see cars parked in the area and would prefer either the Bocce Ball court or an open space. Commissioner Romero felt that he could support: additional parking but felt that there was not a need for a Bocce Ball court. Chief Planner Sparks summarized that the Commission is requesting more details, better renderings, perspectives along EI Camino Real and BART Drive, a 3D street profile, increasing the setbacks on EI Camino Real, unit prices, window boxes, and parking issues. Commissioner Sim clarified that he is looking to see a profile that shows the exterior profile. Chairperson Teglia noted that the corridor along EI Camino could have one foot taken out and a section could be shifted back independent of the lower grade. Mr. Tang noted that the interior courtyard would lose some space if the building were shifted. Chairperson Teglia asked what the thoughts behind the setback changes were that made the architect and developer conclude not to change the setbacks. Mr. Tang noted that they are backed up against the Hetch Hetchy pipeline easement on the backside. They tried to maintain as many parking spaces as they could and the garage footprint would not be able to be reduced. In effect in order to really reduce or push the building back they had to shift the building independent of the garage or cut the garage edge back which would impact a number of spaces. He added that they also tried to carve the garage edges to create on grade planting in the 20 foot setbacks. They also explored reducing the spacing in the garage to a compact stall but the City's standards do not allow compact stalls. ' Commissioner Honan noted that she needed to see how the Park Station Lofts project fits in with the other buildings along EI Camino Real. Mr. Tang noted that they can submit a 3D package for staff review to get to the level of detail the Commission wants to see. Commissioner Giusti questioned if the stoops were accessible off EI Camino Real or from inside the building. Check Tang, Architect, noted that the there is ground floor access from the stoops. Chairperson Teglia suggested setting back the building further and would like to see the North and South corridor view. He noted that a 50 foot tall building creates a visible impact on EI Camino Real. Commissioner Romero echoed Chairperson Teglia's comments and asked if the developer had looked into having a contract with BART to access their parking from the BART side. Commissioner Romero was concerned that the BART property along the Linear Park should have been offered to the City before going to the developer. He noted that he supports affordable housing but would also like to maintain the BART parcel available for public use and not allow every inch of land to be developed. He asked to see more specific drawings with details for material, railings, window planters and unit pricing. He felt that the parking was not going to work with some spaces being tandem spaces. Commissioner Sim asked to see how the setback works with the street. Mr. Lettieri noted that between the stepping of the walls there is a 4 foot grade change. Commissioner Sim also requested a 3 dimensional view of the building as it relates to the street and the setbacks. Senior Planner Lappen noted that it the maximum density is 50 units per acre. Chairperson Teglia questioned if the unusable 0.4 acre parcel were not included in the total calculation what would the maximum density. Senior Planner Lappen noted that the total acreage drops to about 1.64 acres and the units would be less than 90. Assistant City Attorney Spoerl noted that the applicant would be able to request a density bonus which would allow them more than one hundred units. Chairperson Teglia noted that this is a nice tradeoff to raise the density on the project that could be a lower density project. Planning Commission Meeting of November 17 Planning Commission Meeting of November 17 Chairperson Teglia questioned if BART would participate in allowing parking for the project in recognition of the benefits that they are going to reap from the project. Senior Planner Lappen noted that the previous applicant wanted to enter into a parking agreement with BART but the City was concerned with this because it was a revocable parking agreement. Consensus of the Commission to continue the item to December 1, 2005. Recess called at 9:15 p.m. Recalled to order at 9:25 ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 10. Terrabay Phase III Terraces Myers Development - Applicant I Owner San Bruno Mountain P04-0117: DAA04-0001, EIR04-0002, GPA04-0001, PP04-0001, SPA04-0001, ZA04-0004 Studv Session Project Description: Construction of a mixed-use development on 21 acres of land at the corner of Sister Cities Boulevard and Bayshore Boulevard in South San Francisco. The proposal includes 351 residential units in high-rise (180 units), town home and loft configuration, a 295,000 sq. ft. office / or 300 room hotel/or an optional180 unit condominium and 357,500 sq. ft. retail. The 25.61 Preservation Parcel is north of the project site and was conveyed to San Mateo County on August 11, 2004. The Preservation Parcel is included in San Bruno Mountain County Park and is designated as permanent open space. The Preservation Parcel is not a part of the project. Consultant Planner Knapp presented the staff report. Jack Myers, Myers Development, noted that the subcommittee gave suggestions on the proposal and he has incorporated some of those into the proposal before the Commission. Norm Garden and Don Sinamont of RTKL Architects presented the modifications to the project. Some of the modifications to the proposal were: · By shifting the office building to the north they were able to reduce the height because of the grade change on the northern side. · Pulled out the three stories of above grade parking and "finessed" the parking beneath the office tower. · Removed 9 units from the residential tower and included those into the lofts and the loft building to the north. · The impact on the Point was minimized by pushing the units further back to the north and pushing the driveway into the building. · The five foot wall was removed and replaced with natural material and provides the opportunity to have public art in 5 different areas. · Architectural designs were accentuated when the towers were rotated. Commission comments Chairperson Teglia noted that there have been many good changes to the proposal. He asked that the developer include an additional part to the model showing what the Point looks like now and see what amount of it is being removed. He asked that the applicant report back to the Commission on what precludes them from going down more than three feet in the project, what the possibilities are of pulling back away from the Point and seeing what can be built there. Vice Chairperson Zemke noted that the parking structure had opening towards the freeway with the previous layout and questioned if they had been reduced also. Mr. Myers noted that the concern was the s: \Ml"''''tes\:L:l-:J:}'--05 R."pC Ml",,,,tes.vioc -85- "p~ge (i, ofT ATTACHMENT 10 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT NOVEMBER 3, 2005 Planning Commission Staff Report DATE: November 03, 2005 TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: PARK. STATION LOFTS RESIDENTIAL PROJECT: 1410 EL CAMINO REAL Case Number: P03-0092, :MND03-0001, GP A03-0001, PM03-0003, SA03':'0001, RZ03-0001, zA03-0003, UP03-00l6, and .AHA04-000 1 Harmonious HoldingsIBART -SamTrans Summerbi.ll Homes . Owners: Applicant: RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission hear the staff report and developer presentation, accept comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration, ask questions and provide comments on the project. Staff requests that the Planning Commission continue the public hearing to November 17, 2005. The November 17, 2005 Planning Commission Staff Report is expected to recommend that the Planning Commission recommend that the City ~ouncil 1) approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration, including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Statement of Oveniding Considerations; 2) adopt" an Amendment to the General Plan; 3) adopt an Amendment to the Zoning Map and the Transit Village Maps TV-Ol and TV- 02; 3) approve P03-0092, Use Permit and Tentative Parcel Map For Condominium Purposes; and 4) adopt the Affordable Housing Agreement. . BACKGROUND: In August 2005, Summerhill Homes submitted a revised applica:tion to demolish two existing structures and develop a 99-unit high-density residential condominium project at 1410 El Camino Real and on a portion of the comer site owned by SamTrans and BART. The revised project replaces the high-density residential project that was proposed by the Urban Housing Group in 2004. . The revised project includes the following entitlements: Use Permit to construct a 99-unit condominium complex over a podium garage on one site located in the SSF BART Transit Village Zoning Dis1rict; General Plan Amendment to change the designation of the parcel owned by BART/SamTrans from "Public" to mixed "Community Commercial" and ''High Density Residential" uses; Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Map to reclassify a portion of the lot -86- -87- Summerhill Homes has submitted an application requesting that the Planning Commission recommend that City Council approve the construction of a 99-unit high-density residential project located in the Transit Village Zoning District. The proposed project would replace tw~ aging siructures at 1410 EI Camino Real and replace the existing trees with new trees and plant" material on the site, with street"trees along El Camino Real and, with street trees along the BART Drive. The applicant is also requesting City of South San Francisco approval to rezone a portion of the Bart Station area located between 1410 El Camino Real and Bart Drive from Planned Commercial to Transit Village High-Density Residential, a Tentative Parcel Map for Condominium purposes to merge the two parcels," and approval of the Affordable Housing Agreement DISCUSSION: 'On January 19, 2005, the original applicant, Urban Housing Group, presented the proposed project and architectural design to the City Council and Planning Commission during a Joint 'Study Session. The City Council and the Planning Commission aSked questions and provided comments. several Council Members and Commissioners noted that applicant did not provide enough architectural detail, the project was too dense for the small site, the large structure would " have a negative impact on the neighboring residential property, the site planning was awkward and did not provide usable open space for residents, and the project's architectural design, quality and massing should be" improved (See Attachment 3). .Joint City Council and Planning Commission Study Session The proposed project is located on two parcels between the BART Parking Garage and Camino Court. The 1.25-acre parcel at 1410 El Camino Real is currently owned by Hannonious Holdings and is located in the Transit Village zone. The second 0.79-acre parcel is owned by BART/SamTrans and is located in the Planned Commercial zone (See AttB.chment 2). The applicant has applied for a lot line adjUstment to merge the two parcels into a single 2.04-acre site. The applicant is also requesting a General Plan Amendment and Rezone to incorporate the BART/SamTrans site into the Transit Village zone. The project is subjeCt to the design guidelines and standards of the South San Francisco BART Transit Village P~ which promotes high-density residential development n~ the. BART Station. Location owned by BART/SamTrans from "Planned Commercial" to Transit Village Zone and change the allowable building height; Affordable Housing Agreement; Vesting Tentative Map For Condominium Purposes; and a lot line adjustment to merge two lots into a single parcel. Page 2 Staff Report Subject: Park Station Lofts Date: November 3, 2005 Staff Report Subject: Park Station Lofts Date: November 3, 2005 Page 3 Purpose of the Public Hearing The pmpose oftbis meeting is to open the public hearing and present the proposed project to the Planning Commission. Staff is requesting that the Planning Commission hear the staff report and developer presentation, ask questions and provide comments on the project, and continue the public hearing to November 17, 2005. The November 17, 2005 Planning Commission Staff Report is expected to recommend that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council 1) approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration, including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations; 2) adopt an Amendment to the General Plan; 3) adopt an Amendment to the Zoning Map and the' Transit Village Maps TV-01 and TV-02; 3) approve P03-0092, Use Permit and Tentative Parcel Map For Condominium Purposes; and 4) adopt the Affordable Housing Agreement Project Description In February 2005, Summerhill Homes assumed prqject management responsibility for the proposed project and has met several times with City staff to: 1) review the City Council and Planning Commission concerns; 2) clarify .the comments from the Fire Department, the Building Division and the Engineering Division; and 3) update the Planning Division on the design changes. In response to the City comments, the applicant modified the project as follows: · The developer incorporated contemporary design elements in the two buildings that add more windows and take advantage of light and View corridors, increase the recreational amenities and improve intema1 circulation from the front to the rear of the property. (See attached letter) · The developer redesigned the parking garage and increased the number of parking spaces. · The developer incorporated a service road in the rear of the site for trash pickup and general deliveries. · The developer incorporated an. emergency vehicle access in the rear of the site for fire and police vehicles. · The developer widened the open. space setback between 1410 EI Camino Real and Camino Court. The pathway connects the central court to the backyard and includes landscaping, handicap ramp, stoop entries, low-impact lighting, and benches. The pathway has also improved light and air circulation on the north side of Camino Court. (See attached Shadow Study) · The developer is currently working with the City's consultants to install on-site improvements along the Linear Park pathway. · The developer improved the materials, lighting and landscaping for the stoop entries. -88- -89- Residential: . Summerhill Homes is proposing to construct 99-condominium units over a podium on a 2.04-acre site. Currently, there are two aging structures located at 1410 El Camino Real which contain five residential units. The applicant would demolish the existing buildings in order to construct the proposed high-density project The condominium complex will consist of a mix of 48, one bedroom and 51, two-bedroom units. Security measures would be included as part of site construction. The proposed residential density (49 units/acre) does not include any request for a density bonus and would be consistent "With the permitted overall residential density in the Transit Village Zoning District (50 units/acre). Project elements Acreage 1410 El Camino Real 1.25 acres BART/SamTrans Parcel O.79'acres Total 2.04 woss acres Number of Residential Units One Bedroom Units 48 units Two'Bedroom Units 51 units . Total 99 units Residential Density 49 units/acre net (50 units/acre is permitted) Buildings . Number of Buildings Two, Four-story buildings Building Height Two, Four-story buildings on a single podium (approximately 50 feet high from the average grade to the mid-point of roof) Number of Parking Spaces Standard Stalls 97 Tandem Stalls 16 Handicap Stalls 3 Guest Stalls 5 Total 121 Residential Parking Ratio 1.2 spaces per unit Affordable Units 20 t Data Proiect Devell · The developer adopted a contemporary theme, with varied roof shapes, use of smooth stucco surfaces, metal frame windows and metal railings. The varied roof shape, including parapet walls, elevator towers, and select overhangs, will be used to provide height variation and shadow effects. · The developer designed mid-block breaks on all elevations of the building fa9ade. The project data is provided in the following table: Page 4 Staff Report . Subjeqt: Park Station Lofts Date: November 3, 2005 Staff Report Subject: Park Station Lofts Date: November 3,2005 Page 5 Affordable units: The condominium homes would be "for sale" only, with 20 percent of the units (approximately 20 units) designated affordable for low- and moderate-income households. The units occupied by low- and moderate-income households would be essentially the same as units occupied by market households and dispersed throughout the building. Security measures would be included as part of site construction. Additionally, Summerhill Homes entered into an Agreement with Legal Aid and relocated the families previously residing in the.existing uni~. Recreational amenities: The project will include a central court, community room, seating areas, direct access to the linear park, and a recreational area Additional amenities may include a fi1ness' center, community room with kitchen facilities and business center. In addition, the developer will coordinate the design, construction and maintenance of the improvements in the Linear Park area with City staff and consultants. Parking and circulation: The developer is proposing to install 121 parking spaces on the site. 118 parking spaces (included three guest spaces) will be located in the parking garage and three surface 'parking spaces will be located next to entrance on the BART Drive. The entry to the parking structure will be from El Camino Real. The garage ramp was redesigned to provide a 55 feet long level landing to allow for stacking and maintain proper sight line for ingress and egress. The project will also provide emergency vehicle access .(which is a requirement of the Fire Department) and a service road from BART Drive. Guest parking and loading/unloading will be from the BART Drive. Plann'ing Commission Subcommittee & Design Review Board Since Summerhill Homes assumed project management responsibilities in February 2005, the City pursued an active architectural review process that included the City's consultant (Rick Williams), the Design Review Board, City'staff, and the Planning Commission Subcommittee. On September 5, 2005, the Planning Commission Subcommittee met with the developer to meet the new project team. and architect, review the revised project and provide comment The applicant presented a draft site plan and proposed elevation drawings for Planning Commission Subcommittee comment The elevation drawings focused on general architectural character, location of open space nodes, and building massing. . The Subcommittee was generally supportive of 'the project Planning Commissioners, however, commented on the size of the parking stalls and the density. (See attached Desi,gIl Review Board Minutes, Attachment 6) Community Meeting The applicant held a Community Meeting at the Municipal Services Building on September 8, 2005. Approximately 25 people attended the meeting and reviewed the proposed changes to the project. The comments were generally favorable and the developer offered to meet with the Camino Court Homeowners Association to discuss the project. At the meeting, the developer and Camino Court residents discussed the possibly insta1lii1g a pedestrian gate between the -90- The proposed project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the EI Camino Real Corridor Redevelopment Project Pl~ amended iri 2001, to 1) create and develop high-density residential development adjacent to the South San Francisco BART. Station and to 2) replan, redesign and develop areas which are stagnant or improperly used. -91- Consistency Wah The El Camino Real Redevelopment Plan The 0.79-acre BART/SamTrans parcel includes the southeast comer of EI Camino Real and BART Service Road and the open-space area adjacent to the Linear Park. The PG&E Substation . would not be incozporated into the project area. The original Project Application was considered to be incomplete until BART and SamTrans provides the appropriate letter or signature clearly" stating that they are consenting to the application and that their property should be bound by such application. At this time, the City has received the documentation that confirms the property will be conveyed to Summerhill Homes. (See Attachments 9 and 10) Project Consistency With The General Plan, The Zoning Ordinance, and The EI Camino Real Redevelopment Plan " Consistency With The South San Francisco General Plan The General Plan designates the 1410 EI Camino property for mixed-use commercial/retail and "high-density residential uses. High-density residential uses are considered appropriate uses under this designation. The BART/SamTrans parcel is currently designated as a "Public" use in the General Plan. With approval of the General Plan An:1endment, the entire project would be consistent with the General Plan policies promoting transit-oriented development within the one- quarter mile area adjacent to the BART Station. Consistency With The Transit Village Zoning District 1410 EI Camino Real is located in the South San Francisco BART Station Transit Village Zoning District and is subject to the development and design standards set forth in Chapter 20.27, Transit Village Zoning District, which designates the site as TV-C, Transit Village Commercial and TV-RH, Transit Village Residential, High-Density. The BART/SamTrans parcel would be rezoned from Planned Commercial to TV-C and TV-RH. Additionally, the Transit Village Map (TV-Ol and TV-02) .would be amended to incorporate the new parcel and change the permitted height from a mix of 45 feet and 55 feet to 50 feet for the entire site. By adopting the Zoning Amendment, the entire project would be consistent with the development and design standards identified in the Transit Village Zoning District Ordinance. project and Camino Court that would lead to the BART Station. The developer has prepared a list of representative multi-family residential projects located in Northern California. (See Attachments 7 and 8) The Status of the BART/SamTrans Parcel Page 6 Staff Report Subject: Park Station Lofts Date: November 3, 2005 Staff Report Subject: PBIk Station Lofts Date: November 3,2005 Page 7 Proposed Conditions of Approval and the Affordable Housing Agreement The Conditions of Approval to implement the project is consistent with the objectives, policies, land uses, and programs specified in the South San Francisco General Plan and the South San Francisco B.A.RT Transit Village Plan. The key itemB listed in the Conditions of Approval include: · Childcare contribution: Developer will pay the required fee. · Infrastructure Improvements: Developer will install and maintain landscaping, street furniture and lighting along the BART Service Road, in the open space area adjacent to the Linear Park, and on El Camino Real. · Park fee contribution: Developer will provide a ~ee to help maintain existing parks. · CC&R's: Developer will prepare CC&R's to mRnAge the condominium project mid maintAin the off-site improvements. · .Affordable Housing Agreement: The developer will set aside 20 percent' of the units for . "low- and moderate-income households. :Mitigated Negative Declaration In accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and City policy, a :Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared to determine whether the project may have a .significant effect on the environment. The !v.INDwas distributed for a 30-day comment period on from October 5, 2005 to November 7, 2005. The City noticed adjacent property owners and residents and informed interested agencies of the comment period and that the Planning Commission would hold a public hearing on November 3,2005. The :MND analyzed potential visual impacts, 'air quality impacts, geology and soil impacts, hazardous materials, noise, public services, traffic, and utilities. On the basis of the MND it has been determined that although the proposed project could have a significant adverse effect on the environment, there will not be a significant adverse effect in this case, because the mitigation measures in the Mitigated Negative Declaration have. been incorporated into the project. The City has received comments from SamTrans and the Department .of Fish and Game. Staff believes that CalTrans and the San Mateo County C/CAG will provide comments befo~e the comment period is completed. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the PlRnn;ne Commission hear the staff report and developer presentation, accept comments on the :Mitigated Negative Declaration, ask questions and provide comments on the project. Staff requests that the Planning Commission continue the public hearing to November 17, 2005. The November 17, 2005 Planning Commission Staff Report is expected to recommend that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council 1) -92:- -93- 1. Location Map 2. Existing Parcels- 3. Minutes, Joint Study Session, January 19,2005 4. Letter from the Architect, dated August 3, 20D5 5. Letter from the Developmer, dated October 26, 2005 6. Design Review Board Minutes, August 16, 2005 7. Comm1mhy Meeting Notice, dated August 15, 2005 8. Letter From Summerhill Homes to Camino Court, September 28, 2005 9. BART Documentation 10. Proposed General Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Changes a. Existing General Plan classifications b. Proposed General Plan Amendment c. Existing Zoning designations d. Proposed Rezoning 11. Mitigated Negative Declaration 12. Tentative Parcel Map for Condominium Purposes 13. Site and Elevation Plans, dated October 26, 2005 Attachments 4 Mich~ SeniorP Respectfully Submitted, adopt a resolution approving the MItigated Negative Declaration, including the Mltigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations; 2) adopt an Amendment to the General Plan; 3) adopt an Amendment to the Zoning Map and Transit Village Maps TV -01 and TV -02; 3) approve P03-0092, Use Permit and Tentative Parcel Map For Condominium Purposes; and 4) waive reading and introduce an ordinance adopting the Affordable Housing Agreement for the residential project. Page 8 Staff Report Subject: Park Station Lofts Date: November 3, 2005 ATTACHMENT 11 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES NOVEMBER 3, 2005 Planning Commission Meeting of November 3,2005 Motion Honan / Second Prouty to approve the Consent Calendar. Approved by unanimous voice vote. PUBLIC HEARING 4. Park Station Lofts SummerHill Homes/applicant Harmonious HOldings/owner 1410 EI Camino Real P03-0092: AHA03-0001, GPA03-0001, ND03-0001, PM03-0003, RZ03-0001, SA03-0001, UP03-0016 & ZA03-0003 Use Permit to construct a 99-unit condominium complex over a podium garage on a site located in the SSF BART Transit Village Zoning District in accordance with the SSFMC 20.27 and 20.81; General Plan amendment to change the designation of the lot owned by Bart/SamTrans from "Public" to mixed "High Density Residential and Commercial"; Rezoning request to reclassify a portion of the lot owned by BART/SamTrans and located in the Planned Commercial Zone from P-C-L to Transit Village Zone in accordance with the SSFMC 20.87; Tentative Parcel Map to merge two lots into a single parcel in accordance with SSFMC Title 19; Tentative Subdivision Map to create 99 condominium units in accordance with SSFMC Title 19; Affordable Housing Agreement in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.125 and Negative Declaration ND03-000l Public Hearing opened. Senior Planner Lappen presented the staff report. Elaine Breeze, Summerhill Homes, gave a brief history of the development company and referenced some of the projects in the area. She added the future residents will use BART and can also take advantage of the Oyster Point shuttle. She also pointed out that they are not seeking the 25% density bonus and that the City will be receiving $300,000 from C/CAG through this transit oriented development. Check Tang, MVP, noted that the site is adjacent to the BART station as well as adjacent to the adjacent neighborhood. He added that the Hetch Hetchy channels have been under utilized and they hope to link the project with the future linear park. He explained how they revised the project to flow easier with more open space and responded to the neighborhoods concerns by having a shadow study done. They shadow study found that the impact was greater on the Park Station Lofts project from Camino Court than the other way around. Mr. Tang noted that the fire truck and moving truck access have been moved off of EI Camino Real to mitigate any conflict with traffic on the major thoroughfare. He noted that they responded to the ORB comment with regard to the trash pickup and have worked with the Scavenger Company to mitigate those concerns. Paul Lettieri, Landscape Architect, noted that they have included paving materials and fountain elements to the project. He pointed out that the Design Review Board suggested changing the trees along BART Drive from evergreen to a smaller species such as Japanese Maples. He pointed out that they have included a spiral Barbeque area, a Bocce Court near the Hetch Hetchy canal with lavender plants surrounding them, access to the future linear park, and bamboo has been added to screen the transformer. Doug Reynolds from SAMCEDA and William Nack from the Building and Construction Trades Council spoke in favor of the project. They commended South San Francisco for being proactive in building a transit oriented development along EI Camino Real and noted that this would create jobs for many union employees. Commissioner Romero questioned how Summerhill Homes purchased the BART/SamTrans property if it should have been offered to other government agencies before selling to a developer. Assistant City Attorney Spoerl noted that he will research this and have a response to the Commission at the next meeting. Commissioner Romero noted that this property should have been acquired to continue the linear park extension. Commissioner Romero was concerned with the tandem parking and how it could become problematic in the future. He questioned if there was a shared parking agreement with BART. Senior Planner Lappen noted that the City did S:\MLV\.utes\.:1..1--03-05R.PC MLV\.utes.ctoc -94- page::2 of4 'P~ge 3 of-4- -95- S:\Mt""t<tes\:u-03-0S R.'PC Mt""t<tes.oloc George Corey representing Mr. & Mrs. Gibbs of Taylor Made. He noted that the owners of Taylor Made have been in the City for many years. He noted that they have never sought to do anything less than the City requirements. He noted that the issues on the project have been with regards to the parking. He noted that although the City requires 27 spaces they are providing 29 and City staff felt that the dimensions of the parking stalls were not provided. He pointed out that the dimensions were within the City's code. He noted that City staff noted that the Planning Division's policy is that no-one can back onto the street; therefore stalls 21, 22, 6 and 7 are not valid parking spaces. Mr. Corey noted that this does exist as a policy. He noted that some of the properties around the area have spaces that make it impossible to make a turnaround on the property without backing out onto the Senior Planner Carlson presented the staff report. Chairperson Teglia noted that the Commission should have adequate legal counsel at the meeting and in the future arrangements should be made to have someone else present. Assistant City Attorney Spoerl noted that he has been actively working as an advocate between staff and the appellant and cannot act as the advisor to the Commission. He suggested that the Commission conduct the . hearing and if the Commission has questions, they be stated for the record and handled by another Attorney. Public Hearing opened. Appeal of the Chief Planner's Determination to require a use permit for 344 Victory Avenue in accordance with SSFMC 20.90.020. (Continued from October 6, 2005) 7. Appeal of Chief Planner Determination Gibbs, Adele L/Owner George Corey I Applicant 344 Victory Ave POS-0142: APOS-OOOl Moved before item #5 under Agenda Review. Motion Prouty j Second Honan to continue the Public Hearing to November 17,2005. Chairperson Teglia stated that the out of the two parcels, one will remain open space because it cannot be built on and the other is going to be built on. He pointed that parking is unacceptable on EI Camino Real and suggested that the applicant look at the topography and consider moving the setback 3-5 feet back from EI Camino Real. Commissioner Prouty questioned if the project would be constructed in phases or in one phase. Ms. Breeze noted that the project is scheduled to be constructed all at once without multiple phases. Commissioner Honan noted that parking may be an issue but noted that the project is a Transit Oriented Development and it is meant to allow residents to take public transportation to and from work. She questioned what the price range for the units would be. Ms. Breeze noted that the below market rate homes would be selling for $100-$300 thousand; 1 bedroom units $400-$500 thousand and the 2 bedroom units from $500-$600 thousand dollars. She added that these amounts include the parking stalls. She also pointed out that BARTjSamTrans went through a public hearing process and adopted resolutions to allow Summerhill to purchase the .74 acres. not encourage the developer to pursue a shared parking agreement with BART and BART may not have entered into such an agreement. He added that the parking requirements are the same as the Camino Court development and it has worked for them for several years. Vice Chairperson Zemke was concerned with only 5 parking guest parking spaces for a 99-unit project. Commissioner Prouty echoed Vice Chairperson Zemke's concerns with regard to the guest parking. Planning Commission Meeting of November 3, 2005 ATTACHMENT 12 CORRESPONDENCE FROM THE APPLICANT, INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS, AND AGENCIES SummerHill Homes 777 California Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94aD4 Tel: 6508570122 Fax: 650 857 1077 December 8, 2005 Planning Commission City of South San Francisco 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94083 Re: Park Station Condominiums at 1410 El Camino Real, South San Francisco Dear Chair Teglia and Planning Commissioners: We look forward to returning before the Planning Commission on December 15,2005. In response to comments received at the last meeting, our design team will be presenting more detailed drawings including: . Renderings · Perspectives along El Camino Real and Bart Drive · Sections to illustrate from face of curb to landscaping to stoop to landscape terraces to building to roof · Enlarged axonomcntric architectural details · Revised landscape plan I l I ~ I ! I i l I ! i ! t t I ! ! .. 1 } ; ! In addition, to give a clearer example of the visual impact in reference to the existing development, we have expanded our scale model to include the existing development along :81 Camino real including, from the south, Camino Court condominiums, to the north, including the Fairfield project. In response to the Commission's request to increase the setback and landscaping area along El Camino Real from 2 to 3 feet, we have moved the building back 5 feet along both El Camino Real and BART Drive. In order to achieve this, we have replaced four 2-bedroom units with four I-bedroom units. The overall project mix is revised to (52) I-bedroom units and (47) 2-bedroom units. The affordable.unit mix was proportionately adjusted to (11) I-bedroom units and (9) 2 bedroom units. Our plans and elevations presented on December 15 will reflect this change. Information regarding the pricing of the market rate and below market rate units will be presented on December 15 as requested. Lastly, the project traffic engineer, Mark Spencer ofDKS Associates will present on parking issues on December 15th. We have had discussions with BART since the November 17 meeting regarding their parking garage. The City should receive a letter from BART as a follow-up to our discussions. We appreciate the comments we have received and look forward to seeing you on December 15th. . I i I I ~ ! i ! Very truly yours, ~ Elaine Breeze Sr. Vice President -96- -97- Cc: Bruno Peguese, BART Real Estate Department Elaine Breeze, SUJwnerHiJ! Homes Jennifer Renk, Stl.:efel, Levitt & Weiss incertlr, itf ~ ~ ,;;---- KeVin M. Ha.ge. Manager of Parking, S hU1tle and Transit Pro grams BART is supportive (): the transit oriented deve.1opment project sponsored by SununerHiIl Homes lc cated at 1.410 .BI Camino Real a.djacent to the South San Francisco .BART Stati:m. Furthennore, BART will work with SummerHill Homes or its successors shoul:1 supplem.entary parking for the residential project need to be accommodated in ()e future. Dear Mr. Lappen: Re: Park Station ']~ ransit Vma~e Residential Pro,;ect 141. 0 El Camhi D Real Mr. Michael La.ppen Senior Planner City of South San Pnncisco 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, '~a]jfornia 94080-3698 Deoember 8, 2005 SAN FRANCISCO Blur AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT 300 lakeside Drive, F O. Box 12688 Oakland, CA 94B04.2r 08 (510) 464.6000 PAGE 62/62. CUSTOMER ACCESS 51e464E.14~ 12/eS/2ea5 16:42 www.bartgDv ThomBS M. Blalock nTll nQ;TRICT Lynette SWI8t 7TH ftlBTRleT JI/lIeS Fanll BTH DISTftlCT Tom Radulovich 8TH DI.'iTRICT Zoyd lues &TlllIISTRICT Carole Ward AIIBIl 4TH DISTIlICT 60b FrankUn 3M DISTRICT DIRECTORS Gan Murray 1 Sf DISTRItT JDII Keller 2ND DISTRItT Thomas E. Margrn DENrRAL MANlCEn CerDle Wlltd Allen VIti! PIliSlD~NT Joel KeDar PllUmlNT 00 DKS Associates TRANSPORTATlci N SOLUHO.N S MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Jerry Haag Mark Spencer November 9, 2005 Park Station Project Traffic Study - Response to Caltrans P 03086-000 letters of October 14,2004, November 4 and 9, 2005 Caltrans Letter of October 14. 2004 Comment 1 regarding parking and circulation: There would be a relatively low number of project-generated peak-hour vehicles, most of which are attnbutahle to residents familiar with traffic conditions along EI Camino Real. The traffic signal at the El Camino Rea1/BART intersection currently accommodates the flow of northbound traffic through the intersection and also into the BART station. Although motorists may occasionally face delays entering or exiting the project driveway because of the traffic on El Camino Real, the traffic signal at EI Camino Real/BART should provide adequate clearance time formotorists to safely enter and exit the project driveway in the future. Comment 5 regarding intersections on EI Camino Real: Tw.o intersections along EI Camino Real were analyzed, including EI Camino RealIBART Access Road #1, and EI Camino ReallMcLellan Drive. These intersections were chosen based on the potential for project-generated impacts to affect nearby intersections. Comment 6 regarding impact on SR -280 and ramps: Page 29 of the July 24,2003 report state that ''Project-generated traffic would not change levels of service on regional routes of significance in the study area The proposed project would add only 9 vehicles to 1-280 between SR-I South and San Bruno Avenue." The 2003 report was based on a larger project of 128 units;it is currently proposed as 99 units, which would reduce the number of trips on both local and regional facilities. No adverse impacts to freeway mainline or ramp operations would be anticipated Comment 7 regarding project entrances: Pages 29 and 30 of the report as well as the August 18, 2005 second addendum letter address project entrances and access. 1000 Broadway Suite 450 Oakland, CA 94607 (510) 763-2061 (510) 268-1739 iax www.dksassociales.com -98- 11-9-05 - 99. - 2 Caltrans Letter ofNoveniber 9. 2005 Comment :regarding change in project description 128 units VB. 99 units: A.second addendum to the Traffic Study.was prepared by DKS Associates and August 18, 2005 and addressed the 99-unit project as well as access and circulation issues in more detail. The original traffic study for the proposed 128-umt project was dated July .24,2003 and the first addendum was dated January 27,2004. Together, these documents comprise the Final Traffic Study for the Park Station Project in South San Francisco, CA. The second addendum reflected a reduction in the proposed number of units from 129 to 99 units. The analysis results, findings and 'conclusions of the July 24, 2003 Traffic Study would remain the same as in the July 2003 report based on the fact that the -projected trip generation would be proportionately reduced. Caltrans Letter of November 4. 2005 Comment regarding single driveway: Please refer to the responses to comments 1 and 7 on the October 14, 2004 letter above. All other comments are noted. Comment 8 regarding parking requirements: The provided parking is consistent with the City's Transit Village Plan, which stipulates one space per unit. The current proposal includes 121 spaces for the 99 units. No changes to the current parking regulations on El Camino Real are proposed. Nov 15 05 05:02p Gr-eenbelt Rllianc ( 4 1 5 ) F-4,3 - S 7 8 1 p _ 1 L' - -- ,- - - ,~ ,. ~~/tt$g~ PROIm"INC OPElI/ SMa "i-ID ~OlIN(; tIlIAIlLE COMIi4UNmE!; 631 Howard Street, Suite 51 0 San Francisco, CA 941 05 Phone: (415) 543-6771 Fax: (415) 543-'6781 We.b: www.greenbell..org Fax To: Ju..w / c7(.dll'lel~ J()'II\~S-e"q Pages: Z (fncluding cover sheet) Date: 1/11 ~-I D~ Fax: Phone: LP\.()- Re: "Pc:tr' ~ S~~ ~ cc: QUrgent 0 For Review 0 Please Comment 0 Please Reply 0 PleBse Recycle 'P LteJ..hR \ ]) i ':. h- \ buJl. -\.." t I t\~ VII) -\tI ~'lAet~h~J' DA- --rtI0Y-L~Uj C-OtV1 Vl/\ l~ ~ ~ --1 't l-tY Nw I7. /T~Vl~~\ G~kl~ -100- p.2 I1WN OFFICE · Ci31 Howard So'eel. Suite 510. Sail rJ':lncisr.o, r.A. 94105. (415) 54.~-6771 . Fax (415) 51!1-67B1 SOLANO/NAPA OFFICE · 725 Texas SU"ect, Fairfield. CA 94533 . (707) 427-2308 . Fax (707) 427-2315 SOUTH BAY OFFICE · 1922 TIle Alameda. 81lite 2J8, BllnJos!:, CA 95126 . (408) 988-0856 . Fax. ('1-08) 988-1001 EAST BAY OFFICE · 1601 North Main Street, Suite 105. WalnmCreek, CA 94596 . (925) 932.7776 . Fax (925) 932-1970 SONOMA/MARIN OFFICE · 50 S:m.1:lI Rosn Avenne. Suite 307, SW-_-'{' 01 :A 95404 . (707) !i7!H:\661 + Fax (707) 575-4275 jnfo@gre".Ilbelt.org +" _ llt.Olog Cc: Members of the South San Francisco City Council Mike Lappen, Senior Planner, City of South San Francisco Elaine Breeze. SummerHill Homes Sincerely, ;xt Lt.. .....>-"V'\..._ Su1ie Cummins .~ Education Program Coordinator Green bel t Alliance urges your approval of the Park Stati01J project. It is a fine example of urban iuIilI development. which not only brings many benefits to the City, but also belps to prevent wasteful sprawl development and preserve the Bay Area's open space. The development will provide 99 for-sale housing units, contTibuting significantly to the City's housing needs. Twenty of these units will be affordable to a range of income levels, from 50% to 11 0% of the area median income. We cn1husiasticalIy support the proposed development's new design. It uses space efficiently with des.ign elements such as sub-grade parking and multi-story buildings. The new design consolidates the buildings to make the project more pedestrian-friendly and create more open space. Trees, gardens, and a park adjacent to Colma Creek will be enjoyed by residents, commuters, and the greater community. The landscaped path at the rear of the property will provide an enjoyable walk for pedestrians accessing tht: BART station, and will connect with a regional trail to the San Bruno Balt Station. The Park Station project is an appropriate use for this property, as it is located on an underutiIized and odd-shaped lot. It has excellent prox.imity to BART and buses, and a forward-thinking parking ratio, of 1.2 spaces per uniL The revised project will also provide forty bicycle stalls, encouraging bike use. Stores, restaurants, and other services are located nearby and are accessible by walking or biking. Greenbelt Alliance, the Bay Area's land conservation and urban planning nonprofit, endorses the Park Station development proposed by SummerHill Homes for 1410 EI Camino Real Blvd. It earns our support by meeting or exceeding all of our criteria, ,:"hich lire designed to promote compact development patterns and livable, transit-friendly communities that are affordable to residents at a range ofincome levels. Dear Chairman Teglia and Members of the Planning Commission: RE: Pal"k Station-SUPPORT South San Francisco Planning Commission Chairman Marc C. TegJia and Honorable Commissioners 315 Maple Avenue Somh San Francisco. CA 94080 November, 152005 PROTECTING OI'''N SPAC, AND PHOMOTINC UVABLE COMMUNITIES (0415)5.43-S?81 Gr-eenbelt Allianc Nov 15 05 05:02p 11/04/2065 1l:l:5El 5162865559 CALTRANS Facsimile Route Siip o CAL TRANS DISTRICT 4 OFFICE OF TRANSIT AND COMMUNITY PLANNING 111 G"rand Avenue, 14th Floor Oakland, CA 94612-3717 0\ . . Maltino Address P.O. Box 23660 Oakland, CA 94623-0660 Date:~ Total Pages, including Route Slip: 3 TO: ". Name: ..:N\i ~o..eJ ~~ ,Agency or Company: c..;~ cf'. s., ~ fYa.n.c;~c.o Department ~""^ n " "'J b; \J \ So \ O!() . Telephone #: ~ 50 - ~ )1~ Cc.~;Lg Fax #: ~SD - ~..2.9 - Co ~ Notes/Instructions: From: Name: Telephone #: Fax #: (510) 286-5559, CALN T 8.541-5559" (510) 286-5560, c,.~ t~2~B-541.5560 PAGE 61 . '.. "OcJltrom impl'fJllrJ I71lIbilir,)' acrolB Ca.lifornill" -103- Please note that any driveways constructed withill Caltrans right-of-way shall be in accordance to Caltrans' standards, not the City's standard, as shown' on Page 55, item d, line 3 of the Initial Study/Mitigatod Negative Declaration for the Park Station Project dated October 2005. The new developer did not incorporate nor address our previous comments on the project. Our primary concern is in ~gard to the single driveway, located approximately 200 feet south of the BART Access Road, on El Camino Real. Due to the traffic volume on EI Camino Real and the proximity of the propos~d driveway to the signalized intersection at the BART Access Road. SlOpped vehicles on nort~bound State Route 82 may block the aocess to the parking garage. This would be especially true dUring the peak hours. Please explain. Thank you for continuing to include the California Department of Transportation (Department) in the environmental review process for the above-referenced project We have reviewed the Initial StudylMitigat~d Negative Declaration and provide the follOWing comments: The Department had reviewed this project under a different develope:r in October of 2004. The .previous project was named Park Station Lofts Proj~ct. Both.projects .are for 99 condominium units, differing only in the .number of proposed one and two-bedroom units. The current proposal is basically the same as the previous project with a single access driveway from EI Camino Real (State Route 82). SM082228 S1\1-82':'21.5 SCH_ 2004092074 Fl8% YDUr' po_,./ Be .nw/"D ,{fi4;'II1! @ ARNOl.n BCHWAR~ENEGGn c-.",~ PA($E 132 Park Station Project - Initial StudylMltl.gated Negative Declaration Dear Mr. Lappen: ~,N.fichaelLappen City of South San rrancisco 315 Maple A venue South San Francisco, CA 94803 November 4,2005 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION III GRAND AVENUE P. O. BOX 23660 OAJa..AND, CA 94623.0660 PHONE (510) 286-6605 PAX (510) 286-li559 ~(800)786-2929 S'r.1LTE 0,. CAI.!!I'OR.~.4_BtmTNJ!1"gS 'I'JI.UIBM""'A.'!'10117 Awn Htr{7l'ITNG"Arn!!II7CY CALTRANS 51el2865559. 11/84/2885 1~:5B 11/134126135 14: 513 511:12855559. CALTRANS PAGE 1:33 Mr. Mi.cbae2 Lappen NlJYember 4, 2005 P-&e 2 BncroQchmgm Permil Please be advised that any work or traffic control within the State ROW will require an encroachment. pennit from the Department. To apply for an encroachment. permitr submit a completed encroachment pennit appJjcation, environmental documentation. and five (5) sets of plans (in metric units) which clearly indicate State ROW to the following address: Mr. Sean Nozzari, District Office Chief Office of Permits California Dep811.memt of Transportation, District 04 P. O. Box 23660 Oakland, Ca 94623-0660 Should you. have any questions, please call Alice Jackson of my staff at (510) 286-5988. Sincerely, ~~~ .Q, {" TIMOTHY C. SABLE District Branch Chief lGRlCEQA c: Scott Morgan. State Clearinghouse -104- .Caltl'Q./!.r lmprolJ" mobUu,. _. ~__ ,...w.ifomitJ- PAGE Ell ~IO ,. .1..~~ "'So,~1 (510) 286-5559, CALNET 8-541-5559 (510) 286-5560, C~}~rr.B-541-5560 ! \ \ Co e.. ,jOL.Kso~ . Telephone #: Fax #: Name: From: Notes/Instructions: Date:~ Total Pages. including Route Slip:~ TO: P.O, Box 23660 Oakland, CA 94623-0660 MaiJirLQ Address 111 Grand Avenu~, 14th Floor Oakland,.CA 94612-3717 . i - ~ CAL TRANS DISTRICT 4 OFFICE OF TRA'NSIT AND COMMUNITY PLANNING Facsimile Route sflp CALTRANS ll/eS12Bel5 14: 25 51El28555:;0 .U/El9/;?E1El5 14: 25 518286555,.' CALTRAN5 PAGE 1:12 TATE 01" CAt.lP01no71....--.Bl,W'INP.!lS 'l'RANSl'ORTA1'10N ANn RnmJNG AGEHCV .. RNOLO RCHW AJt22N1:GcmR DtftJ.ftlDt" lEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION .11 GRAND AVENUE '. O. BOX 23660 )AJQ..ANI) I CA 946Za.0860 'HONE (610) 286.5505 ~AX (510) 286.5559 :'TY (800) 735.2929 @ Flu: )'Dur pDw.rl Be .urD .trw:i.nrl November 9.2005 SM082228 SM-82-21,S SCH# 2004092074 Mr. Michael Lappen City of South San Francisco 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisoo, CA 94803 Dear lv.1r. Lappen: Park Station Project - Addendum to Trame Study lnom 'previous comment letter of November 4. 2005, we indicated that we had J:Cviewed this ,pr~ject >in October 2004. At the time the project developer was different and the project was named 'Park Station Lofts Project. Both the previous proposal and the cuITCnt proposal, Park . StatiQn Project. are for 99 condominium units. We fUrther realized, subsequent to our November 4 letter. that we needed to review the traffic study for the project. We appreciate your quick response in forwarding to us a copy of this study. The Traffic Study, as receivod, is for B 128 unit project entitled 1410 El Camino Real and is dated July 24, 2003. It contains a cover letter dated January 27, 2004, which states that the project has been downsized to 121 units but that the analysis results, findings and conclusions of the July 24, 20~3 study remain as stated. We are seeking clarification, then, that the currently proposed project is for 99 units and that the traffic study, as provided, is appropriate for the cwrent project. If indeed the current proposal ba.s been changed to tbe previously proposed 121 units, this should be clarified and prop~r documentation submitted for our review, Should you have any questions, please call Alice Jackson of my staff at (510) 286-5988. ~ceJelY, c.\J~ ~~:SAB~ District Branch Chjef IGR/CEQA c: Scott Morgan, State Clearinghouse -CaJrrun. im.prDu.. mDb"lU~ /JCI"()II Or:Jlifarnil1. -106- e ] htto://CCI.Oal.Ca.e:ov/. Find California Code ofRegulatioDS, Title 14 Natural Resources, Division 1, Section 753 -107- rn11cP..,.".J;.,U7 rn(;.{n1"ff1n){." (fA);{,r(;..r1J C"..O""",.. ., ,,"'n :.... . /"':~J (0,' cc: State Clearinghouse Sincerely, rJ 11 . IhJ-P~ Robert W. Floerke 'Regional Manager Central Coast Region If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Marcia Grefsrud, Environmental Scientist, at (707) 944-5559; or Mr. Scott Wilson, Habitat Conservation Supervisor, at (707) 944-5584. The Department of Fish and Game (DFG) has reviewed the document for the subject project. Please be advised this project may result in changes to fish and wildlife resource$ as described in the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 753.5(d)(1)(A)-(G)1. Therefore, a de minimis determination' is not appropriate, and an environmental filing fee as :req uired under Fish and Game Code Section. 711.4( d) should be paid to the San Mat~o County Clerk on or bef~re filing of the Notice of Determination for this project. The grading and new construction on the 2.04-acre site may result in the removal of an unidentified number of trees. In order to avoid the potential for impacts, tree removal should be timed to avoid the bird nesting season (February through August). The DFG recommends that for each native tree that is removed or destroyed, trees shall be replaced with native trees on- site at a minimum 3:1 ratio (replacement: loss). For each non-native tree that is removed or destroyed, trees shall be replaced with native trees on-site at a minimum 1:1 ratio (replac~JIl~nt: loss). '. .,....... '. Park Station Project . South San Francisco, San Mateo County SCH 2004092074 Dear Mr. Lappen: RECtil'ED OCl, B!ODs PLAJvNIAIG Mr. Michael Lappen City of South San Francisco 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94803 October 11 , 2005 .State of California - The "-_..ources Aaencv DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME hUe:/ /www.dfp.ca.gov POST OFFICE BOX 47 YOUNTVIU.E, CAl.IFORNIA 94599 (707) 944-5500 ARNC#..aJ SCHWARZENEGCiER. Ciovernor To: From: Re: SSF Planning Commission Stephen Yale Initial StudylMitigated Negative Dec1a:ra.tion Park Station.. f'IT1 1410 EI Camino Real LJ South San Francisco . COpy :ECEIVED OV 0 i 2005 PLANNING Preface Although I am a. member of the Board of Directors of the Camino Court Home Owners .Association, 1400 E1 Camino Real in South San Francisco, in these comments I am expressing 'my own opinions. Gm~Co~~ , Park Station is supposed to be a condominium development, but the applicant is not obligated to adhere to this aspect of the plan. Some of the units could be rented as apartments, or the Park Station could be sold or manAged as an apartment complex. In any case, the proposed Park Station has much more the configuration and appearance of an apartment building than the usual condominium or townhouse development in South San Francisco. Park Station :fits the .concept of a Transit Village which is good in theory, but the limitations of the particular circumstances in :South City should be kept in mind. These concerns maerl'ify the issues raised in this response to the Initial S:tudy/Mi1igated NegativeDeclaration. Contacts with Urban Housing Group Urban Housin.g Group had made a couple of presentations at Camino Court HOA Board. of Directors meetings in 2003, but after September they seemed to disappear. Concemed about the accumulating debris, dead trees, and abandoned cars at 1410 El Camino Real, in August of this year we contacted the city ~d discovered that Urban Housing .Group was still working on their plan. Then I was told that there had been a community meeting with representatives of Urban Housing Group to discuss their plan, but no one with whom I spoke at C~o Court had been informed of the meeting. Zoning and the General Plan . The applicant is requesting that the city take several actions that will permit an increase in the number of units in their development: a General Plan Amendment "to change the designation of ' the parcel owned by BART/SamTrans from public to mixed commercial and residential uses"; amendment of the Zoning Ordinance Map "to reclassify a portion of the lot owned' by BART/SamTrans from PCL to Transit Village Zone"; and the merging of two lots mto a single parcel It does not appear that the City of South San Francisco and the neighboring properties receive any sufficient benefit frol;ll these changes. However, the a.pplicant would thereby be enabled to nearly double the number of units and overall mass of the development with m;n;mRl expansion required in the building footprint, using nearly all of .the buildable land for buildings and access. The impact of this expansion on Camino Court will be quite negative, as detailed at several points in this response. -108- : -109- Environment Concern Having been involved recently in a lawsuit based on construction defects that have caused water intrusion at Camino Court, I am very aware that Camino Court needs plenty of fresh air and sunshine to promote evaporation. Although set back from most of our common property line by about 25 feet, the height and overall mass of the Park Station structure will restrict the amount of fresh air and sunshine that get to OUI property. The close approach of the proposed Park Station at the back of the development aggravates this probl~ further restricting the wind that would more freely blow through an uninterrupted la:r:ger space between the buildings and through Camino Court.. This concern would be substantially ameliorated by the eliminRtion of one level of Park Sta:tion and extension of the driveway to the back of the property. Cons1ruction If piles are required, I wotlld want some alternative s1IUcture that does not require piles. When the BART channel was excavated early in that cons1ruction project, cracks appeared in several of Camino Court condominiums when piles were driven. BART has not been willing to address this matter, and any further nearby pile driving is likely to exacerbate the cracking in several of Camino Court condominiums. Emergencv Vehic1e Access . The -"P1Rnnine Submittal and Initial Study show an EVA to Park Station on Camino Court property. It would be very difficult to eHminRte deeded par1cing spaces and create BJl easement on Camino Court property. Another type of emergency access would be a pedestrian gate that would also give Camino Court residents' eaSier access to BART. However, the Camino Court 'HOA Board of Directors is opposed to a pedes1riBJl gate. One alternative to emergency access from Camino Court to Park: Station would be to extend the Park Station driveway to the back of . the property. The residential structure of Park Station would be concentrated on approximately 1 acre of the total property; most of the other half is covered by the PG&E substation and various easements and is unavailable for residential buildings. One sign of this concentration is the plan for 2 elevators and 3 stairways connecting all levels; some folks will have to walk about 200 feet just to get from their parking space to an elevator. Each the four floors of the rear building would have BJl appro,nmRte1y 200 foot corridor. Camino Court has 5' elevators and 16 stairways in m~~~~. . ,/ Desism An earlier plan called for 160 units and an industrial design. The facade of that design has been softened and the number of u:cits reduced, but there are still problems that become obvious in a tally of the significant differences between of Park Station and Camino Court. Camino Court was built ~ 3.218 acres. It has a well-integrated design with three buildings around a large central courtyard and with parking outside, in garages, and under two of the buildings. Park Station would have one garage with a set of two .elevators and a stairway in the middle of two somewhat separate buildings. In comparison with the proposed development, Camino Court has 96 units with average of less than 1.96 bedrooms per unit. Park Station wli)uld have 99 units with an average of more than 1.47 bedrooms per unit or Parking Camino Court has 2 deeded spaces per unit (192 spaces) and 2 additional unassigned spaces inside the security gate(s). At the front of Camino Court, there are 21 Camino Court guest spaces and 2 handicap spaces. Camino Court has a total of217 parking spaces. Park Station would have 94 assigned spaces, 5 handicap spaces, and 3 open spaces. Park Station wotild have 3 more units and 115 less parking spaces than Camino Court. The difference is startling. Since there is no overnight parking nearby on El Camino Real, parking in nearby neighborhoods is restricted on weekdayS to three hours for non-residents, and BART p8TkinE is restricted to those using BART while parked in BART parking, Park Station will have a parking dilemma. As the member of the Board of Directors of Camino Court who has handled parking enforcement for several years, I do not want to have to deal with cars of Park Station residents and guests parkeci on our property; Camino Court residents and guests would not appreciate the inconvenience; Park Station residents and guests will not be happy to discover that their cars have been towed. Parking at Park Station coUld be expanded by elim;T1J:1'ting the units at the eastern comer of the plan, extending the driveway, and creating some additioriaJ. parking spaces at the back of the property. Elim;m,'tiTlg one or two levels of Park Station also would reduce 'f;he need for more parking spaces. Aestb.eti.cs The main floor at the most northerly comer on the top level is twenty feet off the ground which at. that point is 65 feet above sea level. The closest structure in the.proposed development is 5 feet from om common boundary. Camino Court's nearest building is 10 feet on the other side of the property line, directly adjacent to the Park Station building at that comer. At that'point the roof eaves of Park Station would be 40 feet above the main floor on the top level. Five feet from our common property line, there will be a building 65 feet tall As planned Park Station would block all of the current view to the north from nearly all of the units in the nearest Camino Court building, including the view of the El Camino High School campus, the military service memorial with flags at Holy Cross Cemetery, BART, and a substantial portion of San Bruno Mountain. The view is not only an aesthetic issue; substantially degrading the view will contravene one of reasons many people purchased their condominiums.: Stephen Yale 1400 El Camino Real #227 So. San Francisco, Ca 94080 -110- -111- 3. fflrking. Parking is going lo be fl potential problem. A total of 121 parking spnces for 99 units is inadeq'L1atc. In Camino Court, nIl of the owners have 2 pI'U'king apnoea. There a.re a. total of 217 parkins Sp11C~S .for L~ 96 unit con~plex. Even though all lInirs hL'lVe 2 .2. Traffic. 99 un its is going to genera:te idot of extra traffic. With the opel,ing of the Solflre ,'esidc:ntial/corn.rnercial project housing Tnlder .roe's, lrnJlfic could preScllt a. problem. Trader Joe's is a very popular store and since CosleD which sells choapcr gas is closeby, ri,ore people are likely to tra.vel from neighboring cities for cheaper sas and the incentive of shopping tIt two discoLlI1tecl outlets at the one' time. At present, (In the weekends during most of the day.. there are at lea..~t 20 cars trying t.o entc:1' the 'CDf;Lc:(~ huge parking lot, and one has a. pl'Oblem finding a parking space in peak timell. With the increase or Lhe'l'r~Lffic the project would bring, is the project sponsor prepared to m.ldress this problem? .l. A'esthetics. "rhe four story 50' height building is too mil considering the mnssive 'structure of BART parking lot and the Sola.re complex next to Costco. 99 units on 2.04 flcres or iElnd would give the apPCDrllllCe of crowdillJl. into a limited SptlCe. Ca.inino Court has 96 Jurger units on :Iarser .acroage and is appealltl& to the eye and one doeI' not sLlspect thaI there are thElt l11l'J.ny Lll'li.ts on the land. People f,'om other pali5 of the Bay Area who have visited this Ittr~tch of EI C~Lmlno have ELNkcd me how the Planning Department could approve the gbastly colored Solare structure. The bLllky stl'l.Icture nnd loud colors are not in harnlony with thesllrrollndings IIncl to mdd ttnother huge compl~ at 1410 will jusr draw attention to poor planning. J a.gree: with. . the commissioner who sugyested that the structure be set furLher back from J~I Camino nnd display more gr~enery. Summerl1eld Homes have bo~n vory. conscientioLl/\ i~ inlroducing more opel1 space :and visually it is more appca.linR but still needs tt'> be reduced in size. Summerfield Homes have been very cooperative with our concerns and r congrarulate them on their revised plan but it sti~l needs more modii'i~ations. TatLended the hearing on November 3 for rhe ttbove property. [hElve the followinR 'comments: Dear MI'. Sparks: Rc: 1410 .EI Cnmino Jleal I?ECf/~fD NOV O} 200s PLANNING LJ COpy Mr. Thomus G. SparkN Planning Division City of SOLlth Sa.n .Francisco, P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94D~3 VlA FAX 650.&77-8535 1400 El Cflmino Real, f/j26 South SW'I Francisco, CA 94080 November 7, 2005 P.l1'2 i c : 6S1a 8, .&639 IU-12l7.. las 15:B8 Fr-cm:MOFO 35TH F'L. "," I . .... -. V-e7~2ee5 15: B8 FrDm:MOFD 35TH FL.' TD:6SB ~ ':'639 P.2"2 ., '. pnrlch,& ,spaces, many residesnts in the units have more than 2 cars. Even with that, owners are using Ollr guest parkins in the front of th~ building. T understand the ooncept of E\ transit villnye and It cEI.n work in San .F'rMcisco and large cities. The cllY hZls 1'1 convenient tr'ansit RYl4tem and traffic Elnd pal'king if:; ~p cl'itical that ills easier t'O ride public transportation. 1 lived in the city over 25 ycurs ago and continue Lo work there. SamTmns is an unreliable system with long intervals between bUlleR IIJ'\~ BART hw; cut i~ gervi~e so thm one waits 12 minutes for tmins In work dElY peak hour ELnd 20 mins. off peRk. They have considered closing the SSF BART station on weekends and do nol' open on S'Llnday morning until 8 a.m, The llellreS! supl:lrmEltkCl is 2.3 long blocks from 1410 EI Camino and elderly or medically handicapped people need !I cllr to shop for groceries or shop a.t a ma.11. Even though the condomiums arc aimed at 1.2 persons occupying them, llloS1 couples would be in the workforce and have different Ilyendas; and if they wnnte5d t'o do errands locally, they could not rely on the public tnmsportatlon system. The COllc~pt of trying to encourllge peop Ie 1(\ get out of rheir cars is good but cannot woJ:k unless the transi1 system supports it effectively, Htlvlng lived in large cities around the world, residents gladly LIse public transportation if il is efiicient. Afraid to say, that is not the ctlSe here. J respectfully request that Any further decisiun on this properLy be postponed unlil lhe Plal'ning Commission hElShad enoLlgh time to assess the impact of parking lUld trllflic after the Solare complex hUE; beencompleled and fully occupied. Thank you for your cooperation. Very truly yours) o...J.v ~ .~~ U %ol'Lne An Y O~l 2 -112- -113- Although slightly modified by the inclusion of tandem as well as single spaces in the Park Station plan, the parking configurations of Camino Court and Park Station are still very different One consequence is likely to be that some Park Station residents and . guests will try to park in Camino Court guest spaces. On weekends all of the Camino Court guest spaces are often occupied; during the week at least half are often occupied. Parking- In an ideal world the residents and guests of Cimrino Court and the planned PaIk Station would have fewer vehicles, use BART more and respect . the property rights and regulations of their neighbors. Since BART is not likely to grant parking privileges to Park Station and parking in neighboring areas is restricted, Park Station should plan for more parking spaces, especially for guests. Even. at Camino Court we have found that enforcement of parking rules is a major annoyance. Saclly we have found that towing is a necessary measure for mainta;n;ng compliance with the regulations, .in both guest parking areas and deeded parking areas. Environmental Concern Although the eastern comer of the project nearest Camino Court has been reconfigured, there is still concern about the afternoon sharline of Camino Court The shadow study . presented at the Commission meeting on November 3 was inaccurate. The common border of Park Station and Camino Court runs southwest to northeast. Camino Court has afternoon sunshine on the northwest side all year long. Sbarline of Camino Court by Park Station could be mitigat~d if the buildings were. three and not .four floors. General ADnearance The new design for the Park Station project with rounded roof edges and textLn"ed siding is. more attractive than the previous one, but the footprint and overall mass of the buildings are little changed. Preface Please consider this letter an addendum to the letter I sent regarding the Initial Study of September, 2004. A copy of that letter is attached; the concerns raised in that letter are still mostly applicable but have been modified herein in accord with the new design for Park Station. R E eEl V t D Nov 0 lIDOS PLANNING (j COpy $ To: Planning Commission South San Francisco From: Stephen Yale Re: Park Station 1410 E1 Camino Real South San Francisco Date: November 7~ 2005 ~ .:-~ Statistically. Camino Court far exceeds the Park Station parking plan. Camino Court bas 2.3 spaces per unit and 1.2 spaces per bedroom; Park Station would have 1.2 spaces per unit and .8 spaces per bedroom. Of the 217 spaces at Camino Court, 25 are not deeded, and 23 of those are exclusively for guests. Two of the 23 are for handicapped guests, and 2 inside spaces are available to anyone. It appears that the Park Station plan has three unrestricted guest spaces, two handicap spaces and 113 deeded spaces; I could not find one handicap space and two open guest spaces in the drawings that are claimed in the summary statistics that I used in the above calculEitions. Although owners will know their own parking limitations when they decide to purchase a unit, they can hardly anticipate the problems that their guests may have. Somehow more guest spaces must be created. One option would be to reduce the number of units. Alternatively, guest parking could replace the bocce ball court, or the rear building could term;nAte in line with the PG&E substation, creating access and a larger area for parking, bocce ball and landscaping. Aesthetics Although the separation of the Park Station and Camino Court buildings has been maintained and the southeast comer of the project has been reconfigured, there is still concern about the design. Because of the slope of the property, the height of the building is more apparent are the rear, about 65 feet from the ground to the rooflin.e as oppose to about 50 feet at the front. Even 50 feet at the front without any setback from the sidewalk would dramatically contrast with the BART parking structure and Camino Com which are setback from El Camino Real, rise to about 40 feet, and are nicely landscaped. The adjacent building at Camino Court is two stories at the front and rear and graduated to three stories in the "center, in contrast to the more rectangular big box design of Park Station. Conclusion The overall impression I have is that developer is trying to do too much with too little land in the wrong place. The Park Station project looks more like a plan for an apartment building in an urban setting, than a condominium project in a suburban transit village. Stephen Yale 1400 El Camino Real #227 S. San Francisco, CA 94080 650-952-5177 . yale94080@yahoo.com -114- - AGENDA ITEM #7 Staff Report DATE: January 25, 2006 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Marty Van Duyn, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: TERRABA Y 2005 SEIR, SPECIFIC AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission, by a 6-1 vote, recommends that the City Council certify the 2005 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for Terrabay Phase: III Only, adopt Findings of Overriding Considerations for four significant and unavoidable impacts and approve the proposed Terrabay Phase III Only Specific Plan and General Plan amendment to add the High Density Residential overlay to the "Development Parcel" as discussed below under Planning Commission Action and Discussion. The Project includes 20% of the residential units at below market rate in compliance with the City's inclusionary housing ordinance. The Commission also recommends that the 32 moderate income unit requirement on the current entitlement be carried over to the 2005 Terrabay Phase III Only Specific Plan. The Planning Commission also recommends that Council direct the Office of the City Manager and the City Attorney to negotiate the Amended and Restated Development Agreement and direct Planning staff to incorporate the changes (as approved by Council) into the Terrabay Phase III Only Specific Plan and the T errabay Zoning Ordinance. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Planning Commission Action and Discussion The Planning Commission conducted study sessions and public hearings on the proposed 2005 Terrabay Phase III Only Specific Plan (2005 Plan), General Plan Amendment and 2005 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (2005 SEIR) as listed and described below: Action · October 6, 2005: Conducted a public hearing and took public tl~stimony on the 2005 draft SEIR. · November 17, 2005: Conducted a study session on Terrabay and in particular the changes proposed as a result of the subcommittee direction. I II · December 1, 2005: Conducted a public hearing on the proposed project entitlements for a Terrabay Specific Plan and General Plan amendment affecting the Phase III site only and continued the item to the December 15,2005 meeting for further discussion and action. Staff Report: January 25,2006 Subject: Terrabay Phase III Only 2005 SEIR, Specific Plan and General Plan Amendments Page 2 of 14 · December 15, 2005: Voted 6-1 to recommend to City Council to 1) Certify the 2005 SEIR and make Findings of Overriding Considerations and 2) Approve the 2005 Plan amendment and the General Plan amendment to a add the High Density Residential overlay to the 18 acre "Development Parcel" (formerly referred to as the "Office Parcel" which does not include the "Buffer Parcel"). The recommendation for approval also includes a request to require the 32 moderate income units (at 120% of the median) to be constructed and the "Hotel Alternative" as being the preferred alternative. Discussion The Planning Commission conducted a very detailed and thorough discussion on the proposed 2005 Plan. Their comments centered on the existing requirement (i.e., current office entitlement) to construct 32 moderate income residential units at 120% of the area median. The Planning Commission indicated that the 32 units should be required in addition to the 20% inclusionary housing requirement. The Commission also discussed the appropriateness of office uses west of Highway 101, the amount of residential proposed on the site and the preference for a hotel as opposed to a second residential tower (i.e., preference for the Hotel Alternative identified as the project in the 2005 Plan). The Commission with Commissioner Sim taking the lead discussed in detail the architectural vision for the site and the importance of the City understanding the complexities of the project's financing. Additional discussion focused on the need to provide latitude to the applicant in consideration of the amount of money being invested in the City and the desire to be able to eat and shop in South San Francisco, as well as a concern with too much latitude being provided. Chair Teglia indicated a concern that there is too much residential being proposed and that the three alternative approach offers Myers a "blank check" with respect to development of the site, an approach that he finds disquieting. Chair Teglia stated a strong desire to require the 32 moderate income units and the 20% inclusionary housing requirement. Commissioner Prouty indicated that the economics of the project may not pencil out if the 20% inclusionary housing requirement and 32 moderate income units were to be required. Commissioner Prouty also indicated a preference for a hotel or office and not a second residential tower. Commissioner Prouty also stated that the City needs to give Myers latitude (with respect to the alternatives) given the amount of money that is being invested, that he wants to focus on a quality project that is successful which will produce a revenue stream for the City and that he can let go of the 32 moderate income units. Commissioner Romero strongly stated a desire to retain the 32 moderate income unit requirement and the 20% inclusionary requirement. Commissioner Romero also stated that the project was exciting and "resort" in nature and that the hotel and residential fits the in the plan but that the office did not fit. Commissioner Sim stated that the project is about vision, an appreciation of and for the site, the City needs to understand the complexity of Myers' financing and that he favors a hotel but that the City should also consider an office use. Commissioner Honan stated a need to "think out of the box", that at first she was against office on the site but not so much now and that she wants residents to be able to eat and shop in South San Francisco. Vice Chair Zemke stated that he was not "tied" to any of the alternatives, that the Office Alternative was exciting as it would bring people into the site and that it is important to keep flexibility in the land plan. Commissioner Giusti stated that she agreed with most of the Commissioners and that she wanted to be certain that the City will get "Lifestyle Retail" on the site. Staff Report: January 25, 2006 Subject: Terrabay Phase III Only 2005 SEIR, Specific Plan and General Plan Amendments Page 3 of 14 The Planning Commission voted 6-1 (Chair Teglia dissenting) to recommend certification of the 2005 SEIR and approval of the 2005 Plan and General Plan amendment. The Commission stated that they wanted to retain the 32 moderate income unit requirement in addition to the 20% inclusionary housing requirement. The Commission recommended, in order of preference, approval of the Hotel Alternative, the Office Alternative and thirdly the Second Residential Tower Alternative. Chair Teglia in his dissent stated (in summary) that he would love to be able to support the project and he thinks it can be an excellent project. He has a problem writing a blank check for all the residential in the project. Chair Teglia went on the express concern that the project was never envisioned to be residential and that this is indeed what it may become. Chair Teglia also noted that the original promises have not been fulfilled in regards to the 32 moderate income units and restoration of the Point. He asked that the City Council consider these issues. Attachments to this Report The following attachments are included in this staff report for background purposes in addition to attachments A-D which are City Council resolutions and ordinances for action and the Planning Commission resolutions. Attachment E Attachment F Attachment G Attachment H Attachment I Attachment J Project Description October 20, 2004 Staff Report to City Council and Planning Commission for a joint study session. This report is included because it contains considerable background on Terrabay. October 6, 2005 Planning Commission Staff Report for Public Hearing on the 2005 SEIR. November 17,2005 Planning Commission Staff Report for study session on Terrabay. December 1, 2005 Planning Commission Staff Report on General Plan and Specific Plan amendments proposed for Terrabay. December 15, 2005 Planning Commission Staff Report on General Plan and Specific Plan amendments proposed for Terrabay. Planning Commission minutes from October 6, November 17, December 1, and December 15,2005. The 2005 Plan proposes 357,500 gross square feet (322,000 net leasable) of "Lifestyle Retail" use, a 300- room hotel and 351 residential units. Two alternatives to the hotel use are an office building consisting of 295,500 gross square feet (260,000 net leasable) or a second 180-unit condominium tower. A "Marketing Plan" is included in the 2005 Plan. The Marketing Plan is designed to secure a hotel or office user within 22 months of City Council action on the 2005 Plan, should the City Council approve the 2005 Plan. The commercial and residential land uses would be constructed in Phase 1 of Phase III and the proposed hotel, office or second residential tower would be constructed in Phase 2 of Phase III. Mr. Myers has indicated that the entirety of the 2005 Project could potentially be constructed in one phase. Staff Report: January 25, 2006 Subject: Terrabay Phase III Only 2005 SEIR, Specific Plan and General Plan Amendments Page 4 of 14 Public amenities that would be constructed in Phase 1 of the project include a public art program; water features; an outdoor performance area; a ISO-seat performing arts center; a supervised Children's Play Facility (permitting adults time to utilize retail facilities while children are supervised); a valley trail; a history walk:; a shared use training and emergency operations room for police and fire; a transportation demand management plan, a child care center or payment of in lieu fees for child care; and as noted above a marketing plan for the hotel and office. Please refer to Table 1 on the following page for a breakdown of the existing Phase III entitlements and the Proposed 2005 Plan. Police and Fire Staffing and Equipment: Appendix C of the 2005 Plan (sent to Council under separate cover in August 2005) includes the five year breakdown of staffIng and equipment costs for police and fire personnel and equipment. The costs include six new offIcers for the Police Department and their training and three new police vehicles. Fire costs include three new fire fighters and their training. Equipment includes a radio and repeater, an Opticom traffic signal and override and unspecified additional equipment. A summary of this information, as well as anticipated costs, is provided in the last row of the Table on the following page. A General Plan amendment to add the High Density Residential land use designation to the Business Commercial land use designation on the 18 acre "Development Parcel" (see the last page of Attachment B for the map of this parcel) is requested to allow residentia1land use on the Phase ill site. The residential designation would not be applied to the "Buffer Parcel". The Buffer Parcel, pursuant to the "Mutual Release and Settlement Agreement", the General Plan, Terrabay Specific Plan and the Terrabay Specific Plan Zoning District is permitted for roads, surface parking, retaining walls, landscaping and a kiosk. THIS AREA INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Staff Report: January 25,2006 Subject: Terrabay Phase ill Only 2005 SEIR, Specific Plan and General Plan Amendments Page 5 of 14 COMPARISON OF EXISTING 2000 ENTITLEMENT AND 2005 PLAN PROPOSAL 2005 Proposal Land Use Existing 2000 Hotel Office Second Residential Tower Office 180 Units Entitlement "Preferred Project" "Alternative 1 "Alternative 2" Retail 7,500 sq. ft. 357,500 gsf 357,500 gsf 367,500 gsf Office 657,500 gsf I None 295,500 gsf None Hotel None 300 room None None Residential None 351 units 351 units 531 units 32 units at 41 on site at 41 on site at 61 on site at Moderate Income 120% of median 80-20% of median 80-120% of median 80-120% of median , Low Income None 30 off site at 30 off site at 46 off site at 50-80% of median 50-80% of median 50-80% median 150-seat shared with 150-seat shared with 150-seat shared with 150-seat cinep1ex - private cinep1ex - private cinep1ex - private entrance Performing Arts shared with entrance equipped with entrance equipped with equipped with a stage, six office building a stage, six dedicated a stage, six dedicated Center (Indoor) conference theatre lights, storage theatre lights, storage dedicated theatre lights, center and a dedicated control and a dedicated control storage and a dedicated booth booth control booth Outdoor Performing Arts None 2,500 sq. ft. 2,500 sq. ft. 2,500 sq. ft. Area 100 child care $832,524 in lieu fee or $932,274 in lieu fee or $1,082,844 in lieu fee or day Day Care Center facility in office building day care on site day care on site care on site Stay and Play None 2,000 sq. ft. Supervised 2,000 sq. ft. Supervised 2,000 sq. ft. Supervised Play Play and Stav Area Plav and Stav Area and Stay Area Public Art Included Included Included Included Prof!ram Open Space 26 acres 26 acres 26 acres 26 acres Preservation Preservation Parcel Preservation Parcel Preservation Parcel Preservation Parcel (completed on 8/11/04) (completed on 8 /11/04) (completed on 8/11/04) Historv Walk None 1,000 linear feet 1,000 linear feet 1,000 linear feet Public Plaza None 10,000 sq. ft. 10,000 sq. ft. 10,000 sq. ft. 1,000 sq. ft. equipped 1,000 sq. ft. equipped with a bathroom, with a bathroom, 1,000 sq. ft. equipped with a shower, kitchenette, 3' shower, kitchenette, 3' bathroom, shower, Shared No Shared x 5' storage closet, x 5' storage closet, kitchenette, 3' x 5' storage Emergency Emergency closet with built in closet with built in closet, closet with built in Operations/ shelving and shelving and shelving and Operations One police telephone/internet telephone/internet telephone/internet I Facility for Police vehicle and connections (approx. connections (approx. connections. (approx. , and Fire and one police $200,000) and $5 $200,000) and $5 $200,000) and $5 million in ' Staffing and position/Relay million in equipment million in equipment equipment and staffing (six Equipment for transmitter for and staffmg (six police and staffmg (six police police and three fire) Police and Fire Police and Fire and three fire) and three fire) identified in the 2005 SEIR identified in the 2005 identified in the 2005 and Appendix C of the 2005 I SEIR and Appendix C SEIR and Appendix C Plan of the 2005 Plan of the 2005 Plan Staff Report: January 25, 2006 Subject: Terrabay Phase III Only 2005 SEIR, Specific Plan and General Plan Amendments Page 6 of 14 2005 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) Scoping The 2005 DESIR supplements and builds upon the environmental analyses contained in the 1998/99 Terrabay Phase II and III SEIR and Addendum, the 1996 Terrabay SEIR and the 1982 Terrabay Environmental Impact Report (EIR). I The 1998/99 SEIR was certified by the City on February 17, 1999 (Resolution # 19-99, State Clearinghouse #97-82077). The 1999 SEIR analyzed project impacts on geology, soils and seismicity, hydrology and drainage, biology, traffic and circulation, air quality, noise, public services, hazards and archaeology that could occur as a result of construction and operation of a 665,000 square foot office building inclusive of 7,500 square feet of support retail. Five alternatives (identified below) were also analyzed in the 1998/99 SEIR. The 2005 DSEIR analysis is focused on traffic and circulation, air quality, noise, public services and utilities and aesthetics. The focused topics are the topics that could be affected as a result of the proposed changes to the Phase III entitlements. The following alternatives for Terrabay Phase III have been analyzed over the past five years. Alternatives 1998/99 SEIR analyzes the following alternatives to the 665,000 square foot office building; · No Development - Assumes no development would occur on the site. · Existing 1996 Specific Plan - Assumes 432 residential units, 669,300 square feet commercial consisting of retail, office, hotel and restaurant. · Reduced Residential - Assumes 316 residential units and no commercial. · Reduced Commercial - Assumes 293,000 square feet of commercial consisting of retail, office, hotel and restaurant and no residential. · Permanent Open Space - Assumes the land (Phase II and III) would have been dedicated as permanent open space. · Mitigated Plan Development - Assumes 340,000 square feet of office, 10,000 square foot restaurant and a 200 room hotel all leaving the 2.0 acre archaeological site in open space. I The 1998/99 SEIR analyzed Phases II and III of Terra bay. Phase II includes what is now known as the Pointe (Peninsula Mandalay and Mandalay Pointe) and the Commons (which is now known as the Recreation Parcel). The 2000 Final Terrabay Specific Plan resulted in: 1) Designating the Commons as Recreation and Open Space; 2) Designating 26 acres of the Phase III site as permanent open space; 3) Moving the lot line between the Pointe and Phase III slightly to the southwest; 4) Designating the Phase III site as Business Commercial; and 5) Designating the Pointe as High Density residential. Staff Report: January 25,2006 Subject: Terrabay Phase III Only 2005 SEIR, Specific Plan and General Plan Amendments Page 7 of 14 2005 DSEIR Alternatives The 2005 DSEIR analyzes the following alternatives: . No Project - Assumes the existing 2000 Terrabay Specific and Precise Plan entitlements which include a 665,000 square foot office inclusive of 7,500 square feet of support retail. . Hotel Alternative - Assumes a 300 room hotel in Phase II of Phase III and approximately 322,000 leaseable square feet of commercial and 351 residential units in Phase I of Phase III. . Residential Alternative - Assumes approximately 322,000 leaseable square feet of commercial and 351 residential units in Phase I of Phase III and a second 180 unit residential tower in Phase II of Phase III, for a total of 531 residential units. The 2005 SEIR analyses the office scenario as the "project" for purposes of California Environmental Quality Act compliance, as an office tower would result in slightly more traffic impacts than a hotel or additional residential units. The 2005 Plan identifies the "Hotel Alternative" as the preferred alternative. The Hotel Alternative would result in fewer impacts than those identified for the "Office Alternative". The alternatives analyzed in the 2005 SEIR were selected in order to build upon and not repeat those analyzed in the 1998/99 SEIR. Comments Received on DSEIR The public review period on the 2005 DSEIR commenced on August 30 and closed on October 14,2005. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the DSEIR October 6, 2005. One public comment was received during the public hearing. Nine comment letters were received during the 45-day review period. All comments are responded to in the draft Final SEIR. Two letters, from C/CAG and the San Francisco International Airport, relate to noise. PG&E provided a standard comment letter with respect to developer requirements. The Town of Colma and the San Mateo County Public Works Department sent letters stating they had no further comments. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) sent a letter requesting 95th percentile analysis of the Bayshore/SB 101 Ramps, Bayshore/Central Project Access, Bayshore/Sister Cities/Oyster Point/Airport, Oyster Point/Dubuque and Debuque/1 01 Ramps. This analysis was conducted by Crane Transportation Group and is included in the draft Final SEIR. Mountain Watch commented on protocols for planting, weeding and maintenance to be included in the CC&Rs for Phase III and a mowing regimen for fire buffer. The Mountain Watch comments underscore the objectives of the City as reflected in the HCP and the CC&R's for Terrabay. Two letters commented on the merits of the project and one of the two had an overall question on traffic. Final SEIR The draft Final SEIR was forwarded to Council under separate cover (December 2005). The Final SEIR is the response to comments document and is coupled with the draft SEIR which constitutes the 2005 SEIR for Terrabay Phase III Only. The Planning Commission recommends certification of the 2005 SEIR. Staff Report: January 25, 2006 Subject: Terrabay Phase III Only 2005 SEIR, Specific Plan and General Plan Amendments Page 8 of 14 Findings of the 2005 SEIR The impacts associated with the 2005 mixed use project are similar to those associated with the approved 2000 office tower. All project impacts except the four noted below can be reduced to a less than significant level by implementing the identified mitigation measures. The identified mitigation measures are feasible and can be implemented. It should be noted that the 2005 proposed project would reduce traffic volumes during the AM peak hour over those of the approved 2000 office tower. Base case AM queuing would be reduced by the proposed 2005 project. Critical locations experiencing positive queuing impacts (improvement over base case) due to the 2005 project are the U.S. 101 Northbound off-ramp approach to Dubuque Avenue (left turns) and the northbound Dubuque Avenue approach to Oyster Point Boulevard, and the eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard and left turn lane on the eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach to Dubuque AvenuelU.S. 101 Northbound on-ramp Significant Unavoidable Impacts Although the impacts associated with the 2005 mixed use project are similar to those associated with the approved 2000 office tower there are four significant unavoidable impacts. Three significant and unavoidable impacts relate to traffic and one relates to air quality. These impacts are: Traffic Impact 3.1.5: Year 2010 Vehicle Queuing Impacts: Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard (AM and PM) intersection would experience queuing impacts. These impacts could be reduced by the mitigation measures identified in the SEIR but not to a level that is less than significant. There are no feasible mitigation measures for the Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque AvenuelU.S. 101 Northbound On-Ramp (PM only) intersection. Traffic Impact 3.1.6: Year 2020 Intersection Level of Service (LOS) Impacts: Three of the four intersections would maintain acceptable levels of service. The fourth intersection, Bayshore Boulevard/U.S. 101 Southbound Hook RampslProject Access would result in LOS impacts. These impacts could be reduced by the mitigation measures identified in the SEIR but not to a level that is less than significant. Traffic Impact 3.1.9: Year 2010 Vehicle Queuing Impacts: Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard (AM and PM) intersection would experience queuing impacts. These impacts could be reduced by the mitigation measures identified in the SEIR but not to a level that is less than significant. There are no feasible mitigation measures for the Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque AvenuelU.S. 101 Northbound On-Ramp (PM only) intersection. Air Quality Impact 3.2.3: Regional emission increase that would exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds for ozone precursors and P MJO. This is the same impact identified in the 1998/99 SEIR and remains the same for the 2005 proposed project. Measures identified in the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan incorporate the mitigation measures identified in the 1998/99 SEIR and the 2005 SEIR. These impacts could be reduced by the mitigation measures identified but not to a level that is less than significant. Staff Report: January 25, 2006 Subject: Terrabay Phase III Only 2005 SEIR, Specific Plan and General Plan Amendments Page 9 of 14 The Planning Commission considered the following factors when making their recommendation to the City Council to certify the 2005 SEIR and adopt Findings of Overriding Considerations. City Council may find that implementation of the 2005 Project would result in substantial public benefits that outweigh the. four significant, unavoidable cumulative impacts. Some of the considerations are that the 2005 Project would: · Provide economic growth and employment opportunities in the City and surrounding region, by the creation of new jobs on the site and in the construction - related industries; · Provide a tax benefit to the City by increasing tax base and revenues to the City through property and sales tax revenues; · Assist in bridging the gap between the availability of housing in the City and the abundance of jobs; · Assist in funding and provision of critical emergency services in the City by construction of the shared Emergency Operations Facility on the Phase III site and the staffing of police and fire personnel and equipment ($4,856,979 in 2005 dollars); · Provide below market rate housing; · Reduce overall environmental impacts and preserve open space by building on 18 acres of land most of which was previously disturbed by transportation and utility-related grading while preserving 26 plus acres as species habitat, wetlands and open space; · Further the goals of the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) by allowing the project to be built within the developable area of the Mountain vested by the HCP, to continue to fund the HCP by the homeowner and commercial fees prescribed by the HCP, by the restoration and conveyance to the County of San Mateo the remainder parcels adjacent to the Phase III site, by the creation of a fire buffer around the perimeter of the site and the planting of a carefully planned landscape plan utilizing non-invasive and drought resistive plantings; · Increase the City's access to recreational opportunities by the creation of the respite and trail along the perimeter ofthe site; · Develop the "Buffer Parcel" with roads and landscaping pursuant to the Mutual Release and Settlement Agreement between the City, Myers Development Company, San Bruno Mountain Watch and the Center for Biological Diversity; · Create a transition area between the urbanized potion of the City and San Bruno Mountain Park; · Honor and further the culture and history of South San Francisco by the creation of a History Walk within and around the Phase III site, the provision of public art, a 150 seat performing arts center, landscaped walkways and plazas and water features within the Phase III site; Staff Report: January 25,2006 Subject: Terrabay Phase III Only 2005 SEIR, Specific Plan and General Plan Amendments Page 10 of 14 · Offset the Project Sponsor's burden and the City's burden and costs created by the development of Phase I and II and the public amenities already constructed by the developer including the construction of Sister Cities Boulevard, fire station, recreation center, private streets, water system and holding tank, Hillside School recreation facilities, payment of a child care in-lieu fee ($700,000), payment of Oyster Point Flyover fees ($8.5 million), dedication of 26 acres of open space (Preservation Parcel), dedication of a six acre plus parcel to the City (the Recreation Parcel), construction of the linear park and offer of dedication of the park to the City, by allowing the project to be completed and tax benefits to the City to be realized. Previous Actions and Certifications Habitat Conservation Plan Conformance The boundaries of the Terrabay Specific Plan Area were found by the City Council to be in compliance with the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) on May 12, 1999 (City Council Resolution #64-99). The compliance hearing was conducted pursuant to federal statute which included review by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, State Department of Fish and Game, the County of San Mateo and Thomas Reid Associates (Plan Administrator). The review period and certification hearing was noticed pursuant to federal, state and local requirements. The Terrabay Plan boundaries and limits of grading included Phase III as well as the Preservation Parcel. The Preservation Parcel was designated as permanent open space by the City Council on November 24, 2000 (Resolution #48-2000). The dedication of the land and conveyance to the County of San Mateo for inclusion in San Bruno County/State Park furthered the objectives of the HCP. The conveyance and protection of the land preserved wetlands and critical butterfly habitat. The proposed 2005 Terrabay Phase III Only Specific Plan identifies limits of grading within the developable area of the remaining 21 acres of Terrabay Phase III (Figure 3, Initial Study in DSEIR, pp. 2-4 DSEIR and Figure 15 Phase III Only Specific Plan). The proposed limits of grading conform to the HCP fence. Ms. Victoria Harris of Thomas Reid Associates reviewed the proposed Phase III project limits and found them in compliance with the 1999 HCP Certification hearing (November 22, 2005). Airport Land Use Plan Compliance The Terrabay Phase III Only project site is not located within the current Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) Airport Influence Area (AlA) boundary for the San Francisco International Airport (Richard Newman, C/CAG letter dated October 14, 2005 and Dave Carbone, letters dated June 16, 2005 and November 22, 2005). Therefore ALUC compliance review is not required. However, the Airport (Mr. John Martin letter dated October 14, 2005) and C/CAG (Richard Newman letter dated October 14, 2005) both commented on Terrabay through the DSEIR process. Both letters request that the City require disclosure of the airport in the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) for the project. The City required this disclosure for Phase I and II of Terrabay and will require the same disclosure for Phase III. Additionally, the disclosure requirement is included in the draft Final SEIR. Both letters also stated the need for design level acoustical studies. Design level acoustical studies are required by the Building Division prior to issuance of building permits. Staff Report: January 25, 2006 Subject: Terrabay Phase III Only 2005 SEIR, Specific Plan and General Plan Amendments Page 11 of 14 DISCUSSION Lifestyle Retail Component Key to the vision and success of the 2005 Plan is the "Lifestyle Retail" component of the project. Defining the expectations of the Lifestyle Retail component and carrying that definition on for the maximum time feasible is key to realizing the City's objectives. The Terrabay Phase III Only Specific Plan and the Zoning Ordinance for Terrabay (Chapter 20.63 South San Francisco Municipal Code) would benefit from containing an exacting definition of Lifestyle Retail. Both of these documents govern the property and do not expire after a prescribed term as does the development agreement. The Amended and Restated Development Agreement (DA) for Terrabay also needs to contain a solid definition and requirement for the Lifestyle Retail component, which mirrors that of the 2005 Plan and Zoning Ordinance. However, the DA will expire after a prescribed term. The Planning Commission recommends the following language to be added to Terrabay Phase III Only Specific Plan on p II-2 and to be added to Chapter 20.63 of the Municipal Code (Terrabay Zoning): "Lifestyle Retail is defined as: A "Main Street" designed to embrace the outdoors, pedestrian oriented, shopping and entertainment center including high end specialty retail shops, restaurants, cafes, a cineplex and a major grocery store. Lifestyle Retail uses in Terrabay Phase III shall serve the needs and expectations of consumers with an orientation towards home furnishings and decoration, home improvement, kitchen and bath accessories, theatres, restaurants and cafes, books, music, arts and crafts and related activities, educational and interactive activities and uses and outdoor endeavors. Types of retailers andlor their equivalent that are permitted include: Type of Use Retailer or Equivalent Grocery Whole Foods, Andronicos, Molly Stone's Entertainment Landmark, AMC, Century-CineArts, Madstone, Lowes Apparel Abercrombie & Fitch, Ann Taylor, Anthropologies, Banana Republic, Express, French Connection, Gap/Kids Gap, Gymboree, 1. Crew, Kenneth Cole, Naturalizer, Old Navy, Victoria's Secret. Outdoor North Face, REI Specialty Apple Computer, Barnes and Noble, Bed, Bath and Beyond, Borders, Cost Plus World Market, Crate and Barrel, Office Max, Pier 1, Pottery Barn, Sur La Table, Williams Sonoma Food and Beverage Baja Fresh, Buckhorn Grill, The Cheesecake Factory, Chili's, Gordon Biersch, Jamba Juice, Pasta Pomodoro, Peet's Coffee and tea, Starbucks, Wolfgang Puck These types of retailers or their equivalent are permitted. Significant deviations from these types of uses, as determined by the Chief Planner, may not be permitted or may require a Minor Use Permit (Chapter 20.89 Municipal Code). The applicant will be required to demonstrate how the use under question is substantially equivalent to the uses listed above. " Staff Report: January 25, 2006 Subject: Terrabay Phase III Only 2005 SEIR, Specific Plan and General Plan Amendments Page 12 of 14 The following table illustrates this concept. Retailer T e REI, North Face Ann Ta lor Wolfgang Puck E uivalent Timberline Armani, Brooks Brothers Kulettos, II Fornaio Dissimilar Arm Su Ius Ross, MarshaUs, Dollar Store Olive Tree, Red Lobster Additionally, the DA could also include the following types of requirements. · Specific definitions and types of retail allowed in the project and sizes and square footage of retail types. · Listing by name the types of retail businesses to be permitted in Phase III. · Specified retail user types, or equivalent, subject to City approval. · Define any investment obligations. · Require certain thresholds of retail to be constructed pnor to allowing certain quantities of residential to be constructed. Specific Plan and General Plan Amendments A General Plan Land Use Map amendment is required in order to allow mixed use which includes residential on the Phase III site. A High Density Residential (18.1-30 units per acre) overlay is proposed for the Phase III Only site on the "Development Parcel" only (i.e., the old "Office Parcel"). The Business Commercial land use designation would remain. The combination of the two designations would allow business and professional office, retail, visitor- and local-oriented and regional-serving commercial retail, hotels, and residential land uses. The Business Commercial land use designation allows up to a 1.0 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and combined with a hotel use the permitted FAR would increase to 2.0. The retail and office and retail and hotel alternatives fall under the maximum permitted FAR as shown in the table below. All alternatives are within the High Density Residential designation prescribed by the General Plan. The designation prescribes 18.2-30 dwelling units/acre and the project proposes 19.5 for the mixed use with one residential tower (total 351 units) and 25.3 dwelling units/acre for a second 180 unit residential tower (total 531units). Staff Report: January 25,2006 Subject: Terrabay Phase III Only 2005 SEIR, Specific Plan and General Plan Amendments Page 13 of 14 COMPARISON OF PROPOSED AND PERMITTED INTENSITY AND DENSITY Alternative Proposed Permitted Dwelling Units/Acre FAR FAR wrrDM Plan Business Commercial (retail 0.92 1.0 19.5 and office) Hotel (retail and hotelY 0.94 2.0 19.5 Second Residential Tower 0.55 1.0 25.3 (retail) The Planning Commission found that the proposed 2005 Plan conforms to the City's General Plan and implements 17 of the goals and policies contained in the City's General Plan. The 2005 Plan implements Land Use, Transportation, Economic Development, TerrabaylParadise Valley, and Open Space and Conservation policies. A detailed discussion of the proposed project's conformance with the City's General Plan is contained on pages 13-18 of the December 1, 2005 Planning Commission Staff Report (Attaclunent H). FUTURE ACTIONS Should Council approve the 2005 Project the following subsequent actions will be required: 1) Planning Commission recommendation on the Amended and Restated Development Agreement (DA) and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). 2) City Council action on the DA and MMRP. 3) Planning Commission recommendation on the precise plan. 4) City Council action on the precise plan. CONCLUSION The Planning Commission recommends approval of the Specific and General Plan amendments and certification of the 2005 SEIR. Findings of Overriding Considerations are required for four impacts. Draft findings are included in Attachment A. All other project impacts can be mitigated to levels that are less than significant. The proposed 2005 Project implements 17 of the goals and objectives contained in the City's General Plan. A comprehensive Transportation Demand Management program and Marketing Program is included as part of the project. A very exacting definition of Lifestyle Retail is included in the 2005 Plan and will be incorporated into the Terrabay Zoning Ordinance should Council approve the Project. By: By: ~"( c(.~ Nagel City Manager ..J Staff Report: January 25, 2006 Subject: Terrabay Phase III Only 2005 SEIR, Specific Plan and General Plan Amendments Page 14 of 14 ATTACHMENTS Attachment A- Attachment B- Attachment C- Attachment D- Attachment E- Attachment F- Attachment G- Attachment H- Attachment 1- Attachment J- Resolution Certifying the 2005 Final SEIR with Exhibit A Mitigation Measures, Exhibit B Statement of Overriding Considerations, Exhibit C Findings on Impacts and Mitigation Measures in the 1982 EIR, the 1996 and 1998/99 SEIR's and 2005 SEIR, and Exhibit D 2005 SEIR. Resolution Approving the General Plan Amendment to add a High Density Residential Overlay to the existing Business Commercial Designation on the "Development Parcel" with Exhibit A Map of the Development Parcel. Ordinance Amending Zoning Code Chapter 20.63, Terrabay Specific Plan District Zoning Ordinance wlPhase III Only Specific Plan language (portion). Approved Planning Commission Resolutions #2648..:2005 (Certification of 2005 SEIR) and #2649-2005 Specific Plan, General Plan and Zoning Ordinance amendments (w/o attachments). October 20, 2004 Staff Report to City Council and Planning Commission for a joint study session. October 6, 2005 Planning Commission Staff Report for Public Hearing on the 2005 SEIR. November 17,2005 Planning Commission Staff Report for study session on Terrabay. December 1, 2005 Planning Commission Staff Report on General Plan and Specific Plan amendments proposed for T errabay. December 15, 2005 Planning Commission Staff Report on General Plan and Specific Plan amendments proposed for Terrabay. Planning Commission minutes from October 6, November 17, December 1 and December 15,2005. Attachment A Resolution Certifying the 2005 Final SEIR with Exhibit A Mitigation Measures, Exhibit B Statement of Overriding Considerations, Exhibit C Findings on Impacts and Mitigation Measures in the 1982 EIR, the 1996 and 1998/99 SEIR's and 2005 SEIR, and Exhibit D 2005 SEIR RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE 2005 SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR TERRABA Y, INCLUDING FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT AND POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IWACTS, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, FINDINGS ON IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE 1982 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, THE 1996 SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMP ACT REPORT AND THE 1998-99 SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NOT FURTHER ANAL YZED IN THE 2005 SUPPLEMENT AL ENVIRONMENTAL IMP ACT REPORT FOR THE REMAINING PHASE III PARCEL OF THE TERRABA Y DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, Myers Development Company proposes to construct Phase III of the Terrabay Development ("the Proposal") as a planned mixed-use community as the final segment of the three-phase development project ("the Project"); and, WHEREAS, the Project is divided into three separate phases, of which the Proposal is the third and final phase; and, WHEREAS, the entirety of the Terrabay/ Mandalay project has been analyzed in previous environmental documents, including the 1982 Terrabay Development Project Environmental Impact Report ("the 1982 EIR"), a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Terrabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement ("the 1996 SEIR") and the 1998/99 Terrabay Phase II and III Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ("the 1998/99 SEIR"); and, WHEREAS, the 2005 Project provides for development and disposition of the remaining Terrabay Development parcel consisting of mixed use development with commercial, residential and office land uses; and, WHEREAS, the entitlements provide for 357,500 gross square feet (322,000 net leasable) of commercial uses, 351 residential units and a 295,500 gross square foot (260,000 net leasable) office building; and two additional alternatives including a 300 room hotel and a second residential tower consisting of 180 units; and, WHEREAS, the 2005 Project includes "Lifestyle Retail" uses distributed throughout, including a multiplex cinema, a grocery store, restaurants and other high-end retail uses; and, 1 - 1- - z.. c {EU!.:! 'B U! paqsHqnd dlaM. SlUaUIWOO Ol SdSUOdSal pUB SlUaUIWOO ;1q~ 'UO!l'BUIlOJU! {'BtllO'BJ Aq palloddns S!SA{'Bm! paUOS'Bdll[lIBJ pOO~ 'B ~U!P!AOld lIEIS lJ'B1Q dql U! pauIBluoo UOH'BUIlOJU! aql AJHdlUl3 pUB AJ!JB{O SdSUOdSal qO!l{M. 's~lI!.maq oHqnd dl[ll'B pm! pop;1d M.d!Adl oHqnd dl[l ~U!mp paA!aOdl SanSS! I'BlUalUU01!AUd uo SlUaWlliOO Ol SdSUOdSal pd.mdald Al!;) dql 'SV31I3J-!& pm! :OYJ'Bll uo UO!lSanb {{ElaAO m! p'Bq 0M.l dl[lJO auo pUB pa[Old aqlJo SlpaU1 dl[l UO palUdUIWOO Slaua{ OM.~ 'Al!;) dql JO S;1A!Pd[qO dql alOOSldpUn SlU;1UIWOO qOl'B.M. U!'BlunOW dl[J. 'laJJnq dlY 10J Udlll1~dl ~U!M.OU1 'B pUB III dS'Bqd 10J s, 1I~;);) ;1l[l U! papn{Ou! aq Ol aOm!udlU!'BU1 pm! ~u!paaM. '~U!lUB{d 10J S{OOOlOld uo pdluaUIWoo qOl'B.M. upnunow 'lII3:S {EU!.:! ~OOZ atp. U! papnpu! S! pm! dnolO UOH'BllOdsUB1~ dm!l;) Aq papnpuoo S'BM. S!SAI'Bm! s'!1U 'sdlUl3lI {O l/anbnqdQ pUB anbnqn(J/IU!Od l;1lSAQ 'llOW!V jl.U!Od ldlsAo/saH!;) lalS!S/;;JlOqsA'BH 'SSdOOV pafold {'BllUa;)/alOqsA'BH 'sdlUl3lI 10 1 HS/d1OqSA'BH dl[l JO S!SA{'BUB dmuaolad l(l~6 ~uHsanbal laUd{ 'B luas UO!l'BllOdsUB1~ JO luaU1llBda(J 'B!woJH'B;) 'SluaUIWOO laqlltlJ ou p'Bq Aal[l ~UH'BlS sldUaI luas lUau.Ill'BdaQ S){lO.M. O!rqnd AlunO;) Oal'BW m!S aql pm! 'BU1{0;) JO UM.O~ dTU 'sludU1al!nbdl ladoI;1Aap Ol padsdl ql!M. lduaI lUdUIWOO p.mpm!lS 'B pap!AOld 3~Od "dS!OU Ol al'B{;;Jl 1l0cir!V {'BUO!l'BwalUI OOSpm!l.:! m!S dql pm! OV;)/;) 'SldUd{ OM.~ 'lII3:S {'BU!.:! lJ'BIp aql U! Ol papuods;11 a.m SluaUIWOO IIV 'po!lad M.d!Aal A'Bp-~V al[l ~upnp pdAp0;11 alaM. SlaU;1{ lUdWlliOO aU!N "~u!.maq oHqnd aql ~u!mp paA!aOal S'BM.lUdWlliOO onqnd dUO "~OOZ 'l(l9 ldqOlOQ uo lII3:S ~OOE lJ'B1P dl[l uo ~u!JBaq onqnd 'B pdpnpUOO UO!SSrunuO;) ~U~Id dTU "~OOZ '171 l;1qOPO uo paso{O pUB ~OOZ 'OS lsn~nv uo paoudUIWoo lII3:S ~OOZ lJ'BIp ;;Jl[l uo popad M.a!Adl onqnd dl[l 'SV31I3HM 'pm! :saAH'Bwal{'B sH pm! pa[old dl[ll[l!M. p;1l'B!OOSS'B SP'BdU1! lUdlaJJ!p dql pUB Al!SUdlU! lUdU1dopAdP U! d~UBqo al[l saSSalpp'B lII3:S ~om: dql 'SV31I3HM 'pm! :1II3: Z86 I al[l pUB lII3S 966 I al[l '1I13S 666 {-866 I al[l U! paYHuap! SP'BdU1! ;1ql Ol uO!l'B{al U! loa[old ~OOZ al[lJo SlO'BdU1! al[l SaZA{'BU'B lII3:S ~OOZ aql 'SV31I3HA\. 'ao'Bds uado U! al!S reO!~oIoa'Bqo.m alO'B O'Z al[l ~u'!A'Ba{ Ire I;1loq U1001 OOZ 'B pUB lm!m'BlSal looJ a.mnbs 000'01 'aoYJo JO lddJ d.mnbs OOO'OvS SdllinSS'B 'lU;1WdoI;1Ad(J UB{d pdl'B~mW pm! :dO'Bds uddo lUdUBUIl;1d S'B p;1l'BO!PdP udaq dA'Bq p{noM. (III pUB II dS'Bqd) pm!{ dl[l SdllinSS'B 'ao'Bds uddO lUdm!UIldd :{'B!lUdP!Sdl ou pm!lm!mtnS;11 pm! I;1loq 'dOYJO 'lpndl JO ~UnS!SUOO {'BpldWlliOO JO ldaJ a.mnbs 000'S6Z SdllinSS'B '{'B!OlaWlliO;) paonpall :{'BplaUIWOO ou pUB Sl!un {'BHuap!Sal 9 I S sawnss'B '{'B!luap!salI paonpdlI :lm!m'BlSal pm! {dloq 'aoYJo '{pnal JO ~UnS!SUOO {'BpldUIWOO ldaJ d.mnbs 00S'699 'Sl!un I13!lUdP!Sdl ZSv SdwnSS13 'tm{d oypddS 9661 ~UnS!X3 :dHs dl[l uo mooo p{nOM.lUdU1do{dAdP ou SdwnSS13 'lUdU1do{dAd(J oN :SdAH13Wdlre ~U!M.oIIoJ al[l PdZAI13m!lII3: Z86 I al[l pUB s, lII3:S 66/8661 pUB 9661 SnO!Adld 'SV31I31I.M. 'pUB :lodfold al[l Ol aAH13wal{13 {13!lUdP!S;;Jl13 pU'B 'aAn13walre {dloq'B 'aAH'Bwalre suompuoo ~UnS!Xd 'B ~u!pn{Ou! 'Pd[Old dl[l Ol SdA!l13W;1l{13 da.nn SdZA{EU'B lII3:S ~OOZ dl[l 'SV31I3HA\ 'pUB :soHal[lsd13 pUB sammn 'SdO!AlaS onqnd 'as!ou 'Al!rmb l!B 'UO!l13{tlOlp pUB O!.JJBll uo sasnooJ pUB 'sasA{EU'B {ElualUUo.I!Aud SnO!Adld ;1l[l uodn spUnq pUB SlUdU1;1{ddns paU!U1qns S13 ClII3:S ~OOZ aql,,) 1l0dalI l013dwI I'BlUdlUU01!Au3 {EludwaIddns ~OOZ al[l 'SV31I3HA\ SEIR dated November 30, 2005, and were distributed or otherwise made available to the Planning Commission, responsible agencies and other interested parties; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted duly-noticed public hearings regarding the 2005 SEIR on December 1 and December 15,2005, and recommended via Resolution dated December 15,2005 that the City Council certify the 2005 SEIR, including findings regarding significant and potentially significant impacts, a statement of Overriding Considerations, findings on impacts and mitigation measures from the 1982 Environmental Impact Report, the 1996 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and the 1998-99 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report not further analyzed in the 2005 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the remaining Phase III parcel of the Terrabay Development; and WHEREAS, based on the 2005 SEIR and other information in the record, there are certain significant and potentially significant environmental impacts of the 2005 Project which could be mitigated to a level of insignificance, therefore mitigation findings are required pursuant to CEQA g21081 and CEQA Guidelines g15091 upon 2005 Project approval; and, WHEREAS, based on the 2005 SEIR and other information in the record, there are impacts of the 2005 Project which are not environmentally significant and which require no findings or mitigation upon approval; and, WHEREAS, the 2005 SEIR , as a supplement to the 1982 EIR,1996 SEIR and 1998/99 SEIR, did not reanalyze impacts of the 2005 project which were not significantly different from the 2000 Project impacts analyzed in the previous environmental analyses. No further analysis of these impacts was required because the 2005 Project did not present any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects in these areas (Public Resources Code ~21166; CEQA Guidelines ~15163). Therefore, mitigation findings pursuant to CEQA g21081 and CEQA Guidelines g15091 are made for each of these impacts previously analyzed in the 1982 EIR, 1996 SEIR and 1998/99 SEIR, and not reanalyzed in the 2005 SEIR; and, WHEREAS, based on the 2005 SEIR and other information in the record, there are significant environmental impacts of the 2005 Project which could not be mitigated to a level of insignificance, therefore the alternatives to the 2005 Project were examined and are deliberately different from the alternatives in the 1998/99 SEIR, 1996 SEIR and 1982 EIR to determine if they would avoid any of the wnnitigated significant impacts; and, WHEREAS, based on the 2005 SEIR and other information in the record, there are significant environmental impacts of the 2005 Project which could not be reduced to a level of insignificance, therefore a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required upon 2005 Project approval; and, WHEREAS, CEQA S21081.6 requires that where mitigation findings are made for significant and potentially significant environmental impacts, a mitigation monitoring and ~ - 3.. 4 ..4- * * * * * * 2005 SEIR Exhibit D: Findings on Impacts and Mitigation Measures From 1982 EIR 1996 SEIR and 1998/99 SEIR Not Further Analyzed in 2005 SEIR Exhibit C: Statement of Overriding Considerations and Findings Regarding Alternatives Exhibit B: Findings Concerning Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures and Less Than Significant Environmental Impacts Exhibit A: The following Exhibits, attached hereto, are hereby incorporated by reference. 2. The Statement of Ovemding Considerations and Findings Regarding Alternatives in Exhibit B. 1. The impact and mitigation findings, and mitigation measures identified in Exhibits A and C. The mitigation measures identified in Exhibits A and C are hereby adopted as conditions of Project approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby certifies the 2005 SEIR and the following relating to development of Phase III of the Terrabay project: WHEREAS, the mitigation measures identified in the 2005 SEIR will be applied as conditions of Project approval; and, WHEREAS, the location and custodian of the documents which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City's decision on entitlements relating to the 2005 SEIR is the City of South San Francisco Planning Division, 315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco; and, WHEREAS, the above-referenced mitigation and monitoring program shall be submitted concurrently with the precise plan for the Terrabay Phase III site; and reporting program shall be adopted upon 2005 Project approval, at the precise plan stage, to ensure compliance with the mitigations during project implementation; and, 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 meeting held on the day of , 2006 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk 'i - 5.. Page 1 of 19 ..6- 3. Limitations. The City Council's analysis and evaluation of the 2005 Project is based on the best information currently available. It is inevitable that in evaluating a project of the scope and size of the 2005 Project that absolute and perfect knowledge of all possible aspects of is impossible. This practical limitation is acknowledged in CEQA Guidelines Section 15151, which states that "the sufficiency of an SEIR is to be reviewed in light of what is feasible." One of the major limitations on analysis of the 2005 Project is the City Council's lack of knowledge of future events, particularly those occurring outside the City. In some instances, the City Council's analysis has had to rely on assumptions about such factors as growth and traffic generation in areas outside of the political boundaries of the City. In all instances, best efforts have been made to form accurate assumptions. Somewhat related to this are the limitations on the City's ability to solve what are in effect regional, state and national problems 2. Nature of Findings. Any findings made herein by this City Council shall be deemed made, regardless of where it appears in this document. All of the language included in this document constitutes findings by this City Council, whether or not any particular sentence or clause includes a statement to that effect. This City Council intends that if these findings fail to cross-reference or incorporate by reference any other part of these findings, that any finding required or permitted to be made by this City Council with respect to any particular subject matter of the 2005 Project, shall be deemed made if it appears in any portion of these findings, or findings elsewhere in the record. 1. Reliance on Record. The findings and determinations contained herein are based on the competent and substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the 2005 Project and the SEIR. The fmdings and determinations constitute the independent findings and determinations of this City Council in all respects and are fully and completely supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS Pursuant to Public Resources Code 921081 and CEQA Guidelines 915091, the following findings address the Terrabay Phase III project's ("2005 Project") significant and potentially significant impacts and means for mitigating those impacts. The 2005 Project allows for a mixed-use development that includes residential (moderate and market rate), retail, office and entertainment. In each case, the appropriate statutory finding is followed by a rationale statement explaining how identified mitigations lessen or avoid the related impact. Terrabay Phase III Only Project Approvals Findings Concerning Significant Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Less Than Significant Impacts EXHIBIT A and issues. The City must work within the political framework in which it exists and with the limitations inherent in that framework. 4. Summaries of Facts. Impacts, Mitigation Measures, Alternatives and Other Matters. All summaries of information in the findings to follow are based on the 2005 SEIR, the 2005 Project and/or other evidence in the record as a whole. Such summaries are not intended to be exhaustive recitations of all the facts in the record upon which they are based. Moreover, the summaries of impacts, mitigation measures and alternatives are only summaries. This document includes only as much detail as may be necessary to show the basis for the findings set forth below. Cross references to the 2005 SEIR and other evidence such as City Council resolutions or actions have been made where helpful, and reference should be made directly to the 2005 SEIR and other evidence in the record for more precise information regarding the facts on which any summary is based. Conflicting interpretations of the language of the 2005 SEIR and the language of mitigation conditions adopted by the City Council shall be resolved in favor of the latter as the most appropriate way to mitigate the impact in question. 5. Adoption of Mitigation Measures. These findings address the mitigation measures recommended in the 2005 SEIR for impacts identified as significant or potentially significant. Some of the mitigation measures are implemented by changes incorporated into the 2005 Project and others by adoption of standards in the Terrabay Phase III-Only Specific Plan Amendment and/or as approval conditions that shall be incorporated in the Amended and Restated Development Agreement for Phase III. In its actions approving the 2005 Project, the City Council recommends adoption of those mitigation measures recommended in the 2005 SEIR, as revised by the City Council, that have not already been incorporated into the 2005 Project, except with respect to those that are rejected by the City Council in the specific findings as being infeasible or unnecessary. Where multiple mitigation measures are adopted for a single impact, all of the identified measures are required to support the related mitigation finding, unless otherwise specified (e.g., if mitigation measures are identified as options or alternatives). This City Council finds that all the Mitigation Measures now or previously incorporated into the 2005 Project are desirable and feasible and shall be implemented in connection with the implementation of the 2005 Project in accordance with the Mitigation Monitoring Program to be submitted concurrently with the Precise Plan. 6. Effectiveness of Mitigation Measures. The SEIR for the 2005 Project recommended mitigation measures to reduce most of the significant and potentially significant environmental effects to insignificant levels. The City Council reviewed the 2005 SEIR, revised some of the proposed mitigations, and agree with the SEIR conclusions, as revised by the City Council. The City Council finds that to the extent any residual impact remains that has not been fully mitigated in those instances where the City Council finds that mitigation has occurred; the residual impact is overridden by the Statement of Overriding Considerations. -7.. Page 2 of 19 Page 3 of 19 ..8- 8. Incorporation and Use of Prior EIRs for Project. The 2005 SEIR is a Supplemental EIR to the four prior environmental impact reports prepared for the Terrabay Project: the 1982 Environmental Impact Report for the Terrabay Development Project ("1982 EIR"), the 1996 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Terrabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Extension ("1996 SEIR") the Terrabay Phase II and III Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ("1998/99 SEIR") and an 2000 Addendum to the 1998/99 SEIR ("2000 Addendum"). The 2005 SEIR is a project EIR for Phase III of the Terrabay Project. The 2005 SEIR analyzes all potentially significant environmental effects resulting from proposed changes to the development for Phase III of the Terrabay Project from the project approved under the Terrabay Specific Plan (as amended in 2000) and changes in environmental conditions under which the 2005 Project would be undertaken from those analyzed in the 1982 EIR, 1996 SEIR and 1998/99 SEIR and Addendum thereto. The 2005 SEIR does not re-analyze those impacts of the 2005 Project that are not significantly different from the impacts previously analyzed in the 1982 EIR, the1996 SEIR or the 1998/99 SEIR and Addendum thereto. The SEIR also incorporates by reference the 1982 EIR, 1996 SEIR, the 1998/99 SEIR and Addendum thereto and other prior environmental assessments and environmental impacts reports certified for the 2005 Project and related activities. The proposed limits of grading conform to the HCP fence. Thomas Reid Associates reviewed the proposed Phase III project limits and found them in compliance with the 1999 HCP Certification hearing (November 22, 2005). The Airport Land Use Commission concluded that the Phase III project site does not fall within the Airport Influence Area for the San Francisco International Airport as contained in letters dated June 16, 2005, October 14, 2005 and November 22,2005. 7. Findings Relate to Phase III and Cumulative Impacts of Phase III Only. The City Council is considering at this time recommending approval of the Phase III 2005 Project entitlements only. Therefore, these findings relate to Phase III impacts and cumulative impacts. In assessing the cumulative impacts of the 2005 Project, the project considered include Phase I and Phase II of the Terrabay Project and those projects identified in the cumulative analysis in the 2005 SEIR. Phase III was analyzed in the 1998/99 SEIR on a project EIR level as a component of Phases II and III of the Terrabay Project. The level of analysis of Phase III in the 1998/99 SEIR went beyond the requirements of cumulative impacts under CEQA. The 2005 SEIR supplements and builds upon the environmental analyses contained in the 1998/99 SEIR, the 1996 SEIR and the 1982 EIR. For the purposes of these findings, the impacts of Phase III for the cumulative analysis will be evaluated based on the Terrabay Phase III-Only Specific Plan analyzed in the 2005 SEIR. However, the SEIR includes information to analyze the potential project and cumulative impacts of any of the included Phase III alternatives in the document. Based on this information and analysis, the City Council may approve any of the alternatives for Phase III in the 2005 SEIR, or any Phase III Project as long as the impacts of the project, as mitigated, do not exceed the impacts analyzed in the 2005 SEIR, at the time it considers the Phase III project. 9. Based on the foregoing, the impacts of the 2005 Project listed below are not significantly different from the 2000 Office Project impacts previously analyzed in the 1982 EIR, 1996 SEIR or the 1998/99 SEIR and Addendum thereto. No further analysis of these impacts was required in the 2005 SEIR because the 2005 Project did not present any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects in these areas (Public Resources Code S 21166; CEQA Guidelines S 15091). The following impact analyses, determinations of significance, and mitigations are incorporated by reference from the 1982 EIR, 1996 SEIR, and 1998/99 SEIR and Addendum thereto to the extent they do not conflict with the analysis and mitigation measures in the SEIR: agricultural resources (1998/99 SEIR); biological resources (1998/99 SEIR); cultural resources (1998/99 SEIR), geology and soils (1998/99 SEIR), hazards and hazardous materials (1982 EIR and 1998/99 SEIR), hydrology/ water quality (1998/99 SEIR), land use planning (1998/99 SEIR), mineral resources (2002 General Plan); population! housing (1998/99 SEIR), and recreation (1998/99 SEIR). Attached hereto as Exhibit C are findings relating to these incorporated impacts analysis and mitigation measures in the previous environmental analyses. 10. Description of the Record. For purposes of CEQA and these findings, the record before this City Council includes, without limitation, the following: A. All applications for approvals and development entitlements related to the 2005 Project, including without limitation, applications for the Phase III Only Specific Plan Amendment, Precise Plan, Vesting Tentative Tract Map, Final Map, Terrabay Specific Plan District Ordinance Amendment, Phase III General Plan Amendment CC&Rs, and Amended and Restated Development Agreement submitted to the City; B. The 2005 Terrabay Phase III-Only Specific Plan, Development Agreement (1988) as amended, and Phase I Precise Plan (1989); C. The 1982 EIR, 1996 SEIR, the 1998/99 SEIR and Addendum thereto and other environmental reports referred to in the 2005 SEIR; D. The 2005 SEIR as certified by the City Council, consisting of the Draft SEIR and Final SEIR (the Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIR); E. All staff reports on the Project and the SEIR; F. All studies conducted for the Project and SEIR including, but not limited to, those contained or referenced in the staff reports or SEIR; G. All public reports and documents related to the Project prepared by City staff, the City Council and the Planning Commission; - 9- Page 4 of 19 Page 5 of 19 -10- Findim!. As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the 2005 Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the SEIR. With the The Project applicant shall implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program consistent with the City of South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance Chapter 20.120 Transportation Demand Management, and acceptable to CICAG. These programs, once implemented, must be ongoing for the occupied life of the development. The CICAG guidelines specify the number of trips that may be credited for each TDM measure. Appendix C Table C-IO of the 2005 SEIR outlines TDM programs that can generate trip credits to offset the + 855 net new PM peak hour trips generated by the Project. (L TS). MitiK.!!tion Measure 3.1.1 The 2005 Project would generate more than 100 net new trips than the approved 2000 Office Project during the PM, peak hour (x 855 more trips during the PM peak hour than the approved 2000 Office Project). This requires that the 2005 Project follow CICAG policies and guidelines to mitigate the impact of net new trips. Guidelines for the implementation of the 2003 Draft Congestion Management Program ("CICAG Guidelines") specify that local jurisdictions must ensure that the developer andlor tenants will mitigate all new peak hour trips (including the first 100 trips) projected to be generated by the development. This would be a significant impact. Impact 3.1.1 Proiect Trip Generation Exceeds 100 Trips Durin!! thePM Peak Hour Trafilc and Circulation 5. State laws and regulations and publications, including all reports and guidelines published by the California Office of Planning and Research. 4. Reports, projections and correspondence related to development within and surrounding the City; and 3. City policies and regulations; 2. The City's fiscal status; 1. The City's general plan and zoning and other ordinances; 1. All matters of common knowledge to the City Council, including but not limited to: H. All documentary and oral evidence received and reviewed at public hearings and study sessions related to the Project and the SEIR before the Planning Commission and the City Council; incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact of the 2005 Project is less than significant. Rationale. The impacts associated with PM peak hour trip generation will be mitigated through a TDM plan acceptable to C/CAG. After review of the project consultant's circulation, queuing and traffic plan and other information on the site's traffic and circulation conditions, the City and its consultants have identified mitigation and alternative transportation measures which would reduce the traffic and trip generation of the Approved Project to less than significant levels. The required programs and implementation guidelines are specified in the mitigation measure. Impact 3.1.2 Year 2010 Level of Service Impacts (S) All but two analyzed intersections would maintain acceptable operation during AM and PM peak hour conditions with the 2005 Project. At the Oyster Point Boulevard!Dubuque AvenuelU.S.IOl Northbound On-Ramp intersection, AM peak hour operation would improve with a +25 second decrease in average vehicle delay, although operation would remain LOS F (due to the 2005 Project producing less traffic during this period than the approved 2000 Office Project). While PM peak hour operation would remain LOS F, the overall volume level would be increased by less than two percent (1.4%) due to the 2005 Project. This would be less than significant. However, during the PM peak hour, project traffic would degrade operation at the Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard intersection from an acceptable LOS C to an unacceptable LOS F. This would be a significant impact. Mitiflation Measure 3.1.2 Bavshore Boulevard! Sister Cities Boulevard! Oyster Point Boulevard! Airport Boulevard · Provide a second left turn lane in the Eastbound Sister Cities approach. Adjustments should also be provided, if needed, to the north curb line of Sister Cities Boulevard near the intersection to allow safe U-Turn movements, which will be conducted by project drivers. · Stripe a second turn lane in the northbound Airport Boulevard approach. Resultant operation: PM Peak Load LOS D-38.2 seconds vehicle delay (L TS). Findinfl. As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the 2005 Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the SEIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact of the 2005 Project is less than significant. -11- Page 6 of 19 Page 7 of 19 -12- FindinJ!. As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the 2005 Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the SEIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact of the 2005 Project is less than significant. The Project applicant shall provide an on-site circulation management program that will include signing for each driveway that will provide "real time" parking use information for entering drivers to quickly guide them to those levels of the parking garage with the most available parking (and possibly also discourage them from accessing parking levels that are totally or almost full). In addition, for peak use days when valet parking will be employed, signing/messages shall clearly indicate the most direct routes to the valet stations. All levels of the garage shall be well lighted and have visible security cameras and patrol coverage to encourage drivers that all levels of the garage are equally desirable for parking. Signing shall also be provided for exiting drivers to guide them to the most convenient driveway connection to Bayshore Boulevard. (L TS) Mitixation Measure 3.1.10 The Project applicant has indicated that parking for all site uses will be equally accessible via all Project driveway connections to either Bayshore Boulevard (three connections) or to Sister Cities Boulevard (one inbound connection). Project residents and employees should quickly learn the easiest and most direct routes between their assigned parking areas and the driveway connections to the local street system. However, retail customers, movie patrons and visitors to the residential and office uses who may not be that familiar with the multi-level parking garage will be confronted with numerous decisions when entering the site (by any driveway) in regards to which levels of the garage are available for parking (for their activity) as well as which level(s) of the garage will have the most available spaces. No plan has yet been provided by the applicant in regards to the type of "easy-to-read" and "real time information" system that will be provided along each entrance driveway and at each garage entry location to provide decision-making input to drivers. It is probable that a disproportionate number of drivers may opt to initially access surface (top level) parking rather than proceed into one of the lower garage levels. This could lead to a situation whereby the overall site has a sufficient number of parking spaces, but inadequate distribution of drivers to available parking may lead to pockets of congestion along certain parking aisles, while other areas of the garage remain mostly empty. This would be a significant impact. Iml!.act 3.1.10 On-Site Circulation Rationale. The improvements identified as mitigation measures in the SEIR will provide circulation improvements which will restore an acceptable level of service to the intersections in question. Similar mitigation measures for traffic and intersection level of service have been shown to decrease vehicle delay and decrease overall system volume. Rationale. The development of an on-site circulation management program will provide assistance to drivers and facility users unfamiliar with the project layout and configuration, and will provide the mixed use development with appropriate signage aimed at directing patrons and visitors to available parking. Air Oualitv Impact 3.2.1 Construction Activities would have the potential to cause nuisance related to dust and PM~ Construction activities would generate dust, especially during excavation and grading of hillsides and hauling of material. This type of activity has the potential to affect local air quality temporarily, as well as create a nuisance to existing and new residents. The primary pollutant of concern is PMIO which is a component of dust. Dust emissions would be generated primarily from disturbance of land areas, wind erosion of disturbed areas, vehicle activity on disturbed areas, and movement of material (both on- and off- site). This would be a potentially significant impact. The current BAAQMD significance threshold for construction dust impact is based on the appropriateness of construction dust controls. If the appropriate construction controls are to be implemented, then air pollutant emissions for construction activities would be considered less than significant. Mitigation Measure 4.5-1 identified in the 1998/99 SEIR required the implementation of the following construction mitigation measures: · All active construction areas shall be watered at least twice daily and more often when conditions warrant. · All trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials shall be covered, or all trucks shall be required to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. · All unpaved access roads and parking areas at construction sites shall be paved, watered three times daily, or treated with (non-toxic) soil stabilizers. · All paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites shall be swept daily (with water sweepers). Streets shall be swept daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. · Inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more) shall be hydroseeded or treated with (non-toxic) soil stabilizers. · Exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.) shall be enclosed, covered, watered twice daily, or treated with (non-toxic) soil binders. · Traffic speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour (mph) -13- Page 8 of 19 Page 9 of 19 -14- The City shall require an airport disclaimer in the CC&R's for 2005 Terrabay Phase III Only lease and sale documents that mirrors the language contained in the CC&R's for Phases I and II of Terra bay. MitiK..ation Measure 3.3.2: Although not within a noise impact area, aircraft activities may still disturb some occupants, users and/or residents of the 2005 Terrabay Phase III Only Project site. Requiring a airport noise disclaimer as was required in Terrabay Phase I and II would serve to inform those that may be more sensitive to noise of the potential annoyance. The 2005 Project site is not within the 65 dBA CNEL noise impact area nor within the Airport Influence Area as identified by the C/CAG ALUC. Imll.act 3.3.2: Noise Rationale. The numerous measures to be implemented to reduce dust and other air pollutant emissions will reduce construction-phase air pollution impacts to less than significant levels. The measures comport with guidelines as promulgated by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and will reduce construction period air quality impacts to a less-than significant level. Findinf!. As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the 2005 Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the SEIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact of the 2005 Project is less than significant. Mitigation measure 4.5-1 identified in the 1998/99 SEIR shall be implemented.. Miti1f.ation Measure 3.2.1 . Excavation and grading activity shall be suspended when winds (instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 mph and cause visible clouds to extend beyond the construction . Wheel washers shall be installed for all exiting trucks, or the tires or tracks shall be washed off all trucks and equipment leaving the site. . Disturbed areas shall be replanted with vegetation as quickly as possible (within one month of the disturbance). · Sandbags or other erosion control measures shall be installed to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. Findinfl: The disclaimer, although not required under CEQA, would serve to inform those whom may be more sensitive to aircraft noise sources. Rationale. The acoustical studies and mitigation (see 3.3.3 below) along with the airport disclaimer will allow the project applicant to inform those who may be more sensitive to aircraft related noise of the potential annoyance. Impact 3.3.3 The proiect residential development would be exposed to noise levels exceedinfl the Citv of South San Francisco Noise Element Measured noise levels on the site range from a CNEL of 74 dBA to 78 dBA and are dominated by freeway traffic. Based on future freeway traffic volume projections, noise level could increase by up to two dBA by the year 2020. Based on the latest site plan, most of the land uses nearest the freeway are commercial including offices, retail and a multiplex cinema. The city does not have specific standards for commercial development exposed to traffic noise. According to the city's Noise Element, exposure of commercial land uses to a CNEL of 70 to 80 dBA, "requires analysis of noise reduction requirements and noise insulation as needed. Much of the proposed residential development would be located behind the proposed commercial development and the noise level would be reduced due to the acoustical shielding provided by the intervening buildings. This shielding would reduce the future noise exposure at the market rate townhomes and the below market rate units 15 to 20 dBA and depending on the building location to a CNEL of 65 dBA to 70 dBA. According to the City's Noise Element this land use would be considered noise impacted since it is exposed to a CNEL greater than 65 dBA. The proposed residential tower would be about 400 feet from the centerline of US 101. The future CNEL at this residential land use would be up to 79 dBA for the upper levels that have a full view of the freeway. According to the City's Noise Element this land use would be considered noise impacted since it is exposed to a CNEL greater than 65 dBA. Mitiflation Measure 3.3.3 Acoustical Studies shall be prepared to ensure Proiect is in compliance with State and City of South San Francisco noise standards The State of California Noise Insulation Standards require that new multi-family residential projects exposed to an CNEL greater than 60 dBA have an acoustical study prepared which identifies what measures will be employed to meet an interior CNEL of 45 dBA or less. In its General Plan Noise Element (implementing policy 9-1-4), the City of South San Francisco extends this indoor requirement to all new homes, schools, hospitals and churches. Typically, the required measures include sound-rated windows, exterior doors and special exterior wall construction. The acoustical studies shall be prepared during the architectural design of the Project. Typical mitigation measures include sound rated doors, walls and windows and special exterior wall construction. -15- Page 10 of 19 Page 11 of 19 -16- Findim!. As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the 2005 Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the 1998/99 and 1996 SEIR's. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact of the 2005 Project is less than significant. The 2005 Project shall implement Mitigation Measure 4.6-2 identified in the 1998/99 SEIR. Mitigation Measure 3.3.4 The expected increase in traffic noise due to the 2005 Project generated traffic was calculated based on the traffic projections (Section 3.1 Traffic and Circulation). The 2005 Project would increase noise by one dBA or less along Sister Cities Boulevard. In the year 2020, traffic volume increases along Sister Cities Boulevard are expected to increase traffic noise by up to three dBA. However, the contribution from 2005 Project generated traffic results in an increase of less than one dBA. Since the threshold for a significant impact is an increase of greater than three dBA, the 2005 Project and cumulative noise increases result in less-than-significant impacts. Imoact 3.3.4 There would be an increase in traffic noise Rationale. The acoustical studies to be performed will allow the project applicant to implement appropriate noise reduction measures that will reduce potential impacts to residential, retail and office uses to a less than significant level. Findinl!. As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the 2005 Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the SEIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact of the 2005 Project is less than significant. As with Phases I and II Terrabay which shall also be required for Phase III Only, the City requires the study recommendations to be incorporated into Project design prior to issuance of building permits. Acoustical studies shall also be prepared for the new commercial developments. The interior noise level standard should be developed as part of the study and be based on the noise sensitivity of the particular commercial use. Completion of the required acoustical studies and the incorporation of the required noise reduction measures will reduce the impact for the residential and commercial development to a less than significant level. In addition to interior noise, the acoustical studies shall also address noise in outdoor use areas. The goal should be to reduce traffic noise levels to a CNEL of 65 dBA or less in outdoor use areas as per Noise Element policy 9-1-6 without the use of visible sound walls where practical. Rationale. The increase of less than three dBA along Sister Cities constitutes a less than significant impact. Imvact 3.3.5 Proiect Generated Mechanical Equivment Noise Since the 2005 Project involves mixed use development, there is the potential for stationary noise sources associated with the commercial uses to adversely affect the noise sensitive residential uses. The most likely sources of noise impact would be from outdoor mechanical equipment used for ventilation and air-conditioning. This is a potentially significant impact not previously identified in the 1998/99 SEIR. MitiJ!ation Measure 3.3.5 Require noise control treatments to meet the Municipal Code performance standards During the design of the commercial buildings a qualified acoustical consultant shall review the 2005 Project for conformance with the maximum permissible sound levels in the City's Noise Regulation (Chapter 8.32.030). These standards generally require continuously operating equipment to meet a noise level of 60 dBA during the day and 55 dBA during the night at multiple-family residential uses. (L TS) FindinJ!. As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the 2005 Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the SEIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact of the 2005 Project is less than significant. Rationale. The retention of a qualified acoustical consultant will ensure conformance with the City's Noise Regulation for these stationary noise impacts. Public Services and Utilities Imvact 3.4.1 Increased Demand for Police Services As part of the 2005 Project, the proposed retail and commercial establishments would provide private security. The response time to the 2005 Project site would be approximately five to six minutes, depending on traffic conditions. The proposed movie theater would especially attract a large number of visitors. The increase in demand for police services has the potential to significantly impact the SSFPD (Sergeant Normandy, 2005). The SSFPD estimates that an additional beat would be required with six police officers. The officers would staff the beat 24 hours a day, seven days a week. In addition, three police vehicles would be needed to serve the 2005 Project (Sergeant Normandy, 2005). The Project impact to police services would be the same as analyzed in the 1998/99 -17- Page 12 of 19 Page 13 of 19 -18- Rationale. Direct mechanisms for reimbursement for necessary additional security services ensure that related costs shall be borne by the Project applicant. Cooperation with the City's police department will ensure thoughtful and effective site Fin dim!. As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the 2005 Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the SEIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact of the 2005 Project is less than significant. The costs for providing additional police officers, consultants to the SSFPD regarding the provision of police protection to the 2005 Project, vehicles, equipment, and other services and items shall be determined prior to issuance of any 2005 Project specific entitlements (i.e., precise plan approvals. The provision and timing of said services shall be as provided for in the Terrabay Phase III Only Specific Plan. (L TS) Mitigation Measure 3.4. 2 (c) The 2005 Project applicant shall incorporate recommendations from the SSFPD into their site design and operations that affect crime prevention, security, traffic safety and other concerns. This may include construction of a radio transmitter/repeater for City of South San Francisco Police and Fire Departments. (L TS) Mitigation Measure 3.4.2(b) The 2005 Project applicant shall compensate the City of South San Francisco for the cost of six officers and three police vehicles. It takes up to one and one-half years to hire and train a new police officer. The Phase III Only Specific Plan identifies the phasing of the personnel and equipment.(LTS) Mitigation Measure 3.4.2 (a) Mitif!ation Measures 3.4.2(a-c) The 2005 Project would be subject to Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) Principles. Applying CPTED Principals, the following 2005 Project components will be analyzed and minor design modifications made accordingly: residential tower, office tower, parking structure, elevators, staircases, the movie theater, retail stores, and other features (Sergeant Normandy 2005). The 1998/99 SEIR identified radio transmissions would be inhibited by San Bruno Mountain and within proposed structures. This condition would also exist with the 2005 Project and would be a potentially significant impact. SEIR, Phase III would require 2.81 to 2.31 new officers (1.9 to 1.4 officers for residential, and 0.91 officers for commercial) and one new vehicle. design and configuration for security purposes. The timing for in lieu fees and costs for additional officers which is identified in the Phase III Only Specific Plan and will also be provided for in the amended Development Agreement. Imoact 4.3-3 Increased Demand for Fire Services Development of the 2005 Project would increase call volumes, including rescue and medical services, to the SSFFD as a result of the increase in new residents, employees and visitors to the site. The site location, construction type, occupancy type, and high concentration of occupants would severely affect the first fire unit responding to fire, medical, hazardous material, or other emergency calls. SSFFD would require one additional position (three personnel) for fire control, evacuation, medical scene management, care of injured persons, and other emergencies (Captain Niswonger 2005). The SSFFD would review the site plan to ensure that the 2005 Project meets design standards, . including adequate emergency vehicle access, turnarounds, ceiling heights within parking structures, as well as road grade, capacity, and width. The Project applicant will be required to install automatic fire sprinkler systems, fire hydrants, and other fire protection features as recommended by the SSFFD. The water supply, water pressure, fire apparatus access, air supply, smoke control, standby emergency power source, and other fire protection features shall meet standards of the California Fire Code and Uniform Building Code. Mitif!ation Measure 3.4.2 The Project applicant shall fund one position (three personnel) for the first arriving engine company. The 2005 Project applicant shall incur all wage and benefit costs of three personnel for three years from the initial date of hire. Hire date of personnel may occur up to six months prior to completion of Phase One of Phase III Terrabay to accommodate scheduling personnel for the 16-week Fire Academy. After the three-year period, wage and benefit costs shall be assumed by the City of South San Francisco. The needs and costs for providing additional personnel, vehicles, equipment, and other items shall be determined prior to issuance of any 2005 Project specific entitlements (i.e., precise plan approvals). The provision and timing of said services shall be as provided for in the Terrabay Phase III Only Specific Plan (ITS). Findinf!. As described above changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the 2005 Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the 2005 SEIR. With the incorporation of the specified modifications to the 2005 Project and mitigation measures, the impact of the 2005 Project is less than significant. Rationale. The project applicant shall fund one position and incur all wage and benefit costs. Additional fire security and service need will be determined prior to -19- Page 14 of19 Page 15 of 19 -20- FindinJ!. As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the 2005 Project which avoid or substantially MitiJ!ation Measure 3.4.4 The Project applicant shall conduct a radio communications study during Phase One of Phase III to determine the internal radio communication issues based on individual building types. If the study finds internal radio communications are deficient, the 2005 Project applicant shall fund and provide wiring, a signal booster, antennae, other equipment and mitigation, as needed. The Project applicant shall fund maintenance costs for three years from the installation date. After three years, the building owners shall take over costs of maintenance and replacement under California Fire Code 1997, Maintenance of Fire Protection Systems. (L TS) Proposed high-rise buildings and multi-level parking structures would have dense building materials, including concrete and steel. These structures may have poor signal strength and reception sites. Impact 3.4.4 Potentiallv poor siJ!nal strenJ!th and reception sites within vrovosed buildinJ!s and varkinJ! structures Rationale. The proposed communications repeater and related equipment will provide boosted reception to overcome topographical impedance. FindinJ!. As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the 2005 Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the 2005 SEIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact of the 2005 Project is less than significant. MitiJ!ation Measure 3.4.3 The Project applicant shall provide a rooftop communications repeater and related equipment to accommodate all communication channels used by SSFFD. Communication equipment shall be installed during Phase One of Phase III. The Project applicant shall fund maintenance costs of equipment for three years from the installation date. After the three-year period, the City of South San Francisco shall take over costs of maintenance and replacement. (L TS) The 2005 Project site is within the radio communication shadow of San Bruno Mountain. Poor signal strength and reception sites due to topography impede radio transmissions to the Project site. Impact 3.4.3 Imvedance of Radio Communication to the Proiect Site bv San Bruno Mountain issuance of project specific entitlements, in accordance with relevant provisions of the Phase II Only Specific Plan and the Development Agreement as amended. lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the SEIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact of the 2005 Project is less than significant. Rationale. The radio communications study will identify additional communications needs and deficiencies, and wiring, boosters and other additional equipment will provide necessary upgrades to ensure adequate interior signal strength. Impact 3.4.5 The open wildland area of San Bruno Mountain presents a hil!h risk of tire ex/Josure on the uphill and sides of the pro;ect The ability of the current SSFFD personnel and resources to suppress a wildland fire would be compromised by the large wildland urban interface area abutting the Project. MitiI!ation Measure 3.4.5 The Project applicant shall install and the Homeowners and/or property management company shall maintain a 50-foot buffer in the wildland urban interface area. The buffer would consist of a 25-foot wide greenbelt area with fire resistive plantings identified in the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). The HCP approved plantings and hydro seeding materials are also identified in the Terrabay Phase III Only Specific Plan. An additional 25-foot area between the greenbelt and San Bruno Mountain shall be maintained clear of hazardous fire growth, according to California Fire Code, 2001 Sec. 110.4. (LTS) Findinl!. As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the 2005 Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the 2005 SEIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact of the 2005 Project is less than significant. Rationale. The buffer area with its resistive plantings, coupled with compliance with the California Fire Code will act to ameliorate the fire hazard from the upslope and hillside aspects of the parcel. Impact 3.4. 7 Increased Demand on Water Supplv The 2005 Project would generate an estimated water demand of 256,875 gallons per day. Tables contained within the 2005 SEIR show the water generation factors and calculations to estimate water demand. Water would be needed for residential, retail, restaurant, commercial, office, landscaping, and other uses. The Project applicant would install a water system with adequate water pressure, water supply lines, fire hydrants, and other specifications in accordance with CWSC standards. The Project will be served by CWSC facilities and would connect immediately in front of the 2005 Project site at a new vault in Bayshore Boulevard. The 2005 Project would -21- Page 16 of 19 Page 17 of 19 -22- The Public Works Department would review the Project's wastewater system plans. The Project applicant shall comply with the Public Works Department's requirements and standards regarding the on-site system and connection to the City's sewer system. Based on standard wastewater projection data by BKF Engineers, the Project would generate an estimated 171,250 gpd of wastewater. Table 3.4-1 in the 2005 SEIR shows the generation factors and calculations to estimate wastewater flows. The City of South San Francisco Public Works Department would adequately provide sewage treatment and disposal for the 2005 Project. The treatment plant has adequate capacity to treat the Project's wastewater (Castagnola 2005). The 16-inch sanitary sewer line in Airport Boulevard was constructed in 1991 for the sole use of the Terrabay development (Corlett 2005). However, other projects may have tied into the 16-inch line and the Project may generate wastewater flows to overcapacity of the existing conveyance system. (Razavi 2005). Impact 3.4.8 Increased demand on the wastewater collection svstem in Airport Boulevard Rationale. The conservation measures described above will promote responsible conservation practices and reduce impacts on water demand and supply shortages. Findin1!. As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the 2005 Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the SEIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact of the 2005 Project is less than significant. Although the Project would not result in significant impacts to the water supply, the Project shall incorporate water conservation measures into the Project design. In consultation with CWSC, the Project applicant shall follow the CWSC's Best Management Practices in regards to incorporating water conservation measures into the design and construction of the development. Water conserving toilets, faucets, and other devices and methodology that promote water conservation shall be used for efficient water use. Use of inert materials and minimal areas of turf shall be used in landscaping. (L TS) Mitigation Measure 3.4. 7 be supplied water from CWSC's 8-inch and 12-inch pipes from the connection point to the on-site pump station, which was designed and built to serve the entire Terrabay project. The CWSC has indicated there is adequate water supply to serve the Project. A copy of the CWSC "will serve" letter is included in Appendix F of the 2005 SEIR. Mitil!ation Measure 4.4-1 To confirm there is adequate capacity in the sanitary sewer lines, the Project applicant shall perform flow monitoring of the 16-inch sanitary sewer to determine the existing flow in the line and provide the City with a report of the findings. The City Engineer will approve flow-monitoring locations and supervise the work as necessary. The existing flow shall be compared with the estimated design flows of the existing Terrabay developments to determine the accuracy of design estimates. If there is insufficient capacity to serve the new Terrabay development, the developer shall replace the existing sanitary sewer lines from Sister Cities Boulevard to the North Canal Street trunk: sewers. Capacity of the new lines will be sufficient to convey existing and proposed sanitary sewer flows. The flow monitoring and report shall be completed prior to issuance of any grading permit. (L TS) Findinl!. As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the 2005 Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the SEIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact of the 2005 Project is less than significant. Rationale. Cooperation between the project applicant and the City Engineer will ensure that there adequate capacity in the sanitary sewer lines to support the Project, and in the event of insufficient capacity, the developer will provide adequate replacements prior to the issuance of any grading permit. Aesthetics Impact 3.5.1 Nil!ht lil!htinl! would be introduced at the Proiect site The Project would include two high-rise towers and a retail component which can be expected to include visible signage advertising the retail uses. Given the mix of residential, office and retail use, it is anticipated that night-lighting and glare could be potentially significant. The high-rise towers would be visible from nearby residential development and U.S. 101. Use of reflective materials could result in significant glare that could affect the visibility of drivers on U.S. 101. This is considered a potentially significant impact Mitiflation Measure 3.5.1 The Project shall not include reflective building materials. Windows shall be non- reflective glass. Metals shall be finished so as not to exhibit a shiny surface. Street lighting shall be controlled and kept low to reduce glare in compliance with the Terrabay Specific Plan (City of South San Francisco 2000). (LIS) Findinl!. As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the 2005 Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the SEIR. With the -23- Page 18 of 19 Page 19 of 19 -24- Some of the less than significant impacts identified in the SEIR are impacts that the SEIR identified as potentially significant or significant, but recommended mitigation measures reduce the impacts to less than significant levels. The City Council finds that all other impacts of the 2005 Project are not environmentally significant as documented in the 2005, 1998/99, 1996 SEIRs and the 1982 EIR and/or supported by evidence elsewhere in the record as a whole. In some cases, the SEIR has suggested mitigations for impacts that are less than significant even without mitigation. CEQA does not require mitigation for less than significant impacts, nor does it require findings for mitigation measures proposed for less than significant impacts. Therefore, no findings are made with respect to such mitigation measures. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMP ACTS Rationale. Conformance with the Sign Ordinance will ensure that lifestyle and aesthetic impacts of the on-site lighting and signage do not violate City Ordinance or result in unforeseen impacts. FindinJ!. As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the 2005 Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the SEIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact of the 2005 Project is less than significant. MitiJ!ation Measure 3.5.2 A Master Sign Program shall be prepared for the 2005 Project and submitted to the City for review and approval as provided for by the City's sign ordinance. (L TS) The Project includes low- to mid-rise residential development adjacent to and above retail development. Signage for retail uses could result in intrusive lighting that would adversely affect the low- to mid-rise residential units during nighttime hours. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Impact 3.5.2 NiJ!ht-liJ!htinJ! conflicts with on-site residential development Rationale. The use of non-reflective materials will reduce the effect of glare that could potentially impact drivers on 101. incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact of the 2005 Project is less than significant. EXHIBIT B STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES 1. General Pursuant to Public Resources Code S 21081 and CEQA Guidelines S 15093, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco makes the following Statement of Overriding Considerations relating to its recommendation of approval of the entitlements for the final development parcel of Phase III of the Terrabay Project (hereinafter, "2005 Project" or "Project"). The 2005 SEIR (supplementing the 1998/99 SEIR, 1996 SEIR and 1982 EIR) analyzed Phase III impacts on a project EIR level which is a much greater level than required for cumulative impacts under CEQA. The City Council has balanced the benefits of the 2005 Project to the City against the four adverse impacts identified in the 2005 SEIR as significant which have not been eliminated or mitigated to a level of insignificance: (1) Traffic Impact 3,1.5 : Year 2010 Vehicle Queuing Impacts; (2) Traffic Impact 3.1.6: Year 2020 Intersection Level of Service Impacts; (3) Traffic Impact 3.1.9: Year 2020 Vehicle Queuing Impacts; (4) Air Quality Impact 3.2.3: Regional Emission Increase that would exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds for ozone precursors and PMIO. The City Council has carefully considered each environmental impact identified in the 2005 SEIR in reaching its decision to approve the 2005 Project. The Project sponsor has made reasonable and good faith efforts to mitigate all potential impacts resulting from the 2005 Project. The City Council has imposed mitigation measures identified in the 2005 SEIR as conditions of approval to eliminate or mitigate to a level of insignificance potential impacts. Although the City Council believes that the four unavoidable environmental impacts identified in the 2005 SEIR will be substantially lessened by the mitigation measures identified in the 2005 SEIR and incorporated into the 2005 Project as conditions of approval, it recognizes that the implementation of the 2005 Project carries with it these four potentially unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. With regard to each of the four significant unavoidable impacts, the City Council specifically makes. the following findings to the ,extent that the identified adverse impacts have not been mitigated to a level of insignificance: (1) specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the 2005, 1998/99 and 1996 SEIRs and the 1982 EIR which may reduce the significant unavoidable impacts to less than significant; and (2) there are specific economic, social, environmental, legal, land use and other benefits of the 2005 Project which outweigh the four significant unavoidable effects on the environment. The City Council further finds that anyone of the overriding considerations identified hereinafter in subsection 4 is a sufficient basis to approve the 2005 Project. -25- Page 1 of 11 Page 2 of 11 -26- · Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard Intersection. The Sister Cities Boulevard eastbound left turn lane would receive a 133% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. The Bayshore Boulevard southbound right turn lane Base Case vehicle queue would be extended from:t 125 feet up to 510 feet (with 310 feet of storage). PM Peak Hour · Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard Intersection. The Sister Cities Boulevard eastbound left turn lane would receive a 16% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. AM Peak Hour Impact 3.1.5h Year 2010 Vehicle Queuing Impacts - 95th Percentile (SU)" The 2005 Project would result in unacceptable vehicle queuing at several locations expected to have acceptable Base Case queuing by 2010. In addition, Project traffic would aggravate vehicle queues at several locations expected to have unacceptable Base Case queuing. Traffic Impact 3.1.5a: Year 2010 Vehicle Queuing Impacts: Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard (AM and PM) intersection would experience queuing impacts. These impacts could be reduced by the mitigation measures identified in the SEIR but not to a level that is less than significant. There are no feasible mitigation measures for the Oyster Point BoulevardlDubuque AvenuelU.S. 101 Northbound On-Ramp (PM only) intersection. Three significant and unavoidable impacts relating to traffic and one air quality would result from implementation of the 2005 Project. These impacts are: The impacts associated with the 2005 Project (mixed-use project) are similar to those associated with the approved 2000 office tower. It should be noted that the 2005 Project would reduce traffic volumes during the AM peak hour over those of the approved 2000 office tower. Base case AM queuing would be reduced by the 2005 project. Critical locations experiencing positive queuing impacts (improvement over base case) due to the 2005 Project are the U.S. 101 Northbound off-ramp approach to Dubuque Avenue (left turns) and the northbound Dubuque Avenue approach to Oyster Point Boulevard, and the eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard and left turn lane on the eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach to Dubuque AvenuelU.S. 101 Northbound on-ramp. The following are unavoidable significant 2005 Project impacts. These impacts cannot be fully mitigated by changes or alterations to the Project or the imposition of further mitigation measures. 2. Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts and Required Mitigation Measures The Oyster Point Boulevard westbound through lanes Base Case vehicle queue would be extended from:t 100 feet up to 475 feet (with 255 feet of storage). · Oyster Point BoulevardlDubuque Avenue Intersection. Dubuque Avenue northbound left turn and through/left turn lanes would receive a 9.7% increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. Mitigation Measure 3.1.5h · Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard. Lengthen the left turn lane on the eastbound Sister Cities Boulevard approach to accommodate 20 vehicles (95th percentile queue). At 25 feet per vehicle, this would equal an additional 450 feet of storage for the 95th percentile queue. Alternatively, as recommended to provide acceptable level of service, provide a second eastbound approach left turn lane. Make both lanes at least 250 feet long (to accommodate the 95th percentile queue). However, it would be impossible to lengthen the southbound right turn lane by 200 feet. Also the other proposed measure to improve level of service (striping a second northbound left turn lane) would help decrease westbound through lane storage demands, but not to the available storage distance on the freeway overpass. (SU) · Oyster Point BoulevardlDubuque AvenuelU.S. 101 Northbound On-Ramp. There are no physical improvements considered feasible at this intersection by City of South San Francisco staff to reduce queuing on the northbound approach to acceptable lengths. (SU) The primary changes incorporated into the 2005 Project to reduce these traffic impacts are the lengthening of the left turn lane on the eastbound sister Cities Boulevard approach, provide a second eastbound approach left turn lane, or provide a second northbound left turn lane. The 2005 Project proposes a bus stop and shelter, Transportation Demand Management Program; marketing of the residential units to the commercial tenant, on-site recreational facilities and bicycle lanes. However, even with these incorporated changes, the Year 2010 Vehicle Queuing Impacts will still aggravate vehicle queues at several locations expected to have unacceptable base queuing by 2010. Traffic Impact 3.1.6: Year 2020 Intersection Level of Service Impacts: Three of the four intersections would maintain acceptable levels of service. The fourth intersection, Bayshore Boulevard/U.S. 101 Southbound Hook RampslProject Access would result in LOS impacts. These impacts could be reduced by the mitigation measures identified in the 2005 SEIR but not to a level that is less than significant. The primary changes incorporated into the 2005 Project to reduce the on-ramp impact are a reconfiguration of the eastbound Sister Cities approach to provide two left turn lanes, an exclusive through lane and a shared through/right turn lane, coupled with improvements to the eastbound approach to allow safe U-turn movements, along with three access scenarios that would lead to overall reduction in vehicle delay. -27- Page 3 of I I Page 4 of II -28- · Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard Intersection. The eastbound left turn lane on Sister Cities Boulevard would receive a 105% increase with unacceptable Base Case queuing. The Bayshore Boulevard southbound left turn lane Base Case vehicle queue would be extended from:t 145 feet up to 355 feet (with 325 feet of storage). The Bayshore Boulevard southbound right turn lane Base Case vehicle queue would be extended from:t 315 up to 765 feet (with 310 feet of storage). The westbound through lanes on Oyster Point Boulevard would receive a 4.8% increase with unacceptable Base Case queuing. · Bayshore BoulevardlU.S. 101 Southbound Hook Ramps/Terrabay Access Intersection. The southbound off-ramp lanes Base Case vehicle queue would be extended from :t 400 feet up to 670 to 690 feet (with 600 feet of storage). The Bayshore Boulevard northbound through lane Base Case vehicle queue would extend from:t 465 feet up to 500 feet (with 475 feet of storage). PM Peak Hour · Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard Intersection. The Sister Cities Boulevard eastbound left turn lane would receive a 9.1 % increase in traffic with unacceptable Base Case queuing. Bayshore Boulevard southbound left turn lane Base Case vehicle queue would be extended from:t 205 feet up to 350 feet (with 325 feet of storage). AM Peak Hour The 2005 Project would result in unacceptable vehicle queuing at several locations expected to have acceptable Base Case queuing by 2020. In addition, Project traffic would aggravate vehicle queues at several locations expected to have unacceptable Base Case queuing. Impact 3.1.9h Year 2020 Vehicle Queuing Impacts - 95th Percentile (SU) The primary changes incorporated into the 2005 Project to reduce the on-ramp impact is the provision of two left turn lanes on the eastbound Sister Cities approach, as well as the addition of an addition lane length to accommodate the 95th percentile queue. Traffic Impact 3.1.9a: Year 2020 Vehicle Queuing Impacts: Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard (AM and PM) intersection would experience queuing impacts. These impacts could be reduced by the mitigation measures identified in the 2005 SEIR but not to a level that is less than significant. There are no feasible mitigation measures for the Oyster Point BoulevardlDubuque AvenuelU.S. 101 Northbound On-Ramp (PM only) intersection. . Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue Intersection. The northbound approach left turn and through/left turn lanes on Dubuque Avenue would receive a 7.6% increase with unacceptable Base Case queuing. Mitigation Measure 3.1.9h Bayshore BoulevardlU.S. 101 Southbound Hook Ramps/Terrabay Access. Adjust sequel timing to prevent unacceptable queue lengths on the U.S. 101 southbound off-ramps intersection approach and lengthen the southbound off-ramp lanes by 200 feet. (L TS) · Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard. Provide two left turn lanes on the eastbound Sister Cities Boulevard approach. Make each lane turn at least 250 feet long to accommodate the 95th percentile queue. In addition, lengthen the southbound Bayshore Boulevard left turn lane by 25 feet. However, it would be impossible to lengthen the southbound Bayshore Boulevard right turn lane from 310 up to 765 feet. Also, the other proposed measure to improve level of service (a second northbound left turn lane) would decrease westbound through lane storage demands, but not to the available storage distance on the freeway overpass. (SU) · Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque AvenuelU.S. 101 Northbound On-Ramp. There are no physical improvements considered feasible at this intersection by City of South San Francisco staff to reduce Project queuing impacts to acceptable conditions. (SU) Air Quality Impact 3.2.3: Regional emZSSlon increase that would exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds for ozone precursors and PMJO. This is the same impact identified in the 1998/99 SEIR and remains the same for the 2005 Project. Measures identified in the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan incorporate the mitigation measures identified in the 1998/99 SEIR and the 2005 SEIR. These impacts could be reduced by the mitigation measures identified but not to a level that is less than significant. Mitigation measure 4.5-3 identified in the 1998/99 SEIR shall be implemented. In addition, the following mitigation measures shall be applied to Project: 1) electric vehicle charging stations shall be provided, 2) the project will include sidewalks and/ or paths, connected to adjacent land uses, transit stops and/or a community-wide network, 3) provision of secure and conveniently located bicycle storage, 4) preferential parking for electric or alternatively-fueled vehicles. 5) implementation of feasible TDM measures including ride-sharing, coordination with regional ridesharing programs and provision of transit information, 6) the above-referenced bus turnouts and benches, and 7) direct, safe, attractive pedestrian access from project land uses to transit stops and adjacent development. -29- Page 5 of I I Page 6 of II -30- An overall reduction in project size between 60-75% would be required in order to reach a less than significant impact. A reduction of this nature would render the project economically infeasible. The economic benefit realized through a critical mass of retail uses in order to capitalize the Project and the tax return to the City derived from the "Lifestyle Retail" component would not be realized. Reductions in the 2005 Project to the Lifestyle Retail, Office or Hotel component of the project is infeasible because of the extensive and costly public amenities and infrastructure improvements required for the 2005 Project and already built for Phase I and II, the need for a critical mass of retail to finance the project and provide a tax benefit to the City and the fixed cost of constructing infrastructure necessary to serve the 2005 Project. The development of the Terrabay Project, including the 2005 Project is subject to extensive conditions of approval under the HCP, Development Agreement and Specific Plan as amended. These documents require 1) the dedication of property to the County as open space; 2) funding HCP maintenance and monitoring; 3) construction of a fire station (built as part of Phase I); 4) construction of a recreation center (built as part of Phase I); 5) construction of a child-care facility or the payment of in-lieu fees; 6) construction of a 150 seat Performing Arts Center 7) Provision of 20% of the residential units affordable to low and moderate income households (50-120% of the area median) 8) completion of the Hillside Boulevard extension (built as part of Phase I); 9) a $8.5 million financial contribution to the construction of the hook ramps; lO) a $5 million investment in an emergency operations and training facility for police and fire and equipment and personnel for police and fire; and, 11) and other improvements and fees. The costs of these improvements are spread throughout the entire project, including the 2005 Project. The construction of required infrastructure in the 2005 Project are fixed costs that must be spread over the number of units developed. A 60 -75% reduction in density to reduce impacts to a less than significant level could not support the development costs of the 2005 Project and would render the 2005 Project economically infeasible. Furthermore, this drastic reduction in the 2005 Project which would also reduce housing units will impede the City's ability to provide its fair share of housing to address regional needs required under the City housing element and state law. The City staff has reviewed the proposed mitigation measures and determined them unfeasible. Due to the close proximity of the intersections in this area and the lack of right of way, there are no mitigations that would have the effect of reducing this impact to a less than significant level. (1) Oyster Point Boulevard/ Dubuque Avenue/ U.S. 101 North On-ramp The 2005 SEIR proposes potential improvements to the above-referenced intersection as a mitigation measure for Impact 3.1.6, Year 2010 Vehicle Queuing Impacts a. Infeasibility of Mitigation Measures 3. Findings of Infeasibility of Mitigation Measures and Alternatives For Unavoidable Iml2.acts reduction in housing units will also adversely affect the City's jobslhousing balance. Based on the foregoing and other information in the record, improvements to the intersection at the Oyster Point Boulevard/ Dubuque Avenue/ U.S. 101 North On-ramp are not feasible. (2) Maintenance of inbound and outbound flow to and from the Proiect Access driveway. The 2005 SEIR proposes one scenario under 3.1.6 that would provide a third lane on the Project access driveway, provide a short right turn lane on the southbound Bayshore Boulevard, if the right-of-way were available, and provide actuated signal operation that would clear southbound 101 offramp traffic to preclude backups to the freeway mainline, or eliminate outbound flow from the project driveway. These mitigation measures are infeasible. There is no available land to provide a third lane at the 2005 Project driveway. The driveway to and from the 2005 Project is situated on the Buffer Parcel and addition of a third lane would encroach onto the Preservation Parcel. The Preservation Parcel is designated as Open Space and cannot be encroached upon. There is no additional right-of-way along Bayshore Boulevard sufficient to provide another right turn lane. Eliminating egress from the 2005 Project site at this location is infeasible because: 1) If vehicles coming to and from the freeway are forced to use alternative routes, this could add a significant amount of traffic to nearby intersections that are currently operating worse than Level-of-Service (LOS) D during the AM or PM peak hour (e.g., Oyster Point BoulevardlUS-101 NB On- Ramp). 2) Additional vehicles turning left from northbound Bayshore Boulevard into the project entrance/signalized intersection that lies south of the north entrance, could likely result in intersection operations that are worse than LOS D during the AM or PM peak hour. Queues could also spill back to adjacent intersections, further compounding traffic operations in the area, particularly at Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point BoulevardlBayshore Boulevard. Further mitigations that could increase intersection capacity are limited by numerous right-of-way constraints posed by the US-101 freeway embankment and the newly reconstructed Oyster Point Boulevard freeway overpass. 3) The site logistics limit the availability of suitable access points. Nearby archaeological resources, parklands, right-of-way constraints and steep slopes are a few of the factors that create a need for innovative approaches to the project's circulation needs. 4) If project traffic is channelized through the signalized intersection/entrance that lies to the south of the north entrance, this could significantly increase the response time of emergency vehicles for the north side of the project site. 5) A key priority for shoppers is general customer convenience and retail customers are creatures of habit. 6) It is important for customers to have the perception of ease of access. 7) The 2005 Project is created around a main street style design which needs a natural flow. 8) The most successful Lifestyle Retail centers include two way traffic flow to come in and out at various access points. 9) Ability to easily access a major freeway system is paramount for the 2005 Project to be a regional destination. 10) National retailers have astute real estate brokers who are looking at inflow and -31- Page 7 of I I Page 8 of II -32- An overall reduction in project size between 60-75% would be required in order to reach a less than significant impact. A reduction of this nature would render the project economically infeasible. The economic benefit realized through a critical mass of retail uses in order to capitalize the Project and the tax return to the City derived from the "Lifestyle Retail" component would not be realized. Reductions in the 2005 Project to the Lifestyle Retail, Office or Hotel component of the project is infeasible because of the extensive and costly public amenities and infrastructure improvements required for the 2005 Project and already built for Phase I and II, the need for a critical mass of retail to finance the project and provide a tax benefit to the City and the fixed cost of constructing infrastructure necessary to serve the 2005 Project. The development of the Terrabay Project, including the 2005 Project is subject to extensive conditions of approval under the HCP, Development Agreement and Specific Plan as amended. These documents require 1) the dedication of property to the County as open space; 2) funding HCP maintenance and monitoring; 3) construction of a fire station (built as part of Phase I); 4) construction of a recreation center (built as part of Phase I); 5) construction of a child-care facility or the payment of in-lieu fees; 6) construction of a l50 seat Performing Arts Center 7) Provision of 20% of the residential units affordable to low and moderate income households (50-120% of the area median) 8) completion of the Hillside Boulevard extension (built as part of Phase I); 9) a 8.5 million dollar financial contribution to the construction of the hook ramps; 10) 5million dollar investment in an emergency operations and training facility for police and fire and equipment and personnel for police and fire; and, 11) and other improvements and fees. The costs of these improvements are spread throughout the entire project, including the 2005 Project. The construction of required infrastructure in the 2005 Project are fixed costs that must be spread over the number of units developed. A 60 -75% reduction in density to reduce impacts to a less than significant level could not support the development costs of the 2005 Project and would render the 2005 Project economically infeasible. Furthermore, this drastic reduction in 2005 Project which would also reduce housing units will impede the City's ability to provide its fair share of housing to address regional needs required under the City housing element and state law. The reduction in housing units will also adversely affect the City's jobslhousing balance. Based on the foregoing and other information in the record, City staff has reviewed the proposed mitigation measures and have determined them unfeasible. Due to the close proximity of the intersections in this area and the lack of right of way, there are no mitigations that would have the effect of reducing this impact to a less than significant level. (3) Oyster Point BoulevardlDubuque AvenuelU.S. 101 North Bound On Ramp-Vehicle Queuing Impacts year 2020. outflow and if they think it is compromised they will have second thoughts about the 2005 project. improvements to the intersection at the Oyster Point Boulevard/ Dubuque Avenue/ U.S. 101 North On-ramp are not feasible. (4) Regional emission increase that would exceed the BAAOMD significance thresholds for ozone precursors and PM.1o.:. Air Quality Impact 3.2.3: Reduction of the 2005 Project as identified above (approximately by 75%) could potentially reduce this impact to a less than significant level. The Project would be economically infeasible, as noted above, with such a reduction. The benefits of the Project would then not be realized. b. Infeasibility of Alternatives Which Would Reduce Impacts Since the significant unavoidable impacts will be caused by buildout of the 2005 Project, the only alternative identified in the 2005, 1998/99, 1996 SEIR and the 1982 EIR that would reduce this impact to less than significant is the No Development Alternative. In light of the foregoing, the only alternative that would reduce the cumulative impacts of building out the project as proposed in the 2005 Project is the No Development Alternative for the remaining parcels of Phase III. This alternative is infeasible. The Terrabay Project already incorporates many of the alternatives proposed under the 1998-99 SEIR. First, the Project provides for a 25+ acre of preserve for the protection of endangered species habitat and a 6.3 acre parcel offered to the City for recreational purposes (The Recreation Parcel). Additionally, a buffer area is proposed to shield the archeological site from the proposed development. The project also incorporates more area into the HCP. As a result of the foregoing, the developable footprint on the remaining parcel has been significantly reduced (from 46 to 2l acres). Moreover, the benefits of the Project to the City are derived from the Project as a whole. The goals and objectives of the Project may only be met if each phase is built as proposed in the 2005 Project. Furthermore, the benefits under the HCP are based on the development of each phase. In addition, public improvements which will be funded, in part, or required to be built as part of Phase III would not be constructed if Phase III is not built. These improvements are needed to serve the needs of the City generally as well as the Project. Therefore, since the No Development Alternative for Phase III does not accomplish most of the objectives of the Project, the City Council finds that this alternative is infeasible and, therefore, rejects this alternative as it relates to the remaining parcels of Phase III. 4. Statement of Overriding Considerations The City Council has considered the public record of proceedings on the 2005 Project and finds and determines that the approval and implementation of the 2005 Project -33- Page 9 of I I Page 10 of11 -34- · Honor and further the culture and history of South San Francisco by the creation of a History Walk within and around the Phase III site, the provision of public art, a 150 seat performing arts center, landscaped walkways and plazas and water features within the Phase III site; · Create a transition area between the urbanized potion of the City and San Bruno Mountain Park; · Develop the "Buffer Parcel" with roads and landscaping pursuant to the Mutual Release and Settlement Agreement between the City, Myers Development Company, San Bruno Mountain Watch and the Center for Biological Diversity; · Increase the City's access to recreational opportunities by the creation of the respite and trail along the perimeter of the site; · Further the goals of the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan by allowing the 2005 Project to be built within the developable area of the Mountain vested by the HCP, to continue to fund the HCP by the homeowner and commercial fees prescribed by the HCP, by the restoration and conveyance to the County of San Mateo the remainder parcels adjacent to the Phase III site, by the creation of a fire buffer around the perimeter of the site and the planting of a carefully planned landscape plan utilizing non-invasive and drought resistive plantings; · Reduce overall environmental impacts and preserve open space by building on 18 acres of land most of which was previously disturbed by transportation and utility- related grading while preserving 26 plus acres as species habitat, wetlands and open space; · Provide below market rate housing; · Assist in funding and provision of critical emergency services in the City by construction of the shared Emergency Operations Facility on the Phase III site and the staffing of police and fire personnel and equipment ($4,856,979 in 2005 dollars); · Assist in bridging the gap between the availability of housing in the City and the abundance of jobs; · Provide a tax benefit to the City by increasing tax base and revenues to the City through property and sales tax revenues; · Provide economic growth and employment opportunities in the City and surrounding region, by the creation of new jobs on the site and in the construction - related industries; entitlements would result in the following substantial public benefits that outweigh the four significant, unavoidable cumulative impacts of the Terrabay 2005 Project: · Offset Project Sponsor's burden and City burden and costs created by the development of Phase I and II and the public amenities already constructed by the developer including the construction of Sister Cities Boulevard, fire station, recreation center, private streets, water system and holding tank, Hillside School recreation facilities, payment of a child care in-lieu fee ($700,000), payment of Oyster Point Flyover fees (8.5 million), dedication of 26 acres of open space (Preservation Parcel), dedication of a six acre plus parcel to the City (the Recreation Parcel), construction of the linear park and offer of dedication of the park to the City, by allowing the project to be completed and tax benefits to the City to be realized. -35- Page I I of 1 I Page 1 of 4 -36- A Wetland Mitigation Plan prepared by Wetland Research Associates, on behalf of the City and Myers Development Company, approved by the U.S. Army Corp ofEn~ineers mitigates the impacts of the City's Oyster Point Hook ramp project and the 1/10t acre wetland take on the 2005 Project site. These modifications serve to provide compliance with mitigation measure 4.3-1(a) from the 1998/99 SEIR, which calls for avoidance of freshwater marsh and riparian habitat to the greatest extent possible. The 2005 Project conforms to mitigation measures contained in the 1998/99 SEIR with respect to wetlands preservation and species habitat preservation. Impacts on Biolofdcal Resources (1998/99 SEIR) The 1998/99 SEIR updated information on biological resources of the project and re-evaluated potential impacts on sensitive resources. The 2005 Project would result in no impacts to special status species that are identified in the 1998/99 SEIR. The 2005 Project has been substantially revised to avoid all the Callippee Silverspot habitat (Viola penduncula) and to take only 1/1 Oth of an acre of freshwater march, seeps, and riparian habitat. In doing so, a 26-acre plus Preservation Parcel (containing wetlands and critical butterfly habitat) was offered by the applicant and designated as permanent open space by the City Council on November 24, 2000 (Resolution #48-2000). The dedication and conveyance of the land on August ll, 2004, to the County of San Mateo for inclusion in San Bruno County/Sate Park preserves the wetlands and habitat and furthers the objectives of the HCP for San Bruno Mountain. A1!ricultural Resources (1998/99 SEIR) The project site contains no lands designated as prime farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance. There is no farmland or agricultural uses within the City of South San Francisco (source: South San Francisco General Plan, 2000). This section contains findings on the environmental impacts of the Proposed Phase III Project (2005 Project) that were not further analyzed in the 2005 SEIR because the impacts ofthe 2005 Project for Phase III were not significantly different from the impacts of the Phase III Project under the Terrabay Specific Plan as amended in 2000. No further analysis of these impacts was required because the 2005 Project did not present any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects in these areas for the entire Terrabay Project (Public Resources Code 9 21166; CEQA Guidelines 9 15091). Prior City Council findings on the environmental impacts of Phase III under the 1982 EIR,l996 SEIR, and 1998/99 SEIR and Addendum thereto are incorporated herein by reference. Mitigation measures already completed or incorporated into the 2005 Project design are only addressed as necessary for the finding. FINDINGS ON IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FROM 1998/99 SEIR AND ADDENDUM THERETO NOT FURTHER ANALYZED IN 2005 SEIR EXHIBIT C Environmental Collaborative (City's biologist of record for review of Terrabay) reviewed the 2005 Terrabay Phase III Only Plan and found it to be in compliance with the mitigation measures identified in the 1998/99 SEIR, as documented in the 2005 Initial Study and 2005 Terrabay Phase III Only Initial Study contained in the 2005 SEIR. The boundaries of the Terrabay Specific Plan Area were found by the City Council to be in compliance with the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) on May 12, 1999 (City Council Resolution #64-99). The compliance hearing was conducted pursuant to federal statute which included review by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, State Department ofFish and Game, the County of San Mateo and Thomas Reid Associates (Plan Administrator). The review period and certification hearing was noticed pursuant to federal, state and local requirements. The Terrabay Plan boundaries and limits of grading included Phase III as well as the dedication of the Preservation Parcel. The proposed 2005 Terrabay Phase III Only Specific Plan identifies limits of grading within the developable area of the remaining 21 acres of Terrabay Phase III (Figure 3, Initial Study in DSEIR, p 2-4 DSEIR and Figure 15 Phase III Only Terrabay Specific Plan). The proposed limits of grading conform to the HCP fence and the HCP requirements. Ms. Victoria Harris of Thomas Reid Associates reviewed the 2005 Phase III project limits and found them in compliance with the 1999 HCP Certification hearing (November 22, 2005). Miti1!ation Measure Section 4.3 Biology of the 1998/99 SEIR and Master Response 7.3-8 of the 1998/99 SEIR are hereby incorporated by reference. Findin1! As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the 2005 Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the 1998/99 SEIR. With the incorporation ofthe specified mitigation measures, the impact of the 2005 Proj ect is less than significant. Rationale The 2005 Project conforms with the provisions of the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan, and enhancement and preservation efforts will greatly improve habitat values on this portion of the site. No significant impacts on wildlife are anticipated from the Proposed Project. Impacts on Cultural Resources (1998/99 SEIR) There are no Historic Resources (as defined under section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines) on the Terrabay Phase III Only site. One prehistoric archeological site is located adjacent to the project site, a shellmound which contains a number of organic, shellfish and human remains. The project completely avoids this site, fulfilling the requirements of Mitigation measure 4.9- l(b) of the 1998/99 SEIR. The archaeological site is a part of the "Preservation Parcel" containing wetlands, archaeological remains and endangered species habitat. The Preservation Parcel was conveyed by the applicant to the County of San Mateo August 2004 for inclusion in San Bruno Mountain State and County Park. Additionally, Holman Associates, Archaeologists (City's archaeologist of record for review of Terrabay) reviewed the 2005 Terrabay Phase III Only plan and found it to be in compliance with the mitigation measures identified in the 1998/99 SEIR, as documented in the 2005 Initial Study contained in the 2005 SEIR. -37- Page 2 of 4 Page 3 of 4 -38- Rationale The implementation of mitigation measures related to slope stability, the establishment of a slope maintenance plan, and other mitigation measures contained in the 1998/99 SEIR, and as required and incorporated into Phases I and II of Terrabay which have proven successful, will reduce potential impacts from seismically induced Findin1! As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the 2005 Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the 1998/99 SEIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, and with the implementation of the additional studies and data collection discussed more fully above, the impact of the Proposed Project is less than significant. Miti1!ation Measure Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.1-3- 4.1-6 from the 1998/99 SEIR will mitigate potential issues of rock slope stability, land and debris slides, liquefaction and settlement to less than significant levels. Imoacts on Geolo1!V and Soils (1998/99 SEIR) Geology, soils and seismicity were thoroughly analyzed in the 1998/99 SEIR. The limits of grading proposed by the 2005 Project are substantially less (approximately half of the area) those analyzed in 1998/99 and similar to those analyzed in 2000. Additionally, a geotechnical investigation was conducted by URS Corporation for the Phase III Development site. The engineering analyses of this study were documented in a second geotechnical report. Additional field exploration as a requirement of the precise plan and building permit issuance will be conducted to address design level specifications pertaining to standard building issues such as foundations, compaction and drainage. The potential geologic impacts identified in 1998/99 such as seismicity, rock and land slides, debris flows, liquefaction and settlement do not differ from that analyzed in the 1998/99 SEIR. Rationale The impacts of the 2005 Project on cultural resources are less than significant because there are no historical resources on the Development or Buffer Parcels, the only identified site of archeological significance is located off-site, and because potential impacts on Native American burial sites are ameliorated by a limitation of development on the Buffer Parcel to roads, retaining walls, surface parking, landscaping and an informational kiosk. Based on the foregoing, the 2005 Project impact is less than significant. Findin1! As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the 2005 Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the 1998/99 SEIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact of the 2005 Project is less than significant. Miti1!ation Measure The 2005 Terrabay Phase III-Only Specific Plan would implement Mitigation Measure 4.9-1(b) of the 1998/99 SEIR. Potential impacts are thus reduced to a less than significant level. landsliding and rock sliding impacts to a less than significant level, and the removal of debris material, addition of buttressing walls and retaining walls will mitigate possible activity in active slide areas. Impacts of Hazards and Hazardous Materials (1998/99 SEIR and 1999) The undeveloped and vacant project site contains no hazardous or toxic materials as documented in the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment identified in the 2005 Initial Study for the 2005 Project. The mixed use project would not result in the release of hazardous materials into the environment. The General Plan identifies the site as a 'Low Priority Fire Hazard Management Unit," and no mitigation measures are required. Water and HvdroloI!V Impacts (1998/99 SEIR). The 2005 Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The 2005 Project would result in a reduction of impervious surfaces by about 55 percent from the previous development plan due to the dedication of the 25.6-acre Preservation Parcel, resulting in an increase in groundwater re-charge. The amount of surface and storm water runoff would be less than in the previous development plan. Future development at the site will not degrade water quality, and the project site is not located within a 100-year flood zone. The 2005 Project will result in a reduction of storm water runoff, which is addressed in the 2005 SEIR. Mitif!ation Measure With the exception of mitigation measures for storm water runoff, addressed in the Utilities and Services chapter of the 2005 SEIR, no additional mitigation measures beyond those identified in the 1998/99 SEIR are required. Findinf! As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the 2005 Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the 1998/99 EIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact of the proposed Project is less than significant. Rationale The amount of surface runoff and storm water runoff under the 2005 Project is less than that of the plan analyzed in the 1998/99 SEIR. The site is not located within a flood plain. The impacts of the 2005 Project are less than significant and less than the project analyzed in the 1998/99 SEIR. -39- Page 4 of 4 Attachment B Resolution Approving the General Plan Amendment to add a High Density Residential Overlay to the existing Business Commercial Designation on the "Development Parcel" with Exhibit A Map of the Development Parcel. RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP AND THE FINAL TERRABA Y PHASE III SPECIFIC PLAN WHEREAS, the Terrabay lands have an extensive planning history dating to the early 1980's; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of South San Francisco approved the Final Terrabay Specific Plan and the Restated and Amended Development Agreement for the Remaining Parcels of Phase IT and Phase III of the Terrabay Development on December 13,2000; and, WHEREAS, the City and Myers Peninsula Company, L.L.C. ('the Applicant"), have prepared a Terrabay Phase III-Only Specific Plan, which addresses the 21 acres ofland approved for a 665, 000 square foot office tower and roadways in the 2000 Plan, which the 2005 Phase Terrabay IIT- Only Specific Plan envisions the construction of 322,000 square feet (leasable area) of "Lifestyle Retail" 295,000 (gross square feet) of office and 351 residential units; or two alternatives consisting of 322,000 sq. ft. (leasable area) of "Lifestyle Retail", 351 residential units and a 300 room hotel or 322,000 square feet (leasable area) of "Lifestyle Retail and 531 residential units and, WHEREAS, the Applicant's Terrabay Phase III-Only Specific Plan amendment is proposed to modify Terrabay Phase III to allow for a mixed-use development of the Phase III Terrabay Commercial land in place of the originally planned and approved office tower; and WHEREAS, the Terrabay Specific Plan District Zoning Ordinance shall be revised to incorporate the land uses approved in the 2005 Terrabay Phase III-Only Specific Plan and the development intensities therein; and, WHEREAS, certain amendments to the South San Francisco General Plan, shown in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, are necessary to allow for mixed use on the site by adding the High Density Residential designation to the existing Business Commercial land use designation for the site; and, WHEREAS, the 2005 SEIR, which supplements and builds upon the environmental analyses contained in the 1998/99 Terrabay Phase II and III SEIR and Addendum, the 1996 Terrabay SEIR and the 1982 Terrabay Environmental Impact Report (EIR), is focused on traffic and circulation, air quality, noise, public services, utilities and aesthetics, and has been recommended for approval to the City Council via separate resolution, the certification of which SEIR shall be considered by the Council during a separate agenda item; and, 1 -40- -41- 2 NOW THEREFORE. BE IT RESOL VED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby adopts the following findings based upon the entire record for the Terrabay development. The record includes, but is not limited to, the following: 1) The South San Francisco General Plan, and General Plan Environmental Impact Report; 2) The proposed Final Terrabay Specific Plan; 3) The 1998-99 Certified Terrabay Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, which includes the 1982 Certified Terrabay Environmental Impact Report, the Certified 1996 Terrabay Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and Addendum to the 1998-1999 Certified Terrabay Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and Addendum, 4) the 2005 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, 5)Testimony and materials submitted at the City Council study session on April 24, 2000; 6) Testimony and materials submitted at the Planning Commission study sessions of June 1, 2000 and September 14, 2000; 7) Testimony and materials submitted at the Design Review Board meeting on June 20, 2000; 8) Testimony and materials submitted at the Historic Preservation Commission on June 8,2000; 9) Testimony and materials submitted at the Planning Commission meeting on November 2, 2000; and 10) Testimony and materials, including the Restated and Amended Development Agreement for Remaining Parcels of Phase IT and Phase III of the Terrabay Development, submitted at the Planning Commission meeting on November 16, 2000; ll) Testimony and materials, including amendments to the Final Terrabay Specific Plan and Terrabay Specific Plan District Zoning Ordinance submitted at the Planning Commission meeting on March 14,2001, 12) Testimony and materials, including proposed amendments to the South San Francisco General Plan and an amendment to the Terrabay Specific Plan, submitted at the October, 2004 joint study session conducted by the City Council and Planning Commission, 13) Testimony and materials, including proposed amendments to the South San Francisco General Plan and an amendment to the Terrabay Specific Plan, submitted at the three City Council subcommittee meetings and one joint City Council! Planning Commission conducted between February of 2004 and July of 2005, 14) Testimony and materials, including proposed amendments to the South San WHEREAS, in October of 2004, the City Council and Planning Commission conducted a joint study session on Terrabay Phase III ; between 2004-2005, three City Council sub-committee meetings and one joint City Council! Planning Commission study session were conducted; on October 5th, 2005, a joint City Council-Planning Commission subcommittee met to discuss the Terrabay Phase III proposal; on October 24th, 2005, the same joint City Council and Planning Commission subcommittee met to discuss proposed modifications to the 2005 Phase III plan in response to comments offered previously, and on November 17th, December 18t and December 15th, 2005, the Planning Commission held properly noticed public hearings to consider the proposed text amendments to the Final Terrabay Specific Plan and the Terrabay Specific Plan District Zoning Ordinance; and, WHEREAS, the joint City Council and Planning Commission subcommittee and Planning Commission have requested various refinements to the Terrabay Phase III-Only Specific Plan. City Council directs staff to incorporate these changes into the final document. The refinements will reflect the revisions of the sub-committee, the Planning Commission and City Council as approved. WHEREAS, a Restated and Amended Development Agreement (DA) will be considered for adoption via separate ordinance, to be followed by the submission of a precise plan application; and, Francisco General Plan and an amendment to the Terrabay Specific Plan, submitted to the joint City Council and Planning Commission subcommittee meetings of October 5th and 24th, 2005, 15) Testimony and materials, including proposed amendments to the South San Francisco General Plan and an amendment to the Terrabay Specific Plan, submitted to the Planning Commission at hearings dated November 17th, 2005, December 1st, 2005, and December 15th, 2005; 16) Testimony and materials, including proposed amendments to the South San Francisco General Plan and an amendment to the Terrabay Specific Plan submitted to the City Council at a hearing dated January 25th, 2006. 1. The proposed General Plan Amendment is internally consistent with the South San Francisco General Plan. The finding is based on the following facts and analyses: A. The proposed high density residential overlay designation conforms with and implements the Housing and General Plan policies as identified below: a. Housing Element Policy 1B: Provide assistance from all divisions, departments and levels of the City Government, within the bounds oflocal ordinances and policies, to stimulate private housing development consistent with local needs. Analysis: The High Density Residential Land Use designation would provide for an additional 351 housing units on the Terrabay Phase III Development parcel while preserving habitat and open space. The proposed development in the Terrabay Phase III-Only Specific Plan would conform to this designation. The mixed use project proposes a mix of residential use types to serve market-, moderate-, and low income households. b. Housing Element Policy 1C: Assure people a choice oflocations by encouraging a variety of housing units in well-planned neighborhoods. Analysis: The High Density Land Use designation on the Terrabay site would implement this policy. The proposed Terrabay Phase III-Only Specific Plan includes a TDM plan, child-care, a recreation c,enter and a variety of housing units and types. This, coupled with the previously approved Phases, would provide a diverse housing unit mix. c. Land Use Policy 2-G-2: Maintain a balanced land use program that provides opportunities for continued economic growth, and building intensities that reflect South San Francisco's prominent inner bay location and excellent regional access. Analysis: The High Density Land Use designation would implement this policy by providing a high-quality mixed use development for the City and the region. The designation would allow for the generation of substantial tax revenues for the City, and will additionally provide needed housing and retail opportunities close to the Highway 101 corridor. 3 -42- -43- Analysis: The site has immediate access to Highway 101, San Francisco, the peninsula and the airport which will provide local and regional clientele for the project which is critical for the success of the retail component. The project proposes a mixed-use including retail, office and residential which conforms to the City's FAR and residential density standards. 4 2-G-2: Maintain a balanced land use program that provides opportunities for continued economic growth, and building intensities that reflect South San Francisco's prominent inner bay location and excellent regional access. Analysis: The proposed mixed-use project will be a part of South San Francisco but will not be in the middle of an established neighborhood or community with San Bruno Mountain as a backdrop, Sister Cities Boulevard and Terrabay Phase II to the west and south, and Bayshore Boulevard and Highway 101 to the east. The Project will add to the vitality and diversity of the City and compliment the existing land uses in the area and the City. The proposed uses will not detract from the City's existing commercial base but compliment it by realizing a "Lifestyle Retail Center" as discussed above. 2-G-l: Preserve the scale and character of established neighborhoods, and protect residents from changes in non-residential areas. Guiding and Implementing Policies Chapter 2.6 Land Use Policies The proposed land use designation addition and the proposed land uses in the Terrabay Phase III Only Specific Plan conforms with and implements the following General Plan policies. Project Conformance with the General Plan The proposed land uses identified in the Terrabay Phase III Only Specific Plan conform to the City's General Plan as discussed below in more detail. 2. Proposed Specific Plan Conformance with the General Plan Analysis: The High Density Land Use designation would implement this policy by allowing for a high quality mixed use development that will provide a high-quality grocery market to an underserved area of the City. Moreover, the integrated residential and retail "lifestyle retail" nature of the development will foster a sense of community, and the creation of such mixed use developments can create a sense of belonging and identity for residents and those who patronize the retail outlets. d. Land Use Policy 2-G-7: Encourage mixed-use residential, retail, and office development in centers where they would support transit, in locations where they would provide increased access to neighborhoods that currently lack such facilities, and in corridors where such developments can help to foster identity and vitality. 2-1-3: Undertake planned development for unique projects or as a means to achieve high community design standards.. not to circumvent development intensity standards. Analysis: The proposed project is unique and it is a planned development. The site is unique within the City of South San Francisco as well as the northern peninsula. The 21 acre (18 acres developable) site is undeveloped on the west of 101 and in the lee of San Bruno Mountain. The relatively large size of the site and its protection from the windy elements of the Mountain enable a successful mixed-use concept to be developed. Outdoor cafes, plazas, water features, the proposed history walk and sanctuary and the outdoor performance area will all be sheltered from the elements and provide a setting for people to converge and interact. The project proposes F ARs under the maximum permitted by zoning and meets the high density residential density thresholds, as noted above. The sub-committee and Planning Commission have commented favorably on the quality of architecture proposed. 2-1-4: Require all new developments seeking an FAR bonus set forth in Table 2.2-2 to achieve a progressively higher alternative mode useage. Analysis: The TDM measures identified in Schedule 20.120.030-B: Summary of Program Requirements (Zoning) of the City's TDM Ordinance is incorporated into the TDM program for the project. 2-1-13: As a part of development review in environmentally sensitive areas, require specific environmental studies and/or review as stipulated in Section 7.1: Habitat and Biological Resources Conservation. Analysis: The proposed project has undergone extensive environmental review as discussed above in this report. Biological surveys are required annually prior to site development. The Preservation Parcel, containing critical species habitat, was conveyed to the County for inclusion in San Bruno Mountain County/State Park. Remainder parcels are landscaped with seed mix approved by the HCP Administrator as appropriate for the butterfly. Three land restoration and preservation plans have been approved as part of the project and restoration work has occurred and is nearly complete. The plans include the Juncus Parcel, the Preservation Parcel and the Buffer Parcels along with the perimeter of the Mandalay (Heights and Pointe) and Phase III parcels. Chapter 3: Planning Sub-Areas Element: Paradise Valleyfferrabay Guiding Policy 3-8-G-2: Improve accessibility to neighborhood shopping opportunities. Analysis: The project proposes Lifestyle Retail and includes provisions for a market. S -44- -.4:5- Analysis: Terrabay Phase I and II include a linear park. The park terminates within the Phase III site. The linear park compliments and coordinates with the proposed History Walk. 6 5-1-G-5: Develop linear parks in conjunction with major infrastructure improvements and along existing utility and transportation rights-of-ways. Implementing Policy Chapter 5: Parks, Public Facilities and Services Analysis: The project includes several locations with covered and locked bicycle parking. 4-3-1-4: Require provision of secure and covered bicycle parking. Analysis: The project implements a shuttle service for Peninsula Mandalay. The shuttle service will be expanded to cover the Phase III project. 4-3-G-3: In partnership with local employers, continue efforts to expand shuttle operations. Analysis: The proposed project includes pedestrian and bikeways throughout the project, to Bayshore and Sister Cities Boulevard, to the bus stop on Bayshore Boulevard and to the adjacent Terrabay neighborhood. 4-3-G-2: Provide safe and direct pedestrian and bikeways between and through residential neighborhoods, andto transit center. Analysis: The project sponsor contributed to the construction of the hook ramps and Sister Cities Boulevard. The project sponsor will also contribute to additional roadway and pedestrian improvements as identified in the 2005 SEIR. The Oyster Point Flyover and Hook Ramp construction is complete. 4-2-1-6: Incorporate as part of the City's C1P needed intersection and roadway improvements including Bayshore Boulevard and Us. 101 Hook Ramps The project sponsor contributed land and $8.5 million to construct the hook Analysis: ramps. Provide afair and equitable meansfor payingfor future street improvements. 4-2-G-7: Guiding and Implementing Polices Chapter 4: Transportation The project proposes walk ways throughout and around the site. Chapter 6: Economic Development Guiding and Implementing Policies 6-G-I: In partnership with business and community groups, proactively participate in the City's economic development. Analysis: Terrabay has had a long (25 year plus) history that has been controversial. Beginning in 1999 through to the present, much of the controversy has been abated largely as a result of the following actions: · The Planning Commission and City Council designated the Preservation Parcel as permanent open space. · Myers Development Company, City :leaders and City staff worked with community groups to address the restoration and preservation ofland and habitat. As a result of this effort, the results of the restoration are being used as examples of success by U. S. Fish and Wildlife, San Mateo County and Thomas Reid and Associates. San Bruno Mountain Watch, in a comment letter on the 2005 SEIR also lauded the restoration of the Preservation Parcel. · Myers and the City, in particular the City Council and Planning Commission sub committee worked to develop a land plan that in the words of one sub committee member, "makes economic and land use sense". The project proposes a mixed use plan that will bring tax revenues to the City, provide for additional police and fire services, pay for its own infrastructure, provide a vital mixed use retail, residential and entertainment development and include a style and architecture that one Commissioner noted as "poetic". Chapter 7 Open Space and Conservation Guiding and Implementing Policies 7-I-G-l: Protect special status species and supporting habitats within South San Francisco including species that are state or federally listed as Endangered, Threatened or Rare. The driving factor in clustering the mixed-use project for Phase III on the 18-acre parcel known as the "Development Parcel" (formerly the Office Parcel) is the protection of26 acres (the Preservation Parcel) for species habitat preservation. Terrabay Phase III was approximately 47 acres in area prior to the designation of the Preservation Parcel as open space and the Buffer Parcel as a buffer zone. The Preservation Parcel contains over 1,000 Viola Pendunculata which is the food plant for the endangered Callippee silverspot butterfly. 7 -46- -47- The proposed project has dedicated a 26 acre preserve, 100 plus acres (Juncus Ravine) for inclusion in San Bruno Mountain State and County Park, a six plus acre parcel to the City for Recreation or other uses, a recreation center in Phase I and includes passive recreation 8 Analysis: The proposed mixed-use project will be a part of South San Francisco but will not be in the middle of an established neighborhood or community with San Bruno Mountain as a backdrop, Sister Cities Boulevard and Terrabay Phase II to the west and south, and Bayshore Boulevard and Highway 101 to the east. The Project will add to the vitality and diversity of the City and compliment the existing land uses in the area and the City. The proposed uses will not detract from the City's existing commercial base but compliment it by realizing a "Lifestyle Retail Center" a vet)' distinct and different market that what currently exists in South San Francisco. 4) Cost/revenue impacts, especially major projects. 3) Need for additional public services to accommodate the project including but not limited to police, fire, public works, libraries, recreation, planning, engineering, administration, finance, building and/or other applicable services,' and; 2) Needfor additional infrastructure improvements, including but not limited to sewers, water, storm drainage and parks; I) Effects the proposed densities have on the surrounding neighborhoods, streets and community as a whole; Action I-C-3: Ensure that new development and rehabilitation efforts promote quality design and harmonize with existing neighborhood surroundings. Support excellence in design through the continued use of design review board and/or staff. All future major housing projects will be evaluated according to the following: Implementing Policies Housing Element The proposed project includes wetlands restoration on the Preservation Parcel. Phase III Terrabay affects less than 1/10th of an acre of seasonal streams and has an approved U.S. Army Corp of Engineers Wetland Restoration Plan. The City is mitigating the 0.83 acre take of wetlands for the hook ramp project on the Preservation Parcel. The project proposes to incorporate water features and a History Walk on the site to honor the seasonal creeks and streams. 7-I-G-l: Protect and where reasonable and feasible special status species and supporting habitats within South San Francisco including salt marshes and wetlands. The Preservation Parcel also preserves the archaeological site and wetlands in perpetuity. opportunities in Phase III. The project has installed a water system and holding tank in Phase I, privately maintained streets in Phases I and II and proposes the same in Phase III. Storm drain and sanitary sewer improvements were constructed by the developer in Phase I and II and maintained by the homeowner's associations of Phases I and II, and the same with the addition of a commercial property owners association is proposed for Phase III. Phase I Terrabay constructed a fire station and a recreation center. Phase III Terrabay includes an emergency operations facility for police and fire and funding of police and fire positions and equipment ($4,856,979). The Brisbane and South San Francisco School Districts have indicated (2005 DSEIR) that payment of the state mandated school impact fees is adequate to offset additional enrollment from the project. Additional City staffing needed to reimburse the City for special inspections or services to cover public works, planning, engineering, administration, finance, building and fire is recovered through a developer pass- through fund. CBRE, on behalf of Myers Development, prepared a proforma for Terrabay Phase III. The proforma is based primarily upon the 322,000 square feet of "Lifestyle Retail", business licenses, sales tax and property taxes. The findings of the CBRE indicate that $1.8 to $1.9 million in tax revenue to the City would be generated by the proposed high-end retail. The City (through a developer pass-through) retained the services of Keyser Marsten to perform a peer review of CBRE's fiscal findings. Keyser Marsten prepared the previous Terrabay fiscal studies for the City, the most recent being in 1998. Ms. Debbie Kem of Keyser Marsten concurred with the method used to produce tax revenue projections identified by CBRE. The key element, as discussed above in the DA section, is assuring that "Lifestyle Retail" is the type of retail occupying the site. The City of South San Francisco Finance Department, using different assumptions, has produced lower estimates of sales tax yield. Policy l-C: Assure thatpeople have a choice of locations by encouraging a variety of housing in well planned neighborhoods. Analysis: In addition to the discussion directly above, the project would provide a variety of housing styles, high rise, town home and flats in a project that contains goods and services within easy walking distance. 1. The Terrabay Specific Plan District Zoning Ordinance is attached as Exhibit B. In recommending approval, the Planning Commission relied on the extensive findings in the record, including environmental analysis. The findings and analysis are restated in their entirety in a separate resolution. As the Terrabay Specific Plan District Zoning Ordinance merely implements the Terrabay Phase III Only Specific Plan, the finding related to consistency with the General Plan supports consistency findings for the Terrabay Specific Plan District Zoning Ordinance. As an implementing measure, the Terrabay Specific Plan District Zoning Ordinance is consistent with the 2005 Terrabay Phase III Only Specific Plan, as amended. 9 - 48-. -49- 10 City Clerk ATTEST: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: NOES: AYES: 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 meeting held on the _ day of , 2006 by the following vote: * * * * * * * NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby approve an amendment to the General Plan to allow mixed-use of the Terrabay Phase III project site by adding a High Density Residential overlay to the existing Business Commercial land use designation the Development Parcel only. This General Plan High Density Residential Overlay is reflected in the area described as the "Development Parcel" in the map and legal description of the parcel, attached hereto as Exhibit A. .~ =--. BkF ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS January 17, 2006 BKF Job No. 19990280-20 LEGAL DESCRIPTION All that real property situate in the City of South San Francisco, County of San Mateo, State of California, being a portion of Lot D, as said lot is shown that certain Map entitled "TERRABA Y P AHSE III - MANDALA Y POINTE", filed for record on November 18, 2002 in Book 132 of Maps at Pages 49 through 53, inclusive, San Mateo County Records, also being a portion of Lot 395, as said lot is shown on that certain Map entitled "TERRABA Y", filed for record on July 2, 1990 in Book 121 of Maps at Pages 65 through 79, inclusive, San Mateo County Records and also being a portion of Adjusted Lot 396, as said lot is described in that certain Lot Line Adjustment No. 25, filed for record March 8, 2002 as Document No. 2002-043342, in the Office of the Recorder of the County of San Mateo, State of California, and being more particularly described as follows: Lot D as shown on that certain Map entitled "TERRABA Y PHASE III-MANDALA Y POINTE", filed for record on November 18, 2002 in Book 132 of Maps at Pages 49 through 53, inclusive, San Mateo County R(~cords. Excepting therefrom that portion thereof that is described in the Final Judgment-Action in Eminent Domain, Case No. 379598, a certified copy of which recorded March 1, 1996, Instrument No. 96024182, San Mateo County Records. TOGETHER WITH: Lot 395, as shown on that certain map entitled, "TERRABA Y", filed July 2, 1990, Map Book 121, Pages 65 through 79, inclusive, San Mateo County Records. Excepting therefrom that portion thereof that is described in the Final Judgment-Action in Eminent Domain, Case No.3 79598, a certified copy of which recorded March 1, 1996, Instrument No. 96024182, San Mateo County Records, and not included in the lands transferred back in the two Quit Claim Deeds recorded June 26, 2001, Instrument No. 2001-095248, San Mateo County Records, and recorded May 27, 2003, Instrument no. 2003-142592, San Mateo County Records. Also Excepting therefrom that portion thereof described in that certain Quit Claim Deed 255 Shoreline Drive recorded May 27, 2003, Instrument no. 2003-142590, San Mateo County Records. Suite 200 Redwood City California 94065 phone 650.482.6300 fax 650.482.6399 www.bkf.com Exhibit "A" Page 1 of3 -50- -51- Exhibit "A" Page 2 of3 BEGINNING at the most easterly corner of said Adjusted Lot 396 being the beginning of a curve to the left, from which point a radial line bears South 42035'26" East; thence along the southeasterly line the following four courses: 1) along said curve having a radius of 470.79 feet, an through a central angle of 7013 '21", an arc length of 59.35 feet; 2) South 40011' 13" West, 81.87 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve to the left; 3) Along said curve having a radius of 531.55 feet, through a central angle of 7029'25", an arc length of 69.49 feet; 4) South 32046'30" West, 139.74 feet; thence leaving said southeasterly line, North 63053 '09" West, 461.95 feet to the westerly line of said adjusted lot 396; thence along said westerly line, North 4019'27" East, 87.86 feet to the northwesterly corner of said adjusted lot 396; thence along the northerly line of said adjusted lot 396 the following nine courses: 5) South 69015'39" East, 42.49 feet to the beginning ofa tangent curve to the left; 6) Along said curve having a radius of 135.82 feet, through a central angle of 23031 '03", an arc length of 55.75 feet; 7) South 88011 '36" East, 40.38 feet to the beginning ofa tangent curve to the left; 8) Along said curve having a radius of 110.54 feet, through a central angle of 28020'08', an arc length of 54.67 feet; 9) North 65003 '38" East, 192.58 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve to the right; 10) Along said curve having a radius of 47.43 feet, through a central angle of 62001 '49", an arc length of 51.3 5 feet; 11) South 67005' 17" East, 46.08 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve to the left; 12) Along said curve having a radius of869.85 feet, through a central angle of 7000'40", an arc length of 1 06.44 feet; 13) South 71041 '42" East, 68.78 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. All that real property situate in the City of South San Francisco, County of San Mateo, State of California, being a portion of Adjusted Lot 396, as said lot is described in that certain Lot Line Adjustment No. 25, filed for record March 8, 2002 as Document No. 2002-043342, in the Office of the Recorder for the County of San Mateo, State of California, said portion also being all of Lot G, as shown on the approved Tentative Map entitled "TERRABA Y PHASE III", dated April 11, 2001, San Mateo County, and being more particularly described as follows: EXCEPTING THEREFROM: All of Adjusted Lot 396, as said lot is described in that certain Lot Line Adjustment No. 25, filed for record March 8, 2002 as Document No. 2002-043342, in the Office of the Recorder of the County of San Mateo, State of California. TOGETHER WITH: Also excepting therefrom that portion thereof described in that certain Quit Claim Deed recorded May 27,2003, Instrument no 2003-142591, San Mateo County Records. All distances shown hereon are ground distances. Multiply distances by 0.99989955 to obtain grid distances and to match distances shown on said map entitled "TERRABA Y". This Legal Description is not for the Transfer, Sale or Lease of Real Property and is not to be used in Violation of the Subdivision Map Act. This description was prepared by me or tmder my direction in conformance with the requirements of the Land Surveyor's Act. ~A/. /? ~~ Date: ,/ Expires: 6/30/2006 Exhibit "A" Page 3 of3 -52- *\~ \ ~~ +. I /~ \\ / x \\ / ~~ \~:/~ \\ v \\ , \) /' '*\~ ""'\'& ~ I *\ "'" ~)~~ \ I U1 VJ I \\ '~"'1" " " ~ " ": I:" ',; ~!\ !;\\ i 1]'; d ,! Il'; !,.., \ ....-- ..I~ \ · J~; ---~' (' , , , " - "~" '~__~.~_'_..-"<=::~c3~;1"!' .o/E= .'.~~:"::.::;:::;,:~~~~r:::='-~"" DEVELOPMENT PARCEL \ \ f:!OIE: DE>vf:LOPMENT PARCEL IS LOT "F" AS SHOVttl ON lHE "TERRABA Y PHASE III VESTING TENTATI>vf: MAP" DAlEO MAY 09, 2001. BUFFER PA ..... ...... / I EXHIBIT A MAP OF THE DEVELOPEMENT PARCEL ~ - - - - PROPERTY LH -X-)E-- Hll' FENCE Attachment C Ordinance Amending Zoning Code Chapter 20.63, Terrabay Specific Plan District Zoning Ordinance w/Phase III Only Specific Plan language (portion). ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 20.63 (TERRABA Y SPECIFIC PLAN DISTRICT) WHEREAS, the existing Terrabay Specific Plans, Chapter 20.63 and the Terrabay Development Agreement allow development of the Terrabay Project (together, "the existing entitlements"), subject to further approvals and entitlements; and, WHEREAS, in November 2000, the City Council approved the Final Terrabay Specific Plan and the Restated and Amended Development Agreement; and, WHEREAS, on November 17th, December 1 S\ and December 15th 2005, the Planning Commission held duly noticed Public Hearings to consider a recommendation of approval of a General Plan Map Amendment allowing mixed use on the project site by adding a High-Density Residential Designation to the existing Business Commercial land use designation for the site, as well as a Terrabay Phase III-Only Specific Plan as an amendment to the Final Terrabay Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, by Resolution dated December 15th, 2005, recommended approval of the General Plan Map Amendment and adoption of a ordinance amending the Terrabay Specific Plan District zoning ordinance to permit the residential and site- specific retail and commercial uses contemplated in the Terrabay Phase III-Only Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, Chapter 20.63 is proposed to be amended to reflect the changes approved in the Terrabay Phase III-Only Specific Plan; and, WHEREAS, a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (2005 SEIR) was prepared, which together with the 1998/99 Terrabay Phase II and III SEIR and Addendum, the 1996 Terrabay SEIR and the Environmental Impact Report prepared in 1982 (1982 EIR), analyze the anticipated environmental effects of the proposed development; and, SFDOCS 6153538vl -54- 2 -55- WHEREAS, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing to consider the proposed amendment to Chapter 20.63. WHEREAS, the present amendments will provide for a modification of the permitted land uses to include the residential and site-specific retail and commercial uses contemplated in the Terrabay Phase III-Only Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, the Terrabay Phase III -Only sub committee and Planning Commission have requested refinements to the Terrabay Phase III Only Specific Plan. Those refinements will be incorporated into the final document after City Council action on the project. The refinements would then reflect the revisions by the sub-committee, Planning Commission and City Council as approved by the City Council. City Council directs staff to incorporate the final approvals into the Terrabay Phase III Only Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend Chapter 20.63, to reflect the 2005 Terrabay Phase III Only Specific Plan as amended; and, WHEREAS, on January 2006, the City Council adopted a Resolution and environmental findings to approve a Specific Plan Amendment, and a General Plan Amendment; and, WHEREAS, on December 15th, 2005, following a properly noticed public hearing, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt the proposed amendment to Municipal Code Chapter 20.63; and, environmental review is required; and, WHEREAS, based on the foregoing and CEQA Guidelines section 15162(a), no further WHEREAS, upon Precise Plan approval which shall be in substantial compliance with the Terrabay Phase III Only Specific Plan, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program shall be considered for adoption; and, WHEREAS, the City Council previously adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project in accordance with the EIR's, SEIR's and Addendum thereto; and, NOW, THEREFORE, The City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby ORDAIN as follows: Section 1. FINDINGS. A. The proposed amendment to Municipal Code Chapter 20.63 is consistent with the goals, policies and implementing programs set forth in the General Plan, specifically the policies for the Paradise Valley/Terrabay area under Chapter 3.8 of the Planning Sub-Areas Element and the High Density land use designation for the roject area as amended by City Council Resolution dated The project provides 351 residential units and as an alternative 531 residential units. This is consistent with the high density designation for the property and the number of units approved in the Final Phase III-Only Terrabay Specific Plan. B. The proposed amendment to Municipal Code Chapter 20.63 is consistent with the Specific Plan, as amended. This fmding is based upon all evidence in the record as a whole, including, but not limited to the following: the proposed development is mixed use including residential and the 2005 Amended Specific Plan prescribes residential development for the area. The proposed development meets the density standards prescribed in the 2005 Amended Terrabay Specific Plan and other development standards including but not limited to the quantity, size and location of parking, building setbacks, design and height. C. Proper environmental documentation has been prepared on the proposed amendment to Municipal Code Chapter 20.63 in accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15162(a). Section 2: AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 20.63 A new definition, "Lifestyle Retail," shall be added to 20.63.010, to read as follows: 20.63.010 "Lifestyle Retail" A "Main Street" type of clustered retail uses, designed to embrace the outdoors, with a pedestrian oriented shopping and entertainment center including high end specialty retail shops, restaurants, cafes, a cineplex and a major grocery store. Lifestyle Retail uses in Terrabay Phase III shall serve the needs and expectations of consumers with an orientation towards home furnishings and decoration, home improvement, kitchen and bath accessories, theatres, restaurants and cafes, books, music, arts and crafts and related activities, educational and interactive activities and uses and outdoor endeavors. ~ -56- 4 -57- * * * * * Pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 36933, a Summary of this Ordinance shall be prepared by the City Attorney. At least five (5) days prior to the Council meeting at which this Ordinance is scheduled to be adopted, the City Clerk shall (1) publish the Summary, and (2) post in the City Clerk's Office a certified copy of this Ordinance. Within fifteen (l5) days after the adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall (1) publish the summary, and (2) post in the City Clerk's Office a certified copy of the full text of this Ordinance along with the names of those City Council members voting for and against this Ordinance or otherwise voting. This ordinance shall become effective thirty days from and after its adoption. PUBLICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE Section 4: In the event any section or portion of this ordinance shall be determined invalid or unconstitutional, such section or portion shall be deemed severable and all other sections or portions hereof shall remain in full force and effect. Section 3: SEVERABILITY Grocery: Whole Foods, Andronicos, Molly Stone's. Entertainment: Landmark, AMC, Madstone, Loews, Century-CineArts. Apparel: Abercombie & Fitch, Ann Taylor, Anthropologies, Banana Republic, Express, French Connection, GaplKids Gap, Gymboree, 1. Crew, Kenneth Cole, Naturalizer, Old Navy, Victoria's Secret. Outdoor: North Face, REI Specialty: Apple Computer, Barnes and Noble, Bed, Bath and Beyond, Borders, Cost Plus World Market, Crate and Barrel, Office Max, Pier l, Pottery Barn, Sur La Table, Williams Sonoma. Food and Beverage: Baja Fresh, Buckhorn Grill, The Cheesecake Factory, Chili's, Gordon Biersch, Jamba Juice, Pasta Pomodoro, Peel's Coffee and tea, Starbucks, Wolfgang Puck. The following types of retailers or their equivalent are permitted. Significant deviations from these types of uses, as determined by the Chief Planner, may not be permitted or may require a Minor Use Permit (Chapter 20.89 Municipal Code). The applicant will be required to demonstrate how the use under question is substantially equivalent to the uses listed below. Introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of South San Francisco, ;@ill1!illFr'IliFAi'1;"iiili!<~ held the day of_f)\Th~R~~;\ir4i' 2006. Adopted as an Ordinance of the City of South Francisco at a regular meeting of the City Council held the day 2006 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk of South San Francisco, I do hereby approve the foregoing 2006 Mayor 5 -58- Attachment D Approved Planning Commission Resolutions #2648-2005 (Certification of 2005 SEIR) and #2649-2005 Specific Plan, General Plan and Zoning Ordinance amendments (w/o attachments). RESOLUTION NO. 2648-2005 PLANNING COMMISSION, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CAl.IFORNIA A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THAT THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY THE 2005 SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMP ACT REPORT FOR TERRABA Y, INCLUDING FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT AND POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMP ACTS, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, FINDINGS ON IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE 1982 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, THE 1996 SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND THE 1998-99 SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NOT FURTHER ANALYZED IN THE 2005 SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE REMAINING PHASE III_PARCEL_OF THE TERRABAY DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, Myers Development Company proposes to construct Phase III of the Terrabay Development ("the Proposal") as a planned mixed-use community as the final segment of the three-phase development project ("the Project"); and, WHEREAS, the Project is divided into three separate phases, of which the Proposal is the third and final phase; and, WHEREAS, the entirety of the Terrabay/ Mandalay project has been analyzed in previous environmental documents, including the 1982 Terrabay Development Project Environmental Impact Report ("the 1982 EIR"), a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Terrabay Specific Plan and Development Agreement ("the 1996 SEIR") and the 1998/99 Terrabay Phase II and III Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ("the 1998/99 SEIR"); and, WHEREAS, the 2005 Project provides for development and disposition of the remaining Terrabay Development parcel consisting of mixed use development with commercial, residential and office land uses; and, WHEREAS, the entitlements provide for 357,500 gross square feet (322,000 net leasable) of commercial uses, 351 residential units and a 295,500 gross square foot (260,000 net leasable) office building; and two additional alternatives including a 300 room hotel and a second residential tower consisting of 180 units; WHEREAS, the 2005 Project includes "Lifestyle Retail" uses distributed throughout, including a multiplex cinema, a grocery store, restaurants and other high-end retail uses; WHEREAS, the 2005 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ("the 2005 SEIR") as submitted supplements and builds upon the previous environmental analyses, and focuses on traffic and circulation, air quality, noise, public services, utilities and aesthetics; and, 1 -59- ') -60- WHEREAS, based on the 2005 SEIR and other information in the record, there are certain significant and potentially significant environmental impacts of the 2005 Project which WHEREAS, the City prepared responses to comments on environmental issues received during the public review period and at the public hearings, which responses clarify and amplify the information contained in the Draft SEIR, providing a good faith reasoned analysis supported by factual information. The comments and responses to comments were published in a Final SEIR dated November 30, 2005, and were distributed or otherwise made available to the Planning Commission, responsible agencies and other interested parties. WHEREAS, the public review period on the draft 2005 SEIR commenced on August 30, 2005 and closed on October 14, 2005. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the draft 2005 SEIR on October 6th, 2005. One public comment was received during the public hearing. Nine comment letters were received during the 45-day review period. All comments are responded to in the draft Final SEIR. Two letters, C/CAG and the San Francisco International Airport relate to noise.. PG&E provided a standard comment letter with respect developer requirements. The Town of Colma and the San Mateo County Public Works Department sent letters stating they had no further comments. California Department of Transportation sent a letter requesting 95th perce'ntile analysis of the Bayshore/SB 101 Ramps, Bayshore/Central Project Access, Bayshore/Sister Cities/Oyster Point/Airport, Oyster PointlDubuque and Debuque/1 01 Ramps. This analysis was conducted by Crane Transportation Group and is included in the 2005 Final SEIR. Mountain Watch commented on protocols for planting, weeding and maintenance to be included in the CC&R's for Phase III and a mowing regimen for fire buffer. The Mountain Watch comments underscore the objectives of the City. Two letters commented on the merits of the project and one of the two had an overall question on traffic; and WHEREAS, the 2005 SEIR addresses the change in development intensity and the different impacts associated with the Proposal and its alternatives; and, WHEREAS, the 2005 SEIR analyzes the impacts of the 2005 Project in relation to the impacts identified in the 1998-1999 SEIR, the 1996 SEIR and the 1982 EIR; and, WHEREAS, previous 1996 and 1998/99 SEIRs and the 1982 EIR analyzed the following alternatives: No Development, assumes no development would occur on the site; Existing 1996 Specific Plan, assumes 432 residential units, 669,300 square feet commercial consisting of retail, office, hotel and restaurant; Reduced Residential, assumes 316 residential units and no commercial; Reduced Commercial, assumes 293,000 square feet of commercial consisting of retail, office, hotel and restaurant and no residential; Permanent Open Space, assumes the land (Phase II and III) would have been dedicated as permanent open space; and Mitigated Plan Development, assumes 340,000 square feet of office, 10,000 square foot restaurant and a 200 room hotel all leaving the 2.0 acre archaeological site in open space. , WHEREAS, the 2005 SEIR analyzes three alternatives to the Proposal, including a existing conditions alternative, a hotel alternative, and a residential alternative to the Proposal; and, could be mitigated to a level of insignificance, therefore mitigation findings are required pursuant to CEQA g21081 and CEQA Guidelines g15091 upon 2005 Project approval; and, WHEREAS, based on the 2005 SEIR and other information in the record, there are impacts of the 2005 Project which are not environmentally significant and which require no findings or mitigation upon approval; and, WHEREAS, the 2005 SEIR , as a supplement to the 1982 EIR,1996 SEIR and 1998/99 SEIR, did not reanalyze impacts of the 2005 project which were not significantly different from the 2000 Project impacts analyzed in the previous environmental analyses. No further analysis of these impacts was required because the 2005 Project did not present any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects in these areas (Public Resources Code S21l66; CEQA Guidelines g15163). Therefore, mitigation findings pursuant to CEQA g21081 and CEQA Guidelines g15091 are made for each of these impacts previously analyzed in the 1982 EIR, 1996 SEIR and 1998/99 SEIR, and not reanalyzed in the 2005 SEIR; and, WHEREAS, based on the 2005 SEIR and other information in the record, there are significant environmental impacts of the 2005 Project which could not be mitigated to a level of insignificance, therefore the alternatives to the 2005 Project were examined and are deliberately different from the alternatives in the 1998/99 SEIR, 1996 SEIR and 1982 EIR to determine if they would avoid any of the unmitigated significant impacts; and, WHEREAS, based on the 2005 SEIR and other information in the record, there are significant environmental impacts of the 2005 Project which could not be reduced to a level of insignificance, therefore a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required upon 2005 Project approval; and, WHEREAS, CEQA g21081.6 requires that where mitigation findings are made for significant and potentially significant environmental impacts, a mitigation monitoring and reporting program shall be adopted upon 2005 Project approval, at the precise plan stage, to ensure compliance with the mitigations during project implementation; and, WHEREAS, the above-referenced mitigation and monitoring program shall be submitted concurrently with the precise plan for the Terrabay Phase III site; and WHEREAS, the location and custodian of the documents which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City's decision on entitlements relating to the 2005 SEIR is the City of South San Francisco Planning Division, 315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco; and, WHEREAS, the mitigation measures identified in the 2005 SEIR will be applied as conditions of Project approval; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco hereby recommends that the City Council certify the 2005 SEIR and the following relating to development of Phase III of the Terrabay project: ':l - 61-. ,1 -62- ATTEST: /s/ Thomas C. Sparks Commission Secretary Thomas C. Sparks ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None NOES: Chairperson Teglia A YES: Commissioner Giusti, Commissioner Honan, Commissioner Prouty, Commissioner Romero, Commissioner Sim and Vice Chairperson Zemke I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco at the regular meeting held on the 15th day of December, 2005, by the following vote: * * * * * * 2005 SEIR Exhibit D: Findings on Impacts and Mitigation Measures From 1982 EIR 1996 SEIR and 1998/99 SEIR Not Further Analyzed in 2005 SEIR Exhibit C: Statement of Overriding Considerations and Findings Regarding Alternatives Exhibit B: Findings Concerning Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures and Less Than Significant Environmental Impacts Exhibit A: The following Exhibits, attached hereto, are hereby incorporated by reference. 2. The Statement of Overriding Considerations and Findings Regarding Alternatives in Exhibit B. 1. The impact and mitigation findings, and mitigation measures identified in Exhibits A and C. The mitigation measures identified in Exhibits A and C should be adopted as conditions of Project approval. RESOLUTION NO. 2649-2005 PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP, THE FINAL TERRABAY PHASE III SPECIFIC PLAN AND ADOPTION OF A ZONING AMENDMENT TO THE TERRABA Y PHASE III SPECIFIC PLAN DISTRICT WHEREAS, the Terrabay lands have an extensive planning history dating to the early 1980's; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of South San Francisco approved the Final Terrabay Specific Plan and the Restated and Amended Development Agreement for the Remaining Parcels of Phase II and Phase III of the Terrabay Development on December 13,2000; and, WHEREAS, the City and Myers Peninsula Company, L.L.C. ('the Applicant"), have prepared a Terrabay Phase III-Only Specific Plan, which addresses the 21 acres of land approved for a 665,000 square foot office tower and roadways in the 2000 plan, which the Phase 2005 Terrabay III- Only Specific Plan envisions the construction of 322,000 square feet (leasable area) of "Lifestyle Retail" 295,000 (gross square feet) of office and 351 residential units; or two alternatives consisting of 322,000 sq. ft. (leasable area) of "Lifestyle Retail", 351 residential units and a 300 room hotel or 322,000 square feet (leasable area) of "Lifestyle Retail and 531 residential units and, WHEREAS, the Applicant's Terrabay Phase III-Only Specific Plan amendment is proposed to modify Terrabay Phase III to allow for a mixed-use development ofthe Phase III Terrabay Commercial land in place of the originally planned and approved office tower; and WHEREAS, the Terrabay Specific Plan District Zoning Ordinance shall be revised to incorporate the land uses approved in the 2005 Terrabay Phase III-Only Specific Plan and the development intensities therein; and, WHEREAS, certain amendments to the South San Francisco General Plan, shown in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, are necessary to allow for mixed use on the site by adding the High Density Residential designation to the existing Business Commercial land use designation for the site ; and, WHEREAS, the 2005 SEIR, which supplements and builds upon the environmental analyses contained in the 1998/99 Terrabay Phase II and III SEIR and Addendum, the 1996 Terrabay SEIR and the 1982 Terrabay Environmental Impact Report (EIR\ is focused on traffic and circulation, air quality, noise, public services, utilities and aesthetics, and is being 1 -63.. -64- :2 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco hereby adopts the following findings based upon the entire record for the Terrabay development. The record includes, but is not limited to, the following: 1) The South San Francisco General Plan, and General Plan Environmental Impact Report; 2) The proposed Final Terrabay Specific Plan; 3) The 1998-99 Certified Terrabay Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, which includes the 1982 Certified Terrabay Environmental Impact Report, the Certified 1996 Terrabay Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and Addendum to the 1998- 1999 Certified Terrabay Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and Addendum, 4) the 2005 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, 5)Testimony and materials submitted at the City Council study session on April 24, 2000; 6) Testimony and materials submitted at the Planning Commission study sessions of June 1,2000 and September 14, 2000; 7) Testimony and materials submitted at the Design Review Board meeting on June 20, 2000; 8) Testimony and materials submitted at the Historic Preservation Commission on June 8,2000; 9) Testimony and materials submitted at the Planning Commission meeting on November 2, 2000; and 10) Testimony and materials, including the Restated and Amended Development Agreement for Remaining Parcels WHEREAS, in October of 2004, the City Council and Planning Commission conducted a joint study session on Terrabay Phase III; between 2004-2005, three City Council sub-committee meetings and one joint City Council/ Planning Commission study session were conducted; on October 5th, 2005, a joint City Council-Planning Commission subcommittee met to discuss the Terrabay Phase III proposa~ on October 24th, 2005, the same joint City Council and Planning Commission subcommittee met to discuss proposed modifications to the 2005 Phase III plan in response to comments offered previously, and on November 17th and December 1 st, 2005, the Planning Commission held properly noticed public hearings to consider the proposed text amendments to the Final Terrabay Specific Plan and the Terrabay Specific Plan District Zoning Ordinance; and, WHEREAS, the joint City Council and Planning Commission subcommittee and Planning Commission have requested various refinements to the Terrabay Phase III-Only Specific Plan. City Council directs staffto incorporate these changes into the final document after City Council action on the project, should the City Council fmd in favor of approval. The refinements will reflect the revisions of the sub-committee, the Planning Commission and City Council as approved, and would include any necessary amendments to the Terrabay Specific Plan District that emerge as a result of final City Council action on this Specific Plan. WHEREAS, should the City Council certify the 2005 SEIR and approve the General Plan and Terrabay Phase III Only Specific Plan amendments recommended herein, the City Manager and City Attorney, at the direction of the City Council, will negotiate with the applicant the terms of a Restated and Amended Development Agreement (DA), to be followed by the submission of a precise plan application; and, recommended for approval to the City Council via separate resolution, and is stated in its entirety as a part of the recommendation for certification in that entirety in that Resolution's recommendation; and, of Phase II and Phase III of the Terrabay Development, submitted at the Planning Commission meeting on November 16, 2000; 11) Testimony and materials, including amendments to the Final Terrabay Specific Plan and Terrabay Specific Plan District Zoning Ordinance submitted at the Planning Commission meeting on March 14,2001, 12) Testimony and materials, including proposed amendments to the South San Francisco General Plan and an amendment to the Terrabay Specific Plan, submitted at the October, 2004 joint study session conducted by the City Council and Planning Commission, 13) Testimony and materials, including proposed amendments to the South San Francisco General Plan and an amendment to the Terrabay Specific Plan, submitted at the three City Council subcommittee meetings and one joint City Council/ Planning Commission conducted between February of 2004 and July of2005, 14) Testimony and materials, including proposed amendments to the South San Francisco General Plan and an amendment to the Terrabay Specific Plan, submitted to the joint City Council and Planning Commission subcommittee meetings of October 5th and 24th, 2005, l5) Testimony and materials, including proposed amendments to the South San Francisco General Plan and an amendment to the Terrabay Specific Plan, submitted to the Plannin& Commission at hearings dated November 17th, 2005, December 1 S\ 2005, and December 15 ,2005. 1. The proposed General Plan Amendment is internally consistent with the South San Francisco General Plan. The finding is based on the following facts and analyses: A. The proposed high density residential overlay designation conforms with and implements the Housing and General Plan policies as identified below: a. Housing Element Policy 1B: Provide assistance from all divisions, departments and levels of the City Government, within the bounds oflocal ordinances and policies, to stimulate private housing development consistent with local needs. Analysis: The High Density Residential Land Use designation would provide for an additional 351 housing units on the Terrabay Phase III Development parcel while preserving habitat and open space. The proposed development in the Terrabay Phase III-Only Specific Plan would conform to this designation. The mixed use project proposes a mix of residential use types to serve market-, moderate-, and low income households. b. Housing Element Policy 1 C: Assure people a choice of locations by encouraging a variety of housing units in well-planned neighborhoods. Analysis: The High Density Land Use designation on the Terrabay site would implement this policy. The proposed Terrabay Phase III-Only Specific Plan includes a TDM plan, child-care, a recreation center and a variety of housing units and types. This, coupled with the previously approved Phases, would provide a diverse housing unit mix. 3 - 65.. -66- 4 Analysis: The proposed mixed-use project will be a part of South San Francisco but will not be in the middle of an established neighborhood or community with San Bruno Mountain as a backdrop, Sister Cities Boulevard and Terrabay Phase II to the west and south, and Bayshore Boulevard and Highway 101 to the east. The Project will add to the vitality and diversity of the City and compliment the existing land uses in the area and the City. The proposed uses will not detract from the City's existing commercial base but compliment it by realizing a "Lifestyle Retail Center" as discussed above. 2-G-l: Preserve the scale and character of established neighborhoods, and protect residents from changes in non-residential areas. Guiding and Implementing Policies Chapter 2.6 Land Use Policies The proposed land use designation addition and the proposed land uses in the Terrabay Phase III Only Specific Plan conforms with and implements the following General Plan policies. Project Conformance with the General Plan The proposed land uses identified in the Terrabay Phase III Only Specific Plan conform to the City's General Plan as discussed below in more detail. 2. Proposed Specific Plan Conformance with the General Plan Analysis: The High Density Land Use designation would implement this policy by allowing for a high quality mixed use development that will provide a high-quality grocery market to an underserved area of the City. Moreover, the integrated residential and retail "lifestyle retail" nature of the development will foster a sense of community, and the creation of such mixed use developments can create a sense of belonging and identity for residents and those who patronize the retail outlets. c. Land Use Policy 2-G-2: Maintain a balanced land use program that provides opportunities for continued economic growth, and building intensities that reflect South San Francisco's prominent inner bay location and excellent regional access. Analysis: The High Density Land Use designation would implement this policy by providing a high-quality mixed use development for the City and the region. The designation would allow for the generation of substantial tax revenues for the City, and will additionally provide needed housing and retail opportunities close to the Highway 101 corridor. d. Land Use Policy 2-G-7: Encourage mixed-use residential, retail, and office development in centers where they would support transit, in locations where they would provide increased access to neighborhoods that currently lack such facilities, and in corridors where such developments can help to foster identity and vitality. 2-G-2: Maintain a balanced land use program that provides opportunities for continued economic growth, and building intensities that reflect South San Francisco's prominent inner bay location and excellent regional access. Analysis: The site has immediate access to Highway 101, San Francisco, the peninsula and the airport which will provide local and regional clientele for the project which is critical for the success of the retail component. The project proposes a mixed-use including retail, office and residential which conforms to the City's FAR and residential density standards. 2-1-3: Undertake planned development for unique projects or as a means to achieve high community design standards, not to circumvent development intensity standards. Analysis: The proposed project is unique and it is a planned development. The site is unique within the City of South San Francisco as well as the northern peninsula. The 21 acre (l8 acres developable) site is undeveloped on the west of 10 1 and in the lee of San Bruno Mountain. The relatively large size of the site and its protection from the windy elements of the Mountain enable a successful mixed-use concept to be developed. Outdoor cafes, plazas, water features, the proposed history walk and sanctuary and the outdoor performance area will all be sheltered from the elements and provide a setting for people to converge and interact. The project proposes F ARs under the maximum permitted by zoning and meets the high density residential density thresholds, as noted above. The sub-committee and Planning Commission have commented favorably on the quality of architecture proposed. 2-1-4: Require all new developments seeking an FAR bonus set forth in Table 2.2-2 to achieve a progressively higher alternative mode useage. Analysis: The TDM measures identified in Schedule 20.120.030-B: Summary of Program Requirements (Zoning) of the City's TDM Ordinance is incorporated into the TDM program for the project. 2-1-13: As a part of development review in environmentally sensitive areas, require specific environmental studies and/or review as stipulated in Section 7.1: Habitat and Biological Resources Conservation. Analysis: The proposed project has undergone extensive environmental review as discussed above in this report. Biological surveys are required annually prior to site development. The Preservation Parcel, containing critical species habitat, was conveyed to the County for inclusion in San Bruno Mountain County/State Park. Remainder parcels are landscaped with seed mix approved by the HCP Administrator as appropriate for the butterfly. Three land restoration and preservation plans have been approved as part of the project and restoration work has occurred and is nearly complete. The plans include the Juncus Parcel, the Preservation Parcel and the Buffer Parcels along with the perimeter of the Mandalay (Heights and Pointe) and Phase III parcels. 5 - 67.. -68- Chapter 5: Parks, Public Facilities and Services 6 Analysis: The project includes several locations with covered and locked bicycle parking. 4-3-1-4: Require provision of secure and covered bicycle parking. Analysis: The project implements a shuttle service for Peninsula Mandalay. The shuttle service will be expanded to cover the Phase III project. 4-3-G-3: In partnership with local employers, continue efforts to expand shuttle operations. Analysis: The proposed project includes pedestrian and bikeways throughout the project, to Bayshore and Sister Cities Boulevard, to the bus stop on Bayshore Boulevard and to the adjacent Terrabay neighborhood. 4-3-G-2: Provide safe and direct pedestrian and bikeways between and through residential neighborhoods, and to transit center. Analysis: The project sponsor contributed to the construction of the hook ramps and Sister Cities Boulevard. The project sponsor will also contribute to additional roadway and pedestrian improvements as identified in the 2005 SEIR. The Oyster Point Flyover and Hook Ramp construction is complete. 4-2-1-6: Incorporate as part of the City's CIP needed intersection and roadway improvements including Bayshore Boulevard and us. 101 Hook Ramps The project sponsor contributed land and $8.5 million to construct the hook Analysis: ramps. Provide afair and equitable meansfor payingfor future street improvements. 4-2-G-7: Guiding and Implementing Polices Chapter 4: Transportation Analysis: The project proposes Lifestyle Retail and includes provisions for a market. 3-8-G-2: Improve accessibility to neighborhood shopping opportunities. Guiding Policy Chapter 3: Planning Sub-Areas Element: Paradise ValleyfTerrabay Implementing Policy 5-I-G-5: Develop linear parks in conjunction with major infrastructure improvements and along existing utility and transportation rights-ofways. Analysis: Terrabay Phase I and II include a linear park. The park terminates within the Phase III site. The linear park compliments and coordinates with the proposed History Walk. The project proposes walk ways throughout and around the site. Chapter 6: Economic Development Guiding and Implementing Policies 6-G-I: In partnership with business and community groups, proactively participate in the City's economic development. Analysis: Terrabay has had a long (25 year plus) history that has been controversial. Beginning in 1999 through to the present, much of the controversy has been abated largely as a result of the following actions: · The Planning Commission and City Council designated the Preservation Parcel as permanent open space. · Myers Development Company, City J.eaders and City staff worked with community groups to address the restoration and preservation ofland and habitat. As a result of this effort, the results of the restoration are being used as examples of success by u.s. Fish and Wildlife, San Mateo County and Thomas Reid and Associates. San Bruno Mountain Watch, in a comment letter on the 2005 SEIR also lauded the restoration of the Preservation Parcel. · Myers and the City, in particular the City Council and Planning Commission sub committee worked to develop a land plan that in the words of one sub committee member, "makes economic and land use sense". The project proposes a mixed use plan that will bring tax revenues to the City, provide for additional police and fire services, pay for its own infrastructure, provide a vital mixed use retail, residential and entertainment development and include a style and architecture that one Commissioner noted as "poetic". Chapter 7 Open Space and Conservation Guiding and Implementing Policies 7-I-G-l: Protect special status species and supporting habitats within South San Francisco including species that are state or federally listed as Endangered, Threatened or 7 - 69.- -OL:- B pUB Al!I'Bl!A ::lql Ol PP'B H!M lO::lf01d ~lli 'lS'B::l ::lql Ol TO 1 A'BMq~!H pUB p.rnA~Inos: ~lOqSA'BS: pUB 'qlnos pUB :).S::lM ::lql 0:). II ::lS'Bqd A'Bq'Bll::l.L pl.rn p.rnA::l[nos: s~!l!;) l::llS!S 'd01p~O'Bq 'B S'B U!l3lunoW ourus: Ul3S lfI.!M Al!illlUIUIOO 10 pOOq10qq~pU p::lqSHq'BlS~ UB JO ::lIPP!W ~lfI. U! ~q lOU H!M lnq oosPUl31d UBS lfI.noSJo:j.rnd 'B ~q H!M P::lf01d ~sn-p::lx!w p::lSOd01d ~qJ. :S!SA['BUV 'spa,roJd JO,rvUJ. rCllvpadsa 'sPlJdUJ.! anUallaJ/JsoJ (fr .'pUlJ .'sa:J!il..laS azqv:J!JddlJ JalfJo JO/pUlJ 2u!PUnq 'a:JulJuY'UO!)lJ.J.)S!U!UJ.plJ '2u!Jaau!2ua '2U!uuvZd 'uo!JlJaJ:JaJ 'sa!JlJJq!J 'SJfJOM :J!Jqnd 'aJY 'a:J!Jod OJ paJ!UJ.!J JOu mq 2u!pnpu! pa,roJd alfJ aJlJpoUJ.UlO:J:JlJ OJ sa:J!il..las :J!Jqnd ZlJuo!J!PPlJ JOf paaN ([ .'SJfJlJd PUlJ a2vu!lJJp UlJOJS 'JaJlJM 'SJaMaS OJ paJ!Ul!J JOU mq 2u!pnpu! 'sJuaUlailOJdUl! aJnpn.J.)slJ.Jju! ZlJuo!J!PPlJ rtofpaaN (z .'aZOlfM. lJ sv rCnunUlUlo:J PUlJ sJaa.J.)s 'SPOOlfJoqlf2!au 2u!punoJJns alfJ uo CllWlf sa!J!suap pasodo..ld alfl spaflg ([ :2U!MOlloj alfJ 'OJ 2u!pJo:J:JlJ paJlJnZlJila aq ll!M spa,roJd 2u!snolf JO,rlJUl a..ln;nf llV ffVJS JO/pUlJ p..llJoq Ma!ilaJ u~'!sap fo asn panu!)uo:J alfJ lf2noJlfl u2!sap U! a:Jualla:Jxa JJoddns 's2u!punoJJns POOlfJoqlf2!au 2u!)s!xa lfJ!M az!uoUlJlJlf PUlJ u2!sap rCJ!llJnb aJoUloJd sJJojJa UO!)VJ!l!qlJlfaJ puv JuaUldozailap Mau llJlfJ aJnsu:g :[-J-J UO!PV S~PHOd ~u!lu::lw~[dWI JuamaI3: ~u!SnOH 'SW'B~.IlS pUB S~~~lO ['BUOS'B~S ~qllOUOq Ol ::ll!S ~ql uo ~I'BA\. AIOlS!H 'B pUB S~.rrll'B~J l~ltlM ::lltl10clIoou! Ol S::lSOdOld P~f01d ~ql. 'po.rnd UOHtlAl~S~ld ~ql uo P~f01d dW'B1 ~ooq ~lfI.10J SpUB[l~MJO ::l){Bl ::llOtl fS'O ~lfI. ~U!ltl~!l!UI S! Al!;) ~ql. 'UB[d UO!ltl10lS~(l pUB[l~li\. Sl~~U!~U3:Jo clIO;) AUUY 's'n p~A01ddtl UB Stlq pUB SW'B~llS ['BUOS'B~S JO ::llOtl UB JO l{lOI/I Ul3ql SS::l[ sp~JJtl Atlq'Bll~.L III ~Stlqd 'F~o.rnd UOH'BAl::lS~ld ~lfI. uo UOH'B10lSa1 SpUB[l~M sapn[::>u! P~f01d pasod01d aq.L 'spUVlJaM PUlJ SalfSJVUl lZlJS 2u!pnpu! o:JsPUlJJd UlJS lfJnos U!lfJ!M slvJ!qlJlf 2u!)Joddns PUlJ sapads sn;VJS zvpads azq!slJaj puv azqvuoslJaJ aJalfM. PUlJ paJoJrI : [-D-J-L 'Al!11laclI~d U! SpUBIl::lM pUB al!S [tlO!~O[O::ltlqo.rn alll s::lAl::lsa1d OS['B po.rnd uO!ltlAlaSa1d ~q.L 'AIJ.1::lUnq lods1aAI!s aaddHfB;) pa1a~UBpua ::lllllOJ lUB[d pooJ alp S! qO!l{M tll'B[nounpuad tl[O!A 000' I1aAO SU!tllUOO [ao.rnd uO!ltlAlaS::l1d::llli '::l110Z 1aJJnq tl S'B [ao.rnd l::mns: ::lql pUB ::lotlds u~do S'B po.rnd UO!ltlAl~S::lld ::lql JO UO!l'BU~!S::lp ::It[l OllOpd tl::l.rn U! S::llO'B Lv A[::lltlUI!X01dd'B StlM III ::lStlqd Atlq'Bll~.L 'uOntlAl::ls::l1d l'BlN'Bq s::lpads 10J (pO.rnd UOntlAlasa1d aql) SalOtl 92:Jo UO!palOld::llfl. s! ([ao.rnd aomo alp A[laUIloJ) ,,[ao.rnd luaUIdolaAac" aql ~ UMOID[ po.rnd alOtl-S I ~ql uo III astlqd 10J P::lfOld ~sn-pax!w ::lql ~upalsn[O U! 10ptlJ ~U!APP alli 'aJv"'l! diversity of the City and compliment the existing land uses in the area and the City. The proposed uses will not detract from the City's existing commercial base but compliment it by realizing a "Lifestyle Retail Center" a very distinct and different market that what currently exists in South San Francisco. The proposed project has dedicated a 26 acre preserve, 100 plus acres (Juncus Ravine) for inclusion in San Bruno Mountain State and County Park, a six plus acre parcel to the City for Recreation or other uses, a recreation center in Phase I and includes passive recreation opportunities in Phase III. The project has installed a water system and holding tank in Phase I, privately maintained streets in Phases I and II and proposes the same in Phase III. Storm drain and sanitary sewer improvements were constructed by the developer in Phase I and II and maintained by the homeowner's associations of Phases I and II, and the same with the addition of a commercial property owners association is proposed for Phase III. Phase I Terrabay constructed a fire station and a recreation center. Phase III Terrabay includes an emergency operations facility for police and fire and funding of police and fire positions and equipment ($4,856,979). The Brisbane and South San Francisco School Districts have indicated (2005 DSEIR) that payment of the state mandated school impact fees is adequate to offset additional enrollment from the project. Additional City staffing needed to reimburse the City for special inspections or services to cover public works, planning, engineering, administration, finance, building and fire is recovered through a developer pass- through fund. CBRE, on behalf of Myers Development, prepared a proforma for Terrabay Phase III. The proforma is based primarily upon the 322,000 square feet of "Lifestyle Retail", business licenses, sales tax and property taxes. The findings of the CBRE indicate that $1.8 to $1.9 million in tax revenue to the City would be generated by the proposed high-end retail. The City (through a developer pass-through) retained the services of Keyser Marsten to perform a peer review of CBRE's fiscal findings. Keyser Marsten prepared the previous Terrabay fiscal studies for the City, the most recent being in 1998. Ms. Debbie Kern of Keyser Marsten concurred with the method used to produce tax revenue projections identified by CBRE. The key element, as discussed above in the DA section, is assuring that "Lifestyle Retail" is the type of retail occupying the site. The City of South San Francisco Finance Department, using different assumptions, has produced lower estimates of sales tax yield. Policy l-C: Assure that people have a choice of locations by encouraging a variety of housing in well planned neighborhoods. Analysis: In addition to the discussion directly above, the project would provide a variety of housing styles, high rise, town home and flats in a project that contains goods and services within easy walking distance. 1. The Terrabay Specific Plan District Zoning Ordinance is attached as Exhibit B. In recommending approval, the Planning Commission relied on the extensive findings in the record, including environmental analysis. The findings and analysis are restated in their 9 -71- -72- 10 ATTEST: /s/ Thomas C. Sparks Commission Secretary Thomas C. Sparks ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None NOES: Chairperson Teglia AYES: Commissioner Giusti, Commissioner Honan, Commissioner Prouty, Commissioner Romero, Commissioner Sim and Vice Chairperson Zemke I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco at the regular meeting held on the 15th day of December, 2005, by the following vote: * * * * * * * . B. Recommend adoption of the Terrabay Phase III-Only Specific Plan District Zoning Ordinance, attached hereto as Exhibit B. A. Recommend approval of an amendment to the General Plan to allow mixed-use of the Terrabay Phase III project site by adding a High Density Residential overlay to existing Business Commercial land use designationon the Development Parcel only. This General Plan High Density Residential Overlay is reflected in the area described as the "Development Parcel" in the map and legal description of the parcel, attached hereto as Exhibit A. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco does hereby: entirety in a separate resolution. As the Terrabay Specific Plan District Zoning Ordinance merely implements the Terrabay Phase III Only Specific Plan, the finding related to consistency with the General Plan supports consistency findings for the Terrabay Specific Plan District Zoning Ordinance. As an implementing measure, the Terrabay Specific Plan District Zoning Ordinance is consistent with the 2005 Terrabay Phase ill Only Specific Plan, as amended. Attachment E October 20, 2004 Staff Report to City Council and Planning Commission for a joint study session. m (~ ~~ ~ u; ;;; g ~ Staff ReQort SP. AGENDA ITEM #4 DATE: October 20, 2004 TO: Honorable Mayor, City Council and Planning Commission FROM: Marty VanDuyn, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: STUDY SESSION- TERRABA Y PHASE ill RECOMMENDATION Conduct a study session and provide direction on the proposal for the Terrabay Phase ill property to be presented by Myers Development Company. BACKGROUND/DIS CDS SION Myers Development Company is applying for re-entitlement of the Phase ill properties of Terra bay. The property is located at the intersection of Bayshore Boulevard and Sister Cities Boulevard. The condominium tower and 70 units of paired housing are adj acent and to the southwest of the Phase ill site. Bayshore Boulevard:flanks the eastern boundary of the Phase ill site. Attachment A to this report contains a briefbistory of Terrabay from 1980 to present. The T errabay proj ect was originally approved on December 2, 1982 which required a vote to annex the project area into the City ofS6uth San Francisco. Thefirst Habitat Conservation Plan in the nation, under the enabling Endangered Species Act legislation, was drafted and adopted for San Bruno Mountain in 1982 (HCP). The Plan requires particular environmental management and dedication of open space for the right to develop certain parcels on the base of San Bruno Mountain. The Cities of South San Francisco, Brisbane and Daly City and San Mateo County and the U.S. Department ofFish and Wildlife are parties to the agreement. . Subsequently the land has had various entitlements and revisions or amendments to the entitlements. The project site and entirety of the Terrabay area is regulated by a development agreement, specific and precise plan and the "Terrabay Zoning District" contained in Title 20 (Zoning), Section 20.63 of the Municipal Code, as well as the San Bruno Mountain HCP. Historically the entirety of the Terrabay project has been referred to as Terrabay although with the demographic changes at the beginning of this century, portions of Terrabay have been renamed "Mandalay". Terrabay Phase 1- The Village and Park Subdivisions include 125 single-family detached houses and 161 single-family attached townhouse units. The Terrabay Recreation Center and Fire Station are also a part of the Terrahay Phase I development. Phase I was also intended to include a child care center. -73- -74- Myers constructed the Terrabay Woods project, condominium tower and sold the 70-unit portion of Terrabay to Western to development. The office market took a serious nose-dive with the dot.com fallout. Subsequently, Myers is proposing to re-entitle Phase ill. In October 2000 Myers received entitlement approvals from the City for 665,000 square feet of office on the Phase ill site. The approvals also included an amendment to the development agreement, zoning ordinance, and the Terrabay Specific and Precise Plans and the City's General Plan. Subdivision map approvals were also granted by the City. The entitlements also included the requirement to construct a performing arts center for the City, 32 below market rate housing units, a day care center, and public art. Myers Development Company became involved in Terrabay in late 1999-2000. Myers conducted many meetings with the community with respect to the issues surrounding Phase ill development. As a result of those meetings, Myers proposed a land plan that preserved the archaeological site and butterfly habitat consisting of 26 acres. The land, known as the Preservation Parcel, was conveyed to San Mateo County Parks and Recreation this year for inclusion in San Bruno County and State Park. Terrabay Phase ill-Commercial- Phase ill has always been referred to as the commercial portion of Terrabay. Originally entitled in the 1980s the land plan included a conference center, hotels and office. Sunchase Development (headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona) applied for re-entitlement in 1996 and in 1999 the City Council denied their proposal. The proposal consisted of mixed-use (without residential). The City was concerned about impact on the archaeological site, hydrology, geology, and grading. The land plan called for paving over the archaeological site, filling wetlands and destroying critical butterfly habitat, which would not (and could not legally) be permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service until such time that a Habitat Conservation PI~ amendment is complete. Terrabay Phase II - The Peninsula Mandalay and Mandalay Pointe phases of Terrabay are historically considered a part of Phase IT Terrabay. The condominium tower consists of 112 units and received a conditional certificate of occupancy on October 4, 2004. Some minor finishing is currently being conducted and expected to be complete mid-December 2004. The Mandalay Pointe portion of the project consists of70 paired units built as two units attached side-by-side. Western Pacific Housing is constructing this portion of the project. Approximately 45 oftbe 70 units have received a certificate of occupancy. Western Pacific anticipates completing construction in Apri12005. Terrabay Phase ll-Woods- The Terrabay Woods project consists of135 single-family detached units and is nearly complete. Minor geologic and infrastructure work is being completed. The Terrabay Woods project is now referred to as Mandalay Heights. An amendment to the T errabay Specific Plan (September 25, 1996) was approved in order to provide for a $700,000 in-lieu fee for the cbildcare requirement. Staff Report Subject: Terrabay Phase ill Joint Study Session October 20, 2004 Page 2 Staff Report Subject: Terrabay Phase ill Joint Study Session October 20, 2004 Page 3 Current ProDosal-Studv Session The proposal is a mixed-use development consisting of retail, office and residential. The retail is proposed to be high-end ''Lifestyle Retail". ''Lifestyle'' is a retail term that refers to retail stores that are not dependent on department store anchors to draw customers. Instead Lifestyle Retail assembles a critical mass of specialty retail, assorted eateries and movie theatres within a development Lifestyle Centers typically include specialty retailers such as W:illiam Sonoma, Ta1bots, Ann Taylor, Banana Republic and Pottery Barn, to name a few. The proposal includes 66 units of below- market-rate housing and 248 units of market rate housing in townhouse and high rise configuration. Also proposed is approximately 260,000 square feet of office and a 1 OO-seat performing arts center (inside) and an outdoor performance area, a public art program and a valley trail. The following table shows a breakdown of the retail, office and residential land uses. The application materials note that the office tower is proposed conditionally: Should Myers not secure a pre-leasing contract to develop a build-to-suit office tower, development would revert to 180 additional units of residential. Myers, if entitled, proposes to have Phase I (residential, retail, parking) complete and operational in 2007. Therefore, if by 2008 an office user is not secured, residential would be built. Please note that the proposed square footages are in draft stages and are likely to change as a result of Council and Commission direction and project refinement. RETAIL Major Anchors Area (Approx, Sq. Ft.) Floors Unit Count Cinema 44,500 Grocery 43,500 Lifestyle Anchors 90,400 Specialty Retail 73,800 Restaurant 39,500 Building Pads and Kiosk 10,800 Total Retail 302,500 OFFICE Office 12 Lobby and Performing Arts 1 Parking 4 Total Office 260,000 17 -75- -76- Attachments: A - Terrabay History (to staffreport) Bound Preliminary Site Plans and Elevations Hardbound Architectural Book - distributed to City Council and Planning Commission only. ApproV~:-; ,( ~ my . Nagel ( City Manager By: Marty VanDuyn Assistant City Manager After direction from the Council and the Commission staff will begin processing the application accordingly. CONCLUSION The proposal will require a focused environmental impact report, a supplement to the 1998/99 SEIR. The proposal will need an amendment to the development agreement, a specific and precise plan amendment, an amendment to the zoning ordinance and RCP certification. The project will go through the planning process as before, public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council. RESIDENTIAL High Rise (Market Rate) 20 180 Low Rise Townhouse (Market 2-4 68 Rate) Low Rise Townhouse (Below 66 Market Rate) Total Residential 329,326 314 Staff Report Subject: TerrabayPhase ill Joint Study Session October 20, 2004 Page 4 ATTACHMENT A TERRABAY IMANDALAY BRIEF mSTORY Since 1982 the Terrabay lands have undergone entitlement, legislative and environmental review. The preceding and following summary characterizes the most notable portions of the history of the land since 1980. · The County of San Mateo adopted a plan for San Bruno Mountain In 1976. · The first Terrabay Specific Plan was approved in 1982 by the City Council of South San Francisco (City Council Resolution No. 159-82 on December 2, 1982) and Board of Supervisors of the County of San Mateo. The HCP was entered into in 1982. · The City of South San Francisco certified an Environmental Impact Report for the Terrabay lands in 1982. The City certified Supplemental Environmental Impact Reports for Terrabay in 1996 and 1998/99. Supplemental environmental review and analysis was required because environmental conditions and environmental law had changed over the years since the original EIR in addition to the type and magnitude of the proposed project(s). · On May 18, 1983, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 921-83 approving and adopting the first "Development Agreement" with Terrabay and the Ordinance took effect on June 17, 1983. The development agreement has been extended and modified over the years, most notably in 2000. The development agreement (which will need to be modified in order to allow a change in development for Phase ill) specifies (among other requirements) that Myers provide 32 units of moderate income housing, restore certain lands pursuant to City conditions of approval and the HCP, construct a child care center on the commercial lands and a performing arts center and pay infrastructure improvement fees for the right of constructing the 665,000 square foot office building. · Myers has been and continues to conduct land restoration activities on the Preservation Parcel, as well as the Phase ill property, the residential tower property and Juncus Ravine. Western continues to perform the same activities on the Woods and Mandalay Pointe properties. The restoration activities are part and parcel to permitting development along the base of San Bruno Mountain pursuant to HCP requirements. The restoration efforts include removal of certain invasive exotic plants that replace butterfly habitat when left unchecked. The methods to control the exotics include chemical, mechanical and hand weed removal as well as the use of grazing and controlled burns in certain areas. Goat grazing has been used on Terrabay lands, and has proven successful. A controlled burn for the Juncus Parcel is planned this autumn (2004). The scratch line for the burn is already in place. Black lining and the eventual burn are anticipated in October 2004. The California Department of Forestry, South San Francisco Fire, North County Fire Authority and the Colma volunteer Fire Department are all participating in the burn. -77- Attachment F October 6, 2005 Planning Commission Staff Report Public hearing on the 2005 SEIR. Planning Commission Stq[f Report DATE: October 6, 2005 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Allison Knapp, Terrabay Consultant Planner SUBJECT: Terrabay Phase m Only Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (2005 SEIR) Owner: Applicant: Site Address: Case No. Myers Development Myers Development San Bruno Mountain P04-0 117: EIR04-0002 RECOMMENDATION Conduct a public hearing and take public testimony on the Terrabay Phase ill Only Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (2005 DSEIR). The 2005 DSEIR, Specific Plan and Supplemental Architectural Drawings were routed to the Planning Commission under separate cover on October 15, 2005. BACKGROUND Project Description and Phasing: The Terrabay Phase III Only Specific Plan proposes and the 2005 DSEIR analyses 357,500 gross square - feet (322,000 net leasable) of commercial uses, 351 residential units and a 295,500 gross square foot (260,000 net leasable) office building. The commercial and residentialland uses would be constructed in Phase I of Phase III and the proposed office tower would be constructed in Phase II of Phase ill. A General Plan amendment to add a High Density Residential land use designation to the Business Commercia11and use designation on the site is requested to allow residential land use on the Phase ill site. Public amenities that would be constructed in Phase I of the project include a Public Art Program; Water Features; an Outdoor Performance Area; a 150-seat Performing Arts Center; A Supervised Children '8 Play Facility (permitting adults time to utilize retail facilities while children are supervised); a Valley Trail; a History Walk; a Shared Use Training and Emergency Operations Room for Police and Fire; a Transportation Demand Management Plan and a Marketing Plan for the hotel and office. Two alternatives for Phase II of Phase ill are proposed Specific Plan and analyzed in the 2005 DSEIR. The alternatives are a 300 room hotel and a second 180-unit residential condominium with 5,000-10,000 square feet of commercial retail. -78- -79- I The 1998/99 SEIR. analyzed Phases II and III of Terra bay. Phase II includes what is now known as the Pointe (peninsula Mandalay and MandaIay Pointe) and the ~ommons (which is now known as the Recreation Parcel). The 2000 Final Terrabay Specific Plan resulted in: 1) Designating the Commons as Recreation and Open Space; 2) Designating 26 acres of the Phase III site as permanent open space; 3) Moving the lot line between the Pointe and Phase III slightly to the southwest; 4) Designating the Phase III site as Business Commercial; and 5) Designating the Pointe as High Density residential. · Mitigated Plan Development - Assumes 340,000 square feet of office, 10,000 square foot restaurant and a 200 room hotel all leaving the 2.0 acre archaeological site in open space. · Permanent Open Space - Assumes the land {Phase II and III) would have been dedicated as permanent open space. · Reduced Commercial - Assumes 293,000 square feet of commercial consisting of retail, office, hotel and restaurant and no residential. . Reduced Residential - Assumes 316 residential units and no comri:1ercial. . Existing 1996 Specific Plan - Assumes 432 residential units, 669,300 square feet commercial consisting of retail, office, hotel and restaurant. . No Development - Assumes no development would occur on the site. . 1998/99 SEIR analyzes the following alternatives: Alternatives The following alternatives for Terrabay Phase III have been analyzed over the past five years. The 2005 DESIR supplements and builds upon the environmental analyses contained in the 1998/99 Terrabay Phase II and III SEIR and Addendum, the 1996 Terrabay SEIR and the 1982 Terrabay Environmental Impact Report (EIR). 1 The 1998/99 SEIR was certified by the City on February 17: 1999 (Resolution # 19-99, State Clearinghouse #97-82077). The 1999 SEIR analyzed project impacts on geology, soils and seismicity, hydrology and drainage, biology, traffic and circulation, air quality, noise, public services, hazards and archaeology that could occur as a result of construction and operation of a 665,000 square foot office building inclusive of 7,500 square feet of support retail. Five alternatives (identified below) were also analyzed in the 1998/99 SEIR. The 2005 DSEIR analysis is focused on traffic and circulation, air quality, noise, public services and utilities and aesthetics. The focused topics are the topics that could be affected as a result of the proposed changes to the Phase III entitlements. 2005 DSEIR Scoping DISCUSSION Page 2 of 4 Staff Report Subject: (Title - Condensed) Staff Report Subject: (Title - Condensed) Page 3 of 4 As the Planning Commission is aware, 26 acres of the Phase ill site was designated as permanent open space and conveyed to the County of San Mateo for inclusion in San Bruno Mountain County and State Park. Subsequently, the proposed Phase ill Only Terrabay Specific Plan proposes development on 21 acres south of the Preservation Parcel and in the southern portion of the "Mitigated Plan Development Alternative" certified by the City in 1999. The 2005 DSEIR, building upon the 1998/99 SEIR analyzes three new alternatives. 2005 DSEIR analyzes the following alternatives: · No Project - Assumes the existing 2000 Terrabay Specific and Precise Plan entitlements which includes a 665,000 square foot office inclusive of7,500 square feet of support retail. · Hotel Alternative - Assumes a 300 room hotel in Phase IT of Phase ill and approximately 322,000 leaseable square feet of commercial and 351 residential units in Phase I of Phase ill. · Residential Alternative - Assumes approximately 322,000 leaseab1e square feet of commercial and 351 residential units in Phase I of Phase ill and a second 180 unit residential tower in Phase II of Phase ill, for a total of 531 residential units. The DSEIR analyses the office scenario as the "project" for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act compliance, as an office tower would result in slightly more traffic impacts that a hotel or additional residential. The alternatives were selected in order to build upon those analyzed in the 1998/99 SEIR. 2005 DSEIR and Project Process The public review period on the 2005 DSEIR commenced on August 30 and will close on October 14, 2005. Comments on the 2005 SEIR will be responded to in a ''Response to Comments" document and produced as a draft Final 2005 SEIR. Staff will return to the Planning Commission with a draft of the Final SEIR. The City Council will conduct a certification hearing on the 2005 SEIR after the Planning Commission considers and makes a recommendation on the document. The Terrabay project hearings will commence before the Planning Commission after a joint study session with the Planning Commission and City Council. The City Managers Office will be polling various members for available dates to conduct the joint study session. A City Council sub-committee meeting on Terrabay is scheduled for September 29th. In summary, the 2005 SEIR and Specific and General Plan amendments will go before the Planning Commission for a recommendation to the City Council. City Council will take final action on the 2005 SEIR certificati.on and the proposed Specific and General Plan amendments. The Specific Plan amendment is required to modify the land uses for the site to include residential and site specific retail and commercial. The General Plan amendment is necessary to allow mixed use on the site (p 2-2 of the 2005 DSEIR), by adding the High Density Residential designation to the existing Business Commercial land use designation for the site. The amended and restated development agreement, precise plan and subdivision map(s) will follow should Council act in the affumative on the Specific and General PIan actions. -80- -81- Attachment: None-All documents transmitted under separate cover on September 15, 2005. By: Mark Crane of Crane Transportation Group will be available during the October 6 meeting to discuss traffic and transportation should the Planning Commission desire. The Commission will recall that Mark Crane, on behalf of the City, has conducted the traffic analysis for Terrabay over the past 10 years. Staff will assemble the comments on the 2005 DSEIR and wdllsmit them to Placemakers, the firm who prepared the 2005 DSEIR. Placemakers will prepare the draft Final 2005 SEIR. CONCLUSION 2004-2005: Three City Council sub-committee meetings were conducted on Terrabay Phase ill, the most recent being September 28, 2005. The "three alternative" approach to Phase IT of Phase ill (hotel, office or second residential tower) was discussed. The hotel was identified, as the City's preferred alternative, followed by office and residential. Elements of the proposed project were refined to include an emergency operations facility, a children's theatre, history walk, play and stay supervised child care, water features, architectural design and inclusionary housing were underscored and refined. October, 2004: The City Council and Planning Commission conducted a joint study session on Terrabay Phase ill. Open space, art, inc1usionary housing, timeless architecture, child care, detail in design of the ''Point'', and high-quality retai11and uses were identified as topics of importance. Previous Study and Sub Committee Meetings: Page 4 of 4 Staff Report Subj ect: (Title - Condensed) " i ". Attachment G November 17, 2005 Planning Commission Staff Report for study session on T errabay. Planning Commission Staff Report DATE: November 17,2005 TO: Planning Commission -FROM: Allison-Knapp, Terrabay Consultant Planner SUBJECT: Terrabay Phase III Only Study Session Owner: Applicant: Site Address: Case No. Myers Development Myers Development San Bruno Mountain P04-0 117: EIR04-0002 RECO:MMENDATION Allow Myers Development Company to present project refinements requested by the joint City Council and Planning Commission subcommittee. Provide direction and staff will return with the proposed Specific Plan and Final EIR. BACKGROUND The Terrabay subcommittee consisting of Vice Mayor Joe Fernekes, Councilmember Karyl Matsumoto, Planning Commission Chairperson Marc Teglia, Vice Chairperson Bill Zemke and Commissioner John Prouty met on October 24,2005. Jack Myers presented modifications to Terrabay Phase III in response to the joint City Council/Planning Commission study session on October 5, 2005. The proposed plan relocated the office tower from the point to the north end of the site. In summary, the majority of the members stated that the office tower to the north fit into the hill better. Councilwoman Matsumoto stated that she preferred the "signature" building on the point but could accept the office to the north in trade for a better view of the Mountain. Both Council persons indicated some concern about how the parking on the point would appear. Commission Chair Teglia stated that the proposal is an improvement although the site is still "very busy". Commission Chair Teglia also indicated concern with the look of the parking on the point. The importance of "signature architecture" and sensitive treatment of the point was underscored. The subcommittee with Vice Mayor Fernekes serving as chair reached a consensus that this plan could move through the process with the understanding that: 1) The office tower would be relocated to the north of the site above the "Lifestyle" anchor; 2) Th~ two townhouse structures (65 unit and 18 unit) require reworking to integrate into the hillside more appropriately; 3) The point requires reworking to ease the congestion and massing; and, 4) Through the process additional design refinements may be requested of the applicant. -82- -83- By: '.<_>"M_~~af'P-;-terra Attachment: Revised Supplemental Drawings Debbie Kern of Keyser Marsten will be available to respond to fiscal questions that the Planning Commission may have during the study session. Myers Development will present changes to the land plan and respond to the Planning Commission's direction. CONCLUSION Myers Development will have drawings and a model for the meeting to show the progress on the issues identified above. In particular they have focused on the look of the point, the integration of the town homes and the relocation of the tower. Redesign . The project is very expensive to build. · The projected tax revenue stream to the City is contingent upon the quality of the retail. · The Development Agreement (DA) is key to the realization of the tax revenue and needs to be very specifi c. · The DA should contain specific defInitions and types of retail allowed in the project and sizes and square footage of retail types. · The City, though the DA, could consider listing by name the types of retail businesses to be permitted in Phase III. · The City could consider language in the DA requiring the specified retail users, or equivalent, subject to City approval. · The DA should define any investment obligations. · The DA should require certain thresholds of retail to be constructed prior to allowing certain quantities of residential to be constructed. CBRE, on behalf of Myers Development prepared a proforma for Terrabay Phase III. The proforma is based primarily upon the 322,000 square feet of "Lifestyle Retail", business licenses, sales tax and property taxes. The findings of the CBRE indicate that 1.2 to 1.6 million dollars in tax revenue to the City would be generated by the proposed high-end retail. The City (through a developer pass-through) retained the services of Keyser Marsten to perform a peer review of CBRE's fiscal fmdings. The Commission will recall that Keyser Marsten prepared the previous Terrabay fiscal studies for the City, the most recent being in 1998. Ms. Debbie Kern of Keyser Marsten concurred with the tax revenue projections identified by CBRE. Ms. Kern also notes that the Development Agreement(DA) will be critical to the fiscal health and tax projections of the project. Ms. Kern also notes the following: Fiscal DISCUSSION Staff Report Subject: Planning Commission Study Session- Terrabay Phase III -Only November 17,2005 Page 2 of2 Staff Report Subject: Planning Commission Study Session- Terrabay Phase III -Only November 17,2005 Page 2 of2 DISCUSSION Fiscal CBRE, on behalf of Myers Development prepared a proforma for Terrabay Phase III. The proforma is based primarily upon the 322,000 square feet of "Lifestyle Retail", business licenses, sales tax and property taxes. The findings of the CBRE indicate that 1.2 to 1.6 million dollars in tax revenue to the City would be generated by the proposed high-end retail. The City (through a developer pass-through) retained the services of Keyser Marsten to perform a peer review of CBRE's fiscal findings. ~e Commission will recall that Keyser Marsten prepared the previous Terrabay fiscal studies for the City, the most recent being in 1998. Ms. Debbie Kern of Keyser Marsten concurred with the tax revenue projections identified by CBRE. Ms. Kern also notes that the Development Agreement (DA) will be critical to the fiscal health and tax projections of the project. Ms. Kern also notes the following: · The project is very expensive to build. · The projected tax revenue stream to the City is contingent upon the quality of the retail. · The Development Agreement (DA) is key to the realization of the tax revenue and needs to be very specific. · The DA should contain specific definitions and types of retail allowed in the project and sizes and square footage of retail types. · The City, though the DA, could consider listing by name the types of retail businesses to be permitted in Phase III. · The City could consider language in the DA requiring the specified retail users, or equivalent, subject to City approval. · The DA should define any investment obligations. · The DA should require certain thresholds of retail to be constructed prior to allowing certain quantities of residential to be constructed. Redesign Myers Development will have drawings and a model for the meeting to show the progress on the issues identified above. In particular they have focused on the look of the point, the integration of the town homes and the relocation of the tower. CONCLUSION Debbie Kern of Keyser Marsten will be available to respond to fiscal questions that the Planning Commission may have during the study session. Myers Development will present changes to the land plan and respond to the Planning Commission's direction. ) / By: ./ "<..,..._~lis~l'P-;terra Attachment: Revised Supplemental Drawings -83- ..82 - The subcommittee with Vice Mayor Fernekes serving as chair reached a consensus that this plan could move through the process with the understanding that: l) The office tower would be relocated to the north of the site above the "Lifestyle" anchor; 2) Th~ two townhouse structures (65 unit and 18 unit) require reworking to integrate into the hillside more appropriately; 3) The point requires reworking to ease the congestion and massing; and, 4) Through the process additional design refinements may be requested of the applicant. The proposed plan relocated the office tower from the point to the north end of the site. In summary, the majority of the members stated that the office tower to the north fit into the hill better. Councilwoman Matsumoto stated that she preferred the "signature" building on the point but could accept the office to the north in trade for a better view of the Mountain. Both Council persons indicated some concern about how the parking on the point would appear. Commission Chair Teglia stated that the proposal is an improvement although the site is still "very busy". Commission Chair Teglia also indicated concern with the look of the parking on the point. The importance of "signature architecture" and sensitive treatment of the point was underscored. The Terrabay subcommittee consisting of Vice Mayor Joe Fernekes, Councilmember Karyl Matsumoto, Planning Commission Chairperson Marc Teglia, Vice Chairperson Bill Zemke and Commissioner John Prouty met on October 24,2005. Jack Myers presented modifications to Terrabay Phase III in response to the joint City CouncillPlanning Commission study session on October 5, 2005. BACKGROUND Allow Myers Development Company to present project refinements requested by the joint City Council and Planning Commission subcommittee. Provide direction and staff will return with the proposed - Specific Plan and Final EIR. RECOMMENDATION Myers Development Myers Development San Bruno Mountain P04-0 117: EIR04-0002 Owner: Applicant: Site Address: Case No. SUBJECT: Terrabay Phase III Only Study Session -FROM: Allison-Knapp, Terrabay Consultant Planner TO: Planning Commission DATE: November 17,2005 Planning Commission Staff Report Planning Commission Staff Report DATE: November 17,2005 TO: Planning Commission -FROM: Allison-Knapp, Terrabay Consultant Planner SUBJECT: Terrabay Phase III Only Study Session Owner: Applicant: Site Address: Case No. Myers Development Myets Development San Bruno Mountain P04-0 117: EIR04-0002 RECOMMENDATION Allow Myers Development Company to present project refinements requested by the joint City Council and Planning Commission subcommittee. Provide direction and staff will return with the proposed Specific Plan and Final EIR. BACKGROUND The Terrabay subcommittee consisting of Vice Mayor Joe Fernekes, Councilmember Karyl Matsumoto, Planning Commission Chairperson Marc Teglia, Vice Chairperson Bill Zemke and Commissioner John Prouty met on October 24,2005. Jack Myers presented modifications to Terrabay Phase III in response to the joint City CouncillPlanning Commission study session on October 5, 2005. The proposed plan relocated the office tower from the point to the north end of the site. In summary, the majority of the members stated that the office tower to the north fit into the hill better. Councilwoman Matsumoto stated that she preferred the "signature" building on the point but could accept the office to the north in trade for a better view of the Mountain. Both Council persons indicated some concern about how the parking on the point would appear. Commission Chair Teglia stated that the proposal is an improvement although the site is still "very busy". Commission Chair Teglia also indicated concern with the look of the parking on the point. The importance of "signature architecture" and sensitive treatment of the point was underscored. The subcommittee with Vice Mayor Fernekes serving as chair reached a consensus that this plan could move through the process with the understanding that: 1) The office tower would be relocated to the north of the site above the "Lifestyle" anchor; 2) Th~ two townhouse structures (65 unit and 18 unit) require reworking to integrate into the hillside more appropriately; 3) The point requires reworking to ease the congestion and massing; and, 4) Through the process additional design refinements may be requested of the applicant. -82- -83- By: _ \~_.,,__._~.llis~i'P~erra Attachment: Revised Supplemental Drawings Debbie Kern of Keyser Marsten will be available to respond to fiscal questions that the Planning Commission may have during the study session. Myers Development will present changes to the land plan and respond to the Planning Commission's direction. CONCLUSION Myers Development will have drawings and a model for the meeting to show the progress on the issues identified above. In particular they have focused on the look of the point, the integration of the town homes and the relocation of the tower. Redesign · The project is very expensive to build. · The projected tax revenue stream to the City is contingent upon the quality of the retail. · The Development Agreement (DA) is key to the realization of the tax revenue and needs to be very specific. · The DA should contain specific definitions and types of retail allowed in the project and sizes and square footage of retail types. · The City, though the DA, could consider listing by name the types of retail businesses to be permitted in Phase III. · The City could consider language in the DA requiring the specified retail users, or equivalent, subject to City approval. · The DA should define any investment obligations. · The DA should require certain thresholds of retail to be constructed prior to allowing certain quantities of residential to be constructed. CBRE, on behalf of Myers Development prepared a proforma for Terrabay Phase III. The proforma is based primarily upon the 322,000 square feet of "Lifestyle Retail", business licenses, sales tax and property taxes. The findings of the CBRE indicate that 1.2 to 1.6 million dollars in tax revenue to the City would be generated by the proposed high-end retail. The City (through a developer pass-through) retained the services of Keyser Marsten to perform a peer review of CBRE's fiscal fmdings. The Commission will recall that Keyser Marsten prepared the previous Terrabay fiscal studies for the City, the most recent being in 1998. Ms. Debbie Kern of Keyser Marsten concurred with the tax revenue projections identified by CBRE. Ms. Kern also notes that the Development Agreement (DA) will be critical to the fiscal health and tax projections of the project. Ms. Kern also notes the following: Fiscal DISCUSSION Staff Report Subject: Planning Commission Study Session- Terrabay Phase III -Only November 17,2005 Page 2 of2 Attachment H December 1, 2005 Planning Commission Staff Report on General Plan and Specific Plan amendments proposed for Terrabay. - ~'t\1 s~ ~.i. ~ . ~"tj:. o (') l>o c;;l ~ g ~..fllFO'P-'f-'\'i; Planning Commission Staff Report DATE: December 1,2005 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Allison Knapp, Terrabay Consultant Planner SUBJECT: Terrabay Phase III Only Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (2005 SEIR), General and Specific Plan Amendment Owner: Applicant: Site Address: Case No. Myers Development Myers Development San Bruno Mountain P04-0 117: EIR04-0002 RECOMMENDATION · Conduct a public hearing on the proposed Terrabay Specific Plan and General Plan land use amendments. · Continue the item to the December 15th Public Hearing to make the recommendation to the City Council. Staff will return on the 15th with the appropriate resolutions and findings for Planning Commission consideration and action. The 2005 DSEIR was routed to the Planning Commission under separate cover on September 15,2005. The public hearing on the 2005 DSEIR was conducted on October 6, 2005. The fmal SEIR will be provided at the December 15, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. Attached are color versions of the Supplemental Architectural Drawings presented on November 17,2005. BACKGROUND Project Description: The Terrabay Phase III Only Specific Plan proposes and the 2005 DSEIR analyzes 357,500 gross square feet (322,000 net leasable) of commercial uses, 351 residential units and a 295,500 gross square foot (260,000 net leasable) office building. The commercial and residential land uses would be constructed in Phase 1 of Phase III and the proposed office tower would be constructed in Phase 2 of Phase III (and possibly in Phase 1 of Phase III). A General Plan amendment to add a High Density Residential land use designation to the Business Commercial land use designation on the site is requested to allow residential land use on the Phase III site. Public amenities that would be constructed in Phase 1 of the project include a public art program; water features; an outdoor performance area; a 150-seat performing arts center; a supervised Children's Play Facility (permitting adults time to utilize retail facilities while children are supervised); a valley trail; a -84- -85- 1 The 1998/99 SEIR analyzed Phases II and III of Terrabay. Phase II includes what is now known as the Pointe (Peninsula MandaIay and MandaIay Pointe) and the Commons (which is now known as the Recreation Parcel). The 2000 Final Terrabay Specific Plan resulted in: I) Designating the Commons as Recreation and Open Space; 2) Designating 26 acres of the Phase III site as permanent open space; 3) Moving the lot line between the Pointe and Phase III slightly to the southwest; 4) Designating the Phase III site as Business Commercial; and 5) Designating the Pointe as High Density residential. · Reduced Residential - Assumes 316 residential units and no commercial. · Existing 1996 Specific Plan - Assumes 432 residential units, 669,300 square feet commercial consisting of retail, office, hotel and restaurant. · No Development - Assumes no development would occur on the site. 1998/99 SEIR analyzes thefallowing alternatives: Alternatives The following alternatives for Terrabay Phase III have been analyzed over the past five years. The 2005 DESIR supplements and builds upon the environmental analyses contained in the 1998/99 Terrabay Phase II and III SEIR and Addendum, the 1996 Terrabay SEIR and the 1982 Terrabay Environmental Impact Report (EIR). I The 1998/99 SEIR was certified by the City on February 17, 1999 (Resolution # 19-99, State Clearinghouse #97-82077). The 1999 SEIR analyzed project impacts on geology, soils and seismicity, hydrology and drainage, biology, traffic and circulation, air quality, noise, public services, hazards and archaeology that could occur as a result of construction and operation of a 665,000 square foot office building inclusive of 7,500 square feet of support retail. Five alternatives (identified below) were also analyzed in the 1998/99 SEIR. The 2005 DSEIR analysis is focused on traffic and circulation, air quality, noise, public services and utilities and aesthetics. The focused topics are the topics that could be affected as a result of the proposed changes to the Phase III entitlements. Scoping 2005 DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENT AL IMPACT REPORT (DSEIR) DISCUSSION Two alternatives for Phase 2 of Phase III are proposed in the specific plan and are analyzed in the 2005 DSEIR. The alternatives are a 300 room hotel and a second 180-unit residential condominium with 5,000- 10,000 square feet of commercial retail. history walk; a shared use training and emergency operations room for police and fire; a transportation demand management plan, a child care center or payment of in lieu fees for child care; and a marketing plan for the hotel and office. Page 2 of 19 Staff Report Subject: Terrabay Phase III Only SEIR, Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment December 1, 2005 Staff Report Subject: Terrabay Phase III Only SEIR, Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment December 1, 2005 Page 3 of 19 · Reduced Commercial - Assumes 293,000 square feet of commercial consisting of retail, office, hotel and restaurant and no residential. · Permanent Open Space - Assumes the land (Phase II and III) would have been dedicated as permanent open space. · Mitigated Plan Development - Assumes 340,000 square feet of office, 10,000 square foot restaurant and a 200 room hotel all leaving the 2.0 acre archaeological site in open space. As the Planning Commission is aware, 26 acres of the Phase III site was designated as permanent open space and conveyed to the County of San Mateo for inclusion in San Bruno Mountain County and State Park. Subsequently, the proposed Phase III Only Terrabay Specific Plan proposes development on 21 acres south of the Preservation Parcel and in the southern portion of the "Mitigated Plan Development Altemative" certified by the City in 1999. The 2005 DSEIR, building upon the 1998/99 SEIR analyzes three new alternatives. 2005 DSEIR analyzes thefollowing alternatives: · No Project - Assumes the existing 2000 Terrabay Specific and Precise Plan entitlements which includes a 665,000 square foot office inclusive of7,500 square feet of support retail. · Hotel Alternative - Assumes a 300 room hotel in Phase II of Phase III and approximately 322,000 leaseable square feet of commercial and 351 residential units in Phase I of Phase III. · Residential Alternative - Assumes approximately 322,000 leaseable square feet of commercial and 351 residential units in Phase I of Phase III and a second 180 unit residential tower in Phase II of Phase III, for a total of 531 residential units. The DSEIR analyses the office scenario as the "project" for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act compliance, as an office tower would result in slightly more traffic impacts that a hotel or additional residential. The alternatives were selected in order to build upon those analyzed in the 1998/99 SEIR. Comments Received on DSEIR The public review period on the 2005 DSEIR commenced on August 30 and closed on October 14,2005. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the DSEIR October 6, 2005. One public comment was received during the public hearing. Nine comment letters were received during the 45-day review period. All comments are responded to in the draft Final SEIR. Two letters, C/CAG and the San Francisco International Airport relate to noise and are discussed further on in this report. PG&E provided a standard comment letter with respect developer requirements. The Town of Colma and the San Mateo -86- -87- The boundaries of the Terrabay Specific Plan Area were found by the City Council to be in compliance with the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) on May 12, 1999 (City Council Resolution #64-99). The compliance hearing was conducted pursuant to federal statute which included review by U.S. fish and Wildlife Service, State Department of Fish and Game, the County of San Mateo and Thomas Reid Associates (Plan Administrator). The review period and certification hearing was noticed pursuant to Habitat Conservation Plan Conformance Previous Actions and Certifications In summary, the specific pan amendment is required to modify the land uses for the site to include residential and site specific retail and commercial. The general plan amendment is necessary to allow mixed use on the site (p 2-2 of the 2005 DSEIR), by adding the High Density Residential designation to the existing Business Commercial land use designation for the site. The amended and restated development agreement, precise plan and subdivision map(s) will follow should Council act in the affIrmative on the specific and general plan actions. The applicant is requesting a specific plan amendment applicable to Phase III only and a general plan amendment to allow high density residential (mixed use) on the Phase III site. Should the City Council find to certify the 2005 SEIR and approve the specific and general plan amendments the City Manager and City Attorney, at the direction of Council, would negotiate with the applicant the terms of a restated and amended development agreement (DA). The DA would contain the performance criteria, standards and the timing of the performance for the Terrabay Phase III only project. The DA would be reviewed by the Planning Commission and acted upon by City Council. Subsequent to DA approval, the applicant would then bring forward the precise plan application that pursuant to City Ordinance shall comply with the DA, Terrabay Specific Plan and South San Francisco General Plan. Modifications to the Terrabay Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 20.63 of the Municipal Code) are anticipated to occur in two phases. The first zoning amendment would occur as a result of the adoption, by ordinance, of the Terrabay Specific Plan Phase III Only. The proposed Terrabay Phase III Specific Plan contains language that modifies the types of land uses permitted and the general densities and intensities. The second amendment, if required, would be during the precise plan review wherein some refmements would be expected to be necessary based upon Design Review Board, Planning Commission and City Council direction on the precise plan documents. PROJECT ENTITLEMENTS AND PHASING County Public Works Department sent letters stating they had no further comments. California Department of Transportation sent a letter requesting 95th percentile analysis of the Bayshore/SB 101 Ramps, Bayshore/Central Project Access, Bayshore/Sister Cities/Oyster Point/Airport, Oyster Point/Dubuque and Debuque/lOl Ramps. This analysis was conducted by Crane Transportation Group and is included in the draft Final SEIR. Mountain Watch commented on protocols for planting, weeding and maintenance to be included in the CC&R's for Phase III and a mowing regimen for fire buffer. The Mountain Watch comments underscore the objectives of the City. Two letters commented on the merits of the project and one of the two had an overall question on traffIc. Page 4 of 19 Staff Report Subject: Terrabay Phase III Only SEIR, Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment December 1, 2005 Staff Report Subject: Terrabay Phase III Only SEIR, Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment December 1, 2005 Page 5 of 19 federal, state and local requirements. The Terrabay Plan boundaries and limits of grading included Phase III as well as the Preservation Parcel. The Preservation Parcel was designated as permanent open space by the City Council on November 24, 2000.(Resolution #48-2000). The dedication of the land and conveyance to the County of San Mateo for inclusion in San Bruno County/Sate Park furthered the objectives of the HCP. The conveyance and protection of the land preserved wetlands and critical butterfly habitat. The proposed 2005 Terrabay Phase III Only Specific Plan identifies limits of grading within the developable area of the remaining 21 acres of Terrabay Phase III (Figure 3, Initial Study in DSEIR, P 2-4 DSEIR and Figure 15 Phase III Only Specific Plan). The proposed limits of grading conform to the HCP fence. Ms. Victoria Harris of Thomas Reid Associates reviewed the proposed Phase III project limits and found them in compliance with the 1999 HCP Certification hearing (November 22,2005). Airport Land Use Plan Compliance The Terrabay Phase III Only project site is not located within the current Airport Land Use Commission (C/CAG) Airport Influence Area (AlA) boundary for the San Francisco International Airport (Richard Newman, C/CAG letter dated October 14, 2005 and Dave Carbone, letters dated June 16, 2005 and November 22, 2005). Therefore ALUC compliance review is not required. However, the Airport (Mr. John Martin letter dated October 14, 2005) and C/CAG (Richard Newman letter dated October 14, 2005) both commented on Terrabay through the DSEIR process as discussed above and summarized in the following. Both letters requested that the City require disclosure of the airport in the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) for the project. The City required the disclosure for Phase I and II of Terrabay and will require the same disclosure for Phase III. Both letters also stated the need for design level acoustical studies. Design level acoustical studies are required by the Building Division prior to issuance of building permits. Previous City Study and Sub Committee Meetings November 17, 2005: The Planning Commission conducted a study session on Terrabay and in particular the changes proposed as a result of the subcommittee direction. The project still includes 351 residences, 322,000 square feet of retail (gross leasable floor area), and 260,000 (net) square feet of office space. Alternatives to the office space include a 300-room hotel or a 180 unit residential tower in phase 2. The following design changes were incorporated into the project and discussed by the Planning Commission. · The Office Tower has been relocated to the north end of the site and may be constructed in the same phase as the rest of the Project; · The previous Office Tower location at the south end of the site is now a lifestyle retail anchor; · The Residential Tower has one less floor, resulting in 171 units instead of 180 units; -88- -89- The proposed plan relocated the office tower from the point to the north end of the site. The majority of the subcommittee members felt that the office tower to the north fit into the hill better. Councilmember Matsumoto stated that she preferred the "signature" building on the point but could accept the office to the north in trade for a better view of the Mountain. Both Councilmembers indicated some concern about how the parking on the point would appear. Planning Commission Chairperson Teglia stated that the proposal is an improvement although the site is still "very busy". Commission Chair Teglia also indicated October 24, 2005: The Terrabay subcommittee consisting of Vice Mayor Joe Fernekes, Councilmember Karyl Matsumoto, Planning Commission Chairperson Marc Teglia, Vice Chairperson Bill Zemke and Commissioner John Prouty met on October 24, 2005. Jack Myers presented modifications to Terrabay Phase III in response to the joint City Council/Planning Commission study session on October 5, 2005. The revised land plan received generally positive comments. Chair Teglia mentioned that with each revision the proposal increases in quality and suggested pulling the development back more from the point and a "tucking around" of the buildings. Chair Teglia also requested a drawing comparing the existing and proposed point for the next meeting. Commissioner Sim expressed strong appreciation for the land plan and the work of the architects and stated that the proposal is a good balance. Commissioner Honan underscored the importance of the new towers blending into the Mountain and the project more than what the Peninsula Mandalay has achieved. Commissioner Honan indicated a preference for the new location of the office tower. Commissioner Romero stated that the sub committee did a good job on directing the proposal, and is concerned about bringing office use to the west side of Highway 101. Commissioner Romero underscored the importance of "Lifestyle Retail" for the project as well as restoration of the point. Vice Chair Zemke requested confirmation that the parking garage facing the freeway was minimized, to wich Mr. Myers responded affirmatively. . In addition to the 43 on-site BMR units in Phase 1, there will be 28 off-site low income units. In the event that Phase 2 is an additional residential tower of 180 units, then 16 more of the Flats will be deed and income restricted for households with incomes at 81%-120% AMI, and an additional 16 off-site low income units will be produced for households at 50%-80% AMI. (This particular aspect of the project was discussed with and agreed to by the City Council sub-committee). . The Lofts building now has 24 units with four typical floors, each including four one bedroom units, a two bedroom unit and a three bedroom unit; and, . The Flats are unchanged in design, but now have 43 BMR units at 81%-120% AMI (as opposed to 67 BMR units at 120% AMI in the previous plan); . The Town Homes have shifted slightly north, have better views because of the office tower relocation, and now have several one bedroom units; Page 6 of 19 Staff Report Subject: Terrabay Phase III Only SEIR, Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment December 1, 2005 Staff Report Subject: Terrabay Phase III Only SElR, Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment December 1, 2005 Page 7 of 19 concern with the look of the parking on the point. The importance of "signature architecture" and sensitive treatment of the point was underscored. The subcommittee with Vice Mayor Femekes serving as chair reached a consensus that this plan could move through the process with the understanding that: 1) The office tower would be relocated to the north of the site above the "Lifestyle" anchor; 2) The two townhouse structures (65 unit and 18 unit) require reworking to integrate into the hillside more appropriately; 3) The point requires reworking to ease the congestion and massing; and, 4) Through the process additional design refinements may be requested of the applicant. 2004-2005: Three City Council sub-committee meetings and a joint City Council/Planning Commission were conducted on Terrabay Phase III. The "three alternative" approach to Phase II of Phase III (hotel, office or second residential tower) was discussed. The hotel was identified as the City's preferred alternative followed by office and residential. Elements of the proposed project were refined to include an emergency operations facility, a children's theatre, history walk, play and stay supervised child care, water features, architectural design and inclusionary housing were underscored and refined. October, 2004: The City Council and Planning Commission conducted a joint study session on Terrabay Phase IlL Open space, art, inclusionary housing, timeless architecture, child care, detail in design of the "Point", and high-quality retail land uses were identified as topics of importance. EVALUATION 2005 DSEIR The impacts associated with the 2005 mixed use project are similar to those associated with the approved 2000 office tower. It should be noted that the 2005 proposed project would reduce traffic volumes during the AM peak hour over those of the approved 2000 office tower. Base case AM queuing would be reduced by the proposed 2005 project. Critical locations experiencing positive queuing impacts (improvement over base case) due to the 2005 project are the U.S. 101 Northbound off-ramp approach to Dubuque Avenue (left turns) and the northbound Dubuque Avenue approach to Oyster Point Boulevard, and the eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard and left turn lane on the eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach to Dubuque AvenuelU.S. 101 Northbound on-ramp. Three significant and unavoidable impacts relating to traffic and one air quality would result from implementation of the proposed project. These impacts are: Traffic Impact 3.1.5: Year 2010 Vehicle Queuing Impacts: Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard (AM and PM) intersection would experience queuing impacts. These impacts could be reduced by the mitigation measures identified in the SEIR but not to a level that is less than significant. There are no feasible mitigation measures for the Oyster Point BoulevardlDubuque AvenuelU.S. 101 Northbound On-Ramp (PM only) intersection. Therefore the City will consider adopting findings of overriding considerations for impacts to both of these intersections. -90- -91- · Assist in funding and provision of critical emergency services in the City by construction of the shared Emergency Operations Facility on the Phase III site and the staffmg of police and fire personnel and equipment ($4,856,979 in 2005 dollars); · Assist in bridging the gap between the availability of housing in the City and the abundance of jobs; · Provide a tax benefit to the City by increasing tax base and revenues to the City through property and sales tax revenues; · Provide economic growth and employment opportunities in the City and surrounding region, by the creation of new jobs on the site and in the construction - related industries; Many factors will be weighed when the Planning Commission considers its recommendation to the City Council and the City Council deliberates and determines whether or not to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations. The City may fmd that implementation of the 2005 project would result in substantial public benefits that outweigh the four significant, unavoidable cumulative impacts. Some of the considerations, but not necessarily all, that the City Attorney will provide in the form of a resolution for the December 15th meeting are that the 2005 Terrabay Phase III Only Project would: Air Quality Impact 3.2.3: Regional emission increase that would exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds for ozone precursors and P MJO. This is the same impact identified in the 1998/99 SEIR and remains the same for the 2005 proposed project. Measures identified in the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan incorporate the mitigation measures identified in the 1998/99 SEIR and the 2005 SEIR. These impacts could be reduced by the mitigation measures identified but not to a level that is less than significant. Therefore the City will consider. adopting fmdings of overriding considerations for impacts to both of these intersections. Traffic Impact 3.1.9: Year 2010 Vehicle Queuing Impacts: Bayshore Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard/Airport Boulevard (AM and PM) intersection would experience queuing impacts. These impacts could be reduced by the mitigation measures identified in the SEIR but not to a level that is less than significant. There are no feasible mitigation measures for the Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 Northbound On-Ramp (PM only) intersection. Therefore the City will consider adopting fmdings of overriding considerations for impacts to both of these intersections. Traffic Impact 3.1.6: Year 2020 Intersection Level of Service Impacts: Three of the four intersections would maintain acceptable levels of service. The fourth intersection, Bayshore Boulevard/U.S. 101 Southbound Hook Ramps/Project Access would result in LOS impacts. These impacts could be reduced by the mitigation measures identified in the SEIR but not to a level that is less than significant. Therefore the City will consider adopting findings of overriding considerations for this impact. Page 8 of 19 Staff Report Subject: Terrabay Phase III Only SEIR, Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment December 1, 2005 Staff Report Subject: Terrabay Phase III Only SEIR, Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment December 1,2005 Page 9 of19 . Provide below market rate housing; · Reduce overall environmental impacts and preserve open space by building on 18 acres of land most of which was previously disturbed by transportation and utility-related grading while preserving 26 plus acres as species habitat, wetlands and open space; · Further the goals of the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan by allowing the project to be built within the developable area of the Mountain vested by the HCP, to continue to fund the HCP by the homeowner and commercial fees prescribed by the HCP, by the restoration and conveyance to the County of San Mateo the remainder parcels adjacent to the Phase III site, by the creation of a fire buffer around the perimeter of the site and the planting of a carefully planned landscape plan utilizing non-invasive and drought resistive plantings; · Increase the City's access to recreational opportunities by the creation of the respite and trail along the perimeter of the site; · Develop the "Buffer Parcel" with roads and landscaping pursuant to the Mutual Release and Settlement Agreement between the City, Myers Development Company, San Bruno Mountain Watch and the Center for Biological Diversity; · Create a transition area between the urbanized potion of the City and San Bruno Mountain Park; · Honor and further the culture and history of South San Francisco by the creation of a History Walk within and around the Phase III site, the provision of public art, a 150 seat performing arts center, landscaped walkways and plazas and water features within the Phase III site; · Offset Project Sponsor's burden and City burden and costs created by the development of Phase I and II and the public amenities already constructed by the developer including the construction of Sister Cities Boulevard, fire station, recreation center, private streets, water system and holding tank, Hillside School recreation facilities, payment of a child care in-lieu fee ($700,000), payment of Oyster Point Flyover fees (8.5 million), dedication of 26 acres of open space (Preservation Parcel), dedication of a six acre plus parcel to the City (the Recreation Parcel), construction of the linear park and offer of dedication of the park to the City, by allowing the project to be completed and tax benefits to the City to be realized. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) will be brought forward during the precise plan review. Lifestyle Retail Lifestyle Retail is a fairly new term coined to describe a retail center that "customizes its environment to the changing lifestyle of the consumer in order to make it a stimulating and social place to gather" (Urban -92- -93- · The Development Agreement (DA) is important to the realization of the tax revenue and needs to be very specific. · The projected tax revenue stream to the City is contingent upon the quality of the retail. · The project is expensive to build. The Lifestyle Retail component is essential for the success of the project. The project is expensive to build. Therefore from the developer's perspective high quality regionally recognized and destination bound stores that can afford higher rents are the types of retail that will realize a return on the capital investment. From the City's perspective, it is the high end retail that will generate the tax revenues to the City. In essence, the developer must have the high end market to obtain financing for the development and capitalize the investment and the City wants nothing less than the high end retail. Therefore, the development agreement will need to address some very critical issues should the City fmd to approve the propose project. The November 17,2005 staff report to the Planning Commission noted the following key elements as a place to begin on the DA: Development Agreement · Finding a retail niche, targeting stores that fit that niche, and creating activities or events around that niche can create an identity for a small town. · Mixed-use developments that combine retail, offices, housing, restaurants and entertainment are becoming more successful and expected by the consumer. · Being able to park once and shop in a pedestrian friendly area is increasingly valued by customers. · Consumers like to feel a sense of community where they shop. · Many consumers are bored with the traditional mall and are searching for new shopping experiences that are better customized to their needs. Land, March 2004, publication of Urban Land Institute). A Lifestyle Retail Center focuses on attracting and maintaining the relationship with the retail customer as opposed to the retail tenant. This is a change from the retail development which focuses on the relationship with the retail tenant. Lifestyle Retail Centers are typically open-air, main street-like developments with high quality architecture that focus on a blend of particular retail sectors and mixed uses. The mixed use proposal for Terrabay Lifestyle Retail concept focuses on entertainment and high end home furnishing and improvement and kitchen and bath accessories along with an entertainment aspect including restaurants, theatres, arts and a performing arts center. The residential component adds a 24/7 lifestyle that is synergistic, provides for local and regional serving needs and vitality. Urban Land states that many important lessons can be learned from the success of the Lifestyle Retail Center. Page 10 of 19 Staff Report Subject: Terrabay Phase III Only SEIR, Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment December 1,2005 Staff Report Subject: Terrabay Phase III Only SEIR, Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment December 1, 2005 Page 11 of 19 · The DA should contain specific definitions and types of retail allowed in the project and sizes and square footage of retail types. · The City, though the DA, could consider listing by name the types of retail businesses to be permitted in Phase III. · The City could consider language in the DA requiring the specified retail user types, or equivalent, subject to City approval. . The DA should define any investment obligations. · The DA should require certain thresholds of retail to be constructed prior to allowing certain quantities of residential to be constructed. General Plan Amendment A General Plan Land Use Map amendment is required in order to allow mixed use which includes residential on the Phase III site. A High Density Residential (18.1-30 units per acre) overlay is proposed for the Phase III Only site. The Business Commercial land use designation would remain. The combination of the two designations would allow business and professional office, retail, visitor- and local-oriented and regional-serving commercial retail, hotels, and residential land uses. The Business Commercial land use designation allows up to a 1.0 FAR and combined with a hotel use the permitted FAR would increase to 2.0. The retail and office and retail and hotel alternatives fall under the maximum permitted FAR as shown in the table below. All alternatives are within the High Density Residential designation prescribed by the General Plan. The designation prescribes 18.2-30 du/acre and the project proposes 19.5 for the mixed use with one residential tower (tota1351 units) and 25.3 du/acre for a second 180 unit residential tower (total 531units). COMPARISON OF PROPOSED AND PERMITTED INTENSITY AND DENSITY Alternative Proposed FAR Permitted FAR Dwelling Units/Acre w/TDM Plan Business Commercial (retail 0.92 1.0 19.5 and office) Hotel (retail and hotel) 0.94 2.0 19.5 Second Residential Tower 0.55 1.0 25.3 (retail) -94- -95- The TDM Program included as Appendix B in the Terrabay Phase III Only Specific Plan. Already installed as a part of the Oyster Point Flyover and Bayshore Boulevard improvements is a south bound bus pull out in front of the project site and crosswalks. The applicant proposed to install additional sidewalks to provide pedestrian linkages to transportation. . Annual City Monitoring and Program Update. . Project design that promotes walking and pathway connections to mixed use facilities that provides goods and services; and, · Promotion of flextime, telecommuting and similar options that allow employees to fulfill their work requirements, but reduce the amount of vehicle trips to the worksite; · Guaranteed Ride Home program; . Paid parking; · Reduced supply of parking to discourage driving and take advantage of shared-parking opportunities generated by mixed use development, the use of valet parking and designated and free parking for vanpool and carpool parking spaces; · Integrated bicycle parking and support facilities to reduce trips within the Terrabay area; . Financial incentives for using transit that entail either expanded SamTrans services in combination with a Commuter Check Program or Private Shuttle with service to Caltrain, BART and adjacent Terrabay neighborhoods; . Transportation Coordinator who will oversee the TDM Program and perform audits, facilitate ridesharing matching, maintain and update bulletin board and kiosk for transit services, sponsor promotional programs; . Defined Targeted Project Marketing Program to local residents, employers and employees to reduce aggregate trip generation and travel distances; Every aspect identified in Schedule 20.120.030-B: Summary of Program Requirements (Zoning) of the City's TDM Ordinance is incorporated into the TDM for the project. In particular the TDM Plan requires: Transportation Demand Management Program Page 12 of 19 Staff Report Subject: Terrabay Phase In Only SEIR, Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment December 1, 2005 Staff Report Subject: Terrabay Phase III Only SEIR, Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment December 1,2005 Page 13 of 19 Specific Plan Amendment State Law Requirements California Government Code Section 65451 governs the content of specific plans. The requirements include a text and diagram which specify all of the following in detail: 1. The distribution, location, and extent of the land uses of land, including open space, within the area covered by the plan. 2. The proposed distribution, location and extent and intensity of major components of public and private transportation, sewage, water, drainage, solid waste disposal, energy and other essential facilities proposed to be located within the area covered by the plan and needed to support the land uses described in the plan. 3. Standards and criteria by which the development will proceed and standards for the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources, where applicable. 4. A program of implementation measures including regulations, programs, public works projects, and fmancing measures necessary to carry out paragraphs (1), (2) and (3). 5. The specific plan shall contain a statement of the relationship of the specific plan to the general plan. The Phase III Only application has met all these criteria and was certified as complete by the City on September 1, 2005. Proposed Specific Plan Conformance with the General Plan The proposed land uses identified in the Terrabay Phase III Only Specific Plan conform to the City's General Plan as discussed in the following section of this report. Project Conformance with the General Plan The proposed land use designation addition and the proposed land uses in the Terrabay Phase III Only Specific Plan conforms with and implements the following General Plan policies. Chapter 2.6 Land Use Policies Guiding and Implementing Policies 2-G-l: Preserve the scale and character of established neighborhoods, and protect residents from changes in non-residential areas. -96- -97- 2-1-13: As a part of development review in environmentally sensitive areas, require specific environmental studies and/or review as stipulated in Section 7.1: Habitat and Biological Resources Conservation. Analysis: The TDM measures identified in Schedule 20.120.030-B: Summary of Program Requirements (Zoning) of the City's TDM Ordinance is incorporated into the TDM program for the project. 2-1-4: Require all new developments seeking an FAR bonus set forth in Table 2.2-2 to achieve a progressively higher alternative mode useage. The project proposes F ARs under the maximum permitted by zoning and meets the high density residential density thresholds, as noted above. The sub-committee and Planning Commission have commented favorably on the quality of architecture proposed. Analy~is: The proposed project is unique and it is a planned development. The site is unique within the City of South San Francisco as well as the northern peninsula. The 21.2 acre (18 acres developable) site is undeveloped on the west of 101 and in the lee of San Bruno Mountain. The relatively large size of the site and its protection from the windy elements of the Mountain enable a successful mixed-use concept to be developed. Outdoor cafes, plazas, water features, the proposed history walk and sanctuary and the outdoor performance area will all be sheltered from the elements and provide a setting for people to converge and interact. 2-1-3: Undertake planned development for unique projects or as a means to achieve high community design standards, not to circumvent development intensity standards. Analysis: The site has immediate access to Highway 101, San Francisco, the peninsula and the airport which will provide local and regional clientele for the project which is critical for the success of the retail component. The project proposes a mixed-use including retail, office and residential which conforms to the City's FAR and residential density standards. 2-G-2: Maintain a balanced land use program that provides opportunities for continued economic growth, and building intensities that reflect South San Francisco's prominent inner bay location and excellent regional access. Analysis: The proposed mixed-use project will be a part of South San Francisco but will not be in the middle of an established neighborhood or community with San Bruno Mountain as a backdrop, Sister Cities Boulevard and Terrabay Phase II to the west and south, and Bayshore Boulevard and Highway 101 to the east. The Project will add to the vitality and diversity of the City and compliment the existing land uses in the area and the City. The proposed uses will not detract from the City's existing commercial base but compliment it by realizing a "Lifestyle Retail Center" as discussed above. Page 14 of 19 Staff Report Subject: Terrabay Phase III Only SEIR, Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment December 1, 2005 Staff Report Subject: Terrabay Phase III Only SEIR, Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment December 1,2005 Page 15 of19 Analysis: The proposed project has undergone extensive environmental review as discussed above in this report. Biological surveys are required annually prior to site development. The Preservation Parcel, containing critical species habitat, was conveyed to the County for inclusion in San Bruno Mountain County/State Park. Remainder parcels are landscapes with seed mix approved by the HCP Administrator as appropriate for the butterfly. Three land restoration and preservation plans have been approved as part of the project and restoration work has occurred and is nearly complete. The plans include the Juncus Parcel, the Preservation Parcel and the Buffer Parcels along with the perimeter of the Mandalay and Phase III parcels. Chapter 3: Planning Sub-Areas Element: Paradise Valley/Terrabay Guiding Policy 3-8-G-2: Improve accessibility to neighborhood shopping opportunities. Analysis: The project proposes Lifestyle Retail and includes provisions for a market. Chapter 4: Transportation Guiding and Implementing Polices 4-2-G-7: Provide afair and equitable means for payingfor fUture street improvements. Analysis: The project sponsor contributed land and $8.,5 million to construct the hook ramps. 4-2-1-6: Incorporate as part of the City's eIP needed intersection and roadway improvements including Bayshore Boulevard and u.s. 101 Hook Ramps Analysis: The project sponsor contributed to the construction of the hook ramps and Sister Cities Boulevard. The project sponsor will also contribute to additional roadway and pedestrian improvements as identified in the 2005 SEIR. The Oyster Point Flyover and Hook Ramp construction is complete. 4-3-G-2: Provide safe and direct pedestrian and bikeways between and through residential neighborhoods, and to transit center. Analysis: The proposed project includes pedestrian and bikeways throughout the project, to Bayshore and Sister Cities Boulevard, to the bus stop on Bayshore Boulevard and to the adjacent Terrabay neighborhood. 4-3-G-3: In partnership with local employers, continue efforts to expand shuttle operations. Analysis: The project implements a shuttle service for Peninsula Mandalay. The shuttle service will be expanded to cover the Phase III project. -98- -99- The project proposes a mixed use plan that will bring tax revenues to the City, provide for additional police and fire services, pay for its own infrastructure, provide a vital mixed use retail, residential and entertainment development and include a style and architecture that one Commissioner noted as "poetic". · Myers and the City, in particular the City Council and Planning Commission sub committee worked to develop a land plan that in the words of one sub committee member, "makes economic and land use sense". · Myers Development, City leaders and City staff worked with community groups to address the restoration and preservation of land and habitat. As a result of this effort, the results of the restoration are being used as examples of success by U.S. Fish and Wildlife, San Mateo County and Thomas Reid and Associates. San Bruno Mountain Watch, in a comment letter on the 2005 SEIR also lauded the restoration of the Preservation Parcel. · The Planning Commission and City Council designated the Preservation Parcel as permanent open space. Analysis: Terrabay has had a long (25 year plus) history that has been controversial. Beginning in 1999 through to the present, much of the controversy has been abated largely as a result of the following actions: 6-G-1: In partnership with business and community groups, proactively participate in the City's economic development. Guiding and Implementing Policies Analysis: Terrabay Phase I and II include a linear park. The park terminates within the Phase III site. The linear park compliments and coordinates with the proposed History Walk. The project proposes walk ways throughout and around the site. Chapter 6: Economic Development 5-I-G-5: Develop linear parks in conjunction with major infrastructure improvements and along existing utility and transportation rights-of-ways. Implementing Policy Chapter 5: Parks, Public Facilities and Services The project includes several locations with covered and locked bicycle parking. 4-3-1-4: Require provision of secure and covered bicycle parking. Page 16 of 19 Staff Report Subject: Terrabay Phase III Only SEIR, Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment December 1,2005 Staff Report Subject: Terrabay Phase III Only SEIR, Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment December 1,2005 Page 17 of 19 Chapter 7 Open Space and Conservation Guiding and Implementing Policies 7-1-0-1: Protect special status species and supporting habitats within South San Francisco including species that are state or federally listed as Endangered, Threatened or Rare. The driving factor in clustering the mixed-use project for Phase III on the 18-acre parcel known as the "Development Parcel" (formerly the Office Parcel) is the protection of 26 acres (the Preservation Parcel) for species habitat preservation. Terrabay Phase III was approximately 47 acres in area prior to the designation of the Preservation Parcel as open space and the Buffer Parcel as a buffer zone. The Preservation Parcel contains over 1,000 ViolaPendunculata which is the food plant for the endangered Callippee silverspot butterfly. The Preservation Parcel also preserves the archaeological site and wetlands in perpetuity. 7-1-0-1: Protect and where reasonable and feasible special status species and supporting habitats within South San Francisco including salt marshes and wetlands. The proposed Eroject includes wetlands restoration on the Preservation Parcel. Phase III Terrabay affects less than 1/10 an acre of seasonal streams and has an approved U.S. Anny Corp of Engineers Wetland Restoration Plan. The City is mitigating the 0.83 acre take of wetlands for the hook ramp project on the Preservation Parcel. The project proposes to incorporate water features and a History Walk on the site to honor the seasonal creeks and streams. Housing Element Implementing Policies Action 1-C-3: Ensure that new development and rehabilitation efforts promote quality design and harmonize with existing neighborhood surroundings. Support excellence in design through the continued use of design review board and/or staff. All future major housing projects will be evaluated according to the following: 1) Effects the proposed densities have on the surrounding neighborhoods, streets and community as a whole; 2) Need for additional infrastructure improvements, including but not limited to sewers, water, storm drainage and parks; 3) Need for additional public services to accommodate the proje,ct includ~n? but ,not limited to p~li~e, fire, public works, libraries, recreation, planning, engineerzng, admznlstratlOn, finance. buzldzng and/or other applicable services; and; -100- Staff Report Subject: Terrabay Phase III Only SEIR, Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment December 1, 2005 Page 17 of 19 Chapter 7 Open Space and Conservation Guiding and Implementing Policies 7-I-G-l: Protect special status species and supporting habitats within South San Francisco including species that are state or federally listed as Endangered, Threatened or Rare. The driving factor in clustering the mixed-use project for Phase III on the 18-acre parcel known as the "Development Parcel" (formerly the Office Parcel) is the protection of 26 acres (the Preservation Parcel) for species habitat preservation. Terrabay Phase III was approximately 47 acres in area prior to the designation of the Preservation Parcel as open spact: and the Buffer Parcel as a buffer zone. The Preservation Parcel contains over 1,000 ViolaPendunculata which is the food plant for the endangered Callippee silverspot butterfly. The Preservation Parcel also preserves the archaeological site and wetlands in perpetuity. 7-I-G-l: Protect and where reasonable and feasible special status species and supporting habitats within South San Francisco including salt marshes and wetlands. The proposed Eroject includes wetlands restoration on the Preservation Parcel. Phase III Terrabay affects less than 1/10 an acre of seasonal streams and has an approved U.S. Army Corp of Engineers Wetland Restoration Plan. The City is mitigating the 0.83 acre take of wetlands for the hook ramp project on the Preservation Parcel. The project proposes to incorporate water features and a History Walk on the site to honor the seasonal creeks and streams. Housing Element Implementing Policies Action I-C-3: Ensure that new development and rehabilitation efforts promote quality design and harmonize with existing neighborhood surroundings. Support excellence in design through the continued use of design review board and/or staff. All future major housing projects will be evaluated according to the following: 1) Effects the proposed densities have on the surrounding neighborhoods, streets and community as a whole; 2) Need for additional infrastructure improvements, including but not limited to sewers, water, storm drainage and parks; 3) Need for additional public services to accommodate the project including but not limited to police, fire, public works, libraries, recreation, planning, engineering, administration, finance, building and/or other applicable services; and; -100- -101- Analysis: In addition to the discussion directly above, the project would provide a variety of housing styles, high rise, town home and flats in a project that contains goods and services within easy walking distance. Policy l-C: Assure that people have a choice of locations by encouraging a variety of housing in well planned neighborhoods. CBRE, on behalf of Myers Development,prepared a proforma for Terrabay Phase III. The proforma is based primarily upon the 322,000 square feet of "Lifestyle Retail", business licenses, sales tax and property taxes. The findings of the CBRE indicate that 1.2 to 1.6 million dollars in tax revenue to the City would be generated by the proposed high-end retail. The City (through a developer pass-through) retained the services of Keyser Marsten to perform a peer review of CBRE's fiscal findings. Keyser Marsten prepared the previous Terrabay fiscal studies for the City, the most recent being in 1998. Ms. Debbie Kern of Keyser Marsten concurred with the method used to produce tax revenue projections identified by CBRE. The key element, as discussed above in the DA section, is assuring that "Lifestyle Retail" is the type of retail occupying the site. The City of South San Francisco Finance Department, using different assumptions, has produced lower estimates of sales tax yield. Phase I Terrabay constructed a fire station and a recreation center. Phase III Terrabay includes an emergency operations facility for police and fire and funding of police and fire positions and equipment ($4,856,979). The Brisbane and South San Francisc:o School Districts have indicated (2005 DSEIR) that payment of the state mandated school impact fees is adequate to offset additional enrollment from the project. Additional City staffing needed to reimburse the City for special inspections or services to cover public works, planning, engineering, administration, finance, building and fire is recovered through a developer pass-through fund. The proposed project has dedicated a 26 acre preserve, 100 plus acres (Juncus Ravine) for inclusion in San Bruno Mountain State and County Park, a sis plus acre parcel to the City for Recreation or other uses, a recreation center in Phase I and includes passive recreation opportunities in Phase III. The project has installed a water system and holding tank in Phase I, privately maintained streets in Phases I and II and proposes the same in Phase III. Storm drain and sanitary sewer improvements were constructed by the developer in Phase I and II and maintained by the homeowner's associations of Phases I and II, and the same with the addition of a commercial property owners association is proposed for Phase III. Analysis: The proposed mixed-use project will be a part of South San Francisco but will not be in the middle of an established neighborhood or community with San Bruno Mountain as a backdrop, Sister Cities Boulevard and Terrabay Phase II to the west and south, and Bayshore Boulevard and Highway 101 to the east. The Project will add to the vitality and diversity of the City and compliment the existing land uses in the area and the City. The proposed uses will not detract from the City's existing commercial base but compliment it by realizing a "Lifestyle Retail Center" a very distinct and different market that what currently exists in South San Francisco. 4) Cost/revenue impacts, especially major projects. Page l8 of 19 Staff Report Subject: Terrabay Phase III Only SEIR, Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment December 1, 2005 Staff Report Subject: Terrabay Phase III Only SEIR, Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment December 1, 2005 Page 19 of 19 Staff Initiated Text Changes to the Proposed Specific Plan The sub committee and Planning Commission have requested refmements to the Terrabay Phase III Only Specific Plan. Those refmements will be incorporated into the fmal document after City Council action on the project, should the City fmd to approve the project The refmements then would reflect the revisions by the sub-committee, Planning Commission and City Council. Staff notes one correction to the proposed plan at this time. Figure 2 (unnumbered page prior to page 1-3) inadvertently identifies the Recreation Parcel, Peninsula Mandalay and Mandalay Pointe as Phase III. These areas will be corrected in the fmal Plan to identify them as Phase II. CONCLUSION Continue the item to the December 15th Public Hearing to make the recommendation to the City Council. Staff will retum on the 15th with the draft fmal SEIR and appropriate resolutions and findings for Planning Commission consideration and ac . --- By: Allison Knapp, Terrabay Consultant Attachment: Revised Supplemental Architectural Drawings -102:- Attachment I December 15, 2005 Planning Commission Staff Report on General Plan and Specific Plan amendments proposed for Terrabay. Planning Commission Staff Report DATE: December:b005 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Allison Knapp, Terrabay Consultant Planner SUBJECT: Terrabay Phas.e III Only Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (2005 SEIR), General and Specific Plan Amendment Owner: Applicant: Site Address: Case No. Myers Development Myers Development San Bruno Mountain P04-0 117: GP A04-000 1 & SP A04-000 1 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolutions recommending that the City Council certify the 2005 Terrabay SEIR and approve the General Plan Amendment and Terrabay Specific Plan amendment. . BACKGROUND The Planning Commission reviewed Terrabay at the November 17 study session, and the December 1, 2005 Public Hearing. The Planning Commission noted that this is a complex project with a long history and has undergone many changes. The main concerns and comments focused on the appropriateness of office west of 101, the amount and location of inclusionary housing, in particular a desire by some to add the 32 units from the old Phase III entitlement to the current inclusionary housing on the site, the importance of a clear and strong development agreement guaranteeing the "Lifestyle Retail" aspect of the project and the design and location of the central tower. The Commission also indicated appreciation of the architecture. DISCUSSION 32 Moderate Income Housing Units The existing Development Agreement DA ties the construction of the 32 moderate income housing units (price restricted to households at 120% of the area median) to the' Phase III commercial entitlement. At the time the DA was negotiated (2000) all parties believed the 665,000 square foot office building would be constructed prior to the residential tower and 70 units. This belief was predicated upon the anticipated user of the building being a dot.com enterprise. Unfortunately, the dot.com industry declined area wide and the office portion of the project was not constructed. The 32 -103- -104- Grocery: Whole Foods, Andronicos, Molly Stone's. Entertainment: Landmark, AMC, Madstone, Loews, Century-CineArts. Apparel: Abercombie & Fitch, Ann Taylor, Anthropologies, Banana Republic, Express, French Connection, GaplKids Gap, Gymboree, J. Crew, Kenneth Cole, Naturalizer, Old Navy, Victoria's Secret. Outdoor: North Face, REI Specialty: Apple Computer, Barnes and Noble, Bed, Bath and Beyond, Borders, Cost Plus World Market, Crate and Barrel, Office Max, Pier 1, Pottery Barn, Sur La Table, Williams Sonoma. Food and Beverage: Baja Fresh, Buckhorn Grill, The Cheesecake Factory, Chili's, Gordon Biersch, Jamba Juice, Pasta Pomodoro, Peet's Coffee and tea, Starbucks, Wolfgang Puck. . Types of retailers and/or their equivalent include: A "Main Street" designed to embrace the outdoors, pedestrian oriented, shopping and entertainment center including' high end specialty retail shops, restaurants, cafes, a cinep1ex and a major grocery store. Lifestyle Retail uses in Terrabay Phase III shall serve the needs and expectations of consumers with an orientation towards home furnishings and decoration, home improvement, kitchen and bath accessories, theatres, restaurants and cafes, books, music, arts and crafts and related activities, educational and interactive activities and uses and outdoor endeavors. Lifestyle Retail is defined in the Terrabay Phase III Only Specific Plan (p II-2). A refined definition that could be included in the Zoning Ordinance is: Lifestyle Retail The proposed re-entitlement of Phase ill brings the housing issue to the forefront. The current proposal is subject to the City's inclusionary ordinance. Therefore, the project sponsor is required to make 20% of the units affordable to low and moderate income households at 50 to 120% of the median. The result is housing that is price restricted to all percentage deciles from 50 to 80 % as opposed to exclusively 120% of the area median. Myers Development indicated that meeting the 20% requirement and constructing the 32 moderate income units would make the project economically infeasible. The Council sub-committee suggested accepting the 20% requirement indicating that 20% was more inclusionary while meeting the housing needs of more households and waiving the old 32 moderate income units in order to make the project economically feasible for the applicant and the City. moderate income units were also negotiated lJrior to the City's adoption of the inclusionary housing ordinance. Page 2 of3 " Staff Report Subject: Terrabay Phase III Only SEIR, Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment December 1,2005 ~ staff Report Subject: Terrabay Phase III Only SEIR, Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment December 1, 2005 Page 3 of 3 These types of retailers or their equivalent are permitted. Significant deviations from these types of uses, as determined by the Chief Planner, may not be permitted or may require a Minor Use" Permit (Chapter 20.89 Municipal Code). The applicant will be required to demonstrate how the use under question is substantially equivalent to the uses listed above. The following table illustrates this concept. RET AlLER TYPE EQUIVALENT DISSIMILAR REI, North Face Timberline Army Surplus Ann Taylor Armani, Brooks Brothers Ross, Marshalls, Dollar Store Wolfgang Pucks Kuleto's, Il Fomaio Olive Garden, Red Lobster The Zoning Ordinance, Specific Plan and the DA could all include this type of language to support the Lifestyle Retail concept. The life of the DA could also be extended from 10 to 15,20 plus years to assure compliance with the Lifestyle retail concept. CONCLUSION Direct staff to forward to the City Council the Planning Commission's concerns along with resolutions recommending certification of the 2005 SEIR and approval of the Specific Plan and General Plan amendments. - By: Allison Knapp, Terrabay Consultant Attachment: Resolutions Recommending Certification of the 2005 SEIR and Approval of the General Plan and Terrabay Specific Plan. -10~;- Attachment J Planning Commission minutes from October 6, November 17, December 1 and December 15,2005. Planning Commission Meeting of October 6,2005 3. Appeal of Chief Planner Determination Gibbs, Adele L/Owner George Corey I Applicant 344 Victory Ave P05-0142:AP05-0001 Continued to November 3, 3005 (Continue to November 3, 2006) Appeal of the Chief Planner's Determination to require a use permit for 344 Victory Avenue in accordance with SSFMC 20.90.020. Motion Sim I Second Honan to approve the Consent Calendar with necessary modifications to the minutes of April 20, 2005. Approved by unanimous voice vote. PUBLIC HEARING 4. Terrabay Phase III Terraces Myers Development - Applicant I Owner San Bruno Mountain' P04-0117:EIR04-0002 No Action Necessary Public Hearina to allow comments on the Draft Environmental ImDact ReDort (EIR04-0002J Project Description: Construction of a mixed-use development on 21 acres of land at the corner of Sister Cities Boulevard and Bayshore Boulevard in South San Francisco. The proposal includes 351 residential units in high-rise (180 units), townhome and loft configuration, a 295,000 sq. ft. office / or 300 room hotel/ or an optional180 unit condominium and 357,500 sq. ft. retail. The 25.61 Preservation Parcel is north of the project site and was conveyed to San Mateo County on August 11, 2004. The Preservation Parcel is included in San Bruno Mountain County Park and is designated as permanent open space. The Preservation Parcel is not a part of the project. Public Hearing opened. Consultant Planner Knapp presented the staff report. Del Schembari gave the following comments on the EIR: · Address light pollution and impact on wildlife (Ie how lights have affected the wildlife in Yosemite) · Look at the grading and improve from how it was handled in the Point. · Revegetate the habitat with native plant species. · Green material used in development Commissioner Prouty asked that the comments by Ms. Kamala Wolf presented at the Study Session is included into the comments and Response to Comments for the EIR. Public Hearing closed. Commission comments on the EIR: · Address light · Address impact on community with regards to traffic. · Explore having controlled burn because it is necessary for the habitat. Consultant Planner Knapp noted that a burn got out of hand in Brisbane and plans were made to do another controlled burn. She noted that CDF then informed the City that they were no longer in the business of controlled burns. Consultant Planner Knapp noted that the public review period ends on October 14, 2005. S:\MLlI\.utes\:I.O-Oh-05 Rope MLlII.utes.cioc -107- P&lge2o{ -'I- pt:lge b of IS' -108- S:\MLV\.utes\:li-:l.r-05 Rope MLV\.utes.(;(oc Vice Chairperson Zemke noted that the parking structure had opening towards the freeway with the previous layout and questioned if they had been reduced also. Mr. Myers noted that the concern was the Commission comments Chairperson Teglia noted that there have been many good changes to the proposal. He asked that the developer include an additional part to the model showing what the Point looks like now and see what amount of it is being removed. He asked that the applicant report back to the Commission on what precludes them from going down more than three feet: in the project, what the possibilities are of pulling back away from the Point and seeing what can be built there. Norm Garden and Don Sinamont of RTKL Architects presented the modifications to the project. Some of the modifications to the proposal were: · By shifting the office building to the north they were able to reduce the height because of the grade change on the northern side. · Pulled out the three stories of above grade parking and "finessed" the parking beneath the office tower. · Removed 9 units from the residential tower and included those into the lofts and the loft building to the north. · The impact on the Point was minimized by pushing the units further back to the north and pushing the driveway into the building. · The five foot wall was removed and replaced with natural material and provides the opportunity to have public art in 5 different areas. · Architectural designs were accentuated when the towers were rotated. Jack Myers, Myers Development, noted that the subcommittee gave suggestions on the proposal and he has incorporated some of those into the proposal before the Commission. Consultant Planner Knapp presented the staff report. Project Description: Construction of a mixed-use development on 21 acres of land at the corner of Sister Cities Boulevard and Bayshore Boulevard in South San Francisco. The proposal includes 351 residential units in high-rise (180 units), town home and loft configuration, a 295,000 sq. ft. office / or 300 room hotel/or an optional180 unit condominium and 357,500 sq. ft. retail. The 25.61 Preservation Parcel is north of the project site and was conveyed to San Mateo County on August 11, 2004. The Preservation Parcel is included in San Bruno Mountain County Park and is designated as permanent open space. The Preservation Parcel is not a part of the project. studv Session 10. Terrabay Phase III Terraces Myers Development - Applicant I Owner San Bruno Mountain P04-0117:DAA04-0001,EIR04-000~ GPA04-0001,PP04-0001,SPA04-0001,ZA04-0004 ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS Recalled to order at 9:25 Recess called at 9:15 p.m. Consensus of the Commission to continue the item to December 1, 2005. Chairperson Teglia questioned if BART would participate in allowing parking for the project in recognition of the benefits that they are going to reap from the project. Senior Planner Lappen noted that the previous applicant wanted to enter into a parking agreement with BART but the City was concerned with this because it was a revocable parking agreement. Planning Commission Meeting of November 17 Planning Commission Meeting of November 17 visibility from northbound 101 and the wall was moved back to limit the exposure and increased the landscaping. Commissioner Sim pointed out that the developer was able to work with the changes and disguised the parking spaces. He questioned what the rationale for having the tower in the corner and questioned if the initial idea for the project was being lost. Mr. Myers noted that the idea was not lost. The City Council and Planning Commission subcommittees preferred the building off the corner to minimize the impact on the Point. Norm Garden added that the City reminded the designer that San Bruno Mountain was a significant piece and they worked around that which made the project better. Mr. Myers added that they are focusing on restoring the point and re-Iandscaping it. Commissioner Sim commended RTKL for doing an excellent job with shifting the buildings and recognized that it was not an easy task. He added that there is a much better representation of the project and a much better visual angle from 101 than before. He pointed out that the hill was recaptured by the changes and questioned if the project would be a phased development. Mr. Myers noted that there is a 65% chance that they will be running the project in one phase. Commissioner Honan was concerned with the additional towers and having them blend in. She asked that the developer explain what types of materials they would use and if they would be similar for both towers. Mr. Myers noted that the details are not finalized but the Commission will have the opportunity to go through those details at the Precise Plan process. Commissioner Honan asked if the hotel was not going to be considered anymore. Mr. Myers noted that the hotel and residential are the alternatives if the office use does not come to fruition. Commissioner Romero noted that the layout is superior to the previous proposal. He was concerned with having an office tower on the west side of highway 101 and that the City has not encouraged them on that side. He wanted to see what types of retail uses were going to be part of the project. He felt that the movie theatre may not be appropriate in the area due to the bright lights and its proximity to residential areas. Mr. Myers noted that the project will have many lights and the landscaping will mitigate some of the views. Mr. Garden added that the lighting will not be obnoxious to the residents. Public comments: Jeffrey Tong, commended Myers Development on the office buildings they have constructed in San Francisco. He noted that the three buildings are like three icons that are spaced far from each other. He noted that the Mandalay Tower can be seen from Skyline Boulevard and was concerned with the impact of the light on the residents. Consultant Planner Knapp pointed out that the first Public Hearing on the project would be on December 1, 2005 and the Commission will be asked to continue the hearing to December 15th for final action. Chief Planner Sparks noted that the packet will be delivered on the Monday before the meeting of December 1st due to the holiday and the turnaround time for getting the information together for the packet. ITEMS FROM STAFF None ITEMS FROM COMMISSION None ITEMS FROM THE PUBUC None ADJOURNMENT 10:45 P.M. Motion Zemke I Second Honan to adjourn the meeting. Approved by unanimous voice vote. s:\MLV\.",tes\:1:t-:tr05 R.'PC MLV\.",tes.clOC -109- 'P~ge T of g PCl0e:< of G -110- S:\MLl'\.utes\:l:<-0:!.-05RPC MLl'I.Utes.c:tOC Mr. Lam also requested that the following language be incorporated into the Specific Plan: "Residential land_uses in the Terrabay Specific Plan area is subject to overflights including aircrafts from SFIA located within two miles of the Specific Plan Area. The Specific Plan area may be subject to impacts Mr. Lam referenced a letter dated October 27, 2003 from City Attorney Steve Mattas that showed through a 1999 survey how unsatisfied SSF residents were with the aircraft: noise. Mr. Lam requested that if SSF approves the inclusion of residential dwellings in Terrabay Phase III that the City should require the developer to provide the avigation easements for those homes. The easements would provide the extra disclosure making it clear to prospective homebuyers that the development is in close proximity to a major international airport. Nixon Lam, SFIA office of Planning, was present with Erick Ganong, Airport Noise Officer. They noted that the staff report was unclear if noise insulation materials were used for the homes built in Phase I and Phase II and if they were to use them in Phase III residential units. He noted that these appear to be addressed in the FEIR. They presented a schematic of the over flights through the project area. They noted that about 45 of the 95 that fly over the project area depart from San Francisco. Mr. Lam explained the handout. He added that the number of calls specifically from the Terrabay project area show that the residents of South San Francisco are annoyed by the noise despite the efforts taken by the City. Jack Myers, Myers Development presented the project with Norm Garden from RTKL Associates. They went into detail on the types of lifestyle retail uses that would be in the project, as well as, the layout of the project. Recalled at 7:55 p.m. Recess called at 7:53 p.m. Chairperson Teglia questioned if the offsite low income housing is above the previously approved offsite housing Phase II units. Consultant Planner Knapp noted that it is not. She added that at the Council subcommittee meeting it was agreed that if the application complies with the inclusionary housing ordinance then excusing the obligation for 32 moderate income units could be considered. Consultant Planner Knapp presented the staff report and clarified that 23 inclusionary housing units would be provided offsite. She also added that page 1-3, Figure 2 of the Specific Plan inadvertently identifies the Mandalay Pointe Project and the Peninsula Mandalay Project as part of Phase II but is part of Phase II. Public Hearing opened. Project Description: Construction of a mixed-use development on 21 acres of land at the corner of Sister Cities Boulevard and Bayshore Boulevard in South San Francisco. The proposal includes 351 residential units in high-rise (180 units), townhome and loft configuration, a 295,000 sq. ft. office / or 300 room hotel/or an optional180 unit condominium and 357,500 sq. ft. retail. The 25.61 acre Preservation Parcel is north of the project site and was conveyed to San Mateo County on August 11, 2004. The Preservation Parcel is included in San Bruno Mountain County Park and is designated as permanent open space. The Preservation Parcel is not a part of the project. 3. Terrabay Phase III Terraces Myers Development - Applicant I Owner San Bruno Mountain P04-0117: DAA04-0001, EIR04-G002, GPA04-0001, PP04-0001, SPA04-0001, ZA04-G004 PUBLIC HEARING Motion Prouty I Second Sim to approve the Consent Calendar. (TV-02) to reclassify a portion of the lot owned by BART/SamTrans and located in the Planned Commercial Zone from P-C-L to Transit Village Zone in accordance with the SSFMC 20.87; Tentative Parcel Map to merge two lots into a single parcel in accordance with SSFMC Title 19; Tentative Subdivision Map to create 99 condominium units in accordance with SSFMC Title 19; Affordable Housing Agreement in accordance with SSFMC Chapter 20.125 and Negative Declaration ND03-0001 Planning Commission Meeting of December 1, 2005 Planning Commission Meeting of December 1, 2005 associated with airport operations and may be considered a nuisance to individuals who are sensitive to noise. Therefore development in the planning area may be subject to additional requirements related to noise and safety such as additional height restrictions and noise insulation measures affecting construction and avigation easements. " Commissioner Romero questioned if the departure flights take off could take off further to the bay rather than over the residential areas. Mr. Ganong noted that the port departure is the runway going out towards Oakland. It is restricted to 1600 feet before they make the left turn. They do not go out further because it keeps the noise near the airport. The shoreline departure goes to west and then goes east bound and is used during adverse weather conditions. Commissioner Romero asked if the reconfiguration of the runways was still being planned. Mr. Ganong noted that it was shelved after the 9/11 and they wanted to make sure the air industry was going to get back on its feet again. Commissioner Prouty noted that the airport was granted easements and felt that the avigation easements being requested did not require the airport to provide insulation for the new homes. He also noted that the airplanes are supposed to make a right turn before they get to the freeway but understood that the turn is not being made fast enough. Mr. Ganong noted that this is the case and if the shoreline runway is used the turn should be at the airport or at US 101. He noted that the airport is asking that the developer build the new project with the best standards possible. Commissioner Prouty questioned if the airport was seeking an easement and the disclosure. Mr. Ganong noted that they would like both and the easements are a tool to make sure that the disclosure gets through. Kamala Silva-Wolfe noted that the project is much better than before. She was still concerned with the traffic and the impact it would have on existing neighborhoods. She felt that Sister Cities Boulevard was going to be a hallway for traffic on Lawndale Drive. She also questioned if there was a projection on how much traffic would be generated into the Sunshine Gardens area. She questioned if the project would be in operation 24 hours a day. Consultant Planner Knapp noted that the uses will close at 12 or 1 a.m. Ms. Silva-Wolfe asked if the traffic and noise impacts on the neighborhood have been studied. Consultant Planner Knapp noted that the SEIR addresses 15 different intersections. Commissioner Prouty steDDed down at 8:32 D.m. Russelino Paulibari, 941 Hemlock, was excited about the commercial aspect of the project because there would be an area to shop. Dorothy Robbins, Terrabay Village resident, spoke in opposition. She felt the current Mandalay tower was unpleasing to the eyes. She added that the new high-rises did not relate very well to the development and felt that the middle tower was the worst of the two. She added that the moving theatre with its bright lights would affect the residents of the neighboring homes. She also noted her appreciation for a grocery store in the area. Commissioner Honan asked what Ms. Robbins preferred instead of the highrise units. Ms. Robbins noted that lofts and lower rise towers would be more preferable. Public Hearing closed. Commissioner Romero questioned why the 32 below market rate (BMR) units were negotiated out of the contract. Chairperson Teglia noted that the Planning Subcommittee did not have part in those discussions. Chief Planner Sparks noted that this was done at the City Council Subcommittee. The 32 BMR units were tied to Phase III and the development of the towers. Commissioner Romero noted that the Commission expressed the desire to have these built concurrently with Phase II. Commissioner Romero asked that the Commission be provided with documentation that shows how the 32 BMR units were changed to be built with Phase III. He noted that this was a good project and was excited about it. He also pointed out that the DA needs to be specific in determining what types of lifestyle retail the City wants to s:\ML""vttes\1.2-0:l-05 "R.'PC ML""vttes.vioc -111- 'Page 3 of b 'P~ge -4- of Ib -112- .s:\ML>1,utes\:l::2-0:l.-0S R.PC Mi.vI.utes.oloc Vice Chairperson Zemke noted there is a lot of office space in east of 101. He added that residential is a benefit Commissioner Sim asked if Myers Development had identified what types of vendors would be in the lifestyle retail center. He questioned if they would be a high end retail or lower retail vendors. Mr. Myers noted that they are looking at 60-70 shops and are not looking at power centers but a variety of smaller stores. Commissioner Honan felt that the center tower did not blend in with the project. Commissioner Honan asked what the status on the hotel was. Mr. Myers noted that the economics for a hotel is very difficult. He added that the hotel is a concept and part of the entitlement that they are seeking. City management feels that there is too much residential and are still working on the hotel. Commissioner Honan stated that she is not supportive of the office building. Mr. Myers noted that although he is a residential developer and prefers residential rather than office, some businesses in the East of 101 have shown interest in the office tower on this site. Commissioner Honan noted that if office an office tower is built with this proposal the City will lose the uniqueness of having all the office building in the east of 101 corridors. Mr. Myers added that office employees will make the commercial area lively during the day and the residents will make it lively during the night. Commissioner Romero felt that there was a superior design with the Phase II original approval. He noted that he was disappointed when the design was changed and would have flowed better with the current proposed project. He reaffirmed that it was important to the Commission and the Council that the'project reflect some of the quality that was in the original Phase II project. Chairperson Teglia felt that the center tower looks like the tallest point. He felt that the view corridors are very important. Mr. Myers noted that there is justifiable sensitivity to the highrises due to the negative comments and feedback to the Peninsula Mandalay building. He noted that they are working to mitigate the architectural issues that have come up with the building. He added that the Precise Plan will be a full and complete packet showing the details the Commission needs to have a successful project. Chairperson Teglia noted that the Commission is concerned with the way the center tower sticks out and does not flow well with the project. He noted that the current approval was an articulated building that blended in with the mountain with a high and low rise component that stepped back into the canyon. He pointed out that the point buffers the residential site from this project. He asked if the applicant has looked at the possibility of making a smaller project. He asked if the point could be left and the street could be turned towards the valley to try to make the project fit with the topography of the mountain. He also suggested moving the towers closer to one another. Mr. Garden noted that there have been numerous alternatives and they have put forth great effort to try to balance the project. He added that they don't want to end up with dead spots but also have taken into consideration the turnaround conditions and other conditions from the City. Mr. Garden pointed out that they have placed the Piazza to take advantage of the valley and it could direct them into the trails. He stated that at the request of the Commission and Council subcommittees the setbacks have been pushed from 75 feet to 120 feet. He felt the center tower reinforces the balance of the streets. He noted that moving the center tower would disassociate it from parking. Mr. Garden stated that both towers were in the rear and have since been pulled forward. Commissioner Sim added that the architect can use the wind as a creative feature. Some of the East of 101 projects have incorporated some creativeness with windbreakers in creating inside and outside relationships. Commissioner Sim and Mr. Garden discussed the detail of the highrise. Mr. Garden noted that the lighting facing US 101 will be brighter than those that are near the residential areas. Commissioner Sim suggested that the retail could be broken a bit to make it flow. Commissioner Honan questioned if they explored lowering the height of the towers. Mr. Garden noted that they did remove several floors already and made up for that loss with the loft configuration. see in the project. He noted that this needs to be controlled by some type of process. He felt that the office tower will leave a hole in the project when everyone goes home at night and may become a ghost town. He felt that the project should be a hotel or residential but not office. Planning Commission Meeting of December 1, 2005 Planning Commission Meeting of December 1, 2005 for the site rather than an office building. Vice Chairperson Zemke asked that Traffic Consultant Mark Crane explain where the traffic congestion is due to this project. Mr. Crane noted that the congestion would be on the Oyster Point Boulevard overpass and the Dubuque and Bayshore/Sister Cities intersections. There will be extended delay at these intersections. He added that in front of the site things will improve considerably and further west on Sister Cities Boulevard traffic will flow along there. He added that within the interchange during the evening commute hour there will be extended congestion. Vice Chairperson Zemke asked if there was a difference in the congestion if there is an office or a residential building at the site. Mr. Crane noted that the development produces less traffic during the morning commute than the office building does and this is because with the office building there is flow in and out in the morning and at the end of the workday. He added that in the morning the commercial and the movie theatre are not causing traffic. He pointed out that the evening commute will cause traffic but not to and from the freeway but the biggest traffic generator in the evening will be the commercial facilities to and from the Sister Cities Boulevard and Brisbane. Vice Chairperson Zemke asked if the SEIR took into consideration the Home Depot and Lowes proposed projects. Mr. Crane stated that the SEIR assumed full development of both stores. Chairperson Teglia noted that the corner parcel was commercial and not residential but the preferred use was hotel. He was concerned with the different possible alternatives. He pointed out that this is a perfect location from the airport. He questioned how long the Development Agreement should last and if the Commission should wait until the best use for the site comes around. He felt that the Point should continue to be a buffer and was concerned with the promises that have not been fulfilled. He pointed out that the 32 BMR units should be kept and the first highrise was approved to eliminate building homes on the Point. He questioned if there was an alternative for the center tower and for the largeness of the project. He added that the low income housing should be 100% on site unless an offsite location is already built. Chairperson Teglia noted his appreciation for the airports concern with the project and also felt that they should be understanding in terms of the City's needs for housing. He felt that the City has done a fine job with noticing the project and felt that the Citywould continue to do so in demanding that the project be correctly sound proofed according the building codes. He pOinted out that the City may not want to grant the avigation easements being requested by the airport and he would not support these. Chief Planner Sparks noted that the Commission will be continuing the Public Hearing to December 15, 2005. He added that the City has been through the process with ALUC and have been careful about noise and under state law all residences have been insulated to provide a 45 DBA interior level. He added the background noise is substantially more than the airport. Consultant Planner Knapp added that the Notice of Preparation was sent out and the Airport and C/CAG responded and stated that the acoustical FAA requirements be met and the C/CAG stated that the project did not have to comply with FAA requirements because the project was not in the 65DBA CNEL. She stated that the FSEIR still noted that the proposed project would be adding real estate disclosure through the DCC&Rs and through the selling projects of any residential units. Motion Romero I Second Zemke to continue the Public Hearing to December 15, 2005. Approved by unanimous voice vote. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS ITEMS FROM STAFF None Chief Planner Sparks reported a second Associate Planner has been hired. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION Commissioner Romero asked when the Commission could get a report on the Fairfield project deficiencies. Chief Planner Sparks noted that staff is working on this report. s:\MLV\,"'-tes~-0i-05 "R.'PC M!.J..c",-tes.oloc -113- 'Page 5 of ~ "F'!lge 5 of l? -1.14- .s:\M~,^,Ktes\12-15-05R."F'C M~,^,Ktes.o!OC Chairperson Teglia noted that Mr. Mohr suggested in a letter mailed to the City that the City try to secure additional funding to further increase the level of subsidy and that there be some sensitivity to the mountain. He asked if there were some suggestions that Mr. Mohr could give to the Commission. Mr. Mohr noted that those were suggestions from an architect in their endorsement committee and did not know of other suggestions behind the thought. Chris Mohr, Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County, endorsed the Mandalay Terraces project. He felt that this was a quality development. He noted that the project has increased and encouraged the Commission to continue in working on the design. Kamala Silva-Wolfe noted that her questions were not address adequately in the Final EIR. She noted that the traffic and noise are still going to disrupt the neighborhoods in addition to the freeway noise that already exists. She pointed out that the neighborhoods surrounding the project are going to become shortcuts and will increase the traffic along those residential streets. Jack Myers, Myers Development presented the project. Consultant Planner Knapp presented the staff report. Project Description: Construction of a mixed-use development on 21 acres of land at the corner of Sister Cities Boulevard and Bayshore Boulevard in South San Francisco. The proposal includes 351 residential units in high-rise (180 units), townhome ar)d loft configuration, a 295,000 sq. ft. office I or 300 room hotel! or an optional180 unit condominium and 357,500 sq. ft. retail. The 25.61 Preservation Parcel is north of the project site and was conveyed to San Mateo County on August 11, 2004. The Preservation Parcel is included in San Bruno Mountain County Park and is designated as permanent open space. The Preservation Parcel is not a part of the project. (Public Hearing Continued from December 1, 2005) 10. Terrabay Phase III Terraces Myers Development - Applicant J Owner San Bruno Mountain P04-0117: DAA04-0001, EIR04-0002, GPA04-0001, PP04-0001, SPA04-0001, ZA04-0004 Consensus of the Commission to continue the Public Hearina to January 19, 2006. Commissioner Romero and Commissioner Sim were concerned with the parking structure being spread out and it was not integrated to the rest of the building. Commissioner Romero felt that more landscaping could be included into the project. Mr. Malcolmson noted that the DRB felt that the parking structure would minimize views from the adjacent industrial buildings. They removed one and a half floors from the parking garage and increased the surface parking. Commissioner Prouty noted that the building looks flat and would like to see more articulation on the building to reduce the boxy looks. The Commission stepped down to look at the project model. After a discussion on the landscaping, elevations, grade changes and wind coverage the Commission returned to the dias. Rob Kain, Randall Dowler, Niall Malcolmson and Rich Shark presented their project. They had a model available for the Commission to look at. They went into detail on the parking structure, landscaping, elevations and the materials that will be used. Principal Planner Kalkin presented the staff report. Public Hearing opened. Planning Commission Meeting of December 15, 2006 Planning Commission Meeting of December 15, 2006 Public Hearing closed. Chairperson Teglia noted that there is a 20% inclusionary housing requirement in Phase III and an existing 32 unit, 10% requirement from the original development. He felt that the offsite provision gives the Commission little leverage for building the inclusionary housing units. He suggested that the 20% and the 32 units of the original development be required to be constructed on site unless a one fOr one offsite alternative is available to convert the onsite units to market rate. Commissioner Romero noted that the negotiation of not building the 32 units is an unresolved issue and noted that he did not see the information requested in how the 32 units were negotiated out of the Development agreement. Chief Planner Sparks noted that staff will provide this information. Consultant Planner Knapp added that when the City negotiated the Development Agreement the 32 units were triggered to the office tower. With the dot.com market dying a request for clarification was brou9ht to the City asking when the 32 BMR units were required to be constructed. At this time a resolution was prepared by the City Attorney's office that tied the 32 units to Phase III. Commissioner Romero asked at what point in the construction process the 32 units would be triggered. Mr. Myers noted that the 32 units must be initiating construction before the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the Phase III office building. Commissioner Prouty asked what the total BMR unit count would be if the second Phase III tower was not an office but residential. Consultant Planner Knapp noted that a total of 71 BMR units would be required. Commissioner Romero noted that he was uncomfortable with approving an office tower and prefers to see a hotel and housing. He suggested that the Commission recommend that the city Council require first a hotel, then residential and office only if the other two cannot be built. Chairperson Teglia added that San Bruno Mountain was zoned for commercial. He noted that if the second tower was residential the commercial aspect of this project would bE! a ghost town. With office the commercial portion would have the employees using the commercial establishments and in the evening the residents would go there. He suggested that the Commission designate the second tower for hotel use. Commissioner Sim noted that the City has to project a good image and felt that the visual corridors give privacy to the residential areas and the office tower is projected out of the way. He pointed out that the office tower is better placed is more sensitive to the mountain and the project overall. He added that he would prefer to see hotel and office rather than residential. He felt that the two towers give the area different sculptures. Commissioner Prouty noted that he could support office or hotel but not residential. He felt that the inclusionary housing units should be part of the approval. He added that he wants to see a successful project. Chairperson Teglia noted that the residential tower needs to be tucked back into the mountain. He noted that the tower can be removed from the center and set it to the side a bit. He asked Consultant Planner Knapp if the Commission could modify locations at the Precise Plan stage. Consultant Planner Knapp noted that the Commission can do this by modifying the Specific Plan at that time. She added that the site is constrained and if one building is moved, the rest will have to move also. Commissioner Sim noted that the residential tower has a structural grid and parking underneath it that the architect is aware of. He noted that the tower could be rotated rather than moving it. Consultant Planner Knapp added that this could be done but in order to approve the Precise Plan the Commission has to find that it conforms to the Specific Plan. She added that a change like this will require a modification to the Specific Plan. When this is done there are changes to the infrastructure and grading of the sight as well as the economics of the project. The RTKL Architect noted that moving major parts is very difficult because it affects the development in terms of timing and it sends the project backwards. He added that determining texture, skin, colors and things of that nature will be undertaken in the Precise Plan process. He pointed out that the retaining walls and the parking are the biggest factors and if these need to be moved it will get more expensive due to grading. s:\MLIA.",tes\:1.:2-1.5-05 RPC MLIA.",tes.oIoc -11:;- PClge Ib of !? p~ge7 of l? -116- S:\MLlI\.utes\:l.2-1.5-05R.PC MLlI\.l,.{tes.oloc ITEMS FROM STAFF Chief Planner Sparks added that the Council has setup a subcommittee on Fairfield and have committed to making some changes. ConsensLls of the Commission tD cancel the Januaa. 5, 2006 meetina, Chief Planner Sparks suggested that the Commission cancE~1 the meeting of January 5, 2006. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS Chairperson Teglia noted that he felt uncomfortable with writing a blank check and was concerned that the original promises have not been fulfilled. Approved by majority roll call vote. Roll Call Vote: Ayes: Commissioner Giusti, Commissioner Honan, Commissioner Prouty, Commissioner Romero, Commissioner Sim, Vice Chairperson Zemke Chairperson Teglia None None Noes: Abstain: Absent: Commissioner Romero felt that if the marketing program was extended beyond 22 months the project would not be constructed. Amended Motion Prouty to give the applicant 3 years to do the marketing program. The motion died due to lack .of a second. On the Question Consultant Planner Knapp noted that the Commission is recommending the 32 BMR units will remain as required with previous approval; the 20% required inclusionary housing for the current project proposal; and recommending approval of the hotel first, office second and residential tower third. Motion Romero I Second Sim to approve resolutions 2648-2005 and 2649-2005 recommending that the City Council approve P04-0117, EIR04-0002, GPA04-0001, SPA04-0001 and ZA04-0004. The Planning Commission also recommended that the 32 BMR units still be required of the applicant, that the northernmost tower be a hotel and that the tower be redesigned. Commissioner Romero noted that he prefers hotel and the option for office as a secondary recommendation, and a second residential tower as a third option. Commissioner Giusti questioned if the retail stores were going to be high quality stores. Mr. Myers noted that the staff report defined lifestyle retail and set the standard that the City wants. He added that City management wants high-quality retail uses in the development. Consultant Planner Knapp added that the Development Agreement will have a definition for lifestyle retail and examples of those. Commissioner Honan noted that she was concerned with the middle residential tower. She thanked Myers Development for bringing a project that would allow for residents to shop in South San Francisco because it is much needed. She pointed out that the office building will work during the day and helps the commercial businesses being established. Vice Chairperson Zemke noted that he leans toward residential and office towers. E added that this project will draw people from all areas including the East of 101 areas. Planning Commission Meeting of December 15, 2006 11.17.2005 E MYERS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY www.myersdevelopment.com MYERS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY www.myersdevelopment.com E E 11.17.2005 SCHEME I-B. BAYSHORE BLVD. ELEVATION W/RESIDENTIAL TOWER & OFFICE E E MYERS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY www.myersdevelopment.com E ON BAYSHORE BLVD. 11.17.2005 tlf>,'iS\10RE tlL'iO. o MYERS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY www.myersdevelopment.com SI p 11.17.2005 US \-I\GI-W'JP.'< \0\ MYERS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY www.myersdevelopment.com N R E L 11.17.2005 ~ ~ % 0>& ?'tq 1'~~EJIf MYERS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY www.myersdevelapment.cam B"'iSrlORE. BlVO. US rI\GrI'N"'i jQj SAN BRUNO MOUNTAIN c L 11.17.2005 '%> ~ ~ U'<\l ?'~ B"''iS\iORr. BL\lO. US \i\G\iIN"''i ~O~ MYERS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY www.myersdevelopment.com R E L CE L 11.17.2005 'I B I C I D I E I G I H I ~ W Z 1- ~ () ~ ~ 0 U ~ f--! Z W j;.IJ ~ ~ >- 0 ~ j;.IJ INDEX ......J ~ >- j;.IJ 6 Q E-< Cf) ARCHITECTURAL Cl~ ~ .... j;.IJ Z9 ~ SHEET NO. TITLE <(~ A 00.00 DRAWING INDEX ~~ (fl A 30.01 ROOF PLAN 4- A 30.02a PENTHOUSE MEZZANINE PLAN Owner A 30.02b PENTHOUSE PLAN Myers Development Company 101 Second Street, Suite 555 A 30.03 7TH LEVEL PLAN -182' San Franciscn. CA 94105 TEL415 777 3330 A 30.04 6TH LEVEL PLAN -172' FAX 415 777 3331 www.mycrsdevclopmentcom A 30.05 5TH LEVEL PLAN -162' A 30.06 4TH LEVEL PLAN -152' A 30.07 3RD LEVEL PLAN -142' A 30.08 2ND LEVEL PLAN -132' 5- A 30.09 TERRACE LEVEL PLAN -114' A 30.10 COURT LEVEL PLAN -96' A 30.11 P1 LEVEL PLAN -86' A30.12 P2 LEVEL PLAN -76' A30.13 P3 LEVEL PLAN -66' A 30.14 P4 LEVEL PLAN -56' A 30.15 P5 LEVEL PLAN -45' 6- A 31.01 OVERALL ELEVATION A 31.02 OVERALL ELEVATION A 32.01 OVERALL SECTIONS A 32.02 OVERALL SECTIONS A 33.09 PERFORMING ARTS CENTER 7- RTKL Associates Inc. 333 South Hope Street Los Angeles, CA 90071 A 34.03 ELEVATION BLDG. C TEL 213 627 7373 FAX 213627 9815 www.rtkI.com A 34.04 ELEVATION BLDG. D RTKL Asso<:inted Inc. 2005 A 34.07 ELEVATION BLDG. G Drown Checked Approved 8- DRAWING INDEX () <( I-- >- <(~ .....J~ ~ <.IJ o~ z; <.IJ ~~ [Ij u CJ) ~ ~ ~ u ~ Z PJ ~ ~ o ~ PJ >- PJ Q Cf) ~ PJ ~ Development Company Myers e~ Suite 555 10 1 Seeon~i;:' CA 94105 San~~415 777 3330 FAX 415 777 3331 www.myersdevelopment.com -- Irl'I{I~ RTKL Associates Inc. 333 South H6~ ~~t1 Los A~~~1:627 7373 rJ:x 2]36279815 www.rtkl.eom RTKL Associated Inc. 2005 7-. Drawn Cheeked Approved Q?) ROOF PLAN 7- &) ~ w z < () ~ ::E 0 u 0::: E--4 Z !:.IJ I-- ::E ~ >- 0 ......J <( !:.IJ > .....J P::: !:.IJ ~ <( 5 Q ~ Cf) 0 ~ u ~ ~ .... !:.IJ Z 0 ~ <( 5: ~ ::B . ~ a Cll 4 Owner Myers Development Company 101 Second Street, Suite 555 SWl Fmneiseo, CA 94105 TEL 415777 3330 FAX 415 777 333] www.myersdevelopmcnt.com RTKL Associates Inc. 333 South Hope Street Los Angeles, CA 90071 TEL 213 627 7373 FAX 2]362798]5 www.rtkl.com RlXL Associated Inc. 2005 Drawn Checked Approved PENTHOUSE MEZZANINE LEVEL PLAN Contract Nn. Issue Dntc Last Revision 40-04008.00 11.17.2005 A 30.02a () <( ~ ~ W I-- >- <( ...J e1 <(~ Cl~ Z9 <(5: ~~ Cf) ~ Z ~ O-l ~ o u ~ Z ~ ~ O-l o t---J ~ >- ~ a CJ) ~ ~ ~ ~ 4 Owner Myers Development Company 101 Second Street, Suite 555 San Francisco, CA 94105 TEL 4157773330 FAX 415 777 3331 www.myersdevelopmeot.com 6f.>-,<S\-\ORE. 6L\}O. 7-. 8- &5 ...J RTKL Associates Inc 333 South Hope Street . Los Angeles, CA 90071 TEL 213 627 7373 FAX 2136279815 www.nk1.com RTKL Associated Inc. 2005 Dmwn Checked Approved PENTHOUSE LEVEL PLAN Contract No. Issue Date Last Revision 40-04008.00 11.17.2005 A 30.02b () ~ 0::: w -3 >- <:( .....J ffi <:(~ O~ 29 <:(~ ~~ UJ ~ Z ~ ~ U t-I Z j:.IJ ~ 0-; o ~ j:.IJ >- j:.IJ Q Cf) ~ j:.IJ ~ ~ 4 Owner Myers Development C 101 Second ompany San Franci~:'''21~~ g~5 TEL 415777 3330 FAX 415 777 3331 www.myersdevelopmcnt.com Key Plan 6- ~ s/>.'(SrlORt. SL'/O. 7- ~o~ 8- Ri~.!~!~ outh Hope S . Lo~~~elcs, CA 9=1 FAX 2\~ ~;~ ~~i; www.nkJ.com RTKL Associated loco 2005 Or;;;;;- Checked Approved 7TH LEVEL PLAN Q?j () ~ CY: I- >- .......J ~ <(~ ~ O~ tt z~ <(~ ~5 CIl ~ < ~ ~ U f-l Z PJ ~ ~ o r-J PJ > PJ o ~ PJ ~ 4 Owner Development Company Myers S 'le 555 101 SecondStrc"2A ~4105 San Franclsc~77 3330 r.~~\; 777 3331 www.myersdevelnpment.com 7- ~1':'f~O~ US \iIGH Drawn Checked Approved Q?j w ~ I-- >- .....J e3 <(~ u fi: .... z~ <(~ ~5 Cfl ~ ~ 0.... ~ o u [-l Z ~ ~ 0.... o .....J ~ >- ~ Q CJJ ~ ~ ~ Development Company Myers Suite 555 101 Second ,S~A 94105 S~~:;~c~77 3330 FAX 415 777 3331 www.myersdcvelopmcnt.com Ifl'I{I.J RTKL AssocIa~e~c. 333 Snuth Hnt190071 Los A~~~lf627 7373 ~X2136279815 www.nkl.com RTKL Associau:d I"". 2005 7- us \,\\G\'\IJ'Ip..,< Drawn Checked Approved 5TH LEVEL PLAN &5 G I W ~ ~ ~ ;:s 0 u ~ 0::: z W I:IJ ;:s I- ~ 0 ~ ~ I:IJ >- .....J~ I:IJ Q <(~ C/) oi ~ I:IJ Z9 ~ 5: ~ 7- rI'l'Jli.'( ~Q~ \.lSrl\G &) ~ ~5 CJ) 4 Owner Development Company Myers et Suite 555 IOJ Second ,Sire CA 94105 SWl Franelseo?7 3330 ~~::~ ~77 3331 www.myersdevelcpmcnt.com Ifl'I{lj RTKL ASSOCIa~~C, 333 South H't190071 Los Angeles, 7373 ~~ ;:~ ~g 9815 www.rtk1.com Associat.cd Jnc. 2005 RTKL Drawn Checked Approved 4TH LEVEL PLAN ~ 0::: I-- >- .....J ~ <(~ O~ Z9 <(~ ~;:;E ~ u CIl ~ ~ U ~ Z PJ ~ o ~ PJ > PJ a ~ PJ ~ 4 Owner Myers Development C 101 Second S ompany San Frnnc' tree!, Suite 555 iEL 4;~c~7i~3~6105 AX 415777 3331 www.myersdevclopment.com Key Plan 6- 7- Drawn Cheeked Approved Q?5 () ~ ~ I- ~ -I fi3 <(~ O~ !t ZC? <(~ ~~ ~5 U) ~ PS ~ o u ~ Z l:.I.J ~ ~ o ~ l:.I.J >- l:.I.J Q CJ) ~ l:.I.J ~ ~ 4 0,,:: Development Company My S'le555 IOd~e;:~i;:.e2A ~4J05 TEL 4 J 5 777 3330 FAX 415 777 3331 www.mycrsdevclopment.com 6- 7- us \-\\G\-\\f'Ji\'I' 101 Ifl'I{I..J RTKL Associates Inc, 333 South HOp~ ~'f:!1 LO~~~~1~6~ 7373 FAX 213 627 98J5 www.nkl.com RTKL Associated lnc. 2005 Drawo Checked Approved 2ND LEVEL PLAN +132'-0" Q?) LIFESTYLE ANCHOR #3 AREA: 11,400 SF ~ MANDAlAY COURT BELOW ~f ---- .r~ 6- 7- PROJECT - SUMMARY PARKING GARAGE LEVEL 112' AREA (SF) SUSPENDED PLAZA & COMMON AREA 4,270 SF SERVICEIB,O,H, 14,250 SF SPECIALTY RETAIL 48,066 SF CINEMA 48,550 SF RESTAURANT 38,070 SF LIFESTYLE ANCHOR 63,275 SF TOTAL GROSS MEA 250,505 SF US \iIG\i'JIJp..,< ~Q~ &) I A ~ W z < () ~ <( ~ 0 ll:: u ll:: ~ z j:.lJ I-- ~ ~ >- 0 t--J <( j:.lJ > -I~ j:.lJ <(~ Q r:J) O~ ~ J;J;., j:.lJ Z9 ~ ~ ~~ CJ'l 4 Owner Myers Development Company 101 Seeond Street, Suite 555 SIlO Franciseo, CA 94105 TEL 415777 3330 FAX 415 777 3331 www.myersdevclopmcnt.com RTKL Associates Inc, 333 South Hope Street Los Angeles, CA 90071 TEL 213 627 7373 FAX 213 627 9815 www.rtkJ.com RTKL Associated Inc. 2005 Drown Cheeked Approved TERRACE LEVEL PLAN +112'-0" 6- 7- PROJECT - SUMMARY PARKING GARAGE LEVEL 92' I AREA (SF) RETAIL PARKING 38,024 SF SUSPENDED PLAZA & COMMON AREA 2B,933 SF SERVICE 11,910SF SPECIALlY RET AlL 21,310 SF MARKET PLACE 45,355 SF KIOSK BOO SF L1FESlYLE ANCHOR 45,530 SF CHILDREN'S PLAY 1,000 SF EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER 1,000 SF TOTAL GROSS AREA 193,862 SF 8- ~ I A ~ W z () ~ ~ ~ a:: ~ w ~ I-- ~ >- 0 <( tIl I ~ >- ...........;s: p;J o Q f-< O~ ~ Z~ ~ <(~ ~ ~~. Cfl 4 Owner Myers Development Company 101 Second Strce~ Suite 555 San Frondseo, CA 94105 TEL 4157773330 FAX 415777 3331 www.myersdeveloprnent.com Key Plan Ifl'I{I..A RTKL Associates Inc. 333 South Hope Street Los Angeles, CA 90071 TEL 213 627 7373 FAX 2136279815 www.rtkl.eom RTXL Associared Inc. 2005 Drown Checked Approved COURT LEVEL PLAN +92'-0" w () <( 0:: 0:: w I-- >- ....J fa ~ o~ z~ <(~ ~~ en ~ ~ ~ 8 u ~ Z I:IJ ~ o ~ I:IJ >- I:IJ a en ~ I:IJ ~ ~ 4 Owner Myers Development C ompany 101 Secood Street, Suite 555 San FrancISCO, CA 94105 TEL 415 777 3330 FAX 415777 3331 www.rnyersdcvclopmcnt.com 6- \3f>,'(S\-lORE. \3L\}O, 7- 8- Irl'I{I~ RTKL Associates Inc 333 South Hope Slrcct . Los Angeles, CA 90071 TEL 213 627 7373 FAX 213 627 9815 www.rtkI.com RTKL AssociaU:d Inc. 2005 0;:;;;;;- Checked Approved PI LEVEL PLAN +82'-0" Q?5 I A 6- 7- PROJECT - SUMMARY PARKING GARAGE LEVEL 72' AREA (SF) PARKING DECK L1FESffiE ANCHOR #5 205,370 SF 13,742 SF TOTAL GROSS AREA 219,112 SF J>8~Q~ US \,\\G\'\W Q9 I A w () <( ~ Z < ~ ;E o u ~ Z PJ ;E ~ o t--J PJ > PJ a en ~ PJ ~ cr= W I-- >- <( ......J ~ <(~ ~ O~ ~ o , 5: ~ ~ u C/) Owner Myers Development Company 101 Second Street, Suite 555 San Francisco, CA 94105 TEL 415 777 3330 FAX 415 777 3331 www.myersdevelopment.com Key Plan -6 RTKL Associates Inc. 333 Snuth Hope Street Los Angeles, CA 90071 TEL 213 6277373 FAX 213 627 9815 www.nkI.com RlXL Associau:d lm:. 2005 Drown Checked Approved P2 LEVEL PLAN +72'-0" Contract No. 40-04008.00 Issue Date 11.17.2005 Last Revision A 1() 1? w () <( Cl:: Cl:: I- >- <( ....J ~ <(~ O~ .... Z9 <(~ ~~ U) ~ < ~ ~ o u ~ Z !:IJ ~ ~ o t-J !:IJ :>- !:IJ a C/) ~ !:IJ ~ ~ Owner Myers Development Company 101 Second Street, Suite 555 San Francisco, CA 94105 TEL 4157773330 FAX 415 777 3331 www.myersdevelopment.com 6- --- SroO''''' Key Plan B/>.'1S\-lORE. BL\}O. IrI1I{I~ 7- us \-IIG\-I'N/>-''1 ,Q' RTKL Associates Inc. 333 Snuth Hope Street Los Angeles, CA 90071 TEL 213 627 7373 FAX 213 627 9815 WWW.nkJ.com RTKL Associated Inc. 2005 Drawn Checked Approved P3 LEVEL PLAN +62'-0" ~ 6- BJI.'{SI-IORC BL\}D. 7- PROJECT - SUMMARY PARKING GARAGE LEVEL 52' AREA (SF) PARKING DECK 139,820 SF TOTAL GROSS AREA 139,820 SF I A Q?3 ~ UJ z -< () 0... <( ::E 0 c::: u c::: ~ z UJ I:.LI I- ::E 0... >- 0 to--:! I:.LI ......J e5 >- I:.LI <(~ a C/) O~ ~ ~ I:.LI 29 ~ ~ ::E ~~ 5 C/l Owner Myers Development Company 101 Secood Street, Suite 555 SWl Francisco, CA 94105 TEL 4157773330 FAX 415 777 3331 www.myersdevelopmcnt.com Irl'I{I..d RTKL Associates Inc. 333 South Hope Street Los Angeles, CA 90071 TEL 213 627 7373 FAX 213 627 9815 www.rtkl.com RTKL As.sociattd Ine. 2005 Drawn Checked Approved P4 LEVEL PLAN +52'-0" 6- Sf>.'(S\,\ORE. SL\lD. 7- PROJECT - SUMMARY PARKING GARAGE LEVEL 42' AREA (SF) PARKING DECK SERVICE 63,865 SF 14,615 SF TOTAL GROSS AREA 7B.4BO SF :,nQ~ US \,\\G\'\W;'; UJ ~ UJ >- <( ........J f& <(~ O~ .... Z~ <(1:0 ,..!.. '-Ll ~~ {/) ~ Z ~ ::s o u E---i Z j:.I.J ::s ~ o ~ j:.I.J > j:.I.J a ~ j:.I.J ~ ::s Owner Myers Development Company 101 Second Street, Suile 555 San Francisco, CA 94105 TEL 415 777 3330 FAX 415 777 3331 www.rnyersdcvclopmcnt.com RTKL Associates Inc. 333 South Hope Street Los Angeles, CA 90071 TEL 213 627 7373 FAX 2136279815 www.rtkJ.com RTKL Associat<d Inc. 2005 Drawn Checked Approved P5 LEVEL PLAN +42'-0" ~ , A 'I C I D I G I H I 1- ~ () ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 U ~ Z 2- W ~ ~ >- 0 ,.....J <t: w :>- ........J f& w <t:~ a CJJ 3- Cl~ ~ ~ w zc; ~ <t:~ ~ ~~ ~ u CI) 4- 4 Owner Myers Development Company 101 Second Street, Suite 555 San Francisco, CA 94105 TEL415 777 3330 FAX 415 777 3331 www.mycrsdevclopment.com 5- F5 OVERALL ELEVATION @ MANDALA Y TERRACE SCAlE: 113T"t'.Q' 6- RTKL Associates Inc. 333 South Hope Street Los Angeles, CA 90071 TEL 213 627 7373 FAX 213 627 9815 WWW.rtkI.com 7- RTKL Associated Inc. 2005 Drawn Checked 8- Approved F8 OVERALL ELEVATION @MANDALAYTERRACE SCAlE: tf32'ol'-ll' OVERALL ELEV AnON MANDALA Y TERRACE y D I H J G I I- . . . -. :. ; I' J , I ~:c ~ . , I . 2- 3- 4- 5- 6- 7- 8- wi ~j ~, ;!I i [ ~r:TTTT' [I I I c ~r:trl ~ Tl 1::: F --J g~T I I I I . I ~rl!1 :51 I mRRF E _\~t= :=::c__.cc_. ../ "'_~c__c-. I J-_.___c--.. -=:'-.oc._c__._.y _________ccc_~--..\ I __c_- __~ ___,c- b--c::>-:-- -"--~ " '.IIII~~~ "" ->c/ \ "-~:.:l..---:::>~c==::t=- 'I :-=--;~: -"':-:;-:- 1,,-,~::=:';:~-S:==::b2\ -~~ I~~:~-:O=~=-; ~;::::~\::;::~b::?t--<:::; :h~ I~~~ ~.J.! -G=~~<=:f--t-,:J::I I::::' -~ -'- .---c..cc-_./="'_-<:=j~~-:=:=,..-::--::\=-:cr::::.-c-::=l] --, ~;I . =rmi ...cc.... HH~i~ ~ I,' I--li-- I I --c:c:~:_:: => -~~--:::: I JJ... --~ :::----, F5 OVERALLELEVATlON @BAYSHOREBLYD, SCALE, '1J2':1'.ij' F5 OVERALL ELEV ATlON @ BA YSHORE BL YD. SCALE: 11J2':"-o' J A w () <( I-- <( ....J ~ <(~ O~ .... 29 ~ ~ ;:;E ~ ::c u CJ) ~ ~ O-l :E o u ~ Z I:Ll :E O-l o t--J I:Ll >- I:Ll Q CJ) ~ I:Ll ~ :E Owner Myers Development Company 10 1 Second Street, Suite 555 San Francisco. CA 94105 TEL415 777 3330 FAX 415 777 3331 www.mycrsdeveloprncnt.com RTKL Associates Inc. 333 South Hope Street Los Angeles, CA 90071 TEL 2136277373 FAX2136279815 WWW.rtkJ.com RlXL Associated Inc. 2005 Drawn Checked Approved OVERALL ELEVATION BAYSHORE BLVD. I' D I G I 2- EL +30'-0. ElEVAmR SIWT- 16 15 14 13 12 3- 10 EL..+Ja7'c6. /Ii flOOR 9 EL .+ 166'cO"/Ii flOOR 8 EL+J76'c1.'./Ii flOOR 7 EL..+166'c6: /Ii flOOR 6 5 '-0. flOOR 5 ~ ---EL:till~flOOR 4 9'-8" ~l\rflooR 3 ELHlo'cO'/Ii flOOR 2 RETAJNING WAll EL + 11 tcO" /Ii TERRACE lEVEL 4- 5- ROOF 0) 0) 6- ll.VEL 7- ElEVAmR + '-. COURT ll.VEL EL+62'cO"/Ii PI lEVEL _ EL.+72:cO:/Ii P2 ll.VEL '-" P3 ll.VEL EL+52'cO'/Ii P4 ll.VEL 8- I A ~ H I () ~ < P-; ~ o u ~ Z ~ ~ P-; o p...J ~ >- ~ a Cf) ~ ~ ~ ~ c::: c::: >- <( ....J ~ <(8 O~ J;I.. o I ~ ~~ Cfl Owner Myers Development Company 101 Second Street, Suite 555 San Francisco, CA 94105 TEL 4157773330 FAX 415777 3331 www.myersdevclopmcnt.com RTKL Associates Inc, 333 South Hope Streel Los Angeles, CA 90071 TEL 213 627 7373 FAX2136279815 www.rtkl.com RTKL Associated Inc. 2005 n;;;;;;- Checked Approved OVERALL SECTIONS Contract No, Issue Date Last Revision 4O-Q4008.00 11.17.2005 A 32.01 1- 2- 4- 6- 7- 8- I A RESTAURANT L I D I EL +202'-0"6< FLOOR 7 EL +lB9'-0".... FLOOR 6 EL +176'-0" ',FLOOR 5 EL + 163' -0' ~ FLOOR 4 EL +150'-0' ',FLOOR 3 EL + 137' -0. 6< FLOOR 2 EL RETAINING WAlL EXISllNG 5LOPE G I H I 8cp00 flATS SERVICE EL. +34B'-4" ~ La. ROOF El. +324'=B" ~ MEZZANINE lO'-B"~~4FLooR 21 9'-B' , +294'-4" r; .FLooR 20 . ~6rFLooR lB 5'-" FLOOR 17 UFESTYU: ANCHOR #1 (UPPER) UFESTYU: ANCHOR # 1 (LOWER) RETAINING WAlL I I I , , I, I ~ w () <( ~ ~ W I-- >- .....J f& <(~ O~ IJ;.; Z~ <(~ ~~ ~O Cfl ~ Z ~ P-l ~ o U E-i Z PJ ~ P-l o ~ PJ > PJ Q rJ) ~ PJ ~ ~ Owner Myers Development Company 101 Second Street, Suite 555 San Francisco, CA 94105 TEL 4157773330 FAX 415 777 3331 www.myersdevelopment.com LEVEL RTKL Associates Inc. 333 South Hope Street Los Angeles, CA 90071 TEL 213 627 7373 FAX2136279815 WWW.rtkl.com R1XL Associated Inc. 2005 Drawn Checked Approved OVERALL SECTIONS Contract Nn. Issue Date Last Revisinn 40-04008.00 11.17.2005 A 32.02 I' c I D I 1- 2- 3- 4- 5- MANDALA Y TERRACE SOUTH G I 6- 7- 120 SEATS 8- F8 RESrnQOM PERFORMING ARTS CENTER, +112'-0" LEVEL PLAN MAIN lOBBY 1 +144'-0'1 SCALE: 1116'"=1'-0' I A H I ~N <( 0::: I-- >- --I ffi <(8 O~ [;J;; Z9 ~ <(~ ~5 en Owner ~ z ~ ~ ::E o u ~ Z P:J ::E ~ o t-J P:J >- P:J o en ~ P:J ~ ::E Myers Development Company 101 Second Stn:<:l, Sui1e 555 San Francisco, CA 94105 TEL415 777 3330 FAX 415 777 3331 www.myersdcvclopment.com Irl'I{I.J RTKL Associates Inc. 333 South Hnpe Street Los Angeles, CA 90071 TEL 2136277373 FAX 213 6279815 www.rtkl.eom RTKL Associated Inc. 2005 Drown Checked Approved ENLARGED PLAN PERFORNING ARTS CENTER Contract No. 40.n4008.00 Issue Date 1 1.17.2005 Last Revision A 33.09 c I D I G I H I ~ W z - ~ ~ ~ et:: 0 u et:: t-; z W p:J 2- ~ ~ 0 ~ p:J ...J ~ >- p:J ~ Cl Cf) I- O~ ~ p;, p:J Z9 ~ <(~ ~ ~~ (J) 4- Owner Myers Development Company 10] Second Street, Suite 555 SlID Francisco. CA 94105 TEL 4157773330 FAX 415 777 3331 www.mycrsdcvclopmcnt.com If: ':1111 ~FF~ ~~~Fft~ ~ 1- ~ , 1<:1 il "'F7 "'r===:::J I//i~ I11I III1 = EJ 1 .............. ....~,.......,.._/r-F "'crt ~OJ = tI1~JU Ctt A I III -LL - ~ IIJ;oIOJ- : -OJ~TI o ~ :=~ _ ~~~;'~ ~~~]D_~ I ~tttIJ, II = ~ i ,cpI ~ CD ~ >- ;IJ ij tTI =Ri>-~ = = J::::::1i=:-J = f==- - --L ........... ffl u =- ....~.~~~.... . ......i........:~::.::::....~...i.iiiiiii; ~ ,[J i - -Ff~.. 1/ " II JUU ..... I I T '"" "'" m'.==I.1 ~ ~ '~'~ ~~m H9=l -LL r CJ OJ~ Jl l CJ OJ ffAT n b ....,...~..... [ :J I...... r CJ LO~ 1/ I I c-lL- II I I I I t:bbI j= Jl- r 'H ----? U-J LLW LlL - W TI rl ~=-- I .~ _ L......... I !:CJ LLW lIT OJ]I L i-..A a::J:::::j ~ ~ .. - I II'F" b c:f .",.,...... !-oF ..... . ...,. ~ LLL lJ_ I I I LI -I -~- I ~i: ~ I ,~, ~.--- ~ =.- "=::~ Itr .~ II ~R Jl:~.//; TIC~ 6_7r~ ~ I[I C;ill, I~ ~ 1 L~IED TI 18 ~ILL "'. JI I~ :=""'rr IT 1m /I ~ - ~ - . . --- I I ! I I r=r= I-- ! 1 =-=. - LJ - - - - -I ~ ~ '. rrmll~1I 7- F7 BLDG. C, EAST ELEV AnON - TOWNHOMES 1-' RTKL Associates Inc. 333 South Hope Strcct Los Angeles, CA 90071 TEL 213 627 7373 FAX2136279815 www.nkl.com SCALE: 1/16"::t'.c- RlXL Associated Inc. 2005 Drawn Checked 8- Approved ENLARGED ELEVATION BLDG. C Contract No. 4O'{)4008.00 Issue Date 11.17.2005 Last Revision I A l A 34.03 D I G I H I ~ W Z 1- < () P.... <:( ~ 0 n:: u n:: f--l Z I:.LJ 2- ~ P.... >- 0 J--J I:.LJ ......J ~ > I:.LJ <:(~ 0 W Cf) U ~ 3- ~ r.r.. I:.LJ Z9 ~ 5: ~ w ~~ .. Cf) 4- Owner Myers Development Company 101 Second Street, Suite 555 SIIfl Francisco. CA 94105 TEL 415777 3330 FAX 4157773331 www.mycrsdcvelopmenLcom 6- 5- 7- RTKL Associates Inc. 333 South Hope Street Los Angeles, CA 90071 TEL 2136277373 FAX 2136279815 www.rtkJ.com F8 SCALE: 111ll":1'-il' BLDG.D, SOUTHELEVATlON RTKL Asw<:intcd Inc. 2005 Drawn ~ 8- Approved ELEVATION BLDG. D I A I B T 1- 2- 3- ~ '"OU-, 0 '----------r---_ ,J ~--- ~<, I " I II j I I I 'I I ~J ~ I ~ ... ....... I j ~ = EL +304'-0' FLOOR 20 ~W -.L, ~ ~k- ~: -'k- EL +294'-4' FLOOR 19 I - _l_1 ~ ': FLOOR 18 t= r=o:=t:r ~ r-- I -j :Ii "' Ip;;;;;;: ..... ',,, EL +275'-0" FLOOR 17 1~ m ~ ~ 1= 1---:--, . 1= !- e EL +265'-4" FLOOR 16 1- i= - I-f-- = I~,' I~~ 1- ~: EL + 255' -8" FLOOR 15 ._~ I~!-- - L-L ~ I ~: EL +246'-0" 14 = - I I I I LL c, - 1-"- 1 ',,, EL +236'-4" FLOOR 13 =:L ", II ". EL +226'-8" 12 I T I[ ~I ~: .P I ;; 1--'-- 1;; ~Ir EL +217'-0' FLOOR II __L '"., 1- ~ ;;, +207'-4" FLOOR 10 != -, I ,~ I .~ I-- --,--I ',;, EL +197'-8' 9 = I~ ~LI I ~ 'J = ~ .... EL +188'-0" FLOOR 8 == I ,J,J I~ I ~~ ~- i I I II ~ EL FLOOR 7 == - LLL ,~ , In 'II --'-- ;" EL + 168'-8" FLOOR 6 B h, -&- , 1 'm EL +159'-0" FLOOR 5 ! ': 5-- ~ EL +149'-4" FLOOR 4 ~~ '-- .~- =j=-= -I ,I '11 ~:: ~Ir EL FLOOR 3 I II I I I I I I I I I j I I "' ;;, FLOOR 2 .~ ~O~"~ .!!!!!.!!!!!' I-I-~ il II !W+- I ,JdJd+-~ ~ ........... ............ .... I II I ~ .~,- I II 1.11 i : j .. ..... :;; I j j I I I I I EL +92'-0" COURT lEVEL R OF 4- 5- 6- 7- G8 BLDG, G, SOUTH ELEV ArION SCALE: In6"I'.Q' 8- I A I C I D G I H I w () <( a:: a:: w I-- >- ~ < ~ ~ o u ~ Z p;.J ~ ~ o t--J p;.J >- p;.J a ~ p;.J ~ ......J f;j <(~ O~ f,:t, 29 <(~ ~;:g ~5 CJ) Owner Myers Development Company 101 Second Street, Soite 555 San Francisco, CA 94105 TEL 415 7773330 FAX 415 777 3331 www.mycrsdevelopment.com RTKL Associates Inc. 333 South Hnpe Strccl Los Angeles, CA 90071 TEL 213 627 7373 FAX 213 627 9815 WWW.rtkI.com R1XL Associated Inc. 2005 n;;;;;;- Checked Approved ENLARGED ELEVATION BLDG. G SCHEME I-B. BAYSHORE BLVD. ELEVATION W/RESIDENTIAL TOWER & HOTEL MYERS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY www.myersdevelopment.eom E E 12.01.2005 E E MYERS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY www.myersdevelopment.com s p N rl} HOTEL 12.01.2005 E MYERS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY www.myersdevelopment.com MAN R E L HOTEL (l)N 12.01.2005 SAN BRUNO MOUNTAIN <l(p ~ % (1)& ~~ \3(>.'15\-\0\<10 \3L'iD. \J5\-\\G\-\IfI(>.'1 \0\ E MYERS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY www.myersdevelopment.com MAN c u L HOTEL 12.01.2005 SAN BRUNO MOUNT AJN '%> ~ '\ iJ'<Sl f'tq BI\'1SHORE. BL'iO. US HIGHWI\'1 ~M E MYERS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY www.myersdevelopment.com R E L NO H L 12.01.2005 2- 4- <( r:r: ...J <(~ O~ ::r:: 5: f,IJ ~ f,IJ ::r:: u Cfl ~ ~ ~ ~ o U E-1 Z [:IJ ~ ~ o ~ [:IJ :> [:IJ o en ~ [:IJ ~ ~ 4 Owner Myers Development Company 101 Second Stree~ Suite 555 San Francisco, CA 94105 TEL 415 777 3330 FAX 4157773331 www.mycrsdcYclopment.com 6- ~ \31\ '{S\-lORE. \3L \JD. 7- 8- ~ US \-IIG\-IWI\'{ ~Q~ I A I D I G I H RTKL Associates Inc. 333 South Hnpe Street Los Angeles, CA 90071 TEL 2136277373 FAX2136279815 www.rtkl.eom RTKL Associated Inc. 2005 Drawn ~ Approved 4TH LEVEL PLAN ~ ~ 0.., ~ o u ~ Z ~ ~ 0.., o t-J ~ > ~ Cl Cf) ~ ~ ~ 4 Owner Myers Development C 101 Seeo ompany San F~~i~:e21~j~~g~5 TEL 415 777 3330 FAX415 777 3331 www.mycrsdeveloprncnt.com 6- 13'" '1Sr\ORE. 13L \/0. 7- us r\\Gr\VJ"''1 ~O~ 8- RTKL Associates Inc 333 South Hope Street . Los Angeles, CA 90071 1 EL 213 6277373 FAX 2136279815 www.rtkl.eom RTKL Associated Inc. 2005 0;;;;;;- Checked Approved 2ND LEVEL PLAN Q9 I A I C I D MYERS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY www.myersdevelopment.com SCHEME I-B. BAYSHORE BLVD. ELEVATION W/RESIDENTIAL TOWER I & " 1201.2005 B"'/SrlORE BLIJO. \JSrlIGrlW",/\Q\ MYERS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY www.myersdevelapment.cam SI p RESIDENTIAL TOWER II 12.01.2005 o IlS \-\IG\-\WI\'< ~O~ MYERS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY www.myersdevelopment.com R CE L RESIDENTIAL TOWER I & II 12,01.2005 SAN BRUNO MOUNTAIN 't ~ , 0>& ('~ BJI.'/S\-10RE. BLVD. US\-1\G\-1'NJI.'/ \0\ MYERS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY www.myersdevelapment.cam c RESIDENTIAL TOWER I & II 12.01.2005 SAN BRUNO MOUNTAIN <!(p ~ % 0'& ("~ B,,'!SHOREBL\JD. us HIGH"''''! jQj MYERS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY www.myersdevelopment.com R E " 12.01.2005 J.J I 1- lEVEL 4- G I H I (0 90 8 5- SElMCE 6- UFE51YlE ANCHOR # 1 (UPPER) 7- UFESlYLE ANCHOR #1 (LOWER) 8- I A J C I n I I I I I I. I w () r:r: -3 >-~ <(~ -I~ <(a3 o ill Z~ 5: <(~ ~~ ~ ~ P-1 ~ o U E-i Z !:.IJ ~ P-1 o .....J !:.IJ >- !:.IJ Cl Cf:J ~ !:.IJ ~ Owner Myers Development Company 101 Second Street, Suite 555 San Fronclseo, CA 94105 TEL 415 777 3330 FAX 415 777 3331 www.mycrsdcvclopment.com lEVEL RTKL Associates Inc. 333 South Hope Street Los Angeles, CA 90071 TEL 2136277373 FAX 213 627 9815 wv,w.rtkl.eom RTKL AS50ciated Inc. 2005 Drawn Checked Approved OVERALL SECTIONS - AGENDA ITEM #8 - DATE: January 25,2006 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Terry White, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 200512006 CIP BUDGET AND APPROVING ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR DEMOLITION OF THE GREENHOUSE STRUCTURES AND AWARD CONTRACT RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council, adopt a resolution, to amend the 2005/2006 CIP Budget authorizing additional funding of $430,000 for thle demolition of the greenhouse structures and awarding a contract to Ferma Corporation of Mountain View, California, in the amount of $585,000 to complete the work. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The Greenhouse properties were acquired by the City in 1996 with the ultimate goal of expanding Orange Memorial Park as described in the 1990 Park Master Plan. As :funding was not immediately available, an interim plan to use the existing buildings for classrooms, rentals and art studios was put into place. The advanced age of the buildings/structures present numerous hazards to users, including broken/fallen glass and non compliance with current seismic and building standards. A fire, that consumed an outbuilding and damaged a portion ofthe Greenhouses in December of2004, is an indication of problems that can be encountered with aging structures such as these ifthey are not improved or removed. The costs associated with maintaining and operating the facilities are exceeding their income, making removal desirable at this tim(~. Once removed the land can be opened up to farming until the funding for the park improvements is available. This will assist the City with its budget and substantially reduce liabilities. Council approved $200,000 by providing revenue in the amendt:d 2005/06 budget to complete this work. Proposals were obtained in July of 2005 and found the cost to be extraordinarily high due to concerns related to hazardous materials handling. Concentrations oflead in the buildings paint and asbestos in the window glazing putty have forced a new specification to be configured. Staffhas since worked on two additional plans to reduce the cost to meet the minimum standards required by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, which is the pennitting agency for this work. Staff Report Subject: Amend 2005/2006 CIP Budget and Approve Additional Funding for Demolition of Greenhouse Structures and A ward Contract Page 2 A Request for Proposals (RFP) was prepared for thl.s project, advertised, and sent to 8 builder's exchanges. Seven contractors requested RFP packages. Proposals were required to determine the best methods to perfonn this work. The City received foUI' proposals from contractors. The costs for the proposals are as follows: CONTRACTOR PROPOSAL AMOUNT ICONCO/L VI Oakland, CA $548,000.00 Bluewater Services San Leandro, CA $569,000.00 Ferma Corporation Mountain View, CA $585,000.00* BCI General Contractors Tracy, CA $753,500.00 *Ferma Corporation's proposal includes two alternate methods based upon conditions to be determined in the removal process. Iflower levels of contaminates are found per ton, the cost will be substantially reduced between $180,000 and $200,000. The reduction is based upon a process to determine total lead and asbestos content which will determine the landfill in which materials are taken. Alternate No.1 is based on debris being classified Class I C&D (Construction & Demolition) with asbestos or Class I C&D Non-RCRA direct landfill debris, which will result in cost reduction of $180,000.00. Alternate No.2 is based on debris being classified Class II C&D with asbestos, which will result in cost reduction of$200,000.00. The City's consultant has sampled the material of the greenhouses. His technical opinion is that the debris will test Class I C&D. Fenna is willing to pass this savings of lower cost disposal to the City if ultimately successful. Staff has reviewed the qualifications and references of Fenna Corporation and found them to be satisfactory. Staff recommends that the contract be awarded to F enna Corporation in the amount not to exceed $585,000.00. Demolition of greenhouses is expected to start by March 1,2006 and can be completed in thirty (30) days. FUNDING: Staff recommends funding the $430,000 from the General Fund Undesignated Reserve. The County of San Mateo notified cities of their share of a countywide refund of prior years' surplus Educational Reform Augmentation Fund (ERAF) dollars on January 12th. The city's share of that refund is $1.5 million for this year, and those funds have now been received. Staffhad budgeted $650,000 for the Staff Report Subject: Amend 2005/2006 CIP Budget and Approve Additional Funding for Demolition of Greenhouse Structures and Award Contract Page 3 ERAF refund, meaning that General Fund reserves will be augmented substantially by year end. More information will be presented to the Council on the ERAF refund in the midyear financial report on February 15, 2006. CONCLUSION: The demolition of the greenhouses will eliminate the liability issue from the aging structures and will be a major step toward the final goal of expanding Orange Memorial Park '~ " . . ./.....i ') i. l./ ~ I . ..f _'_ -.. B~/ - "l,V-,/t/,,". . Terry Whit~ ) -- , / Director of PUblic Works APProVedd.~ L (. ~~ . agel \ City Manager ',--- Attachments: Resolution RTH/ TW G:\PROJECTS\PW Greenhouse Dem..\awardstaffreport.doc RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE 2005/2006 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) BUDGET AND APPROVE FUNDING FOR THE DEMOLITION OF THE GREENHOUSE STRUCTURES AND A WARD CONTRACT TO FERMA CORPORATION NOT TO EXCEED $585,000.00 WHEREAS, staff recommends the authorization of an amendment to the 2005/2006 CIP Budget for the demolition ofthe greenhouse structures located at Orange Memorial Park. WHEREAS, funding is available through the 2005/2006 Capital Improvement Program for the demolition of the greenhouse structures NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council ofthe City of South San Francisco that the City Council hereby authorize an amendment to the 2005/2006 CIP of $430,000 from the General Fund Undesignated Reserve and award the contract to Ferma Corporation of Mountain View, California in an amount not to exceed $585,000.00. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute the contract on behalf of the City of South San Francisco. * * * * * I hereby certify that the foregoing Re:solution was regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a meeting held on the __ day of , 2006 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk - ~,\\ s~ ii ~ . ~~\ o n >< c;; ~ (")} v 0 C4l~"\~ Staff Report AGENDA ITEM #9 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: January 25,2006 Honorable Mayor and City Council Mark Raffaelli, Chief of Police COST RECOVERY POLICY FOR ENFORCEMENT OF CHAPTER 10.44, MINORS - CURFEW RECOMMENDATION It is recommended City Council adopt the attached Resolution authorizing the establishment of procedures concerning the handling of cases involving juvenile curfew offenders and the establishment of a cost recovery policy for costs of administrative and transportation services resulting from the enforcement of Chapter 10.44, "Minors - Curfew." Legislators enacted Welfare and Institutions Code 625. 5( a) (1 ) for the purpose of safeguarding the fiscal integrity of cities and counties by enabling them to recoup the law enforcement costs associated with the identification, detention, and transportation of minors who violate curfew ordinances. This Resolution would enable the City to recoup a flat rate of $85 from parents/guardians of minors who are repeat offenders of the Municipal Code Curfew Ordinance using the formula outlined in the background/discussion belo'w. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION The City of South San Francisco defines curfew violations in Title 10, Chapter 1044, Section 10.44.010 of the Municipal Code, making it unlawful for any minor person under the age of eighteen years to loiter in, upon or about the public streets, avenues, alleys, parks, buildings or other public places, or any eating establishment between the hour of 10:00 p.m. and sunrise the following morning. Provisions are made for extenuating circumstances, which are defined in the Municipal Code. The curfew ordinance is an effective tool utilized by the Police Department since minors who may become victims of criminal acts or minors who may engage in criminal activity are detained and ultimately released to a parent, guardian, or other responsible adult. During contact with a minor(s) believed to be in violation of curfew, it is not uncommon for at least two officers to participate in the initial detention while assessing whether the minor is in violation of curfew. The field contact requires a lawful detention of the minor(s), proper identification, investigation, and determination of the most appropriate disposition. Whether the officer chooses to transport the minor to the Police Department, transport the minor to his/her residence, or have a responsible adult respond to the scene to pick up the minor, it removes the officer from his/her other essential duties of protecting life and property in the City. Additionally, officers are required to document curfew violations in order to provide a written record of the event and circumstances involved with the contact ofthe minor. Staff Report Subject: Minors ~ CUi few, Cost Recovery Page 2 The fom1Ula used to calculate the cost recovery fee is based on averaging the base hourly wages of a Police Officer and Police Sergeant, plus 40% for benefits, and 15 hours for time. This formula is consistent with the formula currently used for cost recovery in accidents that are related to drunk driving. Provisions in our Department policy will allow parents/guardians to appeal the cost recovery fees by contacting the Community Relations Sergeant within fifteen (15) days of being served with an "Acknowledgment of Curfew/Cost Recovery Notice." The Community Relations Sergeant will schedule a formal appeal hearing to determine ifthere are mitigating circumstances. The factors to be used when considering whether there is cause to grant the parent/guardian an exemption from cost recovery fees are outlined in the Welfare and Institutions Code. They are: · Parents or guardians have made every reasonable effort to exercise supervision and control over the mmor. · A determination is made that the parents or guardians do not have the ability to pay for fees charged. · The parents or guardians request the minor participate in Project N.E.A.T. (Neighborhood Enhancement Action Team) in lieu of imposition of fees (this option can be considered on each curfew violation). · A determination is made that the parent or guardian has limited physical or legal custody and control of the minor. FUNDING There is no significant financial impact to the City of South San Francisco. South San Francisco Police Department records indicate the Police Department averages ten (10) contacts per month that would be considered a curfew violation. CONCLUSION The addition of a cost recovery component to the City's curfew ordinance will assist in controlling juvenile behavior by placing significance and consequence on the violation and thereby holding juveniles and their parents more accountable. By: ,//" "/-:/::///< /-:' ,/"' ..~</ c/,,/ ,,,,:>,/,//' ,/,/p - ,/?/f/;/: 4 t~ --:;"11 '" ..' ......- ... Michael Massoni, Captain/ for Mark Raffaell( Chief of Police APproved:Q lot "C rty M. Nagel City Manager Attachment: Resolution RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EST ABLlSHMENT OF PROCEDURES CONCERNING THE HANDLING OF CASES INVOLVING JUVENILE CURFEW OFFENDERS AND THE EST ABLlSHMENT OF A COST RECOVERY POLlCY FOR COSTS OF ADMINISTRATIVE AND TRANSPORTATION SERVICE COSTS RESULTING FROM ENFORCEMENT OF CHAPTER 10.44, "MINORS - CURFEW" WHEREAS, South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 10.44 establishes a curfew prohibiting any minor person under the age of eighteen years from loitering in, upon or about the public streets, avenues, alleys, parks, buildings or other public places, or any eating establishment, between the hour of 10 p.m. and sunrise the following morning; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 10.44, violations of the City curfew ordinance are subject to criminal prosecution; and WHEREAS, Project N.E.A.T. (Neighborhood Enhancement Action Team) IS a community service alternative to traditional criminal penalties; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that Project N.E.A.T. is beneficial to juveniles as an alternative to forwarding the traffic citation received by the minor for a curfew violation to Juvenile Traffic Court; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that there is a need for the recovery of administration and transportation costs incurred by the City in enforcing the curfew ordinance; and WHEREAS, the recovery of costs associated with the administration of the curfew ordinance and the transportation costs incurred in returning the minor to his or her place of residence, or to the custody of his or her parents or legal guardian, is authorized pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code 625.5; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that in order to implement the use of Project N.E.A.T. as an alternative and recover costs there is a need for the City to adopt procedural guidelines for such actions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby authorizes the establishment of the procedures concerning the handling of cases involving juvenile curfew offenders and the establishment of a cost recovery policy for costs of administration and transportation service costs as substantially set forth in Attachment 1. 800890-1 800890-1 City Clerk ATTEST: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: NOES: AYES: 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 _ day of , 2006 by the following vote: * * * * * Attachment 1 Title: JUVENILE CURFKW VIOLATIONS Purpose: Enforcement of curfew violations in South San Francisco and to encourage parents and legal guardians to exercise reasonable care, supervision, and control over their minor children to prevent them from either becoming a victim of crime, or committing unlawful acts. Policy: To establish a uniform process in handling cases involving juvenile curfew offenders including: Issuing Citations, N.E.A.T. Diversion, Juvenile Traffic Court Appearance, and Cost Recovery. PROCEDURE: A Definitions: 1. Curfew Hours Designated: Curfew hours are regulated by South San Francisco Municipal Code section 10.44.010. It is unlawful for any minor person under the age of eighteen years to loiter in, upon or about the public streets, avenues, alleys, parks, buildings or other public places, or any eating establishment, between the hour of 10 p.m. and sunrise the following morning. 2. Curfew Hours Exceptions: The provisions of this section shall not apply to the following circumstances: a. When the minor is accompanied by his or her parents, guardian or other adult having the legal care, custody or control of the minor. b. When the minor is upon an emergency errand directed by his or her parent, guardian or other person having legal care, custody or control of the minor. c. When the minor is going to or returning from a place of work or a meeting, dance, recreation activity or other event organized or sponsored by a school or community group. d. When the minor is going to or returning from a private residence at which the minor is or was an invitee. 3. Jurisdiction: The Juvenile Court Hearing Officer may hear and dispose of any case in which a minor under the age of 18 years of age as of the date of the alleged curfew violation pursuant to W &1 code 256. B. Issuing Citations: 1. When an officer determines that a minor is in violation of curfew, the minor may be issued a misdemeanor citation for MC 10.44.010 on a South San Francisco traffic citation. 801761 1 801761 1 3. When considering utilizing Project N.E.A.T., officers will determine whether or not the minor would reasonably be able to complete the program requirements. Among the facts to consider are the city in which the minor resides and whether or not they have transportation available enabling them to meet the program requirements. 2. Fonnal reports !!!!I. required for Project N.E.A.T. referrals. The narrative of the report should be brief and contain enough information to refresh the officer's recollection should the offense be prosecuted in Juvenile Traffic Court. The report should include the elements of the violation, statement of minor, style of dress, whether or not the minor is cooperative, etc. Juvenile Contact Reports are not required. 1. Upon a minor's first violation of South San Francisco's curfew ordinance, officers may utilize Project N.E.A.T. as an alternative to forwarding the traffic citation to Juvenile Traffic Court. The minor must be at least 12 years of age to be eligible for Project N.E.A.T. The minor shall sign the citation and will not be given a copy. All three copies shall remain intact and submitted to the on-duty shift supervisor for processing (procedure # 191 outlines processing). C. Dispositions: 5. Officers will indicate on the citation whether the curfew violation is the first, second, third, etc., offense. This will assist the Juvenile Traffic Court Hearing Officer to determine the most appropriate disposition available for the rehabilitation of the minor. The Hearing Officer may wam the juvenile, increase bail for repeat offenses, refer the juvenile to diversion counseling programs, and apply probation conditions. 4. Formal reports !!!!I. required when issuing curfew violation citations. The narrative of the report should be brief and contain enough information to refresh the officer's recollection should the offense be prosecuted in Juvenile Traffic Court. The report should include the elements of the violation, statement of minor, style of dress, whether or not the minor is cooperative, etc. Juvenile Contact Reports are not required when issuing citations for curfew violations. 3. The parent/guardian and minor must sign an "Acknowledgment of Curfew/Cost Recovery Notice" prior to the release of the minor, which will be attached to the original report and filed in Records. !fthe parent/guardian is not available or present upon the release of the minor, the report will need to be continued in order to complete additional follow-up work. The case officer will conduct or facilitate the follow-up by contacting the parent/guardian and obtain a signature on the "Acknowledge of Curfew/Cost Recovery Notice." If a parent/guardian refuses to sign this notice, the officer will print "Declined to Sign" on the signature line of the notice. 2. Citations can be issued in the field or at the Police Department prior to the release of the minor to a parent/guardian or other responsible adult who can take custody or control of the minor. Attachment 1 Attachment 1 4. When officers issue the minor a "Juvenile Citation Referral to Project N.E.A.T.", the minor will be provided a N.E.A.T. referral card that is completed by Ue officer. Officers will make a copy of the citation and write "N.E.A.T. Referral" on top of the copy and route the copy of the citation to the shift supervisor. The shift supervisor will then forward the copy to the c.I.B. secretary. 5. The c.I.B. secretary will nag the citation and enter it in the computer with "N.E.A.T. Referral" noted in the comments section. The c.I.B. secretary will retain all three copies of the citation and give the photocopy of the citation to the COPPS officer who will enroll the minor in the program. 6. In the event the violator does not fulfill the Project N.E.A.T. requirements satisfactorily, the COPPS Corporal will forward the court copy of the citation to Juvenile Traffic Court for prosecution. D. Cost Recovery: 1. Upon the minors' first curfew violation of South San Francisco's curfew ordinance, the parent/guardian and minor will sign an "Acknowledgment of Curfew/Cost Recovery Notice" that will be filed with the original case report in Records. 2. For subsequent curfew violations parents/ guardians will be held financially liable for administrative and transportation costs resulting from the minor violating the curfew ordinance. Welfare & Institution Code 625.5(b) authorizes local agencies to recoup administrative and transportation costs associated with a minor violating a curfew onlinance. Cost recovery pursuant to Welfare & Institution Code 625.5 has been authorized by Resolution 3. The formula used to calculate the cost recovery fee shall be based on averaging the base hourly wages of a Police Officer I and Police Sergeant, plus 40% for benefits. 4. Parents/guardians may appeal the cost recovery fees by contacting the Community Relations Sergeant within 15 days of being served with the "Acknowledgment of Curfew/Cost Recovery Notice." The Community Relations Sergeant will schedule a formal appeal hearing to determine if there are mitigating circumstances that should be considered. 5. The following factors may be considered when evaluating whether or not there is cause to grant the parent/guardian an exemption from cost recovery fees: a. Parents or guardians have made every reasonable effort to exercise supervision and control over the minor. b. A determination is made that the parents or guardians do not have the ability to pay for fees charged. 801761 1 c. The parents or guardians request that minor participate in Project N.E.A.T. in lieu of imposition of fees (this option can be considered on each curfew violation). d. A determination is made that the parent or guardian has limited physical or legal custody and control of the minor. Attachment 1 801761 1 - :\) 't \\ s::w M ~ . ~\i.\ c 0 >- r;; I 'A C') v c ~lIFO~~" Staff Report AGENDA ITEM #10 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: January 25, 2006 Honorable Mayor and City Council Mark Raffaelli, Chief of Police ORDINANCE AMENDING SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 10, ADDING A NEW CHAPTER TO REGULATE SIDESHOWS RECOMMENDATION It is recommended the City Council, by motion, waive the reading and introduce an ordinance amending Title 10 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code by adding a new Chapter 10.64. This amendment will regulate the participation and observation of automobile exhibitions involving reckless driving, exhibitions of speed, and speed contests commonly known as sideshows. This amendment prohibits the participation in and observation of this type of activity on city streets, highways, and off-street locations and allows the police department to take enforcement action. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION Currently we are :1ble to employ the City's Municipal Code or the California Vehicle Code to regulate those individuals who directly participate in this type of activity on city streets and highways. Unfortunately, there are no provisions that allow us to deal with individuals who, by their presence, encourage those participating in the sideshow or who aid in the activity. Sideshows have become so common that individuals arrange meetings to find out the location of the event for the evening. The spectators attending these events have been in the hundreds, all who encourage reckless and dangerous behavior by those participating. The events have led to injurie~, deaths, and acts of violence. Other than enforcing the violations police officers observe, we are limited on effective enforcement action. In order to be more successful in curtailing this type of activity, many cities realized there was a need for local legislation that would give law enforcement authority over the spectators. This amendment to the Municipal Code will authorize the South San Francisco Police Department to cite persons who participate, assist in setting up and are spectators at these types of events both on public and private property. It will also allow us to seize any vehicle that is involved in this type of activity and, if appropriate, begin forfeiture proceedings. Staff Report Subject: Sideshows Page 2 In addition to any other penalties authorized by law, the prosecuting agency may charge a violation ofthis ordinance as an infraction or a misdemeanor. A misdemeanor may be punishable by a fine not to exceed $500 for the first offense, $750 for the second and $1000 for any subsequent offense. A misdemeanor may also be punishable by imprisonment not to exceed six (6) months or, by both a fine and imprisonment. FUNDING There is no financial impact to the City of South San Francisco if this ordinance is enacted. CONCLUSION The passage of this ordinance will enhance the South San Francisco Police Department's ability to effectively deal with this type of activity should it occur within the City. It will have a positive impact on the quality of life for the residents and businesses where this type of activity is likely to occur. By: ///'//},/' /J / / / /"~. r./." ./ ". ~,' ,,' ,./ '/ ./ .,..,. . ,r. " _" ~ " ~'/.,/ // -" 2_._ Michael Massoni, Captain for Mark Raffaelli, Chief of Police APproved~+ ~ C.~ M. Nagel City Manager Attachment: Ordinance AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10 OF THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD CHAPTER 10.64 DECLARING VEHICLE SIDESHOWS A PUBLIC NUISANCE WHEREAS, street racing and reckless driving exhibitions, commonly known as "sideshows," are increasingly becoming a problem for communities in the state of California; and WHEREAS, street races and reckless driving exhibitions are gatherings, processions or assemblages where persons in vehicles engage in reckless stunts and maneuvers on city streets and other public places, often in the presence of spectators; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that based upon the experiences of other jurisdictions, including the cities of Oakland, Sacramento and San Diego, street races and reckless driving exhibitions can cause chaos and confusion in neighborhoods by interfering with pedestrian and vehicular traffic and by creating a situation where residents and members of the public feel threatened and intimidated; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that based upon the experiences of other jurisdictions, including the cities of Oakland, Sacramento and San Diego, street races and reckless driving exhibitions create serious traffic problems, interfere with the safe use of streets and sidewalks, result in gridlock conditions, road closures impacting emergency vehicles, the closure of freeway off-ramps and instances where legitimate vehicles and pedestrians are trapped in the middle of these activities; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that based upon the experiences of other jurisdictions, including the cities of Oakland, Sacramento and San Diego, the operators of vehicles involved in street races and reckless driving exhibitions can disturb the tranquility of residents and threaten their safety by screeching their tires, revving their engines, playing loud music, engaging in reckless stunts and maneuvers, and causing damage or injury to other vehicles, private and public property, and people; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that based upon the experiences of other jurisdictions, including the cities of Oakland, Sacramento and San Diego, large numbers of spectators often gather to watch street races and reckless driving exhibitions; that the presence of spectators fosters an environment that can encourage an increase in street races and reckless driving exhibitions; and that spectators who gather to watch street races and reckless driving exhibitions often block streets and sidewalks to traffic, form racetrack areas, place bets on races and engage in unruly and criminal behavior including fighting, littering, drinking in public, public urination, trespassing and vandalism; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that these activities are injurious to the health and offensive to the senses, interfere with the peace and quiet of South San Francisco residents and with their right to enjoy their homes, interfere with the right of business B. "Spectator" means a person who is present at a sideshow, or the site of the preparations for these activities, for the purpose of viewing, observing, watching or witnessing either of these activities without regard to the means by which the person arrived. A. "Sideshow" means any gathering of persons to participate in and observe any motor vehicle speed contests or motor vehicle exhibitions of speed defined or described in the California Vehicle Code section 23109 or any reckless driving exhibition as defined or described in California Vehicle Code section 23103. For purposes of this Chapter, the following definitions shall apply: DEFINITIONS 10.64.020 This chapter is adopted to prohibit gatherings for the purpose of participating in, observing or otherwise supporting speed contests or reckless driving exhibitions, commonly known as "sideshows," on the city streets, highways and off-street parking facilities. The purpose of this law is to significantly curb this illegal and nuisance activity. The law targets a very clear, limited population and gives proper notice to citizens of the activities that are considered a nuisance and prohibited under this ordinance. In prohibiting spectators at sideshow activities, the city intends to take a significant step toward making its public streets, highways and off-street parking facilities safe to pedestrians, motorists and the general public. PURPOSE. 10.64.010 CHAPTER 10.64 PROHIBITION AGAINST SPECTATORS AT VEHICLE SIDESHOW ACTIVITIES AND ABATEMENT OF NUISANCE VEHICLES INVOVLED IN SIDESHOW ACTIVITIES The Municipal Code is hereby amended to add Chapter 10.64 as follows: NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, the City Council declares that this Chapter is added to reduce crime and the concomitant threats to public health and safety and private property rights by prohibiting the participation in sideshows on city highways and streets and off-street parking facilities and prohibiting the encouragement of illegal activities by providing an audience for illegal street races and reckless driving exhibitions. owners to enjoy their property, and interfere with the comfortable enjoyment oflife and property of entire communities and neighborhoods in South San Francisco and, as such, constitute a public nuisance; and C. "Present" means a person is within 200 fee; of the site of a sideshow exhibition, or within 200 feet of the site of the preparations for these activities. D. "Preparations" for any sideshow include, but are not limited to, any of the following acts done for the purpose of the sideshow: 1. one or more motor vehicles or persons have arrived at a predetermined location; 2. one or more persons have impeded the free public use of a public street or highway or offstreet parking facility by acts, words or physical barriers; 3. one or more vehicles have lined up with engines running; 4. one or more drivers is revving his or her engine or spinning his or her tires; or 5. a person is acting as a race or sideshow starter. 10.64.030 VIOLATION - SPECTATOR AT A SIDESHOW A. It shall be unlawful for any person to be a spectator at a motor vehicle speed contest or motor vehicle exhibition of speed conducted on a public street or highway or on private property open to the general public without consent of the owner. B. It shall be unlawful for any person to be a spectator at the location of preparations for a motor vehicle speed contest or motor vehicle exhibition of speed conducted on a public street or highway or on private property open to the general public without consent of the owner. C. Nothing in this section prohibits law enforcement officers or their agents who are acting in the course of their official duties from being spectators at a street race or reckless driving exhibition or spectators at the location of preparations for either of these activities. 10.64.040 RELEVANT CIRCUMSTANCES TO PROVE A VIOLATION Notwithstanding any other provision oflaw, to prove a violation of this Chapter, admissible evidence may include, but is not limited to, any of the following: A. time of day; B. nature and description of the scene; A. Nuisance vehicles. Any vehicle used as part of a sideshow or in violation of California Vehicle Code Section 23103 relating to reckless driving is declared a nuisance, and the vehicle shall be enjoined and abated as provided in this ordinance. Any person or his or her servant, agent, or employee who owns, leases, conducts or 10.64.080 ABATEMENT OF NUISANCE VEHICLES BY SEIZURE AND FORFEITURE In addition to any other penalties authorized by law, the prosecuting agency may charge a violation of this ordinance as an infraction or a misdemeanor. A misdemeanor may be punishable by a fine not to exceed $500 for the first offense, $750 for the second and $1000 for any subsequent offense. A misdemeanor may also be punishable by imprisonment not to exceed six (6) months or, by both a fine and imprisonment. ENFORCEMENT-PENALTY 10.64.070 This ordinance does not prohibit members of law enforcement, the medical profession or any other legitimate service provider form being present at a sideshow or a reckless driving exhibition while in the course of their official duties. NON-APPLICABILITY 10.64.060 The list of circumstances set forth in section 10.64.040 is not exclusive. Evidence of prior acts may be admissible to show the propensity of a person to participate in if the prior act or acts occurred within three (3) years ofthe presently charged offense. These prior acts may be admissible to show that a person had knowledge that a sideshow activity or reckless driving exhibition was taking place at the time of the presently charged offense. ADMISSIBIL TY OF PRIOR ACTS 10.64.050 F. whether the individual charged has previously participated in or aided and abetted in a sideshow. E. whether vehicles gathered at the scene are engaged in vehicular stunts and maneuvers; D. number and description of motor vehicles at the scene; C. number of people gathered at the scene; maintains any vehicle used for any of the purposes or acts prohibited is guilty of nuisance. B. Declaration by court. Upon proof that the vehicle was used as part of a sideshow, the court shall declare the vehicle a nuisance and order that it be forfeited, sold and the proceeds distributed as provided by this ordinance. c. Right, title and interest in property. All right, title and interest in any vehicle that constitutes a nuisance under this ordinance shall vest in the city. D. Procedure for Seizure of Vehicle. 1. Vehicles subject to forfeiture under this ordinance may be seized by a peace officer upon process issued by a court having jurisdiction over the vehicle. Seizure without a court order may be made if any of the following situations exist: a. The seizure is incident to an arrest or a search under a valid search warrant; b. There is probable cause to believe that the vehicle was used in violation of this ordinance. 2. A peace officer seizing a vehicle shall complete a receipt in accordance with Section 1412 of the Penal Code and deliver it to the person out of whose possession such vehicle was seized. 3. An investigation shall be made by the public agency making the seizure as to any potential claimant to a vehicle whose right, title, interest or lien is ofrecord in the Department of Motor Vehicles of this or any other state or appropriate federal agency. If the public agency finds that any person, other than the registered owner, is the legal owner, and the ownership did not arise subsequent to the date and time of arrest or seizure of the vehicle or notification of the forfeiture proceedings, it shall within three (3) business days of the vehicle's seizure, send a notice of seizure and notice of a hearing to the legal owner at his or her address appearing on the records of the Department of Motor Vehicles of this or any other stat or any appropriate federal agency. 4. Where appropriate, a vehicle seized pursuant to this ordinance may be held as evidence in any proceeding brought by the prosecuting agency. 10.64.90 SEVERABILITY 790712-2; 405.001 Sylvia M. Payne City Clerk and Clerk of the Council of the City of South San Francisco, California ATTEST: ABSTENTION- ABSENT- NOES- A YES- PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: IN COUNCIL, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, ,20 The provisions of this ordinance are severable, and if any word, clause, sentence, paragraph, provision, or part of this ordinance, or the application of this ordinance to any person, is declared invalid, preempted or unconstitutional by any court, said hoiding shall not invalidate any other portion of this ordinance. The City Council finds and determines that it would have adopted this ordinance without said work, clause, sentence, paragraph, provision or part.