Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-11-18 e-packet@6:00Wednesday, November 18, 2020 6:00 PM City of South San Francisco P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA TELECONFERENCE MEETING Special City Council Special Meeting Agenda November 18, 2020Special City Council Special Meeting Agenda TELECONFERENCE MEETING NOTICE THIS MEETING WILL BE CONDUCTED PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE GOVERNOR’S EXECUTIVE ORDERS N-29-20 AND N-63-20 ALLOWING FOR DEVIATION OF TELECONFERENCE RULES REQUIRED BY THE BROWN ACT & PURSUANT TO THE ORDER OF THE HEALTH OFFICER OF SAN MATEO COUNTY DATED MARCH 31, 2020 AS THIS MEETING IS NECESSARY SO THAT THE CITY CAN CONDUCT NECESSARY BUSINESS AND IS PERMITTED UNDER THE ORDER AS AN ESSENTIAL GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION. The purpose of conducting the meeting as described in this notice is to provide the safest environment for staff and the public while allowing for public participation. Councilmembers Matsumoto, Nagales and Nicolas, Vice Mayor Addiego and Mayor Garbarino and essential City staff will participate via Teleconference. PURSUANT TO RALPH M. BROWN ACT, GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54953, ALL VOTES SHALL BE BY ROLL CALL DUE TO COUNCIL MEMBERS PARTICIPATING BY TELECONFERENCE. MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC MAY VIEW A VIDEO BROADCAST OF THE MEETING BY: Internet: https://www.ssf.net/government/city-council/video-streaming-city-and-council-meetings/city-council Local cable channel: Astound, Channel 26 or Comcast, Channel 27 Or via Zoom: Please click on the link below to register for the session: https://ssf-net.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_e4h1LjemT-i3xzDBE0AKLg After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the meeting. Please note that dialing in will only allow you to listen in on the meeting. To make a public comment during the Zoom meeting follow the instructions listed under Remote Public Comments. Page 2 City of South San Francisco Printed on 12/30/2020 November 18, 2020Special City Council Special Meeting Agenda Call to Order. Roll Call. Agenda Review. Remote Public Comments - comments are limited to items on the Special Meeting Agenda. Speakers are allowed to speak on items on the agenda for up to three minutes. If there appears to be a large number of speakers, speaking time may be reduced subject to the Mayor ’s discretion to limit the total amount of time for public comments (Gov. Code sec. 54954.3.(b)(1).). Comments that are not in compliance with the City Council's rules of decorum may be summarized for the record if they are in writing or muted if they are made live. Members of the public wishing to participate are encouraged to submit public comments in writing in advance of the meeting to e-mail: [email protected] by 3:00 p.m. on the meeting date. Emails received by the deadline will be forwarded to the City Council and read into the record by the City Clerk. Emails received after 3:00 p.m. will not be read during the meeting but will be entered into the record for the meeting. Approximately 300 words total can be read in three minutes. Oral Comments: Speakers are asked to register in advance by 3:00 p.m. on the meeting date via the Zoom platform, meeting information listed on the agenda. You will be asked to enter a name, an email address, and the Agenda item about which you wish to speak. Your email address will not be disclosed to the public. After registering, you will receive an email with instructions on how to connect to the meeting. When the City Clerk announces the item on which you wish to speak, your name will be called and you will be unmuted. No more than three minutes will be allocated to read each email comment, and oral comments will also be limited to no more than three minutes. State law prevents Council from taking action on any matter not on the agenda; your comments may be referred to staff for follow up. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS Report regarding the General Plan Update Preferred Land Use Alternative (Lisa Costa Sanders, Project Administrator and Billy Gross, Senior Planner) 1. Extend the Term of the Community Advisory Committee members for the General Plan update for an additional two years, expiring on December 17, 2022 (Lisa Costa-Sanders, Project Administrator, and Billy Gross, Senior Planner) 2. Adjournment. Page 3 City of South San Francisco Printed on 12/30/2020 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:20-736 Agenda Date:11/18/2020 Version:1 Item #:1. Report regarding the General Plan Update Preferred Land Use Alternative (Lisa Costa Sanders,Project Administrator and Billy Gross, Senior Planner) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council receive a presentation,accept the General Plan Preferred Land Use Alternative and authorize the preparation of required environmental analysis including an environmental impact report (EIR). BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION A General Plan is the local government’s long-term blueprint for the community’s vision of future growth.Each city is required by California law to have a General Plan to guide its future land use decisions.South San Francisco’s last comprehensive General Plan update occurred in 1999,with the last significant amendment in 2015 to incorporate the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan. The City is undertaking a comprehensive update to the General Plan which will serve as a forward-looking document providing the blueprint for the City’s vision through the year 2040.The General Plan will address future land use,growth,all modes of transportation,housing,safety,conservation,open space and parks,noise, public health and social equity, sustainability, sea level rise and economic development. The City Council and Planning Commission held a joint study session on August 19,2020 to review the General Plan Land Use Alternatives.Councilmembers and Commissioners provided direction to staff on the land use alternatives that informed the preparation of the 2040 General Plan Preferred Land Use Alternative (Preferred Alternative). General Plan Preferred Alternative Summary Based on the input received from the public and the joint study session,the project team prepared the Preferred Alternative (Attachment 1 to this staff report). The Preferred Alternative includes an overview of: •Vision and Guiding Principles that the implemented preferred alternative will achieve over the General Plan horizon; •Preferred Alternative that shows future land use, including allowable densities; and, •Policies and Implementation Actions that will be studied in greater detail later in the process. The preferred plan includes an estimated increase of 18,500 housing units and 47,600 employment growth city- wide over the 20-year planning horizon.The majority of housing and commercial growth is planned to occur in the Lindenville and East of 101 sub-areas,with some growth in the Downtown and El Camino Real sub-areas and minimal growth (mostly ADUs) in the residential neighborhoods. Preferred Alternative Outreach The Preferred Alternative was presented in three separate venues in October: General Plan Community Advisory Committee The CAC reviewed the Preferred Alternative at its October 13,2020 meeting.The members had broad supportCity of South San Francisco Printed on 12/30/2020Page 1 of 3 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-736 Agenda Date:11/18/2020 Version:1 Item #:1. The CAC reviewed the Preferred Alternative at its October 13,2020 meeting.The members had broad support for the updated vision statements,guiding policies,and preferred land use map.The CAC also provided specific discussion related to the following topics: •Potential transportation impacts of increasing density East of 101,including with residential development. •Need for more detailed planning around the Caltrain station to create a residential neighborhood. •Need for a robust conversation around community benefits East of 101. •Ensuring new development is human-scale and not monolithic. •Identifying that the redevelopment of Lindenville could be uniquely South San Francisco,with a mixture of industrial, makerspace, art, and housing near Colma Creek. •Appreciation for the revised Downtown vision and map. •Heights and densities along the El Camino corridor. •Whether or not the alternative goes far enough in distributing housing in all neighborhoods around the City. •Adding housing and open space to the former Foxridge and Serra Vista school sites. Communitywide Outreach Meeting The entire community was invited to the outreach meeting held on October 20,2020.Approximately 35 members of the public attended, with specific discussion around the following: •Ensuring Lindenville and East of 101 are protected from sea level rise and flooding,integrating natural landscapes and non-structural measures and requiring building setbacks. •An integrated street,urban forest,and green infrastructure network that provides opportunities for urban ecology and active transportation. •Good habitat along a transformed Colma Creek and an urban forest. •The potential transportation impacts of new development. •Support for increasing housing opportunities near the South San Francisco BART Station,on former school sites, and in the other residential neighborhoods. •Concern about adding housing in areas exposed to sea level rise and flooding. •Better transit in western neighborhoods, like Winston Serra and Westborough. •More off-street bike and pedestrian infrastructure. •Emphasis on affordable housing, particularly ownership housing. Planning Commission The Planning Commission reviewed the Preferred Alternative at its October 22,2020 meeting.At that meeting, members of the public made the following general comments: •Written request by Golden Gate Produce Terminal that their use continue to be considered a conforming use and that their land use designation not require incompatible uses. •Solve sea level rise with nature-based solutions as much as possible.Require an adaptation plan and a riparian ordinance. •Concerns regarding compatibility between residential and industrial/biotech uses. •Balance jobs and housing. •Consider traffic problems related to increased density. •Reconsider allowing tall buildings along Airport Blvd.that would negatively impact Downtown/Oldtown. City of South San Francisco Printed on 12/30/2020Page 2 of 3 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-736 Agenda Date:11/18/2020 Version:1 Item #:1. The Planning Commissioners also provided specific discussion related to the following topics: •Appreciation of the balance that the Preferred Alternative strives to create. •Need to build flexibility into the process. •Analyze infrastructure needs required to accommodate growth areas. •El Camino corridor needs to accommodate additional growth,allowing new housing to be spread throughout the city, but in a way that is cognizant of height concerns. •Support for the Lindenville sub-area vision. •Continue to address gentrification of Oldtown, analyze the implementation of housing protections. •Appreciation of the attempt to balance industrial and biotech uses in the East of 101. •Need to provide adequate services for new residential neighborhoods. The Planning Commission provided broad support for the proposed land use vision,voting unanimously to recommend that the City Council accept the Preferred Alternative. Staff is proposing one revision to the Preferred Alternative that was recommended for acceptance by the Planning Commission;revising the proposed designation of the 180 El Camino Real site from “High Density Mixed Use’to “El Camino Mixed Use High”.This revision would allow for the development of high-density residential on the site,but would not require it,allowing for maximum flexibility in potential redevelopment of the site. Next Steps The adoption and amendment of local General Plans or elements thereof is considered a “project”under CEQA and subject to environmental review.(CEQA Guidelines §15378 (a)(1)).Following acceptance of the Preferred Land Use Alternative,staff will initiate work on the policy elements of the General Plan,the Zoning Ordinance update, the Climate Action Plan update, and the CEQA review process for all of these plans. CONCLUSION Staff recommends the City Council accept the Preferred Alternative and authorize the preparation of required Environmental Analysis including an environmental impact report (EIR). Attachment: 1.2040 General Plan Preferred Land Use Alternative 2.Letter from Housing Leadership Council dated November 6, 2020 3.Letter from Sierra Club - Loma Prieta Chapter dated November 9, 2020 4.Staff Presentation City of South San Francisco Printed on 12/30/2020Page 3 of 3 powered by Legistar™ Preferred Alternative October 2020 Preferred Alternative 1 Table of Contents Downtown 12 Introduction 2 Citywide 4 Lindenville 16 El Camino Real 24 East of 101 20 DowntownDowntown East of 101East of 101 LindenvilleLindenville El C a m i n o R e a l El C a m i n o R e a l Preferred Alternative 2Introduction Introduction What is a General Plan? The City of South San Francisco has embarked on a comprehensive update to the SSF General Plan, titled “Shape SSF 2040,” to create a forward-looking document that will serve as the blueprint for the City’s vision through the year 2040. The goals, policies, and actions in Shape SSF 2040 will serve as a compass for decision-makers and will shape future plans and actions of the City. This revised policy document will replace the 1999 General Plan and will inform updates to the City’s Zoning Ordinance. Shape SSF 2040 will address future land use, growth, all modes of transportation, housing, safety, conservation, open space and parks, noise, public health and social equity, sustainability, sea level rise, and economic development. Developing and Refining Alternatives During July and August 2020, the City of South San Francisco hosted a series of community meetings to evaluate Vision statements and three alternatives for four planning sub-areas in the City. The Vision statements, informed by existing conditions analysis and community engagement activities, establish a vision for South San Francisco in 2040. The purpose of the alternatives evaluation is for the community and the planning team to assess trade-offs (related to population growth, employment growth, mobility, social equity, community design and more) and identify which alternative (or combination of alternatives) best fulfills the community’s Vision. Following this stage of evaluating the three alternatives, the planning team finalized a preferred alternative in September 2020. Preferred Alternative This packet provides a city-wide and four sub-area overview of Vision and Guiding Principles, Preferred Alternatives, and Policies and Implementation Actions. • Vision and Guiding Principles that the implemented preferred alternative will achieve over the General Plan horizon • Preferred Alternative that shows future land use • Policies and Implementation Actions that will be studied in greater detail later in the process Other sub-areas are not presented in this packet because achieving the community’s Visions for these sub-areas may not require significant change from current conditions. Policies & Implementation Actions for Future Study This section identifies the general topics under which specific issues, policy ideas, or implementation action will be studied in greater detail during subsequent phases of the General Plan Update process. The following is a synopsis of each of the topic categories: Climate Change and Sustainability Topics such as sustainability, climate change, sea-level rise, disaster preparedness and resiliency. Economy and Education Topics such as business diversification, creation of an innovation district, local business retention, early childhood development, jobs training, and libraries. Health and Equity Topics such as celebrating the cultural diversity of South San Francisco, access to health care and food, social equity and environmental justice concerns, and social services. Housing Topics such as the provision of housing suitable for all income levels and family sizes, new housing development standards, and provision of services. Mobility Topics such as increased access to mobility services, including transit, bike and pedestrian networks, access between neighborhoods, and traffic safety. Land Use and Placemaking Topics such as parks and open space, creating access to the arts in all neighborhoods, historic preservation, vibrant neighborhoods, and community amenities. Public Services Topics such as the provision of public services and facilities, libraries, future infrastructure planning, and financial stability. Preferred Alternative 3Introduction We Want to Hear From You! At this stage of the Alternatives process, we would like for you to provide feedback on the preferred land use alternative maps and vision and guiding policy, and future policy and implementation actions. These updated alternatives were shaped by what we heard from the community, Community Advisory Committee, Planning Commission, and City Council, and we look forward to receiving more input. Please provide feedback directly on this document by Friday November 6, 2020. We will review your feedback very carefully and use it to develop policy and zoning solutions on a range of topics from land use, transportation, parks, community design, health and more. Project Progress Learn More Shape SSF 2040 is an ongoing collaborative effort between the City and its residents. There are multiple opportunities to get involved with the General Plan Update process, including: • Visit the Shape SSF 2040 project website to find more information, watch videos of previous community meetings, access reports and studies, and keep up to date on the latest updates: https://shapessf.com/ • Share additional comments, feedback, and questions by sending the project team a message: https://shapessf.com/contact/ • Contact: Lisa Costa Sanders, General Plan Project Administrator City of South San Francisco [email protected] Preferred Alternative 4Citywide Citywide What We Heard Vision and Guiding Principles • Maintain industrial in Lindenville and East of 101 to: a) Preserve the “Industrial City” heritage, b) Retain a base of higher-paying jobs that match skillsets of residents, and c) Maintain small and diverse businesses critical for South San Francisco to remain a world class life sciences destination and an economic engine for the region • Create new, vibrant residential neighborhoods in East of 101 and Lindenville, ensuring appropriate City services, amenities, and retail support new residential growth • Produce a range of housing types for different income levels and household types across the City to balance job and housing growth and distribute the potential impacts of future growth • Celebrate the history, culture, and diversity of the Downtown and its residents and maintain Downtown as the heart of the community by: a) Retaining small, culturally diverse businesses, b) Protecting existing Downtown and Old Town residents from the impacts of neighborhood displacement, and c) Creating programming and arts and cultural resources • Transform Colma Creek into a public amenity that manages flooding and sea level rise, restores ecology, increases public access, and improves public access to the San Francisco Bay and Bay Trail • Maintain existing and find creative opportunities to expand and improve access to parks and open spaces across the City, particularly in areas with lower park access, e.g. Downtown / Old Town and Sunshine Gardens • Consider the impacts of future growth, including potential displacement and traffic impacts, on existing residents and business, being strategic about the amount and pace of growth • Create a comprehensive sea level rise strategy that includes nature-based, grey infrastructure, regulatory, and financial measures. • Improve bike, pedestrian and public transit connectivity throughout the city Revised Citywide Vision Statement South San Francisco is a place where everyone can thrive. Its high quality of life, diverse and inclusive community, livable neighborhoods and excellent services, culture of innovation, and environmental leadership ensure all people have an equitable opportunity to reach their full potential. Guiding Principles • Affordable, safe, attractive, amenity-rich neighborhoods • High-quality and accessible services, facilities, and amenities for residents at all stages of their lives • A safe, convenient, and accessible transportation network that is well-connected to the region • A resilient community • A prosperous downtown + local economy Preferred Alternative 5Citywide Policies & Implementation Actions for Future Study Climate Change and Sustainability • Policies and actions to reduce greenhouse gas emission to combat climate change, including building efficiency, electric vehicle, and zero waste • A sea-level rise strategy that includes nature-based, grey infrastructure, regulatory and financial measures • Green infrastructure to manage stormwater and reduce flooding • Improved quality and prevalence of street trees Economy and Education • Policies to grow a diverse commercial and industrial business base • Policies to stabilize and increase tax revenues • Policies to expand job opportunities that support a good standard of living and financial stability • New learning opportunities that start at early childhood and continue for adults, including Universal Pre-K • Job training programs to allow residents more job opportunities with local businesses • Policies to increase investment between schools and surrounding neighborhoods Health and Equity • Improved healthcare and healthy food options • Supportive services for disadvantaged and at-risk groups • A strategy to buffer new residential neighborhoods from industrial uses and sources of pollution, such as US-101 Housing • A broad range of housing for different income levels and family types, including multi-generational and non-traditional families and special needs groups • Affordable housing production requirements and incentives, including inclusionary zoning, subsidized loans, public/private partnerships, and no parking minimums • Policy options to reduce the impacts of growth on existing residents, including tenant and commercial protections Mobility • Complete, multi-modal corridors • New connections between neighborhoods • Public transportation improvements, including shuttle and bus service and new public-private partnerships • Transportation Demand Management policies and requirements Land Use and Placemaking • An Arts/Cultural District that supports artists and creative businesses • A cultural heritage and public art plan that increases access to arts and cultural programs and facilities • A citywide historic preservation plan update (last completed in 1986) • Placemaking efforts in activity centers and neighborhoods throughout the city • Colma Creek transformation • A network of neighborhood parks and gathering spaces, with new sites and facilities in underserved neighborhoods Public Services: • Universal Pre-K • Multi-generational community centers • New, or additional, services in Lindenville and East of 101 to support housing and higher-density industrial uses • Policies to increase efficiency of city services provision During community engagement events in the fall of 2019 and summer of 2020, community members, the Community Advisory Committee, Planning Commission, and City Council members raised policy questions and implementation ideas for the City of South San Francisco. The following is a preliminary list of specific issues, policy ideas, or implementation actions that will be studied in greater detail during subsequent phases of the General Plan Update process. Preferred Alternative 6Citywide Preferred Alternative: Citywide Preferred Alternative 7Citywide Preferred Alternative: Changes Only Preferred Alternative 8Citywide Land Use Designations Residential Type Description Example Low Density Residential Detached, single-family residential development (maximum residential densities up to 8 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) Low-Medium Density Attached or detached single-family housing, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, townhouses, and condominiums (maximum residential densities range from 15 du/ac up to 18 du/ac with community benefits) Medium Density Residential Attached or detached single-family housing, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, townhouses, condominiums (maximum residential densities range from 18 du/ac up to 22 du/ac with community benefits) Medium- High Density Residential A mix of medium density residential development, including townhouses, condominiums, and apartment buildings (maximum residential densities range from 30 du/ac up to 37.5 du/ac with community benefits) High Density Residential A mix of residential development, including townhouses, condominiums, and apartment buildings (maximum residential densities range from 40 du/ac up to 50 du/ac with community benefits) Type Description Example Downtown Residential A higher-density mix of residential housing types, compatible in scale with adjacent Downtown residential districts (maximum residential densities range from 40 to 80 du/ac, up to 125 du/ ac with community benefits) Urban Residential A higher-density residential area with a variety of multifamily housing choices (maximum residential densities range from 80 du/ac up to 140 du/ac with community benefits) San Mateo County Low Density Residential Detached single-family housing on large parcels (maximum residential densities up to 2.2 du/ac) Preferred Alternative 9Citywide Mixed Use Type Description Example Low Density Mixed Use Lower-scale, mixed use blending residential, commercial, and retail uses and public spaces serving both surrounding neighborhoods and visitors from nearby areas (minimum FAR from 1.5 up to 2.25 with community benefits; residential densities range from 40 du/ac to 60 du/ac with community benefits) Lindenville Neighborhood Center Neighborhood center with retail and commercial uses along the ground floor (minimum FAR from 2.0 up to 3.0 with community benefits; residential densities range from 40 du/ac to 80 du/ac with community benefits) Grand Avenue Core The historic retail center of the City (minimum FAR from 1.5 up to 4.0 with community benefits; residential densities range from 14 du/ac to 100 du/ac with community benefits) Medium Density Mixed Use A broad range of commercial, office, and residential uses and public spaces serving both surrounding neighborhoods and visitors from nearby areas (FAR from 0.5 up to 3.5 with community benefits, of which up to 0.5 FAR can be non-residential; residential densities range from 80 du/ac to 120 du/ac with community benefits) El Camino Mixed Use High High-intensity active uses and mixed-use development, including retail stores, restaurant, hotels, services, residential, educational, and office uses (minimum FAR from 0.6 up to 3.0 with community benefits; residential densities range from 80 du/ac to 110 du/ac with community benefits) Type Description Example High Density Mixed Use A walkable mixed-use area located in Lindenville and along the S El Camino corridor with a focus on mixed-use (residential/commercial) and high density multifamily development (FAR from 0.5 up to 4.5 with community benefits, of which up to 2.0 FAR can be non-residential if residential is provided onsite; residential densities range from 100 du/ac to 140 du/ac with community benefits) East of 101 Mixed Use A walkable mixed-use area located adjacent to the East of 101 Transit Core with a focus on mixed-use (residential/commercial), hotel, and high-density multifamily development (FAR from 0.5 up to 5.0 with community benefits, of which up to 0.5 FAR can be non-residential; residential densities range from 100 du/ac to 140 du/ac with community benefits) Downtown Transit Core A vibrant, mixed-use area located adjacent to the Caltrain Station that allows the highest intensities in the Downtown area (minimum FAR from 2.0 up to 8.0 with community benefits; residential densities range from 80 du/ac to 180 du/ac with community benefits) East of 101 Transit Core Transit-oriented community with a walkable street pattern and a vibrant mix of high-density multifamily and employment uses with supportive retail, services, and amenities (minimum FAR from 2.0 up to 8.0 with community benefits; residential densities range from 120 du/ac to 200 du/ac with community benefits) Preferred Alternative 10 Type Description Image Community Commercial Shopping centers and major commercial districts provide retail, services, hotels, and other amenities (FAR up to 0.5) Oyster Point Coastal Commercial A mixed use area that allows for office, hotel, and other commercial uses (FAR ranges from 0.5 up to 2.2 with community benefits). For additional information, refer to the the Oyster Point Specific Plan report. Business Technology Park Campus-like environments for corporate headquarters, research and development facilities, and offices (FAR ranges from 0.5 up to 1.0 with community benefits) Business Technology Park High High-density corporate headquarters, research and development facilities, and offices (FAR ranges from 0.5 up to 2.0 with community benefits) Business & Professional Office Administrative, financial, business, professional, medical and public offices in locations proximate to BART or Caltrain stations (FAR ranges from 1.0 up to 2.5 with community benefits) Citywide Non-Residential Type Description Image Mixed Industrial Industrial lands for a wide range of manufacturing, processing, general service, warehousing, storage and distribution, and service commercial uses (FAR ranges from 0.4 up to 1.0 with community benefits) Mixed Industrial High High-density industrial lands for a wide range uses (FAR ranges from 0.4 up to 2.0 with community benefits) Industrial Transition Zone A transition between a mixed-use area and high industrial area with a mix of residential and industrial uses (FAR ranges from 0.4 up to 1.0 with community benefits; residential densities range from 80 du/ac to 120 du/ac if community benefits are provided) Genentech Master Plan Private campus with corporate headquarters, research and development facilities and offices. For additional information, refer to the Genentech Campus Master Plan (Public Review Draft September 2019) report. Preferred Alternative 11Citywide Estimated Growth Projections Planning Sub Area Total Housing Growth (Annual Growth Rate*) Total Employment Growth (Annual Growth Rate*) Downtown 1,400 (1.6%)0 (0%) Lindenville 4,500 (63%)15,000 (4.6%) East of 101 7,500 (67%)32,500 (3.0%) El Camino Real 3,500 (5.7%)0 (0%) Residential Neighborhoods Total Housing Growth (Annual Growth Rate*) Total Employment Growth (Annual Growth Rate*) Avalon 200 (0.5%)N/A Orange Park 100 (0.4%)N/A Paradise Valley/Terra Bay 200 (0.5%)N/A Sign Hill 100 (0.5%)N/A Sunshine Gardens 200 (0.4%)N/A Westborough 400 (0.4%)100 (0.4%) Winston Serra 400 (0.4%)N/A * Compound Annual Growth Rate Civic Type Description Image Public Land reserved for public facilities, including government offices, the library, and the sewer treatment plant School Land reserved for school sites and facilities Transportation Land for transportation uses, including regional rail lines like BART and Caltrain. Parks & Recreation Parks, recreation complexes, public golf courses, and greenways. Open Space Reserved land for natural and active open space uses, including sites slopes greater than 30 percent, sensitive habitats, wetlands, creeks, areas subject to flooding, and power transmission line corridors Preferred Alternative 12Sub-Area: Downtown What We Heard Vision and Guiding Policy Vision and Guiding Policy • Celebrate the history, culture, and diversity of the Downtown and its residents and maintain Downtown as the heart of the community • Maintain small, culturally diverse businesses along Grand Avenue, Linden Avenue, and Downtown • Protect existing Downtown and Old Town residents and businesses from the impacts of neighborhood displacement • Preserve existing affordable housing and increase affordable housing supply • Better connect Downtown to Colma Creek, Lindenville, and East of 101 with enhanced bicycle, pedestrian, and public transit networks • Be strategic about the amount and pace of growth in Downtown to minimize impacts on existing Old Town and Downtown residents • Create new places for recreation and gathering, including a community center Land Use Alternatives • Maintain existing and find creative opportunities to expand and improve access to parks and open spaces • Limit land use change in the Downtown area to address the impacts of neighborhood gentrification • Distribute high-density and mixed-use housing in other areas that have not experienced as much housing growth in recent years as Downtown, like El Camino Real, East of 101, and around BART stations Revised Vision Statement for the Downtown Planning Sub-Area Downtown is a home and gathering place to people of different income levels, races, and ethnicities. It is a center of art and culture, small and local business, housing, and transit that embrace the entire community. It celebrates the culture and history of the Downtown and of its residents. New growth is balanced with policy, action, and investment to protect vulnerable residents, homes, and businesses from displacement, allowing them to sustain roots in the community. New community gathering spaces provide opportunities for existing and new residents to connect and interact. Guiding Policy • Celebrate the history and culture of Downtown and its residents through arts and cultural resources • Encourage retention of existing and local businesses to the Downtown and protect the historic building fabric • Promote new residential, mixed use, and employment uses to add business patrons and residents in order to create a sustainable and thriving Downtown, while maintaining a scale and character that is complementary • Focus new improvements on Grand Avenue to return this historic corridor to once again being the focus of the community • Create new, accessible open space types and amenities, such as a community center that will accommodate the physical and social needs of users of all ages and abilities • Construct safe, comfortable, and accessible pedestrian and bicycle facilities that invite people of all ages and abilities to access Downtown amenities and services, Caltrain, Colma Creek and employment in East of 101 and Lindenville • Protect existing residents and local businesses from displacement, while working to preserve existing affordable housing and naturally-occurring affordable housing • Ensure the build out of the Plan advances the social, cultural, environmental, and physical goals of the community and results in a series of community benefits that address the needs of existing and future Downtown residents Sub-Area: Downtown Preferred Alternative 13Sub-Area: Low-Medium Density Residential Medium Density Residential Low Density Residential Medium-High Density Residential Downtown Residential Core High Density Residential San mateo County Low Density Residential Urban Residential Lindenville Neighborhood Center Grand Avenue Core Low Density Mixed Use Medium Density Mixed Use High Density Mixed Use El Camino Mixed Use Business Technology Park Business Technology Park High Community Commercial Business and Professional Office Mixed Industrial High Mixed Industrial Genentech Master Plan Industrial Transition Zone School Transportation Public Parks and Recreation Open Space Downtown Transit Core East of 101 Mixed Use East of 101 Transit Core Residential Mixed Use Non-Residential Civic Sub-Area: Downtown What We Tested with July 2020 Land Use Alternatives • Maintaining Grand Avenue as a mixed-use corridor • Creating a mixed use, transit-oriented community adjacent to the Caltrain station • Allowing the Downtown mixed-use pattern to continue south to Colma Creek, creating a new residential neighborhood • Developing a mixed-use corridor along Airport Boulevard • Creating a mixed-use neighborhood center with residential and neighborhood-serving retail and services at Linden Avenue and Airport Boulevard • Improving bicycle and pedestrian connectivity to East of 101, Colma Creek, and Lindenville • Adding new neighborhood parks in Old Town and along Colma Creek Preferred Alternative Changes Only Bay TrailProposed Pedestrian & Bicycle Connection Potential StreetsPotential Canal ImprovementsExisting Pedestrian & Bicycle Connection Proposed Bridge or Elevated RoadwayProposed Park Preferred Alternative 14Sub-Area: Downtown Why This Alternative? The preferred alternative maintains the overall community vision for Downtown as the heart of South San Francisco. It retains the core community land use vision articulated in the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (DSASP) to create a vibrant and successful community center and a source of local pride. Like the DSASP, the preferred alternative retains historic activity-filled commercial corridors along Grand Avenue and Linden Avenue and compatible land use and density standards in surrounding residential neighborhoods. It promotes new residential, mixed use, and employment uses in order to support a sustainable and thriving Downtown. New housing supports City goals to add a broad range of new housing for different income levels to meet State requirements. At the same time, the City acknowledges the impacts recent growth has had on existing Old Town and Downtown residents. Therefore, the preferred alternative retains most existing General Plan land use designations in order to create predictable, incremental growth in Downtown. New policies to address the impacts of growth and gentrification on existing residents and businesses will be studied in greater depth in the next General Plan phase (see Policies and Implementation Actions for Study). Proposed land use changes include: • Creating a new residential neighborhood centered along Colma Creek within a short walk of Downtown amenities and services that provides a range of housing types for different income levels and household types. • Creating a neighborhood-serving center that would support small retail, offices, and more at Linden Ave and Airport Boulevard • Creating a mixed-used gateway to Downtown along Airport Boulevard Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Preferred Alternative 15Sub-Area: Downtown Policies & Implementation Actions for Future Study During community engagement events in the fall of 2019 and summer of 2020, community members, the Community Advisory Committee, Planning Commission, and City Council members raised policy questions and implementation ideas for Downtown. This section details many of the specific issues, policy ideas, or implementation actions that will be studied in greater detail during subsequent phases of the General Plan Update process. Climate Change and Sustainability • Improved quality and prevalence of street treesEconomy and Education • Business growth and support, particularly for businesses along Grand AvenueHousing • Affordable housing production through inclusionary zoning, subsidized loans, public/private partnerships, and no parking minimums • Accessory dwelling unit production • A policy to preserve naturally-occurring affordable housing in Old TownMobility • Better bike and pedestrian connections to Lindenville, East of 101, and Colma Creek • Improved transit infrastructure, including connectivity, shelters, benches, and priority lanes • Improved bike infrastructure and network connectivity • Close pedestrian infrastructure gaps • Shared parking policy and ratiosLand Use and Placemaking • An Arts/Culture District that supports artists and creative businesses • Policy options to reduce the impacts of growth and gentrification on Old Town and Downtown residents, including tenant and commercial protections • A policy to moderate growth in Downtown • A policy to have East of 101 employers support housing • A policy to help Old Town and Downtown residents gain community benefits (such as funding for parks and other capital improvement projects) from new businesses in the area • A connected network of neighborhood parks, pop-up parks, and gathering spaces • Improved streetscape along Grand AvenuePublic Services • Additional childcare facilities • A community center Preferred Alternative 16Sub-Area: Lindenville What We Heard Vision and Guiding Policy Vision and Guiding Policy • Maintain small and diverse businesses, including industrial and service uses • Preserve industrial uses to maintain a base of higher-paying jobs that match skill sets of residents • Incorporate housing and affordable housing into the vision for the area • Emphasize quality of life improvements to create a complete neighborhood, including pedestrian and bike improvements, new parks, and open space • Consider the impacts of future growth, including potential displacement and traffic impacts, on Downtown, Orange Park, and other surrounding areas Land Use Alternatives • Transform Colma Creek into a public amenity • Transform area around Colma Creek into a vibrant, mixed-use neighborhood • Maintain industrial uses in Lindenville and provide opportunities for these businesses to grow and change over time • Reduce the residential mixed-use area size along Colma Creek to maintain a larger area for businesses • Assess adding housing near Tanforan Avenue and the San Bruno BART station • Distribute high-density and mixed-use housing in other areas like El Camino, East of 101, and around the South San Francisco BART station Revised Vision Statement for the Lindenville Planning Sub-Area Lindenville is a vibrant and inclusive neighborhood that maintains a base of good paying jobs, promotes the creative economy, and creates a new residential neighborhood where all people can thrive. Guiding Policy • Create a new residential neighborhood centered along Colma Creek that provides a range of housing types for different income levels and household types and is within a short walk of Downtown amenities and services • Preserve a core area of light industrial and service uses that provide good paying jobs for South San Francisco residents • Proactively support the industries, artists, institutions, and programs that spur the creative economy • Construct safe, comfortable, and accessible pedestrian and bicycle facilities that invite people of all ages and abilities with improved connections to Downtown, El Camino, and East of 101 • Transform Colma Creek and create new open spaces to provide opportunities for social interaction, recreation, flood protection, and urban ecology • Sustain a diverse mix of uses with higher intensities close to Downtown, the San Bruno BART station, and along S Spruce Ave and Highway 101 • Proactively build long-term resilience to sea level rise and Colma Creek flooding Sub-Area: Lindenville Hassell ©Colma Creek Adaptation Planning DRAFT Design Report Prepared for Bay Area Regional Collaborative & San Mateo County 5352 45 degree sloped concrete channel, bordered by Sister Cities linear park on the south. North Canal Rd to the north is a wide street with a planted buffer and fence along the edge of the creek. There is no pedestrian access along the north edge of the creek. Smiliary to section 03 but with sides transitioning to vertical walls and expanded capacity due to the high tides reaching this point in the creek. A narrow buffer run along the north edge of the creek. KEY SECTION 03 KEY SECTION 04 Section 5 - Site Analysis & Opportunities Sister Cities ParkSister Cities Park Sister Cities ParkSister Cities ParkNorth Canal RoadNorth Canal RoadFenceFence SidewalkSidewalk North Canal StreetNorth Canal Street FenceFence Creek Creek Public Land Carriageway Carriageway Public Land Section Section Axonometric Axonometric Edge Condition Edge Condition Colma Creek Adaptation Plan Preferred Alternative 17Sub-Area: Lindenville Preferred Alternative Changes Only What We Tested with July 2020 Land Use Alternatives • Allowing the Downtown mixed-used pattern to continue south to Colma Creek, creating a new residential neighborhood • Transforming Colma Creek into a citywide amenity that provides flood protection, improves urban ecology, and creates new open space and recreation opportunities • Determining an ideal mix of industrial, commercial, and residential land uses • Developing a mixed-use corridor along S Spruce Ave • Improving connectivity to East of 101, Colma Creek, and Downtown Bay TrailProposed Pedestrian & Bicycle Connection Potential StreetsPotential Canal ImprovementsExisting Pedestrian & Bicycle Connection Proposed Bridge or Elevated RoadwayProposed Park Low-Medium Density Residential Medium Density Residential Low Density Residential Medium-High Density Residential Downtown Residential Core High Density Residential San mateo County Low Density Residential Urban Residential Lindenville Neighborhood Center Grand Avenue Core Low Density Mixed Use Medium Density Mixed Use High Density Mixed Use El Camino Mixed Use Business Technology Park Business Technology Park High Community Commercial Business and Professional Office Mixed Industrial High Mixed Industrial Genentech Master Plan Industrial Transition Zone School Transportation Public Parks and Recreation Open Space Downtown Transit Core East of 101 Mixed Use East of 101 Transit Core Residential Mixed Use Non-Residential Civic Preferred Alternative 18Sub-Area: Lindenville Why This Alternative? The preferred land use alternative maintains the community vision of preserving small businesses and industrial uses while also creating a vibrant and inclusive neighborhood where all people can thrive. The preferred land use alternative allows Lindenville to strengthen its economic base, which includes a large number of small businesses and a high share of jobs in industry sectors, by retaining a large portion of its land area for service, transportation, and industrial uses. These non-residential areas may also provide opportunities for arts and the creative economy to continue growing and expanding in South San Francisco. The preferred alternative transforms Colma Creek into a public amenity. In addition, the preferred alternative advances on-going Colma Creek adaptation planning by coordinating efforts with those of regional agencies to manage flooding and sea level rise, restore ecology, increase public access, and improve public access to the San Francisco Bay and Bay Trail. Building on the transformation of Colma Creek, the preferred alternative creates a new residential neighborhood. Providing opportunities for living in Lindenville will support a sustainable and thriving Downtown and advance City goals to add a broad range of new housing for different income levels to meet State requirements. Accommodating new residential growth outside of existing residential neighborhoods will minimize visual, noise, and transportation impacts on existing residents. The preferred alternative supports the well-being of new Lindenville residents by providing convenient access to new parks and gathering spaces, neighborhood- serving retail and amenities, and public services. Edge conditions are particularly important in Lindenville. This area is adjacent to the Downtown and Orange Park sub-areas. The preferred alternative transitions from medium densities south of Railroad Avenue to higher densities adjacent to Colma Creek. New policies to address the impacts of growth and gentrification on existing residents and businesses will be studied in greater depth in the next General Plan phase (see Policies and Implementation Actions for Study). Proposed land use changes include: • Creating a new residential neighborhood centered along Colma Creek within a short walk of Downtown amenities and services that provides a range of housing types for different income levels and household types • Providing a buffer of lower intensity industrial uses between higher intensity industrial uses and adjacent residential neighborhoods • Maintaining the existing industrial core Preferred Alternative 19Sub-Area: Lindenville Policies & Implementation Actions for Future Study During community engagement events in the fall of 2019 and summer of 2020, community members, the Community Advisory Committee, Planning Commission, and City Council members raised policy questions and implementation ideas for Lindenville. This section details many of the specific issues, policy ideas, or implementation actions that will be studied in greater detail during subsequent phases of the General Plan Update process. Climate Change and Sustainability • Green infrastructure to manage stormwater and reduce floodingEconomy and Education • A policy to incentivize neighborhood-servicing stores and restaurants • A policy to retain and grow small businesses (fewer than 50 employees) • A policy to retain the Produce Mart by allowing transfer of development rightsHealth and Equity • A strategy to buffer housing from industrial uses and sources of pollution, such as US-101Housing • A policy to catalyze housing along Colma Creek • Affordable housing production through inclusionary zoning, subsidized loans, public/private partnerships, and no parking minimumsMobility • Complete streets for pedestrians and bicyclists • New connections to Colma Creek and East of 101 • Shared parking and parking ratios Land Use and Placemaking • An Arts/Culture District that supports artists and creative businesses • Opportunities to catalyze Colma Creek transformation • New neighborhood parks and gathering spaces • Connections to Colma Creek open space • New zoning standards for residential and high-intensity industrial usesPublic Services • Additional public or City services needed in Lindenville to support housing and higher-intensity industrial uses Preferred Alternative 20Sub-Area: East of 101 What We Heard Vision and Guiding Policy Vision and Guiding Policy • Create residential and mixed-use neighborhood near the Caltrain station • Develop housing affordable to people earning a variety of income levels • Ensure appropriate services and amenities to support new residential and employment growth • Continue to encourage a mix of life science, biotech, technology, and industrial businesses • Emphasize sustainability and resilience, particularly in relation to climate change and sea level rise • Improve connections to the East of 101 areas, including new streets, public transportation, and pedestrian and bike networks • Ensure benefits of growth are broadly shared Land Use Alternatives • Add new parks and open spaces • Retain industrial land uses to support business diversity • Support high-density mixed-use development near the South San Francisco Caltrain station and along US 101, adding residential, community amenities, and services • Ensure intensified commercial and industrial uses do not overburden transportation system and infrastructure Revised Vision Statement for the East of 101 Planning Sub-Area East of 101 is a well-connected innovation district with a diverse mix of uses that serves as a model of sustainability, resilience, multimodal mobility, and economic opportunity. Sub-Area: East of 101 What is an innovation district? An area where leading-edge institutions and companies cluster and connect. Innovation districts mix housing, office, and complementary services and amenities in compact, transit-rich locations. Guiding Policy • Create a new transit-oriented community that provides a range of housing types for different income levels and household types and that sustains services and amenities to support residents and businesses • Preserve the cluster of life sciences as an economic engine for the City and an international hub while blending new emerging industries into the district • Preserve a cluster of industrial businesses as a hub for the region • Maintain a well-connected and accessible district with high-quality transit and walking and biking paths that seamlessly connect East of 101 with Downtown, Lindenville, and the rest of the City • Create places and programming to inspire creativity and social interaction in hubs of activity that invite and welcome all South San Francisco residents • Diversify the mix of uses in the district, concentrating the highest-intensities adjacent to Caltrain and along transit corridors (South Airport, Gateway, Oyster Point, E Grand) • Build in flexibility for East of 101, the San Francisco Bay shoreline, and Colma Creek to evolve over time, responding and adapting to climate disruption • Connect people to nature and the Bay and Colma Creek through a continuous network of new and improved bicycle and pedestrian pathways • Harness the creativity of the district to create collaborative solutions to complex district challenges, such as sea level rise and traffic congestion Preferred Alternative 21Sub-Area: East of 101 What We Tested with July 2020 Land Use Alternatives • Creating a mixed-use, transit-oriented community adjacent to the Caltrain station with residential and supportive amenities and services • Determining an ideal mix of industrial, commercial/business park, and residential land uses • Developing a mixed-use corridor along S Airport Boulevard • Improving connectivity to Lindenville, Colma Creek, and Downtown • Transforming Colma Creek into a citywide amenity that provides flood protection, improves urban ecology, and creates a new open space and recreation opportunities • Addressing sea level rise Preferred Alternative Changes Only Bay TrailProposed Pedestrian & Bicycle Connection Potential StreetsPotential Canal ImprovementsExisting Pedestrian & Bicycle Connection Proposed Bridge or Elevated RoadwayProposed Park Low-Medium Density Residential Medium Density Residential Low Density Residential Medium-High Density Residential Downtown Residential Core High Density Residential San mateo County Low Density Residential Urban Residential Lindenville Neighborhood Center Grand Avenue Core Low Density Mixed Use Medium Density Mixed Use High Density Mixed Use El Camino Mixed Use Business Technology Park Business Technology Park High Community Commercial Business and Professional Office Mixed Industrial High Mixed Industrial Genentech Master Plan Industrial Transition Zone School Transportation Public Parks and Recreation Open Space Downtown Transit Core East of 101 Mixed Use East of 101 Transit Core Residential Mixed Use Non-Residential Civic Low-Medium Density Residential Medium Density Residential Low Density Residential Medium-High Density Residential Downtown Residential Core High Density Residential San mateo County Low Density Residential Urban Residential Lindenville Neighborhood Center Grand Avenue Core Low Density Mixed Use Medium Density Mixed Use High Density Mixed Use El Camino Mixed Use Business Technology Park Business Technology Park High Community Commercial Business and Professional Office Mixed Industrial High Mixed Industrial Genentech Master Plan Industrial Transition Zone School Transportation Public Parks and Recreation Open Space Downtown Transit Core East of 101 Mixed Use East of 101 Transit Core Residential Mixed Use Non-Residential Civic Oyster Point Coastal Commercial Preferred Alternative 22Sub-Area: East of 101 Why This Alternative? The preferred alternative advances the community vision of maintaining districts for life sciences and industrial growth, while creating a new neighborhood that allows residential and supportive amenities and services. This alternative allows for the growth and continued success of the life sciences as an economic engine for the city. Biotech companies may intensify development north of East Grand Avenue, closer to key transportation corridors, in exchange for community benefits and district improvements. By allowing the biotech area to grow through intensification rather than expanding its geographic area, the preferred land use alternative enables transportation, trade, and industrial uses to retain land area and continue to thrive in East of 101. These businesses are supported by the City in efforts to adjust to emerging economic conditions and build long-term resilience to sea level rise and flooding. The preferred alternative transforms Colma Creek into a public amenity. In addition, the preferred alternative advances on-going Colma Creek adaptation planning by coordinating efforts with those of regional agencies to manage flooding and sea level rise, restore ecology, increase public access, and improve public access to the San Francisco Bay and Bay Trail. The preferred alternative creates a new mixed-use neighborhood at the Caltrain station and along S Airport Boulevard. Providing opportunities for living in East of 101 supports a long-term vision for an innovation district, places more housing near jobs and high-quality transit, and advances City goals to add a broad range of new housing for different income levels to meet State requirements. Accommodating new residential growth outside of existing residential neighborhoods will minimize visual, noise, and transportation impacts on existing residents. The preferred alternative supports the well-being of new East of 101 residents by providing convenient access to new parks and gathering spaces, neighborhood-serving retail and amenities, and public services. These much-needed amenities also serve Downtown and adjacent neighborhoods. Proposed land use changes include: • Creating a mixed-use transit-oriented community near the Caltrain station • Creating a mixed-use corridor on S Airport Boulevard • Allowing a higher intensity business/ technology park north of East Grand Avenue • Maintaining existing industrial uses Preferred Alternative 23Sub-Area: East of 101 Policies & Implementation Actions for Future Study During community engagement events in the fall of 2019 and summer of 2020, community members, the Community Advisory Committee, Planning Commission, and City Council members raised policy questions and implementation ideas for East of 101. This section details many of the specific issues, policy ideas, or implementation actions that will be studied in greater detail during subsequent phases of the General Plan Update process. Climate Change and Sustainability • A sea level rise strategy that includes nature-based, grey infrastructure, regulatory, and financial measuresHealth & Equity • A strategy to buffer housing from industrial uses and sources of pollution, such as US-101Housing • Policies to catalyze residential development adjacent to the Caltrain station • Affordable housing production through inclusionary zoning, subsidized loans, public/private partnerships, and no parking minimumsMobility • New roadway connections leveraged by external funding • Increased public transportation like shuttle and bus service with public-private partnerships • Transportation Demand Management policy and requirements • Shared parking policies and reduced or maximum parking requirementsLand Use and Placemaking • A community benefits framework for non-residential development • Placemaking strategies adjacent to the Caltrain station • Hotel expansion and improvement along S Airport Boulevard • Opportunities to catalyze Colma Creek transformation • New neighborhood parks and gathering spaces • Connections to Colma Creek open space • Trail network connecting Bay Trail to the Caltrain station and DowntownPublic Services • Additional public or City services needed in East of 101 to support housing and higher-intensity industrial uses Preferred Alternative 24Sub-Area: El Camino Real What We Heard Vision and Guiding Policy Vision and Guiding Policy • Transform into a destination for people and not just a thoroughfare for cars • Develop more housing, particularly for families earning low- and moderate- incomes relative to area median income • Improve pedestrian, bike, and transit infrastructure along El Camino and to/from the corridor • Better connect El Camino to Colma Creek, Downtown, Lindenville, and East of 101 with enhanced bicycle, pedestrian, and public transit networks • Create more public parks and open spaces • Develop high density affordable and middle-income housing • Strong desire to see the vision become a reality Land Use Alternatives • Maintain existing General Plan land use designations for Country Club Park and the sites of the former Fox Ridge and Serra Vista schools • Create three distinct mixed-use centers along El Camino to create distinct activity centers • Allow higher density residential and mixed use around the South San Francisco BART station compared to what is allowed now • Create opportunities for more housing, including housing available to people earning low- and moderate-incomes relative to area median income Revised Vision Statement for the El Camino Real Planning Sub-Area A dynamic and re-envisioned boulevard that is a safe and healthy place for transit riders, pedestrians, and cyclists, with a diverse mix of commercial and residential, and open space uses. Guiding Policy • Improve travel along and across El Camino Real for all modes of transportation: a. Improved sidewalks, street trees, and crosswalks for pedestrians b. Improved access to city and regional destinations for cyclists c. Well-managed parking and traffic flow d. Accessible BART and bus service • Produce a range of housing types for different income levels and household types • Create pedestrian-oriented, mixed-use centers with pockets of concentrated activity at the South San Francisco BART station, the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue area, and the South Spruce Avenue area • Create visual transitions and improve transportation connections to adjacent neighborhoods • Transform Colma Creek into a public amenity with access to open space for residents Sub-Area: El Camino Real 18 El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan figure 1-9: Illustrative Vision – Perspective from the West E L C A M I N O R E A LO A K A V E M I S S I O N R DG R A N D A V E CHESTNUT AVE 19VISION AND CONTEXTE L C A M I N O R E A LO A K A V E M I S S I O N R DG R A N D A V E CHESTNUT AVE El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan Preferred Alternative 25Sub-Area: El Camino Real What We Tested with July 2020 Land Use Alternatives • Creating 3 mixed-use neighborhoods, including transit-oriented communities at the South San Francisco and San Bruno BART stations • Reducing heights along El Camino in the Chestnut Avenue area • Improving connectivity • Reconnecting the Colma Creek Preferred Alternative Changes Only Bay TrailProposed Pedestrian & Bicycle Connection Potential StreetsPotential Canal ImprovementsExisting Pedestrian & Bicycle Connection Proposed Bridge or Elevated RoadwayProposed Park Low-Medium Density Residential Medium Density Residential Low Density Residential Medium-High Density Residential Downtown Residential Core High Density Residential San mateo County Low Density Residential Urban Residential Lindenville Neighborhood Center Grand Avenue Core Low Density Mixed Use Medium Density Mixed Use High Density Mixed Use El Camino Mixed Use Business Technology Park Business Technology Park High Community Commercial Business and Professional Office Mixed Industrial High Mixed Industrial Genentech Master Plan Industrial Transition Zone School Transportation Public Parks and Recreation Open Space Downtown Transit Core East of 101 Mixed Use East of 101 Transit Core Residential Mixed Use Non-Residential Civic Preferred Alternative 26 30 El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan figure 1-15: View D – Chestnut Avenue from El Camino Real D MISSION RD EL CA M I N O R E A L CHEST N U T 31VISION AND CONTEXT 28 El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan figure 1-14: View C – Centennial Way looking North from Chestnut Avenue C MISSION RD EL CA M I N O R E A L CHEST N U T 29VISION AND CONTEXT 24 El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan figure 1-12: View A – Colma Creek looking South along Centennial Way AA Conceptual illustration of potential naturalization of Colma Creek to provide greater visual and physical access to the creek while maintain- ing drainage and flood utility of the channel. 25VISION AND CONTEXT Sub-Area: El Camino Real Why This Alternative? This land use alternative follows the community vision for a dynamic and accessible boulevard for all. El Camino transforms from a regional thoroughfare to a “Grand Boulevard,” complete with comfortable accommodations to facilitate multiple modes of transportation and generous street furniture, signage, and landscaping that enhance the appearance of the corridor. Improved bicycle, pedestrian, and transit connectivity provide opportunities for non-auto travel along and to the corridor. A new street connects El Camino to Sunshine Gardens. The preferred alternative pinpoints strategic locations to support increased housing density and mixed uses along El Camino. These activity centers, at the South San Francisco BART station, the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue area, and the South Spruce Avenue area will experience more housing production to support a variety of income levels and household types. These centers include spaces for social gathering, shopping, and entertainment to enable residents, employees, and visitors to meet their daily needs. New residential areas are identified along the corridor to support City goals to add a broad range of new housing affordable to different income levels to meet State requirements. Maximum allowed building heights for new buildings in the Chestnut area would be reduced from presently-allowed maximums. Proposed land use changes include: • Creating three mixed use centers at South San Francisco BART station, the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue area, and the South Spruce Area • Creating a mixed-use corridor with a focus on residential uses between the mixed-use centers • Reducing maximum allowable building heights in the Chestnut area El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan Preferred Alternative 27Sub-Area: El Camino Real Policies & Implementation Actions for Future Study During community engagement events in the fall of 2019 and summer of 2020, community members, the Community Advisory Committee, Planning Commission, and City Council members raised policy questions and implementation ideas for El Camino Real. This section details many of the specific issues, policy ideas, or implementation actions that will be studied in greater detail during subsequent phases of the General Plan Update process. Climate Change and Sustainability • Green infrastructure to manage stormwater and reduce flooding • Tree canopy to beautify the city and improve health outcomesHousing • New housing incentives within a half mile of South San Francisco and San Bruno BART stations • New missing-middle housing types, such as courtyard apartments, duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, and accessory dwelling units • Production of affordable housing • Workforce housing for teachers and other people employed in public service professionsMobility • Wider sidewalks in front of active ground floor uses for public amenities, including patios, trees, seating, and walking space • A traffic study to understand if existing transportation systems can support future growth • Bike lanes and pedestrian crossings • Shared parking policies and reduced or maximum parking requirementsLand Use and Placemaking • Visual transitions between new development and existing residential neighborhoods, including scale and height step downs, landscaping, and setbacks • More retail and restaurants along El Camino Real • Removing ground floor retail requirement along the corridor to allow for residential- only buildings • Developer fees to improve Colma Creek, Centennial Trail and the El Camino Real corridorPublic Services • New neighborhood gathering spaces • Additional childcare facilities 32El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan figure 1-16: View E – Mission Road at Grand Avenue looking South Conceptual illustration of new residential townhomes and street improvements that facilitate bike and pedestrian movement along Mis- sion Road. MISSION RD EOAK AVEARROYO DREL CAMINO REAL 33AREA PLANVISION AND CONTEXT El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan 11/6/20 Lisa Costa Sanders, General Plan Project Administrator And the South San Francisco Planning Department City of South San Francisco 400 Grand Ave South San Francisco, CA 94080 Re: Comments on Preferred Land Use Alternative for South San Francisco’s 2040 General Plan On behalf of the ​Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County (HLC)​, we appreciate the opportunity to comment on South San Francisco’s prefered land-use alternative for the greater 2040 South San Francisco General Plan. ​Our mission is to work with communities and their leaders to produce and preserve quality affordable homes. We appreciate the work that the City has done thus far in engaging the community and accepting feedback throughout the life of the General Plan process. The current land-use alternative has provided ample opportunity to provide additional homes needed for South San Francisco’s growing population. Given the growth South San Francisco is projected to see, along with the city’s highly successful biotechnology industry, HLC would like to highlight some of the following points and considerations, as opportunities for additional flexibility and housing our most vulnerable populations: ●The preferred land-use alternative has gone a long way to including the potential for much needed housing. South San Francisco is changing and it’s General Plan should provide tools, flexibility and accommodations for future generations. ●Considering additional planning options for housing, across South San Francisco, can help stem displacement and build highly needed affordable housing at the deepest levels of affordability. These include but are not limited to: ○Broadening the use of form-based codes in the General Plan city-wide. ○The equitable distribution and zoning of multiple housing types across South San Francisco. Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County 2905 S. El Camino Real, San Mateo, CA 94403 • (650) 242-1764 • hlcsmc.org ○Affordable housing incentives such as, but not limited to, the use of additional affordable housing overlays, increased allowable heights, lower parking requirements and streamlined permitting for affordable housing. ●Ensuring that the General Plan’s preferred land use alternative actively continues goals of affirmatively furthering fair housing is key future equity in South San Francisco. ●Removing systemic barriers to future affordable housing opportunities in the prefered land use alternative (as well as the General Plan) are important for both long term planning and future residents. These include but are limited to avoiding new restrictions and reductions of height limits, densities, excessive parking requirements, and more. We again want to stress our appreciation to the community members, staff members, and elected officials that have gone through the extensive process of developing this existing preferred land use alternative, as well as acknowledge what the plan has included so far. We know South San Francisco values diversity, inclusion and decency. The plans thus have made those values very clear. We believe South San Francisco is on the right path, where everyone who works, lives and grows up in South San Francisco can have suitable, affordable housing and live with dignity. The South San Francisco General Plan can be that sustainable guiding plan while promoting greater equity. Thank you for your consideration. Alex Melendrez, Digital Organizer Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County 2905 S. El Camino Real, San Mateo, CA 94403 • (650) 242-1764 • hlcsmc.org sierraclub.org/loma-prieta ~ 3921 East Bayshore Road, Suite 204, Palo Alto, CA 94303 San Mateo, Santa Clara and San Benito Counties November 09, 2020 To: Mayor Garbarino and Members of the City Council City of South San Francisco 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 ([email protected]) Attn: Lisa Costa Sanders, General Plan Program Administrator ([email protected]) RE: Comments on 2040 General Plan - Preferred Plan Dear Mayor Garbarino and Members of the South San Francisco City Council , Thank you for providing the opportunity for the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter Sustainable Land Use Committee (SLU) to provide input on the 2040 General Plan (GP). We have studied the Preferred Option and the land use designations and believe that certain additional items need to be considered before moving forward. We also have reviewed the draft Genentech Development Agreement (DA) and would like to include comments on that as well since it closely relates to the General Plan. We present these in outline below and expand on them after this: 1. The Preferred Alternative needs more housing, to support the forecast 47,000 new jobs: A 2.6 jobs per housing ratio, is the same as the current jobs per housing ratio and will continue to aggravate a serious housing shortage. A 1.5 jobs per housing ratio is ideal.1 The GP should seek to lower the 2.6 number much closer to 1.5 for the added number of jobs. 2. Resilience and sea level rise: Adaptation strategies for sea level rise as well as inland flooding from rising Colma Creek waters require significant space set aside for accumulation of flood waters and adaptation in a twenty year plan 2 Land use diagrams need to recognize that space is needed to achieve adaptation goal s and strategies to accommodate this space need to be included in the GP. 1 Healthy jobs /housing balance - According to the Building Industry Association, a healthy jobs-housing balance is 1.5. (One full time job and one part time job per housing unit.) The California Department of Finance also considers a 1.5 jobs-to-housing unit ratio to be healthy. Any ratio above 1.5 Jobs/housing unit signifies there is insufficient number of housing units to meet the needs of the local workforce. 2 According to the California Ocean Protection Council’s Strategic Plan for 2020 - 2025, issued in February 2020, sea levels have been going up faster than earlier projected and therefore critical infrastructure needs to plan for possible 3.5’ of sea level rise by 2050 sierraclub.org/loma-prieta ~ 3921 East Bayshore Road, Suite 204, Palo Alto, CA 94303 3. Transportation: The preferred alternative will need to address increased traffic. The percentage of walk, bike and transit use needs to significantly increase and other innovative solutions need to be considered . The proposal of a traffic bridge across the mudflats, however, presents serious environmental issues of building on the bay. 4. The GP Update Vision seeks to significantly increase Green Space and Sustainability: This newly created Open Space Demand should be clearly tabulated and included as an important space -need in the Preferred Alternative. Improvement of Colma Creek, as an amenity for people and nature, needs setbacks to provide trails and parks for residents and riparian habitat for native species, and to better control flooding. We hope you will consider including the above elements in the Preferred Plan. We describe these in greater detail below. __________________________________ 1. The Preferred Alternative needs more housing, to support the forecast 4,700+ new jobs: The significant increase in jobs has a huge impact on the environment via the jobs/housing ratio. Tracking Jobs and housing: One strategy that other cities are adopting, to respond to community concerns, is to track the commercial office space being created with the number of housing units in the pipeline and report these to Council on an annual basis. This gives the City a tool to ensure that office entitlements and housing stay in balance going forward as well as the opportunity to exercise some control over this balance. The East Whisman Precise Plan in Mountain View uses this approach3. Assumptions made, pre-COVID, for office space requirements should be questioned before committing to enormous increases in unsustainable commercial office growth in the coming years. This is another reason to track the jobs/housing metrics closely. The GP does propose a very significant amount of new housing units (18,500). This is laudable but given the job growth (47,600) it is insufficient. The city needs to look at innovative ways to assure that the increased jobs goal does not lead to significant negative impacts because of the lack of a supporting housing goal. If this issue is left unaddressed, it will lead to major traffic congestion and long co mmutes for many workers and to major negative environmental impacts regarding GHG, other emissions and urban sprawl. Also, this would lead to major negative impact to lower income neighborhoods in SSF, including gentrification and overcrowding. 2. Resilience and Sea Level Rise Adaptation should be included in the plan 3 East Whisman Precise Plan- Administrative Guidelines for Jobs/Housing Linkage sierraclub.org/loma-prieta ~ 3921 East Bayshore Road, Suite 204, Palo Alto, CA 94303 The San Francisco Bay Shoreline Adaptation Atlas4 has identified the city’s bay edge as having the characteristics that could benefit from nature -based approaches to adaptation to rising sea levels and increased near side flooding. Shallow gravel beaches could reduce impact of wave action along the higher portions of the bay edge and a combination of nature based strategies including wetlands, uplands, mudflats and submerged reefs could create robust flood protection and improved healthy habitat around the southern portion around the mouths of Colma Creek and San Bruno Cre ek. Increased inland flooding capacity is critical and can be achieved with wider creek setbacks and naturalized edges where these can be created. Critical infrastructure such as the Wastewater Treatment Plant needs special consideration. It may be timely to consider whether smaller satellite plants further up within SSF, such as the Neighborhood recycled water plant at Menlo Park's Sharon Heights golf course, might be the wave of the future and less expensive, in the long run, than protecting the existing plant at the present location. 3. Transportation: Significantly increase the alternatives to cars for transportation to the job’s areas (East of 101, Downtown and Lindenville). SSF is fortunate to have both a Caltrain Station a nd BART station within its borders and nearby (San Bruno) that are relatively close (1 to 3 miles) from the job centers. The GP should seek to maximize the use of pedestrian, bike, transit, and other non-fossil-fuel modes of transportation from these stations to the job areas, so that significantly more than 52% of the commutes are by non -car modes. SSF is growing a world class Bio-tech center and should seek to have a world class transportation network to support this high -tech industry. We encourage the GP process to provide for the study and promotion of innovative transportation to get people from the stations to the job so as to be a model to the world of how to develop an important high-tech industry hub in a sustainable way. The recent study in San Jose of concepts for connecting the Diridon Station to Mineta San Jose International Airport provides ideas on Personal Rapid Transit (PRT), Group Rapid Transit (GRT) as well as other innovative ideas. Such convenient local transportation will encourage people to use the train and BART, rather than cars to commute to work. Also, the DA with Genentech should require some financing and support for improved transportation alternatives. Another idea would be a Transportation Management Association (TMA) with other cities on the Peninsula, to encourage Transportation Demand Management (TDM) between cities. See example of Foster City and Menlo Park. 4 San Francisco Bay Shoreline Adaptation Atlas See pages 170-173 for South San Francisco sierraclub.org/loma-prieta ~ 3921 East Bayshore Road, Suite 204, Palo Alto, CA 94303 A partnership with the major Biotech companies like Genentech would be an essential component of bringing about innovative solutions. Thus, any Development Agreement with Genentech (and other major companies) should not only include major funding (or other solutions) for housing (including affordable housing) and for transportation, but also support for innovative solutions to these issues with the county and near nearby cities. A plan for a Safe Green connected bike and pedestrian network from BART and residential areas throughout SSF can be developed as part of the Colma Creek improvements that would allow bikers and pedestrians to travel along a safe, pleasant path to the job areas from most residential areas in SSF as well as for recreation. The proposed road bridge, across the baylands, to create a direct connection to freeway 380 presents a problem, as this entire area of the mouths of San Bruno and Colma Creek is bay water, environmentally sensitive, a low lying area and is subject to sea level rise. According to the Adaptation Atlas 6, this area does present the potential to provide robust nature-based resilience solutions to sea level rise and flood protection for the city while enhancing ecological functions and habitat. Work from Home (WFH): Working remotely is a new TDM strategy and could be reported transparently and regularly along with other TDM measures. Santa Clara County is working on a resolution and ordinance requiring 25% of the county workforce to WFH in order to reduce climate impacts from traffic and reduce demand on office space as well. 4. The GP Update Vision seeks to significantly increase Green S pace and Sustainability: The plan anticipates significant increases in the population of both residents and employees. Therefore, it envisions a need for commensurate open space, park and recreational space and a healthy ecology for sustainability. Open space should be clearly tabulated and included as part of the land use diagrams. The improvement of Colma Creek, The revision of the GP provides the opportunity to significantly improve natural features like Colma Creek, so as to provide better natural areas and parks for residents and native species as well as providing bike and pedestrian access for the jobs areas near the Bay. The creek needs resilience for significant flooding as sea levels rise, and this also provides the opportunity to promote the po tential of Colma Creek to become a greenway for the City, all the way from Orange Memorial Park to the Bay, with native vegetation, areas for recreation, a bike path and walking trail, replacing paved surfaces with more permeable ones — such as play fields and parks— in the floodplain of the creek Bird Safe design ordinance should be built into the general plan elements of the updated General Plan, along with night lighting guidelines. Bird strikes is a growing concern along the bay. As Colma Creek is naturalized as an amenity, birds will be attracted to the riparian habitat, and therefore bird -safe design and bight lighting control becomes important to protect this improved ecology. 6 San Francisco Bay Shoreline Adaptation Atlas See pages 170-173 for South San Francisco sierraclub.org/loma-prieta ~ 3921 East Bayshore Road, Suite 204, Palo Alto, CA 94303 San Bruno Mountain should not be built upon anymore but should be reserved as a natural area with public access. Development encroachment into the wildlife urban interface stretches the resources of safety workers and extends city utilities with little cost-benefit to the city. The potential of Colma Creek to become a greenway for the City Image by Hassel We ask that you consider this information as you consider the preferred alternative for the 2040 General Plan. Respectfully submitted, Gita Dev, Co-chair, Sustainable Land Use Committee, Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter (SCLP) Cc Gladwyn d’Souza, Conservation Committee Co -chair, Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter James Eggers, Executive Director, Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter Preferred Alternative City Council November 18, 2020 Existing ConditionsReports Vision + Guiding Principles Public Draft General Plan Public Draft EIR + Zoning Code Final GP, EIR, Zoning Code 2020 2021 Policy FrameworksLand Use Alternatives 2022 Fall Winter Summer Fall Key Engagement Time Planning Timeline Summer Preferred Alt / Final Land Use Plan Community Engagement To Date 9 Sub-Area Listening Sessions + 4 Pop-Ups (Aug –Sept 2019) 2 Community Visioning Workshops, 4 Pop-Ups + Survey (Dec –Feb 2020 Vision + Guiding Principles Survey (June –July 2020) 7 Virtual Alternatives Workshops + Survey (July –Aug 2020) Virtual Preferred Alternative Workshop + Launched Survey (Oct 2020) •16 Community Advisory Committee Meetings •2 Joint City Council + Planning Commission Study Sessions •2 City Council Meetings •2 Planning Commission Alternatives Summary Current General Plan Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Housing Units Jobs Jobs / Housing Balance Getting Worse MoreLess Housing Units Jobs Jobs / Housing Balance Improving MoreLess Housing Units Jobs Jobs / Housing Balance About the Same MoreLess Alternative 1 Housing Units Jobs Jobs / Housing Balance Getting Worse MoreLess Build affordable housing Need services to keep pace with growth Balance jobs and housing Maintain industrial land Add a community center to Downtown Create a Cultural Arts District Protect Old Town renters Invest in Universal Pre-K Add parks to El Camino Citywide Engagement Workshop + Survey: Most Live in Downtown sub-area Virtual Meetings: 7 Participants: 281 Surveys Completed: 143 Ask a Planner: 40+ Total: 450+ Workshop + Survey: Most between the ages of 31-64 2 CAC Meetings 1 Planning Commission 1 Joint City Council / Planning Commission Meetings 13% 21% 38% 3%1% 24%21% 30% 46% 1%2% 41%34% 19% 5%2% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Asian Hispanic White Other Black Decline to State Race/Ethnicity Engagement and City Demographics Survey Workshops Citywide Census Broad Themes Maintain industrial in Lindenville and East of 101 Create new, vibrant residential neighborhoods in East of 101 and Lindenville Produce a range of housing types for different income levels and household types Celebrate the history, culture, and diversity of the Downtown Broad Themes Transform Colma Creek into a public amenity Maintain and improve access to parks and open spaces Consider the impacts of future growth Create a comprehensive sea level rise strategy Improve bike, pedestrian and public transit connectivity Revised Land Use Map Move the neighborhood boundary up and create a transition Maximize residential densities Create center @ Linden and Airport Allow medium density mixed-use along Downtown edge Create mixed- use area at BART Focus on residential along southern El Camino Limit designation change in Downtown Policies + Actions for Further Study Land Use and Placemaking •Arts/Cultural District and Master Plan •Placemaking efforts •Network of neighborhood parks and gathering spaces Housing •Housing for different income levels and family types •Affordable housing production •Tenant and commercial protections Mobility •Complete, multi-modal corridors •Public transportation improvements •Transportation Demand Management Policies + Actions for Further Study Climate Change and Sustainability •Greenhouse gas emission reduction •Green infrastructure •Street trees Health and Equity •Healthcare and healthy food options •Supportive services •New residential neighborhoods adjacency Economy and Education •Diverse commercial and industrial businesses •New learning opportunities •Job training programs Public Services •Universal Pre-K •Multi-generational community centers Preferred Alternative Preferred Alternative Allows for continued life sciences + biotech growth Creates new vibrant neighborhoods in Lindenvilleand East of 101 Reinforces Downtown as the heart of the community but minimizes land use change in Downtown Creates mixed-use transit-oriented community near Caltrain + BART stations Improves multimodal mobility Retains land area for service, transportation, and industrial uses Transform Colma Creek into a public amenity Supports workforce and affordable housing across the city East of 101 Planning Sub -Area What We Heard Create residential and mixed-use neighborhood near the Caltrain station Develop housing affordable to people earning a variety of income levels Ensure appropriate services and amenities to support new residential and employment growth Continue to encourage a mix of life science, biotech, technology, and industrial businesses Improve connections to the East of 101 areas Add new parks and open spaces Preferred Alternative Allows for the growth and continued success of the life sciences through intensification Retains a portion of land area for service, transportation, and industrial uses allowing properties to improve Creates a new mixed-use neighborhood at the Caltrain station and along S Airport Boulevard Transforms Colma Creek into a public amenity Mixed Industrial High East of 101 Transit Core East of 101 Mixed Use Business Technology Park Business Technology Park High Community Commercial Preferred Alternative Changes Only Lindenville Planning Sub-Area What We Heard Maintain industrial uses in Lindenville Maintain small and diverse businesses Transform area around Colma Creek into a vibrant, mixed-use neighborhood Transform Colma Creek into a public amenity Emphasize quality of life improvements Consider the impacts of future growth Preferred Alternative Retains a large portion of its land area for service, transportation, and industrial uses allowing properties to improve Creates a new residential neighborhood centered along Colma Creek Transforms Colma Creek into a public amenity Provide a buffer of lower intensity industrial uses between higher intensity industrial uses and adjacent residential neighborhoods Urban Residential High Density Mixed Use Mixed Industrial HighBusiness & Professional Office Mixed Industrial Low Density Mixed Use Preferred Alternative Changes Only Downtown Planning Sub-Area What We Heard Celebrate the history, culture, and diversity Maintain small, culturally diverse businesses along Grand Avenue, Linden Avenue Protect existing residents and businesses Better connect with enhanced bicycle, pedestrian, and public transit networks Limit land use change Distribute high- density and mixed- use housing in other areas Create new places for recreation and gathering Preferred Alternative Maintains the overall community vision for Downtown as the heart of South San Francisco Retains the core community land use vision articulated in the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Creates a new residential neighborhood centered along Colma Creek Creates mixed-use gateway along Airport Blvd with a neighborhood-serving center @ Linden Ave Downtown Residential Urban Residential High Density ResidentialGrand Avenue Core High Density Mixed Use Medium-High Density Residential Preferred Alternative Changes Only El Camino Planning Sub -Area What We Heard Create three distinct mixed-use centers along El Camino Allow higher density residential and mixed use around the South San Francisco BART Create opportunities for more housing Create more public parks and open spaces Transform into a destination for people and not just a thoroughfare for cars Maintain existing General Plan land use designations for Country Club Park Strong desire to see the vision become a reality El Camino Sub-Districts 3-mixed use centers, including transit- oriented communities at the South San Francisco and San Bruno BART Stations Community Civic Campus area Health Care district Mixed use areas with a focus on housing Preferred Alternative Creates 3-mixed use centers, including transit-oriented communities at the South San Francisco and San Bruno BART Stations Maintains a mixed-use corridor between centers Health care district Community Civic Campus Residential only along El Camino Real Urban Residential Low Density Mixed Use El Camino Mixed Use High Medium Density Mixed Use Public Open Space Preferred Alternative Changes Only Changes in Residential Density Reduced Building Heights Reduces allowable heights from up to 120’ / 160’ (depending on area) to up to 85’, consistent with Downtown area. No change to the densities Increases residential densities near BART from 50 to 80 du/ac Increases residential densities south of Chestnut Ave from 60 to 80 du/ac; removes retail requirement Creates new residential opportunity area Creates new residential opportunity area Preferred Alternative* total housing units total jobs jobs per housing unit total population Existing Current GP* 26,000 96,000 3.7 85,000 40,000 104,000 2.6 108,000 22,000 57,000 2.6 64,000 *includes pipeline projects, Southline project, and Genentech Master Plan Summary CAC Comments on the Preferred Alt Broad support for the updated vision statements, guiding policies, and preferred land use map Specific discussion around: The potential transportation impacts of increasing density (both residential / non-residential) East of 101 Need for more detailed planning around Caltrain to create a neighborhood Need for a robust conversation around community benefits East of 101 Ensuring new development is human-scale and not monolithic Lindenville could be uniquely South San Francisco, mixing industrial, makerspace, art, and housing near Colma Creek Appreciation for revised Downtown vision and map Not reducing heights and densities along El Camino Whether or not the alternative goes far enough in distributing housing in all neighborhoods around the City Adding housing and open space to the former Fox Ridge and Serra Vista school sites Community Comments on the Preferred Alt Ensuring Lindenville and East of 101 are protected from sea level rise and flooding, integrating natural landscapes and non-structural measures and requiring building setbacks An integrated street, urban forest, and green infrastructure network that provides opportunities for urban ecology and active transportation Good habitat along a transformed Colma Creek and an urban forest The potential transportation impacts of new development, including concern about losing parking lot on Pine and Linden Support for increasing housing opportunities near the South San Francisco BART, on former school sites, and in the other residential neighborhoods Concern about adding housing in areas exposed to sea level rise and flooding Better transit in western neighborhoods, like Winston Serra, Westborough More off-street bike and pedestrian infrastructure, including ped and bike paths on Junipero Serra Blvd (Median Bike Path) and Hickey Blvd Emphasis on affordable housing, particularly ownership housing Swap the Low-Density Mixed Use (at Linden/Airport) with the Medium-Density Mixed Use (along Airport) in Downtown Need for Downtown Community Center and Teen Center Planning Commission Comments on the Preferred Alt Broad support for the preferred land use map Specific discussion around: Maintaining industrial in East of 101 and Lindenville Balancing jobs and housing growth across the City and ensuring housing growth along El Camino Making certain East of 101 and Lindenville have the necessary infrastructure to support growth Continuing to address gentrification concerns in Downtwon Ensuring future land use flexibility Excitement for more deeper policy discussion Tonight’s Recommendation City Council accept the Preferred Alternative and authorize the preparation of required Environmental Analysis including an environmental impact report (EIR). From:Ryan McNamara To:All at City Clerk"s Office Subject:FW: 2040 General Plan - Preferred Alternative Designation for 40 Airport Blvd Date:Tuesday, November 17, 2020 1:24:04 PM Attachments:SSF 2040 General Plan BGP Letter Re Preferred Plan 20201117.pdf Hello, I realized I probably should have cc’d your office on the attached for tomorrow’s hearing. Let me know if this email is redundant on your end. Also, are their instruction with regards to speaking during public comment given it will held over Zoom? I’d like to make sure I given any notice/request that may be needed beforehand. Thank you, Ryan Ryan McNamara Vice President, Development BLAKE|GRIGGS PROPERTIES 550 Hartz Avenue, Suite 200, Danville, CA 94526 O.925.208.4374 M. 925.766.1350 | www.blakegriggs.com From: Ryan McNamara Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2020 12:19 PM To: [email protected] Cc: Rozzi, Tony <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Sam Greason Subject: 2040 General Plan - Preferred Alternative Designation for 40 Airport Blvd Good Afternoon Mayor and Members of Council, In advance of the tomorrows hearing on the 2040 General Plan and Preferred Alternative, I would like to submit the attached letter for your consideration. We appreciate the opportunity to provide feedback and look forward to seeing the General Plan process move forward. Thank you, Ryan Ryan McNamara Vice President, Development BLAKE|GRIGGS PROPERTIES 550 Hartz Avenue, Suite 200, Danville, CA 94526 O.925.208.4374 M. 925.766.1350 | www.blakegriggs.com Government Code Section 54957.5 SB 343 Agenda: 11/18/2020 Item # 1 550 Hartz Avenue, Suite 200, Danville, CA 94526 I 925-575-8737 I www.blakegriggs.com development given its proximity to public transit, Hwy 101, Oyster Point and the downtown core. Sincerely, Ryan McNamara Vice President CC (via email): Tony Rozzi – SSF Lisa Costa Sanders – SSF Sam Greason - BVDC Bradley N Blake – BGP Bradley P Griggs – BGP From:Pranay Mowji To:All at City Clerk"s Office Cc:All Council; Futrell, Mike; Greenwood, Alex; Friedman, Adena; Garbarino, Rich; CostaSanders, Lisa; SSFPlanning; Mike Amin; Devin Amin Subject:Public Comment Submission; Special Meeting 11/18/2020; Land Use Alternative Support Date:Monday, November 16, 2020 5:36:20 PM Attachments:SICON, LLC Public Comment; SSF Special Meeting 20201118.pdf Dear Members of the Council, City Leadership, and Planning Department - On behalf of Mike Amin and SICON, LLC - enclosed is a submission for Public Comment for the Special Meeting on Wednesday November 18th, 2020. We look forward to the next phase of the Shape 2040 General Plan! Thank you! _______________________________________________ PRANAY MOWJI PartnerThe Amin Group Real Estate Investments and Management 550 Hartz Avenue, Suite 200, Danville, CA 94526 I 925-575-8737 I www.blakegriggs.com BLAKE GRIGG S P R O P E R T I E S November 17, 2020 Sent Via Email: [email protected] Mayor Garbarino and Members of the City Council City of South San Francisco 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 RE: 2040 General Plan – Preferred Alternative Designation for 40 Airport Blvd Dear Mayor and Members of City Council, On behalf of Blake Griggs Properties (“BGP”) and Bella Vista Development Company (“BVDC”), we are excited to see the 2040 General Plan Update move forward and commend the City on its dedication to providing much need housing in the Bay Area. This letter is in regard to the potential redevelopment of 40 Airport Blvd and its land use designation in the Preferred Alternative as Urban Residential. BGP and BVDC have been working on a development proposal for 40 Airport Blvd since 2017 that would provide Class-A apartments near the City’s new Cal-Train Station and the downtown core. In 2018 we submitted a proposal for 283 apartment units in an eight-story building based on the allowable maximum density under Downtown Transit Core, which is in close proximity to our site. Although that application, including a General Plan Amendment, was ultimately put on hold while the City furthered its efforts on the General Plan Update, we have worked with staff to keep them appraised of our development plans and what we saw as the best use for the property. We continue to believe that a high-density residential project is the highest and best use for the site, and have been working to submit a new application for an eight- story, 292 unit development (180 dwelling units per acre (“du/ac”)) within the coming weeks. It was recently brought to our attention that the proposed Preferred Alternative designates our site as Urban Residential with maximum density of 140 du/ac, which would equate to 65 fewer units, including 10 less affordable units, than we believe the site can reasonably support. As such we would respectfully request that either; 1.Our site located at 40 Airport Blvd be redesignated in the Preferred Alternative with an allowable residential density of 180 du/ac (e.g., a Downtown Transit Core designation); or 2.At a minimum, the CEQA analysis for the 2040 General Plan accounts for 180 du/ac on our site to ensure the maximum feasible density is considered, in the event that allowable density is increased in the future, either by the City or via the State Density Bonus process. We appreciate consideration of this request. We also like to re-emphasize our enthusiasm for the redevelopment of 40 Airport Blvd; and believe that it is ideally located for high-density residential that projects like ours will ensure that visitors to South San Francisco stay, work, eat, and play in South San Francisco. We are delighted at the opportunities the Preferred Alternative Land Use could provide Airport Blvd from Grand Ave north towards Genesis Towers. This area’s proximity to Downtown, newly built multi-family housing, and the highly-anticipated Caltrain station begs for revitalization. We believe Airport Blvd could effectively serve as a continuation of the Grand Ave downtown commercial corridor bringing a new life to storefronts that currently remain dark after business hours. The Shape 2040 Preferred Alternative Land Use, which creates a graduated High-Density to Medium-Density framework moving north along Airport creates a natural barrier between Highway 101 and the residential neighborhoods to the west. We have long believed this barrier was missing from the city’s framework. In many ways, this strategy replicates what other municipalities have been able to successfully accomplish as you continue south on Highway 101. As the Land Use Alternatives come to a resolution, we look forward to the next phase of the Shape 2040 General Plan. We look forward to the future zoning specific discussions and are hopeful that throughout these discussions, city staff and local stake holders continue to work together to achieve a framework for the density we all desire in a way that ensures economic, environmental, and social well- being for the next 20 Years of South San Francisco’s evolution. Sincerely, _______________________ Mike Amin SICON, LLC 701 Airport Blvd South San Francisco, CA From:Daniel Perez To:All at City Clerk"s Office Subject:Nov 18, 6 pm meeting, Item #1 Date:Wednesday, November 18, 2020 12:27:04 PM Please read and incorporate my comments as part of official record for tonight’s Council meeting, Nov 18th, Item #1, as follows. Please confirm receipt of email. Honorable Mayor Garbarino and City Council members, Thank you for this opportunity for input on this important decision about the General Plan that sets the footprint for not only the next 20 years but beyond. As we know, with land use designations, there comes zoning laws that affect residents through permitted uses by way of services, comfortable and peaceful living. It was very clear from citizen input that high rise buildings would be detrimental to Old Town and surprised that we continue to see it being proposed along Airport Boulevard from Lux to what appears Armour Avenue. I understand the need of housing and urge you to please consider sensible regulations on where to place the need for high rise buildings. This stretch of Airport is not one of them. I appreciate all of the other concerns being taken into consideration, such as gentrification and other needs of the community however, this area was specifically mentioned. The community voiced their concerns of not further disturbing the Old Town neighborhood of these high rise buildings and mentioned if there was a necessity, they would be more appropriate at the northern part of Airport. This would fall in line with the already constructed high rise buildings on the southern part of Airport, which are closest to Highway 101 exit and entrances. Furthermore, there is a hilltop on Airport and Linden along with apartment buildings and ample land that would not negatively affect single family home residents by eliminating natural sunlight, privacy and disturbance of historical part of SSF. I urge you to please consider the proposed allowable land use along this area of Airport Boulevard and bring more appropriate use of this land that would better serve the community. Thank you. Daniel Perez From:Celeste Perez To:All at City Clerk"s Office Subject:Item#1 Date:Wednesday, November 18, 2020 1:46:06 PM Honorable Mayor and Council members, I urge you to consider the effects on the proposed high rise buildings along Airport would have in Old Town area and its residents. In emergency situations there is no way out of your stuck in traffic on Airport. The high rise buildings would block natural sunlight and there would be a loss of privacy looking down into backyards. These high rise buildings are better planned in area along Airport closest to 101, between Linden and Sister Cities. Thank you. Celeste Pérez From:Elvira Tapia To:All at City Clerk"s Office Subject:Item #1 Date:Wednesday, November 18, 2020 2:04:45 PM Honorable Mayor and Council members, I urge you to consider the effects on the proposed high rise buildings along Airport would have in Old Town area and its residents and ask for consideration for land uses that would better serve Old Town residents through services and equitable opportunities. In emergencies, the road doesn’t allow right turns or u turns. High rise buildings on northern would not have a greater effect on neighborhood as there’s a hill in background and filled with apartment buildings. Thank you. From:Daniel Perez To:All at City Clerk"s Office Subject:Item #1 Date:Wednesday, November 18, 2020 2:04:53 PM Honorable Mayor and Council members, I urge you to consider the effects on the proposed high rise buildings along Airport would have in Old Town area and its residents. In emergency situations there is no way out of your stuck in traffic on Airport. The high rise buildings would block natural sunlight and there would be a loss of privacy looking down into backyards. These high rise buildings are better planned in the area along Airport closest to 101, between Linden and Sister Cities. Thank you. From:Katherine Tse To:All at City Clerk"s Office Cc:Katherine Tse Subject:SSF - General Plan -Comment re: El Camino Sub Area Date:Wednesday, November 18, 2020 2:16:28 PM Hello, I've been living in the Winston Manor area for about 20 years. I've attended a number of the community workshops/surveys in regards to the city's General Plan. I understand the need for the City to develop more housing and businesses on available land, but I want to make sure we are developing responsibly, to address concerns with traffic, parking, density, and the livability of our neighborhoods. For the El Camino sub area, I have concerns that I would like to see addressed in sub area meetings developing housing on Sierra Vista school site in Winston Manor- I want to make sure the Winston Manor neighborhood has a say in this, as putting hundreds of homes on this site will directly impact our neighborhood developing housing at the intersection of Hickey Blvd & El Camino Real (near Costo & Grocery Outlet) which will worsen the traffic congestion in that area developing housing at the South SF BART station, which will also increase traffic issues there and eliminate many parking spaces at the BART station Again, understand the need for our city to build more housing, but it's got to be done in a way that addresses issues with density, traffic, and parking Thanks Katherine Tse From:Dolores Piper To:All at City Clerk"s Office Subject:high rise buildings Date:Wednesday, November 18, 2020 4:14:40 PM I think that the Airport Blvd. corridor has enough high rise buildings now. What about going onto East Grand and do building there? I think we have to respect the views of all the residents who live in the Old Town area. Residents are already cramped in that section of our city, and their needs for more city resources are being ignored while the City leaders want to add more big blocks of buildings to further crush their neighborhoods. Build these places in Westborough along Westborough Blvd. Too bad you can’t replace those horrible places on Appian Way and across Gellert from Appian Way. They are full of mold that can actually be smelled from the street. What would be involved to recreate some new and up to code buildings in that area of the city? Dolores Piper Government Code Section 54957.5 SB 343 Agenda: 11/18/2020 Item # 1 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:20-845 Agenda Date:11/18/2020 Version:1 Item #:2. Extend the Term of the Community Advisory Committee members for the General Plan update for an additional two years,expiring on December 17,2022 (Lisa Costa-Sanders,Project Administrator,and Billy Gross, Senior Planner) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council extend by motion the terms of the Community Advisory Committee members for an additional two years, expiring on December 17, 2022. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION The City Council provided direction to staff to initiate the General Plan update process in the Fall of 2018, including the formation of a General Plan Community Advisory Committee (GPCAC)to advise staff and Council on the update. The City Council authorized the structure of the GPCAC as a twelve-member committee with two alternates, comprised of the following: ·Planning Commission (2 members plus alternate) ·Parks & Recreation Commission (1 member plus alternate) ·District Community Resident (5 members, 1 per each City District) ·Business Member (2 members, 2 large and 1 small) ·South San Francisco Unified School District Board (1 member plus alternate) The Planning and Parks &Recreation Commissioners and the School Board were asked to select their representatives.The City Council interviewed candidates and appointed residents and businesses members to the Committee. The appointments were made for an initial term of two years, ending on December 17, 2020. Staff has contacted CAC members to determine their interest in continuing their term for an additional two years.Staff has also requested that the Planning Commission,Parks &Recreation Commission and School Board select representatives for an additional two years. Progress is well underway with the General Plan update process,but it is a bit delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic.Upon acceptance of the Preferred Land Use Alternative,Staff and the consultant team will work on the policy framework,zoning code update,climate action plan update and CEQA analysis.It is anticipated that the GPCAC will need to meet through 2021 and could continue to advise in early 2022 during the adoption process. CONCLUSION Staff recommends the City Council extend by motion the terms of the Community Advisory Committee members for an additional two years, expiring on December 17, 2022. Attachment: City of South San Francisco Printed on 12/30/2020Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-845 Agenda Date:11/18/2020 Version:1 Item #:2. 1.GPCAC Roster City of South San Francisco Printed on 12/30/2020Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™ South San Francisco General Plan Update Community Advisory Committee Committee Members: Name Representing Julie Ann Murphy Planning Commissioner Sam Shihadeh Planning Commissioner Kristy Camacho Park & Rec Commissioner Eddie Flores School Board member Roderick Bovee Resident – District 1 Bill Zemke Resident – District 3 Nicholas Maiden Resident – District 4 Rehman Baig Resident – District 3 Steven Yee Resident – At large John Skerry Large Business Sophie Martin Large Business Robert Cavalieri Small Business Alternates: Name Representing Alan Wong Planning Commissioner Betty Battaglia Park & Rec Commissioner Patricia Murray School Board Member Courtney McCrane Large Business TBD Resident