The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06-18-09 PC Packet CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING 33 ARROYO DRIVE June 18, 2009 7:30 PM WELCOME If this is the first time you have been to a Commission meeting, perhaps you'd like to know a little about our procedure. Under Oral Communications, at the beginning of the meeting, persons wishing to speak on any subject not on the Agenda will have 3 minutes to discuss their item. The Clerk will read the name and type of application to be heard in the order in which it appears on the Agenda. A staff person will then explain the proposal. The first person allowed to speak will be the applicant, followed by persons in favor of the application. Then persons who oppose the project or who wish to ask questions will have their turn. If you wish to speak, please fill out a card (which is available near the entrance door) and give it, as soon as possible, to the Clerk at the front of the room. When it is your turn, she will announce your name for the record. The Commission has adopted a policy that applicants and their representatives have a maximum time limit of 20 minutes to make a presentation on their project. Non-applicants may speak a maximum of 3 minutes on any case. Questions from Commissioners to applicants or non-applicants may be answered by using additional time. When the Commission is not in session, we'll be pleased to answer your questions if you will go to the Planning Division, City Hall, 315 Maple Avenue or telephone (650) 877-8535 or bye-mail at web- ecd@ssf.net. Roberto Bernardo Commissioner Rick Ochsenhirt Commissioner Wallace M. Moore Chairperson Mary Giusti Commissioner John Prouty Commissioner William Zemke Commissioner Susy Kalkin, Chief Planner Secretary to the Planning Commission Steve Carlson Gerry Beaudin Senior Planner Senior Planner Linda Ajello Associate Planner Billy Gross Associate Planner Bertha Aguilar Clerk Please Turn Cellular Phones And Paaers Off. Individuals with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services to attend and participate in this meeting should contact the ADA Coordinator at (650) 829.3800, five working days before the meeting. In accordance with California Government Code Section 54957.5, any writing or document that is a public record, relates to an open session agenda item, and is distributed less than 72 hours prior to a regular meeting will be made available for public inspection at the Planning Division counter in the City Hall Annex. If, however, the document or writing is not distributed until the regular meeting to which it relates, then the document or writing will be made available to the public at the location of the meeting, as listed on this agenda. The address of the City Hall Annex is 315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco, California 94080. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING 33 ARROYO DRIVE June 18, 2009 Time 7:30 P.M. CALL TO ORDER / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL / CHAIR COMMENTS AGENDA REVIEW ORAL COMMUNICATIONS CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of special meeting minutes of June 2, 2009 and regular meeting minutes of June 4, 2009. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. General Plan Housing Element Update City of South San Francisco P08-0027: GPA08-00 02 & ND08-0002 Planning Commission recommendation that the City Council adopt Negative Declaration (ND08-0002) and the South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element Update. 3. COSTCO, WHOLESALE CORP/applicant COSTCO, WHOLESALE CORP/owner 1600 EL CAMINO REAL P08-0061: UPM08-0003 & DR08-0027 Use Permit Modification and Design Review allowing a one-story addition of 5,181 square feet enabling the relocation of the existing food court, the loading dock and receiving area, minor changes to the parking lot and limited new landscaping, situated at 1600 EI Camino Real (APN 010-212-100) in the Transit Village Commercial Zoning District (TV-C), in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.27,20.81 & 20.85. 4. Centrum Properties, Inc/applicant US General SvcAdmin.lowner 1070 SAN MATEO AVE P08-0041:UP08-0004, PM09-0001, TOM 08-0002, VAR08-0003, DR08-0019 and EIR 08-0003 Public Hearing to hear comments on the Environmental Impact Report. Study Session to introduce the project located at 1070-1080 San Mateo Avenue: The proposed project involves the construction of 5 new one-story buildings containing a total of 52,300 square feet and the conversion of the existing 571,748 square foot former GSA building into a multi-tenant industrial and commercial complex and an at-grade parking lot containing a minimum of 641 parking spaces and a minimum of 31 truck loading docks. Planning Commission Agenda - Cont'd June 18, 2009 Page 3 ADMINISTRA TIVE BUSINESS ITEMS FROM STAFF ITEMS FROM COMMISSION ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC ADJOURNMENT 4' -~ , '1'-- Susy Ikln Secretary to the Planning Commission City of South San Francisco NEXT MEETING: July 2, 2009 meeting cancelled. Regular Meeting July 16, 2009, Municipal Services Building, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, CA. Staff Reports can now be accessed online at: http://www.ssf.netldepts/comms/plannina/aClenda minutes.asp or via http://weblink.ssf.net SK/bla S:\4gev\'vi~$\PL~v\'v\'Lv\'g coV\;\.V\;\.L$$Lov\'\.20~\O"'-1g-03 R.?C 4gev\'&1~.&1oC SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 400 Grand Avenue Large Conference Room Tuesday, June 2, 2009 1. Call to Order/ Pledge of Allegiance 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Commissioner Bernardo, Commissioner Giusti, Commissioner Ochsenhirt, Commissioner Prouty, Commissioner Zemke and Chairperson Moore ABSENT: 2. Oral Communications None 3. Genentech Campus Tour - (via GenentechShuttle) Senior Planner Beaudin gave the staff report. Shar Zamanpour, Genentech Inc., gave a brief overview of the tour the Commission would be taking. The Commission then boarded a shuttle and toured the Genentech campus. 4. Genentech Annual Report Presentation (City Hall Conference Room - 400 Grand Avenue) Ms. Zamanpour presented the Genentech Master Plan Annual Report. 5. Adjournment Motion Prouty / Second Giusti to adjourn the meeting at 8:10 p.m. Susy Kalkin Secretary to the Planning Commission City of South San Francisco Wallace Moore, Chairperson Planning Commission City of South San Francisco SK/bla 04-28-09 Minutes Page 1 of 1 MINUTES June 4, 2009 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION CALL TO ORDER / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL I CHAIR COMMENTS ROLL CALL PRESENT: Commissioner Bernardo, Commissioner Giusti, Commissioner Ochsenhirt, Commissioner Prouty, Commissioner Zemke and Chairperson Moore ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Chief Planner Kalkin, Senior Planner Beaudin, Associate Planner Ajello, Administrative Assistant Aguilar, Sergeant Jon Kallas, Fire Marshal Da Silva, Senior Civil Engineer Chuck, Consulting Engineer Scramaglia, and Assistant City Manager Van Duyn AGENDA REVIEW No Changes ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of meeting minutes of May 21, 2009. 2. 2009-2010 Capital Improvement Program A resolution determining that the proposed 2009-2010 Capital Improvement Program is consistent with the City's General Plan pursuant to Government Code section 65401. Motion--Commissioner Prouty ISecond--Commissioner Zemke to approve the Consent Calendar. Approved by unanimous voice vote. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Bay Badminton Center/applicant Mancini, Properties Inc/Owner 1404 San Mateo Ave P09-0027: UP09-0007, DR09-0015 & SIGNS09-0014 Use Permit to allow a commercial recreation facility and parking lease agreement at 1404 San Mateo Avenue in the Industrial Zone (M-1) District in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.30, 20.74,20.76,20.81,20.85 & 20.86. Cultural Arts Contribution allowing a contribution to the cultural arts fund in lieu of providing 10% of the total site area as landscaping. Design Review of exterior improvements. Minutes - 06-04-2009 Page 1 of 4 Senior Planner Beaudin presented the staff report. Kevin Norman, DES Architects, presented the project to the Planning Commission. Public Hearing opened. There being no speakers, the Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Giusti questioned ifthe facility would be open to the public for recreational use other than training. Mr. Norman noted that there are no spectator accommodations. Commissioner Ochsenhirt questioned if the current landscape area is dilapidated. Senior Planner Beaudin noted that the existing landscaping will be upgraded and is included in the 10% landscape requirement. Commissioner Zemke questioned if the Design Review Board recommended landscaping along the front ofthe building. Senior Planner Beaudin noted that the DRB questioned if the same level of upgrade should be performed throughout the buildings and staff is recommending that the existing landscape planting areas on the entire site all be upgraded. Motion--Commissioner OchsenhirtISecond--Commissioner Bernardo to approve P09-0027: UP09-0007, DR09-0015 & SIGNS09-0014. Approved by unanimous voice vote. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 4. Study Session So EI Camino Real General Plan Amendment EI Camino Real between Chestnut and Noor Avenues P08-0076: GPA08-0001, ZA08-0007 & ND08-0004 General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation in the South EI Camino Real Corridor to promote commercial' residential mixed-use. In support of the new General Plan policies, new zoning and design guidelines are being proposed for the corridor. The study area includes properties on or near EI Camino Real, between Chestnut Avenue and Noor Avenue. Recess called at 7:45 p.m. Meeting recalled to order at 7:50 p.m. Senior Planner Beaudin presented the staff report. Rajeev Bhatia, Dyett & Bhatia, gave a PowerPoint presentation of the proposed General Plan Amendment, Zoning Amendment and Design Guidelines. Public comments: Bill Mitchell, representative for 180 EI Camino Real, noted concern with the City setting Floor Area Ratio minimums because this could force developers to build space that cannot be leased. He wanted to show plans of a project he has been working on with staff for the past several months to illustrate how the General Plan Amendment could impact his development. However, Assistant City Attorney Crossman advised that it would not be the appropriate time for the Commission to be looking at the proposed plan and further advised that the Commission not discuss the details of a pending project application in conjunction with the proposed General Plan amendment. Minutes - 06-04-2009 Page 2 of 4 Mr. Mitchell noted that the 75 foot depth requirement for commercial frontage stores was too deep based on his experience. He believed that a better depth would be 50-60 feet. He also commented that 75% store frontage would not allow any openings along the street except for a driveway and noted that it would be difficult to attract larger tenants to a site with such a requirement. He concluded by noting that it would be difficult to create the street frontage that the Plan proposes in areas where there is a significant grade change between EI Camino Real and a property. He noted that his property has a 13% grade differential between the property line and El Camino Real. A member of the public questioned what would occur with existing properties that do not meet the guidelines and if there was a plan for eminent domain. Senior Planner Beaudin clarified that existing uses would continue and as new development is proposed those new projects would be required to conform to the new policies and standards. He added that there are no plans for eminent domain. Jesus Armas, representing Syufy/SyWest, commended the City on the proposed changes to EI Camino Real and added that he would continue to work with staff to resolve any issues his clients might have with the proposed plan amendment. Jadish Dayal questioned how the plan addresses parking requirements on smaller 50 foot lots. Senior Planner Beaudin stated that the Commission has discussed parking requirements within the Zoning Code update, which will be proceeding through public hearings in the coming months. Cheryl Herrera questioned how this would impact the existing neighborhoods adjacent to the area. Senior Planner Beaudin stated that staff and the consultant team have been mindful of shading impacts and the importance of building articulation in assembling the guidelines and particularly conscious of the existing neighborhoods when defining the project area. He added that in addition to staff review, many ofthe proposed projects will be subject to environmental review and Planning Commission review, so the public will have opportunities to comment. Commissioner Prouty questioned if the 120 foot height limit was only for specific parcels within the study area. Senior Planner Beaudin clarified that the height limit is 80 feet with a maximum of 120 feet with additional design criteria and articulation. Mr. Bhatia added that the additional height is discretionary and not automatic. The Commission felt that the plan was moving in the right direction and that implementation of the plan would create a better look and feel along the EI Camino Corridor in South San Francisco. ITEMS FROM STAFF Chief Planner Kalkin suggested that the Commission cancel the July 2, 2009 meeting due to the long holiday weekend. The Planning Commission concurred. Motion--Commissioner Prouty ISecond--Commissioner Giusti to cancel the July 2nd meeting. Approved by unanimous voice vote. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION 5. Appointment of a 2009 Planning Commission Vice Chairperson Motion Commissioner Bernardo I Second Commissioner Giusti to nominate Commissioner Prouty as 2009 Vice Chairperson. Minutes - 06-04-2009 Page 3 of 4 ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC ADJOURNMENT None Chairperson Moore adjourned the meeting at 8:44 p.m. Minutes - 06-04-2009 Page 4 of 4 Planning Commission Staff Report DATE: June 18, 2009 TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: South San Francisco Housing Element Update Owner: City of South San Francisco Applicant: City of South San Francisco Case Number: P08-0027: ND08-0002 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element Update. BACKGROUNDIDISCUSSION: State Law & the Housing Element Update The Housing Element is one of the nine elements that make up South San Francisco's General Plan and is the City's single most important housing planning and policy document. The City's existing Housing Element was last certified by the State in 2002. The current update covers the 2007 to 2014 planning period as required by State Law and pursuant to rules and regulations promulgated by the State Housing and Community Development Agency (HCD). The Housing Element contains: an analysis of the community's housing needs, resources, constraints, and opportunities; goals, policies, and programs for housing; and an action plan which details the actions to be taken by the City in response to, and anticipation of, the community's evolving housing needs. Pursuant to Section 65583 of the Government Code, the City completed an adequate sites analysis to demonstrate that there is an "inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites having the potential for redevelopment". State law also requires that the Housing Element analyze zoning and infrastructure on these sites to ensure housing development is feasible during the planning period (January 1,2007 to June 30, 2014). Housing Element Organization and Focus The guiding policy framework has been simplified by consolidating and eliminating redundancies wherever possible, ultimately resulting in a more efficient and straightforward plan to encourage high-quality residential development, as well as to ensure a full range of affordable housing. In addition to streamlining the document and addressing the legal requirements, the Element is also carefully drafted to be consistent with ongoing related planning efforts in the City such as, the South Housing Element Update P08-0027 & ND08-0002 Page 2 El Camino Real General Plan Amendment, the Chestnut/El Camino Real Specific Plan, and the Zoning Ordinance Update. Regional Housing Needs Allocation The Housing Element must identify sites for housing development that are adequate to accommodate the City's share of the regional housing need for the current planning period, as determined by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the City /County Association of Governments of San Mateo (C/CAG). In March of 2001, ABAG released its regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) numbers that project the number of housing units required for the City based on projected job growth. The City of South San Francisco received a fair-share allocation of 1 ,635 housing units for the years 2007 to 2014. Out of a total of 1,635 units, 830 have already been approved, rehabilitated or constructed. The balance (805 units) of the City's RHNA can be accommodated by identifying properly zoned sites which are appropriate for residential development during the remainder of the planning period. Opportunity Site Analysis The table below summarizes the housing opportunity sites identified for the 2007-2014 Planning Period. For the purpose of analysis, the housing sites were grouped into three geographic areas- Transit Village, South El Camino Real, and Downtown. Summary of Housina Opportunity Sites Development Capacity Area Transit Village South EI Camino Real Downtown Total Capacity Acreage 18.0 8.5 4.3 30.8 Assumed Avg. Density 35 56 34 40 Unit Capacity 622 474 149 1,244 Balance of 2007 - 2014 RHNA (a) 805 Capacity as a Percentage of Remaining RHNA Balance 155% Note: (a). Equals RHNA minus units builUrehabilitated between January 2007 and June 2009. Sources: City of South San Francisco, 2009; BAE, 2009. The analysis of sites in South San Francisco indicates the City has adequately zoned land or zoning amendments under review (South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment and Zoning) to support 1,244 units of new housing during the current planning period. All of the opportunity sites will support housing densities of 30 units per acre or greater, providing favorable prospects for affordable units. Compared against the RHNA, the City's housing opportunity sites offer a development capacity of 1,244 units, which is well in excess of the remaining need for 805 units. Community Outreach The Housing Element was developed with participation from members of the South San Francisco Community, as well as housing advocates, developers, employer representatives and other interested parties. Key community outreach included: Housing Element Update P08-0027 & ND08-0002 Page 3 . Stakeholder interviews; . Public workshop, including over 260 notices to developers, non-profit service providers, ethnic and cultural organizations, and a variety of other interested groups, agencies, and individuals; and . Websites - 21elements.com and www.ssfhousingelement.com. In conducting all outreach, care was taken to recruit potential participants who would reflect the City's full ethnic and economic diversity. Airport Land Use Committee/ C/CA G The Airport Land Use Committee (ALUC) reviewed the City's Housing Element at their May 30, 2009 meeting. The ALUC requested that the City incorporate language into the plan to acknowledge airport noise as a potential issue for residential development in the South EI Camino Real area. Staff previously acknowledged this reality with policies in the South EI Camino.Real General Plan amendment, but has drafted the following language for the Housing Element: Quality of Life Policy 4-4 The City shall not allow new residential or noise sensitive development in the 70 dB+ CNEL areas impacted by SFO Operations and shall require avigation easements for new residential development in the area between 65 and 69 dB CNEL SFO noise contours. Proqram 4-4A - Ensure that applications for new residential land use proposed within the 65 to 69 CNEL aircraft noise contour include an acoustical study, prepared by a professional acoustic engineer, that specifies the appropriate noise mitigation features to be included in the design and construction of the new units, to achieve an interior noise level of not more than 45 dB, based on measured aircraft noise events at the land use location. Responsibility at. Department of Economic and Community Development, Planning Division Time Frame: On-going Funding Source: N/A Quantified Objective: All residential projects impacted by 65 to 69 dB CNEL SFO noise contours Staff believes that this policy and program adequately address the ALUCI CICAG concerns and should be incorporated into the Housing Element Update. Next Steps Following review and adoption by the City Council, Staff will forward the Housing Element to HCD. After a mandatory 60 day HCD review period, HCD will provide the City with comments and recommendations on the Housing Element which will be considered and incorporated as necessary by the City to ensure that HCD certifies the Housing Element as being consistent with State Law. Housing Element Update P08-0027 & ND08-0002 Page 4 GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY State Law requires that all elements of the General Plan "comprise an integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of policies." Staff has reviewed the proposed Housing Element Update and determined that it will not create any inconsistencies within the City's General Plan. CEQA: An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), which can be found in the State Public Resources Code ("PRC"), Section 21000 et. seq., and the CEQA Guidelines, found in State Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 15000 et. seq., as amended. The IS/MND was distributed to the State Clearinghouse and circulated for a 30-day public review on May 15,2009. Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration The initial study identified three areas where there would be a "less than significant impact with mitigation incorporation" - air quality, cultural resources, and noise. The mitigation measures are items that would typically be identified during project level environmental review. Staff does not foresee any difficulties mitigating the potential impacts associated with air quality, cultural resources, and noise. CONCLUSION: The Housing Element Update results in minor policy changes and a plentiful list of opportunity sites. The update and environmental document adequately address South San Francisco's complex housing needs as well as the legal requirements setout by the State. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and adopt the South San Francisco Housing Element Update. ~.,k Ge'rry eaudin, AI CP, LEED AP Senior Planner Attachments: Resolution Exhibit A - Draft Housing Element Update Exhibit B - Mitigated Negative Declaration, May 15,2009 RESOLUTION PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (ND08-0002) AND ADOPT THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE (P08-00271) WHEREAS, on October 13-20, 2009, March 3, 2009 and May 18, 2009 the Planning Commission held duly noticed Key Stakeholder Interviews, a Community Workshop and a public hearing to consider the Draft South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element; and WHEREAS, Section 65580 of the State Planning and Zoning Law requires every city to adopt a housing element; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 65583 "Housing element content" of the California Government Code, the South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element Update provides detailed background information, an analysis of adequate sites for residential development, an analysis of special needs housing, an analysis of housing for the homeless, and the description of goals and policies for the creation of new residential development and the preservation of the existing housing stock; and WHEREAS, for purposes of Section 65583, the South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element incorporates the City's housing allocation of 1 ,635 residential units, determined by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), which includes that share of the housing need of persons at all income levels within the area significantly affected by a general plan of the City; and WHEREAS, the South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element Update policies are internally consistent with the policies contained in each of the South San Francisco General Plan elements; and WHEREAS, the City, in accordance with Section 65351 of the California Government Code, has facilitated public participation in the preparation of the General Plan Housing Element Update by conducting City Council public hearings and study sessions, Planning Commission public hearings, study sessions, and workshops and Housing Subcommittee meetings since 2008; and WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco has provided decision makers and the public with background information, including land use diagrams, and policy documents; WHEREAS, the City has prepared a public participation program that accomplished the following: a. Informed the public of the ongoing General Plan Housing Element Update, b. Obtained public input regarding major issues, community objectives, and plan policies, c. Provided the public with opportunities to evaluate policies, d. Informed decision makers of public opinions, and e. Worked toward community consensus; and WHEREAS, the City presented the Housing Element Update to the Airport Land Use Committee/ C/CAG and is recommending the following policy be added to the Housing Element: Program 4-4A - Ensure that applications for new residential land use proposed within the 65 to 69 CNEL aircraft noise contour include an acoustical study, prepared by a professional acoustic engineer, that specifies the appropriate noise mitigation features to be included in the design and construction of the new units, to achieve an interior noise level of not more than 45 dB, based on measured aircraft noise events at the land use location; and WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial StudyIMitigated Negative Declaration and has distributed the document to the State Clearinghouse, appropriate responsible agencies and interested parties on May 15, 2009 for a 30-day public review period and concludes that the South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element does not have a significant environmental impact; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on June 18, 2009 on the Mitigated Negative Declaration and General Plan Housing Element Update; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the South San Francisco Planning Commission hereby finds: 1. The General Plan and elements, including the attached Public Hearing Draft Housing Element 2007-2014, comprise an integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of policies for the City of South San Francisco. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the South San Francisco Planning Commission that it is hereby recommended that: 1. The City Council adopt the Initial StudyIMitigated Negative Declaration, as set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 2. The City Council adopt the South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element Update, in substantially the same form as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated by reference. I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco at the regular meeting held on the 18th day of June 2009, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAINED: ABSENT: ATTEST Susy Kalkin Secretary to the Planning Commission City of South San Francisco EXHIBIT A CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT 2007-2014 May 2009 City of South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element May 2009 Headquarters 510.547.9380 1285 66th Street fax 510.547.9388 Emeryville, CA 94608 bae1@bae1.com bayareaeconomics.com Table of Contents Exec utiv e Sum ma ry ......................................................................................................... i Introd ucti on. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. i Housing Accomplishments 1999 to 2006 ........................................................................................ ii Housing Needs and Market Conditions.......................................................................................... iv Regional Housing Needs Allocation.............................................................................................. vii Housing Constraints & Resources.................................................................................................. ix Housing Plan.......................................................................................................................... .......... x I ntrod u cti 0 n ..................................................................................................................... 1 Role and Content of Housing Element............................................................................................ 1 Relationship with General Plan....................................................................................................... 2 Related Planning Efforts.................................................................................................................. 2 Oth er City E ff 0 rts ............................................................................................................................ 3 Pub Ii c P arti c i pa ti on. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3 Organization of Housing Element................................................................................................... 3 Review of Housing Element Past Performance............................................................ 4 New Residential Construction......................................................................................................... 4 Maintenance of Existing Affordable Housing Stock....................................................................... 6 Spec ial Needs P opulati ons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7 Equal Opportunity ........................................................................................................................... 7 Neighborhood Safety and Energy Conservation.............................................................................. 8 Housing Element Changes............................................................................................................... 8 H 0 us in g Needs Assessme nt .......................................................................................... 9 Regional Context....................................................................................................................... ...... 9 Population and Household Trends................................................................................................. 10 Employment Trends....................................................................................................................... 13 Housing Characteristics............................................................................................................... .. 1 7 Market Conditions.................................................................................................................... ..... 25 Housing Affordability.................................................................................................................. .. 29 Proj ected Housing Needs............................................................................................................... 35 S p e c i al H 0 us in g Nee d s .................................................................................................................. 3 7 H 0 us in g Co nstra i nts ..................................................................................................... 48 Government Constraints................................................................................................................ 48 Housing for Persons with Disabilities ........................................................................................... 59 Non-Governmental Constraints..................................................................................................... 62 Environmental & Infrastructure Constraints.................................................................................. 64 Opportunities for Energy Conservation......................................................................................... 65 H 0 us in g Res 0 u rces. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 66 Available Sites for Housing ........................................................................................................... 66 Financial Resources..................................................................................................................... .. 81 Opportunities for Energy Conservation......................................................................................... 82 S umm ary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8 3 H 0 us in g P I an. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 84 Promote New Housing Development............................................................................................ 85 Remove Constraints to Housing Development.............................................................................. 89 Conserve Existing Housing & Neighborhoods.............................................................................. 91 Maintain and Improve Quality of Life........................................................................................... 94 Support Development of Special Housing Needs.......................................................................... 96 Assure Equal Access to Housing................................................................................................. 101 Energy Conservation.................................................................................................................. . 103 Quantified 0 bj ectives .................................................................................................................. 105 Means to Achieve Consistency with Remainder of General Plan ............................................... 105 Related Plans & Policy Documents............................................................................................. 106 Appendix A: Housing Accomplishments, 1999 to 2006 ..........................................107 Appendix B: Comparison of Housing Permit Issuance by Jurisdiction ...............114 Appendix C: Home Price Affordability Calculations by Income Level.................. 116 Append ix D: Glossary of Housing Terms ............................................................... .118 Tables and Figures Tables Table 1: Regional Housing Needs Allocation, July 1, 1999 to June 30,2006 ...................................5 Table 2: Housing Permit Issuance by Income Level, July 1, 1999 to June 30, 2006 ........................5 Table 3: Housing Production by Income Level, 1999 to 2006 .......................................................... 6 Table 4: Population and Household Trends, 1990 to 2008...............................................................11 Table 5: Age Distribution, 2008 ....................................................................................................... 12 Table 6: Household Income Distribution, 2008................................................................................ 13 Table 7: Jobs by Sector, 2003 to 2007.............................................................................................14 Table 8: Major Employers, South San Francisco, 2008 .................................................................. 15 Table 9: Employment Trends, 2003 to 2007 (a).............................................................................. 16 Table 10: Population, Household, and Job Projections, 2005 to 2035 ............................................17 Table 11: Housing Structures, Year Built, 2000 (a) .........................................................................18 Table 12: Housing Conditions, South San Francisco, 2000 .............................................................18 Table 13: Housing Units by Type, 2000 to 2008 (a) ........................................................................20 Table 14: Units Permitted by Building Type, South San Francisco, 1999 to 2008 (a).....................21 Table 15: Overcrowded Households, 2000 (a) ................................................................................. 22 Table 16: Inventory of Income-Restricted, Affordable Housing Units, 2009..................................23 Table 17: At-Risk Housing Preservation Analysis, Fairview Apartments .......................................24 Table 18: Rental Market Trends at Large Apartment Complexes, South San Francisco ................26 Table 19: Average Asking Rents, South San Francisco, May 2009................................................27 Table 20: Units Sold and Median Price, South San Francisco, 1990 - 2008 ...................................29 Table 21: Household Income Limits, San Mateo County, 2008....................................................... 30 Table 22: Wages for 20 Most Common Occupations, San Mateo County, 2008.............................30 Table 23: Affordability of Market Rate Housing in South San Francisco, 2008..............................33 Table 24: Regional Housing Needs Allocation, January 1,2007 to June 30, 2014..........................36 Table 25: Housing Units Completed / Rehabilitated, January 1, 2007 to June 30, 2009 .................37 Table 26: Household Size by Tenure, 2000...................................................................................... 3 8 Table 27: Existing Housing Stock by Number of Bedrooms by Tenure, 2000 ................................38 Table 28: Family Characteristics, 2000 ............................................................................................ 39 Table 29: Housing Needs for Extremely Low-Income Households, South San Francisco, 2000 ....40 Table 30: Households by Age and Tenure, 2000..............................................................................40 Table 31: Household Income of Elderly Households, South San Francisco, 2000 (a) .....................41 Table 32: Housing Cost Burden of Elderly, South San Francisco, 2000 (a) ....................................42 Table 33: Persons with Disability by Age, 2000 .............................................................................. 44 Table 34: Persons with Disability by Employment Status, 2000......................................................44 Table 35: Community Care Facilities in South San Francisco, 2008...............................................45 Table 36: Homeless Population, San Mateo County, January 30,2007 (a) .....................................47 Table 37: Land Use Designation, South San Francisco General Plan, 2008....................................49 Table 38: Zoning and Development Standards, City of South San Francisco, 2008.......................51 Table 39: Planning/Building and Impact Fees, South San Francisco, 2008...................................55 Table 40: Summary of Housing Opportunity Sites Development Capacity .................................... 67 Table 41: Housing Opportunity Sites in Transit Village Area.......................................................... 68 Table 42: Housing Opportunity Sites in South EI Camino Real Area............................................. 73 Table 43: Housing Opportunity Sites in Downtown Area............................................................... 77 Table 44: Summary of Quantified Objectives ...............................................................................105 Figures Figure 1: Representative Households for San Mateo County, 2008.................................................31 Figure 2: Housing Cost Burden for Renters, South San Francisco, 2000.........................................34 Figure 3: Housing Cost Burden for Owners, South San Francisco, 2000 ........................................ 35 Figure 4: Housing Cost Burden, Elderly Households, South San Francisco, 2000..........................43 Figure 5: Comparison of Plan ningl Building and Impact Fees, San Mateo Jurisdictions, 2008 ......56 Figure 6: Residential Building Permit Activity, 1996 to 2006 ........................................................ 58 Figure 7: Producer Price Index for Key Construction Costs............................................................ 64 Figure 8: Housing Opportunity Sites in Transit Village Area .........................................................70 Figure 9: Housing Opportunity Sites in South EI Camino Real Area ..............................................74 Figure 10: Housing Opportunity Sites in Downtown Area .............................................................78 Executive Summary Introduction Over the course of its 10 I-year history as an incorporated City, South San Francisco has experienced a significant evolution from its traditional role as a hub for heavy industry and warehousing to its current status as a major center for biotechnology, high-technology and other uses at the cutting edge of economic innovation. South San Francisco is also a City of strong residential neighborhoods, a traditional downtown center and thriving commercial corridors. Looking to the future, the City seeks to enhance its community character while also promoting new infill development, mixed-use development, and careful land use planning to capitalize on the City's significant transportation and transit infrastructure. Within this context, this Housing Element update provides South San Francisco with an opportunity to reexamine its residential land use policies and ensure an adequate supply of housing to meet its long-term needs. The Housing Element is one of the seven required elements that make up South San Francisco's General Plan and is the City's single most important housing planning and policy document. Last revised in 2002, this current update covers the 2007 to 2014 planning period as required by State Law and pursuant to rules and regulations promulgated by the State Housing and Community Development Agency (HCD). The Housing Element contains an analysis of the community's housing needs, resources, constraints, and opportunities. It also contains goals, policies, and programs for housing and an action plan which details the actions to be taken by the City to respond to the community's evolving housing needs. The Housing Element has been drafted to ensure consistency with related planning efforts such as the EI Camino Real/Chestnut Specific Plan and the Zoning Ordinance update. As part of this plan, the Housing Element must identify sites for housing development that are adequate to accommodate the City's share of the regional housing need, as determined by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) for the current planning period. Out of a total of 1,635 units determined by ABAG to be the City's share of the regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) for 2007 to 2014, 830 have already been approved by the City and are either completed or under construction. The balance of the City's RHNA can be accommodated by identifying properly zoned sites which are appropriate for residential development during the remainder of the planning period. Update Process and Public Participation This Housing Element has been developed with extensive participation from members of the South San Francisco Community, as well as housing advocates, developers, employer representatives and other interested parties. In addition to individual interviews with key stakeholders, the City convened a public workshop to solicit input from the public on the City's housings needs, and to provide the public with an opportunity to shape the City's housing goals, policies, and objectives. This workshop was publicized in the local print media, on the "21elements.com" website, as well Executive Summary as on the Housing Element website created specifically for this effort (www.ssfhousingelement.com). City staff mailed over 260 notices of the workshop to, housing developers, non-profit service providers, ethnic and cultural organizations, and a variety of other groups, agencies, and individuals. In conducting outreach for the workshop, care was taken to recruit potential participants who would reflect the City's full ethnic and economic diversity. Following this extensive update process, the Housing Element will be presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for review and adoption before being forwarded to HCD in June 2009. After a mandatory 60 day review period, HCD will provide the City with comments and recommendations on the Housing Element which will be considered and incorporated as necessary by the City to ensure that HCD certifies the Housing Element as being consistent with State Law. Housing Accomplishments 1999 to 2006 Compared with many jurisdictions across San Mateo County and the Bay Area region as whole, South San Francisco stands out as a leader in promoting housing development for all segments of the community. From 1999 to 2006, the City permitted 98% of the housing need identified in its RHNA, including a greater percentage of units for very-low, low- and moderate-income households than in the County as a whole Ok RHNA Permitted 99-06 100% 20% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 10% 0% City of South San Francisco San Mateo County (All Nine County Bay Area (All Ju risd ictions) Ju risd ictions) Executive Summary II What is Affordable Housing? Throughout this document, reference will be made to affordable housing and housing affordability. These terms can sometimes seem confusing, but for the purposes of this document, the definitions are very clear. In the most basic and simple sense, housing is considered affordable if a family or single-person household pays no more than 30 to 35% of its gross income towards total housing costs. Obviously, the exact rent or home mortgage affordable to different households varies substantially by household size and income. To deal with this, the convention in California is to classify households as extremely low-income, very low-income, low-income, moderate-income, or above moderate-income based on percentages of the Area Median Income (AMI) established annually by RCD and adjusted by household size. The median household income in San Mateo County for a family of four in 2008 was roughly $95,000. The graphic below provides some concrete examples of how housing affordability plays out for a few different types of households assuming that they pay no more than 30 to 35% of income towards housing costs. Moderate-Income Familv Profile: Dad works as a carpenter, mom works as a bookkeeping clerk; they have two children. Estimated annual income: $104,000 Low-Income Familv Profile: Dad works as an security guard, mom works as a customer service representative; they have one child. Estimated annual income: $71,000 Very-Low-Income Familv Profile: Mom works as a retail sales person and is the only source of financial support in her family; she has one child. Estimated annual income: $29,000 Extremelv-Low-Income Familv Profile: A grandparent living alone on Social Security. Estimated annual income: $13,000 Note: Above figure is based on a figure presented in The Face of Inclusionary Housing, a reported prepared by the Nonprofit Housing Association of Northern California. Wages are the average wage per occupation in San Francisco, San Mateo, and Marin Counties as of August 2008. Social Security income is based on the national average retiree benefit as of August 2008. Sources: NPH, 2007; California EDD and BLS Occupational Employment Statistics Survey, 2008; Social Secuirty Administration, 2008; BAE, 2008. Executive Summary III Housing Needs and Market Conditions The purpose of the Housing Needs Assessment is to describe housing, economic, and demographic conditions in South San Francisco, assess the demand for housing for households at all income- levels, and document the demand for housing to serve various special needs populations. The Housing Needs Assessment is intended to assist South San Francisco in developing housing goals and formulating policies and programs that address local housing needs. Key findings from the Needs Assessment are summarized below. Population and Household Trends. South San Francisco is the fourth largest City in San Mateo County and one of the communities that has experienced the steadiest growth in recent years. Between 2000 and 2008, the population of South San Francisco grew from 60,552 to 63,744, outpacing growth in San Mateo County as a whole but slightly lagging population increase in the Bay Area region. Looking to the future, ABAG predicts that South San Francisco will reach a population of nearly 70,000 by 2020. The South San Francisco community is made up of a diverse range of households from single individuals to extended family units. On average, South San Francisco households tend to be larger and have slightly lower incomes than in the County or the region as whole. Reflecting the stability of many of the City's residential neighborhoods, South San Francisco also has a higher percentage of family and owner households. Economic Trends. South San Francisco is the heart of the Bay Area's biotechnology and life- science industry, including the headquarter location for Genentech, one of the world's largest biotech firms. Genentech and other biotech and pharmaceutical companies account for an important share of local jobs and offer well-paying careers for persons with advanced scientific, business, and technical training. Proximate to the San Francisco International Airport, South San Francisco is also home to an important cluster of "blue collar" jobs, including important logistics and shipping operations and an important manufacturing cluster that includes various food processors. South San Francisco is a "jobs rich" city with substantial in-commuting from other jurisdictions. According to the State Employment Development Department (EDD), there are approximately 30,000 employed residents in the City compared to 50,000 jobs, a ratio of 1.7 jobs per every working resident. By comparison, San Mateo County as whole has 370,000 employed residents and 340,000 jobs, a ratio of 0.9 jobs per every working resident of the County. Housing Stock Characteristics. More than half of the City's housing stock was built before 1960 and a majority of housing units in South San Francisco are single-family detached homes (58 percent in 2008). Overall, South San Francisco's housing stock is well-maintained, but there are pockets of older homes and multi-family complexes which require rehabilitation to deal with aging and maintenance needs. Building permit data collected for this Housing Element update shows that the composition of the Executive Summary IV City's housing stock is changing over time in tandem with the City's emphasis on infill and transit- oriented development. Since 1999, multi-family (apartment and condominium) development has outpaced single-family housing development nearly two to one. Housing Market Trends and Affordability. As in most communities across the Bay Area and throughout California, the housing market in South San Francisco has been undergoing a period of significant fluctuation. The median sale price for a single-family home in South San Francisco was $575,000 in 2008 compared to an average high of $745,000 in 2006 when the for-sale housing market was at its peak. Furthermore, according to DataQuick, an on-line provider of homes sales data, current sales trends indicate that the median home sale price in South San Francisco for all types of units including condominiums fell from $670,000 in 2007 to $530,000 in 2008. This compares to a decline in the average sale price in San Mateo County as whole from $800,000 to $670,000 during the same period. As conditions in the credit markets have worsened, the volume of sales of both single-family homes and condominiums has declined in South San Francisco, San Mateo County and across the broader Bay Area region. As the for-sale market weakened over the past year, the rental market tightened. Although average occupancy rates in large apartment complexes are down from their peak, rental rates for all types of apartments are up sharply. At the City's large professionally-managed complexes rents were up 37.8 percent between first quarter 2007 and first quarter 2009. Looking more broadly at the rental market as a whole, asking rents were $1,410 per month for one-bedroom units, $1,803 for two- bedroom units, $2,630 for three-bedroom units, and $3,087 for four-bedroom units. Even with the recent economic downturn, housing in South San Francisco is out of reach for many households earning less than 120 percent of the Area Median Income. As described above, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (RUD) establishes that a household is "cost- burdened" (i.e., overpaying for housing) if it spends more than 30 percent of gross income on housing-related costs. A "severe housing cost burden" occurs when a household pays more than 50 percent of its income on housing costs. The prevalence of overpayment varies significantly by income, tenure, household type, and household size. HUD data analyzed for this Housing Element show that renter households in South San Francisco are much more likely to be overpaying than owners. According to these data, 46 percent of extremely low-income, 42 percent of very low- income, and 44 percent of low-income homeowners are cost-burdened. At the same time, 77 percent of extremely low-income, 81 percent of very low-income, and 40 percent of low-income renter households are cost burdened. Special Needs Populations. Populations with special housing needs in South San Francisco include large families, single-parent families, the disabled, seniors, and persons or families in need of emergency or transitional housing. Of these groups, large families make up a particularly large percentage of the South San Francisco population, and face unique challenges in securing adequate and affordable housing. . Large Families - South San Francisco has a greater proportion of large households (defined Executive Summary v as five or more persons) than San Mateo County. 17.9 percent of South San Francisco's households had five or more persons in 2000, versus 12.9 percent in San Mateo County. Large households are more common among renters than owners in South San Francisco; 17.2 percent of homeowner households had five or more persons compared to 19.0 percent of renter households. . Single-Parent Households - Single female-headed households with children tend to have a higher need for affordable housing than family households in general. In addition, such households are more likely to need childcare since the mother is often the sole source of income and the sole caregiver for children within the household. In 2008, there were 1,120 single female householders with children in South San Francisco. As a proportion of all families, such households represented six percent of all households in South San Francisco and seven percent of family households in the City. San Mateo County contained a similar proportion of these households, totaling 12,017 households in 2008, which represented six percent of all households present in the county. In addition, both South San Francisco and San Mateo County contained a significantly smaller proportion of male householders with children; this household type made up two percent of both the City and the County. . Seniors - Elderly households (those with one member who is 65 years of age or older) tend to pay a larger portion of their income for housing costs. Elderly renters in South San Francisco are particularly affected by this trend. In 2000, among elderly renters in South San Francisco, 60 percent overpaid and 30 percent severely overpaid for housing. In comparison, among homeowners, only 20 percent overpaid and nine percent severely overpaid for housing. Extremely low-income elderly renters had the highest rates of overpayment, with 46 percent directing more than 50 percent of income towards housing. At the same time, 41 percent of very low-income elderly renters and 21 percent of low- income elderly renters overpaid for housing. . Persons with Disabilities - Persons with physical and mental disabilities face significant barriers to finding decent and affordable housing in the marketplace due to physical or structural obstacles. Within the population of civilian, non-institutionalized residents over the age of five, 18 percent of all persons had a disability in South San Francisco compared to 16 percent in San Mateo County. . Individuals or Families in Need of Emergency Shelter or Transitional Housing - According to the 2007 San Mateo County Homeless Census and Survey, there were 2,064 homeless people reported in San Mateo County on the night of January 30, 2007. This point-in-time study counted 1,094 homeless people living either on the street or in vehicles, a population referred to as "unsheltered". An additional 970 homeless people were staying in shelters, transitional housing, jails, hospitals, or treatment facilities or were using a voucher to stay in a motel, a population referred to as "sheltered". Within this dataset, 188 homeless individuals were counted in South San Francisco, including 97 unsheltered persons and 91 sheltered persons. To serve South San Francisco residents who are Executive Summary VI homeless or at-risk of homelessness, the City provides funding to a variety of San Mateo County service agencies, including most importantly Samaritan House, which operates a 90-bed year round shelter for the homeless in South San Francisco. The City also supports the not-for-profit Community Overcoming Relationship Abuse (CORA), which provides emergency shelter for battered women and their children. Regional Housing Needs Allocation Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65584, the State, regional councils of government (in this case, ABAG) and local governments must collectively determine each locality's share of regional housing need. In conjunction with the State-mandated Housing Element update cycle that requires Bay Area jurisdictions to update their Housing Elements by June 30, 2009, ABAG allocated housing unit production needs for each county within the Bay Area and, with the exception of San Mateo County, also allocated housing unit production need to the City level. These allocations set housing production goals for the planning period that runs from January 1, 2007 through June 30, 2014. In the case of San Mateo County, the County, in partnership with all twenty cities in the county, formed a subregion, for the purposes of conducting the RHNA, as allowed by state law. The San Mateo subregion designated the City /County Association of Governments (C/CAG) as the entity responsible for coordinating and implementing the subregional RHNA process. Their process paralleled, but was separate from, the Bay Area's RHNA process. San Mateo County created its own methodology, issued draft allocations, and handled the revision and appeal processes. They also issued final allocations to members of the subregion. Although the subregion worked independently of the regional RHNA process, the final allocation methodology was ultimately similar to ABAG's methodology. Shown below, the RHNA process determined a need for 1,635 housing units in South San Francisco between January 1, 2007 and June 30, 2014. This need is divided among income categories with 23 percent of the need identified for very-low income households, 16 percent for low income households, 19 percent for moderate income households and the remaining 42 percent for above-moderate income households. I ncome Category Very Low (0-50% of AMI) Low (51-80% AMI) Moderate (81-120% of AMI) Above Moderate (over 120% of AMI) Projected Need 373 268 315 679 Percent of Total 23% 16% 19% 42% Total Units 1,635 1 000/0 Sources: ABAG, 2008; BAE, 2008. Executive Summary VII Between January 2007 and June 2009, there was a substantial amount of housing built or rehabilitated in South San Francisco. Pursuant to State law, the City is allowed to count this production toward its progress in meeting the determined need for the 2007 to 2014 planning period. As shown in Table 25, there were 815 units built in the City between January 1,2007 and June 30, 2009. These include 50 very low income units, 64 low income units, 74 moderate income units and 627 above moderate income units. In addition there were 15 housing units that were substantially rehabilitated and converted from market rate to affordable housing, including 6 very low income units and 9 low income units. Consequently, the City has a remaining balance of 805 units which it must plan for during the remainder of the planning period, including 317 very low income units, 195 low income units, 241 moderate income units, and 52 above-moderate income units. Affordability New Construction Very Low Low Moderate Above Total Archstone South (Solaire) 0 29 43 288 360 Grand Oaks 43 0 0 0 43 90 Oak Ave. 0 1 1 11 13 South City Lights 0 26 26 228 280 440 Commercial Ave. 4 0 0 0 4 Park Station 3 8 4 84 99 Stonegate Estates Q Q Q .ill .ill Total New Construction 50 64 74 627 815 Rehabilitation (a) 317 - 321 Commercial Ave. Q ~ Q Q 1.Q. Total Rehabilitation Units 6 9 0 0 15 Calculation of Remaining Need 2007-2014 RHNA 373 268 315 679 1,635 Total Credits (New & Rehab) (b) 56 73 74 627 830 Balance of RH NA 317 195 241 52 805 Note: (a) These units were acquired by the RDA, rehabilitated, and converted to income-restricted affordable housing units. (b) Sum of units constructed or rehabilitated between June 2007 and June 2009. Sources: BAE, 2009; City of South San Francisco, 2009. Executive Summary VIII Housing Constraints & Resources A key component of the Housing Element is a description and analysis of governmental and non- governmental constraints to the preservation and provision of housing. Along with this, the Housing Element contains a description and analysis of housing resources, including most importantly an inventory of sites for housing production. These constraints and resources are described below. Government Constraints. South San Francisco has worked systematically to address constraints to housing production as reflected in the City's land use and development policies, infrastructure planning and funding of affordable housing projects. In general, South San Francisco's development fees are consistent with or lower than in neighboring jurisdictions, and planning and permitting processing times also tend to be consistent with regional norms. Non-Governmental Constraints. High development costs constitute a significant constraint to the production of housing in South San Francisco, as in communities throughout the San Francisco Bay Area region. In particular, land and construction costs have risen steeply in recent years, and continue to pose an obstacle for developers of all types of housing. Developers of both market-rate and affordable housing have also experienced increased obstacles to obtaining debt and equity financing as a result of the recent financial crisis. When investors or lenders are willing to provide financing for new development projects, it is on much less favorable terms than in the recent past. Resources. Consistent with the City's long-term commitment to supporting high-quality residential development, South San Francisco continues to make resources available for housing production. Major financial resources for housing in South San Francisco include a variety of Federal, State and local programs such as the HOME Investment Partnership Act Program, the Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG), City Redevelopment Set-Aside Funds, Federal and State Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC), Section 8 Housing Assistance and the Housing Endowment and Regional Trust of San Mateo County. Beyond these important resources, South San Francisco provides technical support to housing developers and, perhaps most importantly, works through its land use and zoning powers to ensure an adequate supply of sites for new residential development. Executive Summary IX Housing Plan South San Francisco has been successful at promoting housing development consistent with the goals and objectives outlined in the prior Housing Element. At the same time, South San Francisco community members recognize that the changing patterns of land use and development in the City demand a new and comprehensive approach to promoting medium- and high-density housing development on infill sites. In addition, as the City's built-out, single- and multi-family residential areas mature, new policies and programs must be established to assist with housing maintenance and preservation to ensure the continued high-quality of the City's residential neighborhoods. Taking into account the needs, constraints and resources identified in this Housing Element, South San Francisco has developed a Housing Plan in consideration of its own local priorities, as well as its obligations under State Housing Element law. The Housing Plan is structured as a series of goals and related implementing policies. Accompanying each implementing policy, there are one or more programs that the City will implement over the 2007 to 2014 planning period. The goals listed below form the core of the City's vision for the preservation and development of residential areas. 1) Promote the provision of housing by the private, public and non-profit sectors for all income groups in the community. 2) Take necessary steps to remove government and public infrastructure constraints to housing development through administrative support, intergovernmental cooperation, public-private partnerships and permit streamlining. 3) Strive to maintain and preserve existing housing resources, including both affordable and market-rate units. 4) Maintain and improve the quality of life, safety and historic integrity of existing neighborhoods as a high priority for the City. 5) Support the development of an adequate supply of safe, decent and affordable housing for groups with special housing needs. 6) Ensure that all households have equal access to the City's housing resources. 7) Promote energy efficiency in residential development within the City, including reduction of energy use through better design and construction in individual homes, and also through energy efficient urban design. Finally, in conformance with these goals, the Housing Element sets forth a series of implementing policies and programs which are summarized in the following action plan. Executive Summary x Q) E cu a.. LL Q) E i= Q) CJ a.. ~ o UJ c: "C c: ~ LL .E E cu a.. o a.. a.. c: :E ~ C) .... c: Q) E c. o a; > Q) c C') .E U) ~ o :I: ~ Q) z U) c. ~ o a.. C) Q) E o CJ .E <( a.. o .... U) a.. o .... CJ Q) UJ .~ :c ~ a.. "C c: cu Q) .... cu > .;: a.. Q) J: .... = 2 o U5 .c (l) ~ ro .c ~ C') ~ .E <( U) (l) ~ :s o (/) :I: .g: .8 >- a. a. ::J CfJ "'0 C ro --.J (l) ::0 ~ 'm > <( .... o c: .2 U) .; o a.. a.. Q) J: .... Q) .... o E o a.. a.. ~ cu o C) ~ ro ::J c c <( (/) "'0 C ::J u.. ~ <3 ~ 'c ::J E E o o "'0 c ro (J 'E o 5e (J (l) W E o g- -:0) a.> (l) (l) 00 ~ o e (l) > c "'0 c ro --.J "'0 (l) ~ ~ g>~ ,- c ~=> 0"'0 I C (l) ro ::Oe ro ro "'0 (J !.... ro 0> ~ .E (; :g<( ~I E I ro ;.~ (J 0 00: a.. 0> C '0 0> C o <( Z ~ C ::J E E 8g "'0 ::J C 0 roO (J >- '~ G c __- o c (J (l) W E - a. o 0 -:0) a.> (l) (l) 00 (l) (J c ro c :.c o 0> C '00 ::J o I ~ ro c o '00 ::J U E (l) (J c ro c :.c o 0> C '00 ::J o I ~ ro c o '00 ::J U C (l) f; e (l) E (l) a. ~ .8 (l) ::J C ~~ o I o N E I ro ~8> 00: a.. o c; ~ m o o N >- u.. (/) "'0 C ::J u.. ~ <3 ~ C ::J E 813 o S -g8 ro >- ,~ G 80es c__ o c (J (l) W E - a. o 0 -:0) a.> (l) (l) 00 (l) (l) u.. (l) 0> ro ~ c :.::i ro '0 ID E E o o (l) ro 0> (/)ti E ~ roE ~ o 0: 0> C '00 ::J o I (l) ::0 ro "'0 (; ~ .E (/) (l) (J :s o CfJ 0> C :.c c ::J u.. :5: (l) z (l) ro 0> ti<( ~C{ E"t"""" >- ::0 E (l) (/) (/) <( 2 U5 0> C '00 __ ::J C 0 (l)I E (l) a. - 0..0 O)~ > !.... (l) 0 o:t:: -<( ro ~ (l) "'0 '00 (l) 0:: ~ 'E J!! :.;:::::; "S ~ .E "'0 (l) ro c 0> '00 (l) o (/) 0) (J ro a.. tj:: c (l) ro :'Q o ~~ 8~ ~ E I ro ~8> 00: a.. M E I ro ;.~ (J 0 00: a.. """" c; N ~ o o N (l) "'0 '00 4= ill CfJ 0> C '00 ::J o I ~-g o ::J Nu.. "'0 C >-ro ~ 0> C c E '~ E 0 OI o <(- c -g 0 ,Q ~ ~:~ ,- CfJ 0 8CfJe c __- (l) o C E (J (l) a. W E 0 '0 ~~ -: (l) (l) 0..>"'0 (l) (l) (l) 000:: ~ 'c => (j) o o ~ o --.J '0 C o n 2 (j) C o o (l) N '> ~<( (JI.() E~ Lrj E I ro ;.~ (J 0 00: a.. m o o N <.i (l) o m o o N <.i (l) o (/) "'0 C ::J u.. ~ <3 <( z e- >- (l)~ EO a. - o C 0) ,Q > (/) (l) ,~ o E ~E '~ 8 E 0> E ,~ o C o ~ -go: ro c- (J 0 'E '00 o '> 50 (J 0> W ,~ 13 liEs (l) ~ 0 o a.. 0 0> C 'c C ro ~o: 'c - ::J C E ,Q 8:~ - 00'0 "'0 0> C C ,~ ~ ~EO 'E ri ~ o 0 C __- _ o C C (J (l) 0 W E '00 - a. (/) ~ ~ 'E o..>E (l) (l) 0 000 (l) (J C ro C :.c o 0> C 'c o N '0 C o '00 '> (l) 0:: (l) ill a. E o o (l) (J C ro C :.c o (/) ::J C o al ~ '00 C (l) o e (l) E (l) a. E (l) (J C ro C :.c o (/) ::J C o al ~ '00 C (l) o (l) f; e (l) E ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~g> 00: a.. (l) f; ,~ ~ '00 C (l) o ro ~ (l) ro :'Q (l) ~~ 0:: C (l) :5: (/) 0 ~~ (J 0 Eo e (l) E a. o 0) > (l) o C :5: o e :5: o o (l) 0> ro :s 8<( C!,-- w~ ~ ~ ~g> 00: a.. ~ 'c => "'0 C o (J (l) CfJ '0 e (l) E a. o 0) > (l) o (; &~ ::J I CfJ"t"""" 00 E I ro ;.~ (J 0 00: a.. m o o N <.i (l) o (/) "'0 C ::J u.. ~ <3 ~ o --- c- a5 ,Q E ~ g-'E ~ 0) E C C > 0 E::J ,Q ~o (/) >- 0> 8:~ :g 'E 0 0 ::J C "'0 0> E ~ c,~ Ea.. roc o - ,~~ o 5 8 0: "'0 '00 C __- ~ :~ 0 a5 ,~c; ~ E 8 ,~ 13 '0 ~ 55sli~ (J ~ 0 (l) (l) wa..ooo '0 e (l) E a. o 0) (/) >~ (l) C o=> t::: 0> o C a. :.= g-~ CfJo .8 ~ (l) ro ::J"'O C C :.;:::::; 0 C (J o (l) OCfJ 0> C '0 0> C o 0> C '0 0> C o 'x (/) "'0 C ::J u.. ~ <3 (/) "'0 C ::J u.. ~ <3 ~ C C E ,Q 8 :~ 00 "'0 0> C ,~ ro C ,~ ~ 80: C __- o C (J (l) W E - a. o 0 -:0) a.> (l) (l) 00 ~ C ::J E E o o tj:: C .E (/) (l) :.;:::::; 'c ::J t::: 8.e o..(l) o E cg- :';:::::;0) a5 ~ ::Qo C => 0> ~ ~ o 5 "'0 :.;:::::; C ro o (J (J ::J (l)"'O CfJW "'0 C ro al '? tj:: C ..c 0> ::J o :5 e (l) E a. o 0) > (l) o ro ~ (l) "'0 '00 (l) 0:: (l) N 'E '~~ ~ ~E"t"""" " a. E ~~~ ~~g> 0~0: a.. 0:: >. !..... co E E ::J en Q) > :.;::::; ::J U Q) >< w E ro ~ o 0: Q) E cu a.. LL Q) E i= Q) CJ a.. ~ o UJ c: "C c: ~ LL .E E cu a.. o a.. a.. c: :E ~ C) U) .... c: 'n; a.. .... U) c: o (J Q) > o E Q) a::: Ol c '6 Ol c o (/) "'0 C ::::::i u.. ~ <3 Ole c Q) :.c E ,- 0.. >0 ::::::i 0 ;t=alm c - > ::::::i C Q) E,~ ~ 8:~ ~ oo-g "'0 Ol ro C ,~ Ol ro C C u C ,- 'E l!! ~ o 0.... 0 C __-I o C "'0 U Q) c w E ro -o..cc o 000 ~ l:~:~ 0000 U) .... c: 'n; a.. .... U) c: o (J C') c: U) ~ o :I: Q) a.. ~ .... CJ ~ a.. .... U) cu a.. .... c: ,~ :c ~ a.. "C c: cu .... c: Q) E c: a.. Q) > o C) Q) > o E Q) a::: N cu o C) s Q) '5> Q) ~ 'E Qj 0.... 2 :.c Q) 0.. X W "t e Q) o E Qj 0.... 0.. o U5 Q) c 9 Q) rn Qj 0.. o .8 Q) ::::::i C ~<( O"t"""" ON E N ~ ij'g 00: 0.... Ol C (/) '(j) Q) ::::::i ~~ ~~ U ,Q 2i~ ;?~ Q).8 rn (/) ::::::i C 0-0 Q):';:::::; "'0 ::::::i <(0 _CJ) o~ >OQ) ~~ ro >0 ~~ <(rn ~ Qj ::::::i 0.. <( ~ g M wo N ~ ~ E ~ ,~,~~ e 00 eo.... 0....0....0.... Ol C '6 Ol C o C o ~ U .Q <( 'E ~~ ~ 'E <( 8 00 ~ C ::::::i E E o o "'0 C ro ,5:2 8 8I C __- o C U Q) W E - 0.. o 0 -:m 0..> Q) Q) 00 E ro o o 0: Q) rn U ij:: :.;:::::; Qj o "'0 Q) o Q) Ol ro .8l o ~ Ol C '6 Ol C o (/) "'0 C ::::::i u.. ~ <3 ~ C ::::::i E E o o "'0 C ro ,5:2 8 8I C __- o C U Q) W E - 0.. o 0 -:m 0..> Q) Q) 00 "'0 C ::::::i u.. en ::::::i ~ Ol C '(j) ::::::i o I >0 e ::::::i o o o 0.. 0.. ::::::i CJ) al M N E ro o o 0: e Q) E 0.. o m > Q) o S Q) z ,~ C Ol '(j) Q) o ~ ro ::::::i a Q) :J<( ~"1 WC\I ~ E N ~ ij'g 00: 0.... (J) o o C\I <.i Q) o (/) "'0 C ::::::i u.. ~ <3 ~ C ::::::i E E o o "'0 C ro ,5:2 8 8I C __- o C U Q) W E - 0.. o 0 -:m 0..> Q) Q) 00 (/) Q) ,~ m "'0 '5 C) C Ol '(j) Q) o e Q) E Q) a. E Ol C '6 Ol C o Ol C '6 Ol C o 'x (/) "'0 C ::::::i u.. ~ <3 (/) "'0 C ::::::i u.. ~ <3 ~ C ::::::i E E o o "'0 C ro ,5:2 8 8I C __- o C U Q) W E - 0.. o 0 -:m 0..> Q) Q) 00 ~ C ::::::i E E o o "'0 C ro U 'E o 6e U Q) W E o g- -:m 0..> Q) Q) 00 <( a W o "'0 C ro S Q) '5> Q) ~ C Ol , (j) (/) Q) Q) o (/) ,~ ~ := 0 50: Q) ::c ro "'0 o ~ C o C o ~ E (/) .E E C ro o Q) 0 ~O: 'E g ~(/) '~ ,_ 0 OI iri """" N E ro o o 0: (/) E ro o o 0: Ol C '(j) ::::::i o I '0 (/) (/) Q) C Q) ~ <( ,5:2 ::c ::::::i 0.... Q) (/) ro ~<( um EN <0 E N ~ ij'g 00: 0.... >. s.... ro E E ::J en OJ > :.;::::; ::J U OJ >< W I.. c '6 0> c o en "'0 C :::::l LL ~ o c Q) E 0.. o ~~ '~ ~ Eo:: 8-g o co "'0 0> C C co '00 U :::::l '~ ~ 6 c- U Q) W E '0 g- 6 -: (jj '00 g- 5) :2: 000 en t: In ~ o :I: I.. C '00 :::::l o I (II') C; o C) en "'0 0> g C ..c ' 00 o ~ ~I ,Ql Q) Q)ro 2:'!:::: ill~ 6~ co:: ~.8 Q) 0> E:6 (;) c Q) :::::l ELL '(jJ ro 0:: ill Q)"'O ro Q) >LL ~-g Q) co 0>Q) ~:ffi oCf) UQ)<( CenN W=>M ~~~ ~~e 000... 0...0... en "'0 (5 ..c Q) en :::::l o I Q) E o U C 1 o --.J "'0 C co ~c U Q) o E 00 Q) o>~ ,~ .e en C ~W I Q) !...."'O ~8 O..c !.... 0> .e ~ ~:5 C en :::::l"'O LL 0 <(.,g o 0 0::..0 "'O..c C 0> CO '(jJ Q)2 ro Q) 00 6 - 0.. ~~ ~-g LL CO Q) C ~2 !.... C ,g '(ij o...~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ee 000...0... 0...0... 0> 0> C C '6 '6 0> 0> C C 00 en en "'0 "'0 C C :::::l :::::l LL LL ~~ 00 C C o 0 , 00 ' 00 'S: 'S: 00 0> 0> C C :Q:Q ':5 ':5 alal -E.-E. Q) Q) 00 ~ ~ u::u:: >;>; Q) Q) C C .8.8 ~~ ~~ 00 en Q) "'0 o o >- ill ro Cf) "'0 C CO 0> c__ ~~ :::::l= alal - Q) 0> -- C CO '00 ,~ :::::l E 0= IW <(al "'f"'f ~ ~ C o ~ ,!::::! 2 'S: Q) 0:: "'0 o o ..c o ..0 ..c 0> '(jJ 2 0> C ti<( 'X If W~ ~ ~ ~e 00... 0... 0> C '6 0> C o 0> 0> C C '6 '6 0> 0> C C o 0 "'0 C :::::l LL ro ill C Q) <.9 <.9 al o o ~ C :::::l E E o o "'0 C CO U 'E o 6c U Q) W E o g- -:(jj 0..> Q) Q) 00 ~ C :::::l E E o o "'0 C CO U 'E o C o U W '0 -E. Q) o ill "'0 o ~ '~ ..c '5 g> <( '00 0> :::::l C o '00 I :::::l .E ~ en ,g C :c CO :::::l .3 0... (;) ,Q ~ *~~ c:.oO - CO 0.. S ..c 0.. o Q) :::::l --.J0::Cf) .E E CO 0, o 0: c Q) E ~~ e 0 0..0 E-f - 0 2~ '0.. ,Ql CO Q) 02 C o ~ :.0 CO ..c~ Q) U 0:: 0 ..cOO ~,~ !.... en ..c :::::l -- 0 ~I '00 ~ c3 'E ~~ roE :::::l :::::l a~ Q) C 15 '(ij Ec<( ~~~ ~~~ ~~e 000... 0...0... C o C :s ~ "'0 C CO en "'0 C .2 o en =>c I ~ ~ '~ ..c '5 <( 0> C '00 :::::l o I LL Cf) Cf) al f';- ~ E CO 0, o 0: en b 0:: Cf) "'0 C CO en Q) en :::::l o I 0> C :.0 ro o al Q) > o 0.. ~ "'0 C CO Q) > ill en<( Q)a;> O:~ ~ ~ ~e 00... 0... """" c; N ~ o o N I ill Cf) 0> C '00 :::::l o I "'0 <( C o :::::l o::LL ;:R~ o '00 N CO ~ C :::::l E E o o -g(3 coo:: ,g LL 8~ C __- o C U Q) W E - 0.. o 0 -:(jj 0..> Q) Q) 00 en o 0:: Cf) .E Q) U C CO (;) '00 en <( ro '(3 C CO C u:: en C o '00 ill > C o o E :::::l 'c 'E o "'0 C o C; C Q) E ro 0.. <( :~ ~ --.J ~ Cri E M ~ ~e 00... 0... 0> C '6 0> C o .x <( 2 ~ C C E ,Q 8 :~ 00 "'0 0> C ,~ CO C ,g ~ 80:: C __- o C U Q) W E - 0.. o 0 -:(jj 0..> Q) Q) 00 en C o ~ E :.::i C o '00 ill > C o o E :::::l :~ E o "'0 C o o ill Cf) 2 'c => 0> C '00 :::::l o I "'0 Q) N :.0 '00 ..0 :::::l Cf) Q) > ill en Q) 0: 6 I ~ >- ,g (5 0... >. !..... en E E ::J en OJ > :.;::::; ::J U OJ >< W Q) E cu a.. LL Q) E i= Q) CJ a.. ~ o UJ c: "C c: ~ LL .E E cu a.. o a.. a.. Q) ..... :J ..... o ~ c; ~ a c: :E ~ C) 0) 0) c c '6 '6 0) 0) c c o 0 "'0 C ::::l u.. ro ill c Q) <.9 tn "C o o J: a.. o .c J: C') 'Q) z ..... o ~ .;: C') Q) .... .E CJ .;: o .... .~ :I: "C c: cu ~ Q) ..... cu UJ .i :J ..... o ~ c; ~ a Q) > o a.. Q, .E "C c: cu c: 'cu .... c: 'cu ~ ~ c; o C) -E. Q) o Q) ,5:2 o 0.... en "'0 ro "'0 c ro U5 ~ '~ u Q) Cf) 0) c 32 '5 al E ::::l E :~ ~ en ro Q) ~ en ~"E o ro "'0 "'0 ~~ roCf) I >- ,~ 1: __ ::::l C U Q) Q) ECf) 0..0) o c <i3:.c >== Q)::::l e Oal Q) B,~ ~ ~ 5-~ro~ O::~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~g>~g> 000::00:: 0....0.... 0.... 0) c '6 0) c o "'0 C ::::l u.. ro ill c Q) <.9 "'0 C ::::l u.. ro ill c Q) <.9 ~ c c E ,Q 8 :~ 00 "'0 0) C ,~ ro c ,5:2 ~ 80:: c __- o c u Q) W E - a. o 0 -:<i3 a.> Q) Q) 00 ~ c c E ,Q 8 :~ 00 "'0 0) ~ 'E ~ u c 0 'E l!! s g ~-~ o C ..0 U Q) ::::l WEo.... - 0..- 000 -:<i3-: 0..>0.. Q) Q) Q) 000 :5: Q) 'S: Q) 0::: ro e Q) E c e 'S: c W Q) en => "'0 C C ~ 0 t ~ o 'S ~ : f; en '~ ~ ~ t c 0 ro e- ~ ~ <( ro 8 Q) -go ~E jg:5: 0 ro Cf) Q) a. s.... ~ '~ ~ g- e ::6 0::: 0....Cf)0.... ~ a. E o o Q) en => "'0 C ro --.J ill en '6 z 1ij e <( f; '~ Q) U C ,~ 0.. E o o ro ~ Q) ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~g> 00:: 0.... en Q) :s t5 2 U5 Q) ro en c => '0 """" o N ~ o o N <( z al """" ~ E ro 0> o 0:: tn ~ o a.. C) tn "C Q) Q) Z c; '(3 Q) .E tn ~ o :I: Q) :is CU "C a.. o :t: <( "C c: CU c.E ,Q en :ffi ~ 8.~ en >- c:-!::::: ro en ~ ~ roO Q) z 0) c '(j) ::::l o I o 'c Q) Cf) 0)__ c U '~ ~ o en I 6 00 'c 0 Q)-- Cf)~ '0 ~ 6(9 t5E 2 e (j)o.... 6 ~ o~ && ~ ro ~ :s <( .5 g g ~ ~ W W E ~ ~ <7 ~ '- IJ1 IJ1 0 .~ ,~ ,~ 0:: (1)00 (/)0....0.... .... c: Q) CJ Q) C Q) ..... CU UJ ..... o 0) 0) c c '6 '6 0) 0) c c o 0 <( z o 0 ~~ ~~ 'c - 'c - ::::l C ::::l C E ,~ E ,~ 8 :~ 8 :~ 0000 "'0 0)"'0 0) C ,~ C ,~ ro C ro C ,5:2 ~ ,5:2 ~ 80::80:: C __- C __- o C 0 C U Q) U Q) WEWE - 0..- a. o 0 0 0 -:<i3-:<i3 0..>0..> Q) Q) Q) Q) 0000 0) C '(j) ::::l o I o 'c Q) Cf) <.9 al o o .E E ro 0> o 0:: 'm a. Q) 0::: 0) C '(j) ::::l o I ~ s.... 0 o ,- C C ,- Q) ~Cf) al C( IJ1 E ro 0> o 0:: en Q) a. >- I- 0) C '(j) ::::l o I o 'c Q) Cf) '0 Q) 0) C ro 0::: Q) 0) ro :S<( 0"""" gJ, W E ~ ~ J, g> ,~ 0:: o 0.... 0) C '6 0) C o <( z o >-0 __I 'c - ::::l C E ,Q 8 :~ 00 "'0 0) C ,~ ro C U C ,- ro E- 00.... C __- o C U Q) W E - a. o 0 -:<i3 a.> Q) Q) 00 Q) ro o .E e Q) E ~ '5 0- Q) 0::: 0) C :52 ro 0.... en Q) Q) U:.;:::::; ::::l== "'0 '(3 Q) ro o:::u.. en t5 Q) '0' 0:: 0) C '(j) ::::l o I ro ,~ 2 'c => Q) ::c '(j) en Q) U U <( -6 Q) a. a. ~ ~ ,!:.c ~ ~ Cl)I CS ~ (1) '5 <( S glJ1 ao:::J, 't;;.LriE s::: J, ~ .~,~ e ~~o.... 0) C '6 0) C o <( z C o '(j) 'S: o 0) C 32 '5 al C o ~ Q) > Q) 0:: ~ u:: -E. Q) o ~ u:: Q) ~ '(3 Q) ro ro u.. U5 .8 f; g ~ '~ ro ..0 >- C ro g~~B 2roOQ) '~ ~ ,~ f; 0~6.E O:QNO) ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ 'S: ~ C U Q) 0 W<(O:::I (J) o o N U Q) o en "'0 C ::::l u.. ~ (3 ~ C C E ,Q 8 :~ 00 "'00) C ,~ ro C ,5:2 ~ 80:: C __- o C U Q) W E - a. o 0 -:<i3 a.> Q) Q) 00 al u;> IJ1 E ro 0> o 0:: "'0 Q) ::c ro en o .8 Q) U 'S: ill Cf) 0) C :.c C Q) x W en E ro 0> o 0:: o 8:~ ::::l I Cf)1J1 ID E I ro IJ1 s.... >-0) U 0 00:: 0.... 0) C '6 0) C o 0) 0) C C '6 '6 0) 0) C C o 0 > 'X <.9 al o o en en "'0 "'0 C C ::::l ::::l u.. u.. ~ ~ (3 (3 e- Q) E a. o <i3 > Q) o ~ 'c ::::l E E o o "'0 C ro U 'E o C o U W -:0 g-o OI ~ ~ C C ::::l ::::l E E E E o 0 o 0 "'0 "'0 C C ro ro U U 'E 'E o 0 6e6e U Q) U Q) wEwE - 0..- a. o 0 0 0 -:<i3-:<i3 0..>0..> Q) Q) Q) Q) 0000 Q) ::c '(j) en Q) U U <( 2 'c => Q) ~ ro ~ .8 en "'0 C ::::l"'O u.. Q) Q) ::c C "'0 ro ,Q 'S: ,~ ro rt~"8 -- E E o U U <( (j) Q) ::::l 0- Q) 0::: .8 en ro ::::l "'0 'S: :.c C "'0 Q) ::c ro en o o u.. en en Q) U o 0:: ro Q) "'0 'S: <( 01';- 0::1J1 ~ ~ ~g> 00:: 0.... en 2 Q) ~ '(j)::C U ~ '(j) ~ s ~ ~ ~1 <( :s~ .8 -5 8: ~ ~,~ 8 ,Q ~ ~ roI6 :~ g .E ~ ::::lO)c6"8 ~ C - ,- E "'0 '~ Q) ro E ~~~g8 Eoe-u <( __ 0.... ,~ <( al I';- IJ1 E ro 0> o 0:: >. s.... ro E E ::J en OJ > :.;::::; ::J U OJ >< W Q) E cu a.. LL 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> Q) C C C C C C C c '6 '6 '6 '6 '6 '6 '6 '6 E 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> i= c c c c c c c c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0> 0> 0> > C C ,~ Q.) >< Q) '00 '00 (/)"'0 :J :J ~ '00 CJ 0 0 a.. I I Ii ~ .-ill 0 c c a3CfJ UJ ?F. ~~ ~~ 0 E<( C\l 0.. C\l 0.. C\l 0.. 0 c: 06.206.206.20:: "C Q.) Q.) Q.)- (9)(9>(9>(900(9 (9 (9 (9 c: mQ.)mQ.)mQ.)m"'Om m m m ~ o-go-go-goso 0 0 0 LL OO::OO::OO::OLLO 0 0 0 .E E cu a.. o a.. a.. c: :E ~ C) (/) ~ 'E co LL Q.) 0> ro --.J .E 0> C '00 :J o I Q.) :c ~-E :.::: 0 'E ~ ~& Q) CO ~ o ."J g .E~ co s:::..n '~ ,~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c 'c 'c 'c 'c :J c:J :J :J :J E ,Q E E E E E ,~E E E E o ,~o 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 "'0 0>"'0 "'0 "'0 "'0 C C C C C C CO 'c CO CO CO CO U C U U U u 'E l2 'E 'E 'E 'E 00....0 0 0 0 c -c c c c gcgcgcgcoc W Q.)E W Q.) W Q.) W Q.) ~ Q.) _ _E_E_E_E 00..00..00..00..00.. ~~~~~~~~~~ g-~g-~g-~g-~g-~ 0000000000 c '(ij E Q.) 0:: 2 (jj ..c CfJ >- u a3 ~ E ~ ~ J: ~ E CfJ O>~ W c c 0 ~ ~'~ 0 ~~~8. ~ '(ij" 0.. .- > Q.) :J <(<(roCfJ o 0> C '00 :J o I ro c o :.;:::::; '00 c CO ~ >- U C Q.) 0> ill E W "'0 Q.) G? o (J) "'0 C :J o ctLL~(/) roCfJEc Q.) CfJ CO ,Q >- ,~ LL ro t::s....t::N o Q.) 0 'c o...:!::: 0.. CO 0..Q.)0..0> :J ..c :J s.... CfJCfJCfJO 0> C 'c C CO 0: Q.) ro o ~ 'E q: c o Z 0> C '00 :J o I t:: o 0.. 0.. :J CfJ ~ ~'O '0 E :J :J C ~ o ~ o Q.) ro ~ c CO CfJ '0 >- C :J o o ,~ Q.) ro 0.. '(3 :.;:::::; ro 0.... >- (jj ~~ <(I 61.[) J; ~ ~g> 00: 0.... . . I.[) I.[) E E CO CO ~ ~ o 0 0: 0: o o o W o 0 m o . I.[) E CO ~ o 0: . I.[) E CO ~ o 0: Q.) u '> ill CfJ ro '(3 o CfJ en ,E tn ~ o :I: a.. 'n; LL "C c: CU ~ c: ~ .... a.. o C. c. o CU ~ C" W tn Q) CJ a.. ~ o tn Q) 0::: en c: 'Ci) ~ o :I: tn ~ U Q) J: .... o .... tn tn Q) CJ CJ <( CU ~ C" W Q) a.. ~ tn c: w <0..>0..> Q.) Q.) Q.) Q.) Q.) Q.) 000000 Q.) u c CO 1ii '00 (/) <( >- u CO u o > "'0 <( "'0 C CO (jj (/) C :J o o ro 0> Q.) --.J '(ij LLt:: .8 8- g ~& '00 a3 ~ ~ ,s S I "'0 0 '(ij 2i 0 LL "s2 ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ S ,Q ~ c LL ro <( '~ ~ '2 2,~ '~ ~R ~ o....O=>I 0> C '00 :J o I '(ij LL 0> O>C ,~ :.0 (/) s.... :J CO o 0> ..c Q.) cO:: ,- (/) ~~ ~~ EO:: 'c "'0 U C ,~ CO "'0 C - 0 ~~ CO E ~.E Q.)E ro Q.) c"'O :~ '~ wO: ~N cbcb >- >- ,~ ,~ 00 0....0.... <( C\l cb E CO ~ o 0: m 0 C\l C\l cb cb E E CO CO ~ ~ o 0 0: 0: >. !..... CO E E ::J en Q) > :.;::::; ::J U Q) >< W (1) E co I.. LL (1) E i= (1) (.) I.. ~ o en c: "C c: ~ LL .E E CO I.. o I.. a.. .= :2 ~ C) c: o ~ CO > I.. (1) tn c: o U ~ C') I.. (1) c: W 0) c '6 0) c o <.9 III o o '(3 C :::::i o o >-~ >-~ :gu: :gO E -E. E 6- E Q) c E :~ 0000> o Q) :~ 0 0 -g~B-g g ~o-O)~~ 'E ~ ~ 'E ~ ~e-~ ~e- ~~~~~ -0..:';::;-0.. o 0 coo -.;<i3Q)-.;<i3 g-~~g-~ 000...00 .... c: (1) E C- o a; > (1) c co ~ c: (1) :2 tn (1) a::: .= ~ (.) c: (1) .(3 H: w ~ C') I.. (1) c: W (1) .... o E o I.. a.. ,...: co o C) Q) u 0) c c co :.;::; C L.. en :.c ,*Jj 0 s ,~ g -g~ ~ co :J en '5 ~ro1:511l ill ~ ,~ a3 Li]cD:::~ ..c:2m<.9 j~~,* +-,Q)Q)e.. ,~ ~ ~ E ~ 0 Q) 0 <(00:::0 5 Q) Z ,~ en Q) :J ro Q) u.. c o ~ > ill en c o o >- 0) ill c w Q) <5 E o D:::e .8 ~ Q) 0.. :::::i..Q :S~<( c Q) 80r-!.. I ~ E I'- C co >-~ 8> ~ '~ D::: 0...0::: III 0) c ~ 'x W "'0 C co e Q) E 0.. o <i3 > Q) o 5 Q) z c Q) Q) 5 ill III Q) i= Q) 0) co en ~ ,Q g:g~ w6r-!.. NoE r-!.. ,~ ~ ~ro g> e~D::: 0...0 r-!.. E co ~ o D::: 0) c '6 0) c o en "'0 C :::::i u.. ~ o e- Q) E 0.. o <i3 > Q) o ~ C :::::i E E o o "'0 C co ,~ 6 E '(j) g :~ 00 ~ ,~ -E.;g Q) :::::i o III e Q) '(3 en ~~ >-en 0) >- illCJ) Li]~ 6~ c$ o 0 :.;::; E ~ e .E~ c en - "'0 ~~ > c o co D:::U5 ~ 5 o --.J ,~ ~ m '(3 Q) 0.. en W en 1:5 Q) '0' D::: en- E m ~ ,~ o ~ D::: a3 6 '(3 ~ ~ N >- '~ 0) ..c ill ro c Q) W S Q) Q) en 0) <532~ ~~8~ D:::~Li]r-!.. ~~~~ ~E~g> egeD::: 0..._0... 0) c '6 0) c o .S; >< en "'0 C :::::i u.. ~ o c o '(j) 'S; o 0) c ~ '5 III C o ~ Q) > Q) D::: ~ u: -E. Q) o ~ u: Q) en roe +-' Q) CJ) E Q) Q) u ,: L.. :::::i .E 0- C Q) wo::: o C +-' 0 Q):';::; :::::i co C > :.;::; ill c en o c o 0 ..-..0 ~ ~ Q) L.. :;:; Q) ELi] m o o N w- <( III 0) o o N 6 u en '(3 c co U: c co CJ) ..c '5 o CJ) '0 ~ o en Q) u :J o CJ) ~ s.... ro E E ::J en Q) > ~ ::J U Q) >< W Introduction Housing is of critical importance to the City of South San Francisco. The long-term vitality of the South San Francisco community and local economy depend on a full range of housing types to meet the needs of all segments of the City's population. As South San Francisco looks towards the future, the increasing range and diversity of housing options will be an integral aspect of the City's growth and development. Consistent with South San Francisco's long-term commitment to providing suitable, decent and affordable housing for its residents, this plan sets forth a vision for guiding future residential development, as well as for preserving and enhancing existing residential areas. Role and Content of Housing Element The purpose of this Housing Element is to adopt a comprehensive, long-term plan to address the housing needs of the City of South San Francisco. The State mandates seven elements be included in all General Plans, one of which is the Housing Element. The Housing Element is South San Francisco's primary policy document regarding the development, rehabilitation, and preservation of housing for all economic segments of the population within the City's boundaries. Accordingly, this Housing Element identifies and analyzes the existing and projected housing needs of the City and states goals, policies, quantified objectives and implementation programs for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing, including a discussion of available financial resources. The Housing Element must also identify sites for housing development that are adequate to accommodate the City's allocation of the regional housing need. South San Francisco intends to implement a set of programs and projects to meet the goals, policies, and objectives included herein. The City will also coordinate its housing efforts with those occurring within the other areas of San Mateo County and the broader Bay Area region. Authority All California localities are required by Article 10.6 of the Government Code (Sections 65580- 65590) to adopt Housing Elements as part of their general plans, and submit draft and adopted elements to the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for review with compliance with State law. HCD is required to review Housing Elements and report its written findings within 60 days for a draft-Housing Element (Government Code Section 65585(b)) and within 90 days for an adopted element (Government Code Section 65585(h)). In addition, Government Code Section 65585(c) requires HCD to consider written comments from any group, individual or public agency regarding the Housing Element under review. Status This document is an update to the Housing Element of the City of South San Francisco General Plan. The current Housing Element was adopted by the City Council and certified by the State in 2002, and the General Plan was most recently amended by the City Council on October 13, 1999. This updated Housing Element focuses on housing needs from January 1, 2007 through June 30, Introduction 1 2014 in accordance with the Housing Element planning period for San Francisco Bay Area jurisdictions established by State law. Relationship with General Plan State Law requires that a General Plan and its constituent elements "comprise an integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of policies." This implies that all elements have equal legal status and no one element is subordinate to any other element. The Housing Element must be consistent with land use goals and policies set forth in the Land Use Element, and closely coordinated with the Circulation Element of the General Plan. The Housing Element must also be consistent with area Specific Plans including those currently being developed in South San Francisco. As part of the implementation process for this Housing Element, the City of South San Francisco will initiate and complete amendments to the City's General Plan as necessary to achieve internal consistency. Related Planning Efforts EI Camino Real/Chestnut Specific Plan The purpose of the Specific Plan is to create an implementable development vision for the area around the intersection of EI Camino Real and Chestnut Avenue. The gross planning area is approximately 65-acres. It is within one mile of the South San Francisco BART station and located one and a half miles west of Downtown. The anticipated completion date for the Specific Plan is Fall/Winter, 2009. South EI Camino Real General Plan Update The current land use designation for much of southern portion of EI Camino Real is "Community Commercial". Community Commercial designation does not allow for residential or mixed-use development. The proposed/drafted General Plan Amendment (GP A) allows for mixed-use development throughout the southern portion of the corridor. The height limits have been increased to allow for 80 feet as of right, and up to 120 feet with additional review and approval. This is up from the existing 50 foot height limit that currently exists for most of the properties on South EI Camino Real. Finally, the permitted Residential Density has been set at 60 units per acre, with increases possible through the CUP process. The anticipated completion date for the South EI Camino Real General Plan Update is Summer, 2009. Zoning Ordinance Update The South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance Update is underway to ensure that current standards and guidelines support the implementation of the General Plan, including the Housing Element. The update is structured into four "modules". Staff, the City's consultant and the City's Planning Commission are currently working through modules 2 and 3. The anticipated completion date for the update is Fall/Winter, 2009. Introduction 2 Other City Efforts Downtown Strategy The City's Downtown Strategy is a Visioning and Planning exercise being used by Elected Officials and Staff to intensify development and redevelop under-used parcels in South San Francisco. Council reviewed the downtown strategy on February 6, 2009 and expressed their support; however, there was no formal adoption. At the recommendation of Council, the Downtown Strategy was subsequently reviewed by local community groups, such as the Downtown Subcommittee and Chamber of Commerce. Green Building Ordinance The City's Building Division is currently drafting a Green Building Ordinance which is considering the "Build-it Green" point system for residential construction. The Build-it Green point system requires energy savings above Title 24 regulations found in the California Building Code. The anticipated adoption date for the Green Building Ordinance is Summer, 2009. Public Participation This Draft Housing Element has been developed with extensive participation from members of the South San Francisco Community, as well as housing advocates, developers, employer representatives and other interested parties. In addition to individual interviews with key stakeholders, the City convened a public workshop to solicit input from the public on the City's housings needs, and to provide the public with an opportunity to shape the City's housing goals, policies and objectives. This workshop was publicized in the local print media, on the "21elements.com" website, as well as on the Housing Element website created specifically for this effort (www.ssfhousingelement.com). City staff mailed over 260 notices of the workshop to housing developers, non-profit service providers, ethnic and cultural organizations, and a variety of other groups, agencies and individuals. In conducting outreach for the workshop, care was taken to recruit potential participants who would reflect the City's full ethnic and economic diversity. Organization of Housing Element Following this introduction, the Housing Element includes the following major components: . A review of the prior Housing Element, including an analysis of housing production over the previous ABAG fair share period. . An analysis of the City's current and future housing needs. . An analysis of governmental and non-governmental constraints to housing production. . An inventory and analysis of housing resources. . A housing plan setting forth goals, policies, programs and quantified objectives to address the City's housing needs. Introduction 3 Review of Housing Element Past Performance A key component of each Housing Element update is a review of performance under the previous Housing Element, including a quantitative and qualitative description of outcomes, a comparison of outcomes against stated goals, and an evaluation of the continued appropriateness of existing goals, objectives, policies and programs. Accordingly, the following section reviews progress under the previous Housing Element, which covered the period from July 1, 1999 to June 30, 2006, and is organized around the six overriding goals of the element, as follows: . New Residential Construction . Maintenance of Existing Affordable Housing Stock . Special Needs . Equal Opportunity . Neighborhood Safety . Energy Conservation Summarized below are key findings of this review of past performance. A more detailed review of each of the 65 policies adopted under the previous Housing Element is included in Appendix A. New Residential Construction The first goal of the previous Housing Element was to promote the provision of housing by both the private and public sectors for all income groups in the community, a goal which the City actively pursued during the previous Housing Element cycle through substantial contributions of City funds and staff time. Most notably, the City's Redevelopment Agency, provided $2.7 million in funding to Bridge Housing to develop the Chestnut Creek Senior Housing development, which provides a home to 40 low-income senior households, and provided $940,000 in funding to Mid- Peninsula Housing to develop the Greenridge Housing development, which provides a home to an additional 33 low-income households. Other key actions by the City, included the expansion of its transit village zoning district which allows for medium- to high-density residential development; streamlining the approvals process for accessory dwelling units; continuing to operate a "one stop" permit center combining planning, building, and engineering functions under one roof; implementing density bonus and inclusionary housing ordinances; and upgrading technology to allow online access to permit data. The following section evaluates the City's progress in accommodating its "fair share" of the region wide need for additional housing, also referred to as the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), including an examination of new residential permit and construction activity. Review of Past Performance 4 As shown in Table 1, ABAG determined a need for 1,331 additional housing units in South San Francisco during the prior Housing Element cycle from July 1, 1999 and June 30, 2006, including a need for 768 units for very low, low, and moderate income households. Table 1: Regional Housing Needs Allocation, July 1, 1999 to June 30, 2006 Income Category Very Low Income Low Income Moderate Income Above Moderate Total RHNA 199 to 106 277 131 360 563 1,331 Percent of Total 20.8% 9.8% 27.0% 42.3% 100.0% Source: ABAG, 1999; BAE, 2009. Measured in terms of total housing permit issuance, the City was successful in creating a supportive regulatory environment to allow housing development. As shown in Table 2, overall the City issued 1,310 permits during the previous Housing Element cycle, representing 98 percent of its RHNA. The City did very well in permitting housing in the above moderate income category, exceeding its RHNA by 80 percent. Because of the high cost of land and development costs, the City was only able to issue approximately 296 permits for very low, low, and moderate income housing units compared against a RHNA of approximately 768 units (38 percent of its RHNA in these income levels). As shown in Appendix B, despite the difficulty in meeting its full RHNA for affordable units, the City of South San Francisco was among the top third of jurisdictions in San Mateo County providing affordable housing, permitting a greater share of its RHNA for all incomes compared to the County as a whole. Table 2: Housing Permit Issuance by Income Level, July 1, 1999 to June 30, 2006 RHNA Housing Permitted (a) Income Category 199 to 106 No. of Units 0/0 of RH NA Very Low Income 277 121 44% Low Income 131 71 54% Moderate Income 360 104 29% Above Moderate 563 1.014 180% Total 1,331 1,310 98% Notes: (a) Data are as reported to ABAG and published in their report, A Place to Call Home, June 2007. Sources: City of South San Francisco, 2009; ABAG, 2007; BAE, 2009. While housing permit issuance was approximately equal to the RHNA, actual production fell short of forecast demand because of the lag between the issuance of permits and actual construction. Review of Past Performance 5 Between 1996 and 2006, 899 units were constructed in the City, representing approximately two- thirds of the RHNA. The lag between permit issuance and housing production had a disproportionate affect on the production of affordable housing units across all income categories such that only 157 very low, low, and moderate income housing units were constructed, or approximately 20 percent of the determined need in these categories. For above moderate income units, production was stronger, with 742 units built or 132 percent of the RHNA for this category. Accounting for much of the discrepancy between permit issuance and housing production during the prior Housing Element cycle was the timing of the construction of three large multifamily projects totaling 685 units, including 185 low and moderate income units. These projects were permitted during the latter years of the previous Housing Element cycle, but not completed until 2007 and 2008. With the opening of these projects, the City has seen through the completion of all large-scale residential developments permitted during the previous Housing Element cycle. Table 3: Housing Production by Income Level, 1999 to 2006 Income Category Very Low Income Low Income Moderate Income Above Moderate Total RHNA 199 to 106 277 131 360 563 1,331 Housing Produced (a) No. of Units 74 34 49 742 899 0/0 of RH NA 27% 26% 14% 132% 68% Notes: (a) Total housing production is based on data reported to the Department of Finance. -1/1/1999 housing counts from E-8 Historical Population and Housing Estimates (revised per 2000 census). -1/1/2006 housing counts from E-5 City / County Population and Housing Estimates, 2008 -Mid-year data were not available, hence housing production data are for the January to January period. Overall as measured by permit issuance and construction activity the City made substantial progress toward producing its "fair share" of housing during the previous Housing Element cycle, meeting its RHNA in terms of the number of permits issued and realizing the construction of all large scale projects permitted during the previous Housing Element cycle by the end of2008. Maintenance of Existing Affordable Housing Stock The second goal of the prior Housing Element was maintenance of the existing affordable housing stock. Related to this goal, the City operates a rehabilitation loan program, which assists approximately four low-income home-owners annually with larger home repair needs by providing low-interest or deferred loans. For smaller home-repairs, the City partners with the North Peninsula Neighborhood Service Center and Rebuilding Together Peninsula, which provided free home repairs for approximately 321 low-income households in South San Francisco during the previous Housing Element cycle. In addition, La Raza Centro Legal provided counseling and advocacy to 87 low-income residents in reporting and resolving code violations in their dwelling Review of Past Performance 6 units. All three programs allow low-income owners to remain in safe, affordable living situations. In addition to its rehabilitation and repair programs the City has been active in the acquisition and conversion of existing housing units into deed-restricted affordable housing. The City partnered with Mid-Peninsula housing to acquire, rehabilitate, and add affordable housing deed restrictions to 36 rental residential units in the Willow Gardens neighborhood, contributing approximately $5.2 million in public monies to this effort.l Additionally, the City acquired, rehabilitated, and added affordability restrictions to seven units along Miller Avenue, utilizing $1.3 million in Redevelopment Agency funds. Special Needs Populations The third goal of the previous Housing Element was to provide housing for people with special needs. Through its policies and programs the City has worked to address the needs of special needs populations in the City, particularly large families with children, seniors, persons with disabilities, and people who are homeless or in need of transitional housing. The City accomplishes its goal of serving special needs populations in several ways. As described before, the City has partnered with non-profit housing developers to build additional units for special needs populations, including the 40 senior housing units at the Chestnut Creek development. To serve South San Francisco residents who are homeless or at-risk of homelessness, the City provides funding to a variety of San Mateo County service agencies, including most importantly Samaritan House, which operates a 90-bed year round shelter for the homeless in South San Francisco. The City also supports the not-for-profit Community Overcoming Relationship Abuse (CORA), which provides emergency shelter for battered women and two agencies which provide housing referral and counseling services: the Shelter Network and the Human Investment Project. Equal Opportunity The fourth goal of the previous Housing Element is to promote equal opportunity to secure safe, sanitary, and affordable housing for everyone in the community regardless of age, race, gender, religion, marital status, national origin, disability, sexual orientation, and other arbitrary factors. To support equal housing opportunities in South San Francisco, the City contracts with Project Sentinel to address fair housing complaints and resolve landlord/tenant disputes in the City. In addition, City staff provide referrals regarding fair housing to appropriate agencies and advocacy groups. During the previous Housing Element cycle, Project Sentinel provided case management services for more than 70 City residents. Monies used included $3.65 million in Redevelopment Agency funds, $1.05 million in HOME funds, and $500,000 in other HUD funding. Review of Past Performance 7 Neighborhood Safety and Energy Conservation The final goals under the previous Housing Element related to neighborhood safety and energy conservation. The City has adopted policies to prohibit residential development in areas with major environmental hazards and to abate existing hazards, to better weatherize the homes of low- income residents, and to mitigate airport noise for residents. These policies continue to be implemented through the CEQA process as well as the housing rehabilitation loan program, minor home repair program, and airport noise insulation program. As described before, the rehabilitation and repair programs have benefited numerous low-income households. In addition, more than 15,000 households have benefited to date through the airport noise insulation program at a cost of $120 million. Housing Element Changes As presented above, the City of South San Francisco has been successful at promoting housing development consistent with the goals and objectives outlined in the prior Housing Element. The changing patterns of land use and development in the City, however, demand a new and comprehensive approach to promoting medium- and high-density housing development on infill sites. In South San Francisco these sites will be located mainly in mixed-use zones near transit, providing the City with the opportunity to promote high-quality transit and pedestrian-oriented neighborhoods which include a full range of housing types and affordability levels. For the 2007 to 2014 Housing Element planning period, the Housing Plan has been reorganized to complement the City's planning efforts in medium-density, high-density and mixed-use zones, particularly along EI Camino Real. In addition, the guiding policy framework has been simplified by consolidating and eliminating redundancies wherever possible, ultimately resulting in a more efficient and straightforward plan to encourage high-quality residential development, as well as to ensure a full range of affordable housing. To establish benchmarks to assess the progress toward achieving the City's housing goals, this updated Housing Element also presents a five-year action plan along with quantified objectives for the construction, rehabilitation and preservation of housing. The proposed Goals, Policies and Programs contained in this Housing Element Update have been modified from the prior Housing Element in light of the findings discussed above, and also based on the Housing Needs Assessment, Constraints Analysis, and Housing Resources inventory contained within the document. Review of Past Performance 8 Housing Needs Assessment The purpose of the Housing Needs Assessment is to describe housing, economic, and demographic conditions in South San Francisco, assess the demand for housing for households at all income- levels, and document the demand for housing to serve various special needs populations. The Housing Needs Assessment is intended to assist South San Francisco in developing housing goals and formulating policies and programs that address local housing needs. To facilitate an understanding of how the characteristics of South San Francisco are similar to, or different from the larger area in which it is situated, this Housing Needs Assessment presents data for South San Francisco alongside comparable data for all of San Mateo County and, where appropriate, for the San Francisco Bay Area and the state of California. This Needs Assessment incorporates data from numerous sources, including the United States Census; the Association of Bay Area Governments; the State of California, Department of Finance; and Claritas, Inc., a private demographic data vendor. Regional Context Located in northern San Mateo County on the San Francisco Peninsula, the City of South San Francisco is known as the birth place of the biotechnology industry. The City measures 9.6 square miles and was incorporated in 1908. Its population has tripled since the Second World War, but population growth has moderated in recent years, as the community has become increasingly developed. The City is served by Highway 101, Interstate 280, Interstate 380, and Caltrain, as well as a BART station, which opened in June 2003. In addition, the City is adjacent to the San Francisco International Airport and is anticipating the construction of a Ferry Terminal during the current Housing Element planning period. South San Francisco is adjacent to the cities of Brisbane, Colma, Daily City, Pacifica, and San Bruno, as well as portions of unincorporated San Mateo County. The City is home to a collection of compact neighborhoods including an active and walkable downtown. East of Highway 101 is an office and industrial area, where many of the City's biotechnology businesses are located as well as the Oyster Point Marina, situated on the San Francisco Bay. Housing Needs Assessment 9 Population and Household Trends Population With a population of nearly 64,000 residents, South San Francisco is the fourth largest City in San Mateo County. As shown in Table 4, between 1990 and 2000, the City's population grew at a rate that was similar to the region, averaging an increase of 1.09 percent per year. Since 2000, growth in the City has slowed substantially, reflecting its increasingly developed character. Between 2000 and 2008, average annual population growth in the City was just 0.64 percent, still faster than the population growth rate for San Mateo County (0.56 percent), but substantially slower than the region-wide population growth rate of 0.92 percent per year. Consistent with these data, the City has continued to account for a somewhat outsized share of population growth within the County. Between 2000 and 2008, South San Francisco accounted for 9.9 percent of countywide population growth, although it accounts for only 8.6 percent of total countywide population. Households According to the California Department of Finance, there were 20,487 households in South San Francisco in 2008, a total increase of approximately 810 households since 2000 or approximately 100 households per year.1 Consistent with population growth trends, since 2000 the City has added new households at a slightly faster rate than the County - 0.51 percent per year compared to 0.44 percent per year - but at a much slower rate than the region as a whole, which registered a 0.87 percent average annual increase in households since 2000. A verage Household Size and Type Average household size is a function of the number of people living in households divided by the number of occupied housing units in the area. In South San Francisco, the average household size in 2008 was 3.0 persons per household, indicating significantly larger households compared to countywide and regional averages of2.7 to 2.6, respectively. Consistent with a larger average household size, the City of South San Francisco has a high proportion of family households. As of 2000, 74 percent of South San Francisco households contained related individuals, compared to 67 countywide and 65 percent region wide. Household Tenure Households in South San Francisco have a relative high homeownership rate compared to the County and region. Approximately 63 percent of households living in the City owned their own homes in 2000, compared to 61 percent countywide and 58 percent region-wide. 1 A household is defined as a person or group of persons living in a housing unit, as opposed to persons living in group quarters, such as dormitories, convalescent homes, or prisons. Housing Needs Assessment 10 Table 4: Population and Household Trends, 1990 to 2008 Avg. Annual Avg. Annual DID Change DID Change South San Francisco 1990 2000 2008 (a) 1990-2000 2000-2008 Population 54,312 60,552 63,744 1.09% 0.64% Households 18,519 19,677 20,487 0.61% 0.51% Average Household Size 2.9 3.1 3.1 Household Type Families 74% 74% Non-Families 26% 26% Ten u re Owner 61% 63% Renter 39% 37% San Mateo County Population 649,623 707,161 739,469 0.85% 0.56% Households 241,914 254,103 263,252 0.49% 0.44% Average Household Size 2.6 2.7 2.8 Household Type Families 67% 67% Non-Families 33% 33% Ten u re Owner 60% 61% Renter 40% 39% Bay Area (b) Population 6,023,577 6,783,760 7,301,080 1.20% 0.92% Households 2,246,242 2,466,019 2,643,390 0.94% 0.87% Average Household Size 2.6 2.7 2.7 Household Type Families 65% 65% Non-Families 35% 35% Ten u re Owner 56% 58% Renter 44% 42% Note: (a) Estimate from California Department of Finance. (b) Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma Counties. Sources: 1990 & 2000 US Census H-1, H-3; California Department of Finance, 2008; BAE 2008. Housing Needs Assessment 11 Age Distribution Table 5 presents the age distribution and median age of South San Francisco, San Mateo County, and the Bay Area. As shown, all three geographies have a similar median age, ranging from a low of 38.1 years for the region to a high of 39.9 years for the County. South San Francisco has a median age of 38.7 years. Similarities are also considerable in the age distribution of these jurisdictions. Persons under the age of 18 years account for 23 to 24 percent of the population for each geography, with persons age 18 to 24 years accounting for eight to nine percent of each. Adults age 25 to 44 years and those age 45 to 64 years, account for a similar share of the population in each geography ranging from 27 to 29 percent. Seniors, age 65 years and older, account for between 12 to 14 percent of the population in each geography. Table 5: Age Distribution, 2008 South San Francisco San Mateo County Bay Area (a) Age Cohort Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Under18 15,093 24.0% 168, 138 23.4% 1,644,471 23.2% 18 to 24 5,394 8.6% 56,979 7.9% 610,013 8.6% 25 to 44 17,305 27.5% 194,514 27.1% 2,070,662 29.2% 45 to 64 16,685 26.5% 203,136 28.3% 1,914,305 27.0% 65 + 8,470 13.5% 95,537 13.3% 852,580 12.0% Total 62,947 100.00/0 718,304 100.00/0 7,092,031 100.00/0 Median Age 38.7 39.9 38.1 Note: (a) Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma Counties. (b) Population totals do not match Table 1, due to use of different data sources. Source: Claritas, 2008; BAE 2008. Household Income As shown in Table 6, South San Francisco households tend to be less affluent than households living elsewhere in the County and Bay Area. As of 2008, the median household income in South San Francisco was $72,820, slightly below the regional median of $74,256, and substantially below the countywide median of $82,373. Similarly, per capita incomes for South San Francisco residents were lower. In 2008, the per capita income in South San Francisco was $27,689, compared to $40,224 at the county-level and $36,322 throughout the Bay Area. On a per capita basis, South San Francisco residents earned approximately 31.2 percent less than the average County resident and 23.8 percent less than the average Bay Area resident. Despite lower median and per capita incomes, South San Francisco had a relatively high proportion of households earning in the middle income range. The majority (57 percent) of South San Francisco households were estimated to earn between $50,000 and $150,000 in 2008, compared to 51 percent in the County and 50 percent within the Bay Area. By comparison, South San Francisco households were less likely to earn over $150,000 compared with San Mateo County and the Housing Needs Assessment 12 greater Bay Area; only 10.6 percent of City households earned more than $150,000, compared to 20.2 percent of County households and 16.8 percent of Bay Area households. Table 6: Household Income Distribution, 2008 South San Francisco San Mateo County Bay Area (a) Household Income Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Less than $15,000 1,270 6.3% 1 5, 1 84 6.0% 208,322 8.1% $15,000 to $24,999 1,249 6.2% 14, 1 04 5.5% 163,949 6.4% $25,000 to $34,999 1,410 7.0% 1 5,541 6.1% 177,443 6.9% $35,000 to $49,999 2,568 12.8% 28,036 11.0% 291,229 11.4% $50,000 to $74,999 3,867 19.3% 43,466 17.1% 450,515 17.6% $75,000 to $99,999 3,498 17.4% 37,377 14.7% 362,903 14.2% $100,000 to $149,999 4,080 20.3% 49,644 19.5% 474,017 18.5% $150,000 to $249,999 1,800 9.0% 32,545 12.8% 292,620 11.4% $250,000 to $499,999 230 1.1% 11,427 4.5% 89,355 3.5% $500,000 and over 105 0.5% 7,384 2.9% 46,437 1.8% Total 20,077 100.00/0 254,708 100.00/0 2,556,790 100.00/0 Median Household Income $72,820 $82,373 $74,256 Average Per Capita Income $27,689 $40,224 $36,322 Note: (a) Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma Counties. (b) Population totals do not match Table 1, due to use of different data sources. Source: Claritas, 2008; BAE 2008. Employment Trends South San Francisco is the heart of the Bay Area's biotechnology and life science industry, including the headquarters location for Genentech, one of the world's largest biotech firms. Genentech and other biotech and pharmaceutical companies account for an important share of local jobs and offer well-paying careers for persons with advanced scientific, business, and technical training. Proximate to the San Francisco International Airport, the City is also home to an important cluster of "blue collar" jobs, including important logistics and shipping operations and an important manufacturing cluster that includes various food processors. Jobs by Sector Table 7 presents a distribution of employment in South San Francisco by broad industrial classifications. As shown, Manufacturing, including pharmaceutical and food manufacturing, accounts for the largest share of jobs (24 percent) followed by Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services (11 percent), Transportation and Warehousing (10 percent), Administrative and Waste Services (8 percent), Wholesale Trade (7 percent) and Retail Trade (7 percent). Rounding out the top 10 categories are Health Care and Social Assistance, Construction, Accommodation and Food Services, and Government employment, which includes public school educators as well as other federal, state, and local government employees. Housing Needs Assessment 13 Table 7: Jobs by Sector, 2003 to 2007 South San Francisco San Mateo County Q3 2003 (b) Q3 2007 (c) % Change Q3 2003 (b) Q3 2007 (c) % Change Industry Sector Jobs % Total Jobs % Total 2003-2007 Jobs % Total Jobs % Total 2003-2007 Manufacturing 8,154 20% 12,053 24% 48% 28,641 9% 30,844 9% 8% Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 4,440 11% 5,371 11% 21% 30,785 10% 38,931 11% 26% Transportation and Warehousing 4,349 11% 4,893 10% 13% 25,550 8% 26,010 8% 2% Administrative and Waste Services 2,664 7% 3,775 8% 42% 17,213 5% 19,774 6% 15% Wholesale Trade 3,510 9% 3,733 7% 6% 12,058 4% 12,213 4% 1% Retail Trade 3,525 9% 3,627 7% 3% 35,896 11% 35,876 11% 0% Health Care and Social Assistance 3,187 8% 3,294 7% 3% 25,797 8% 26,848 8% 4% Construction 2,075 5% 3,048 6% 47% 18,174 6% 19,279 6% 6% Accommodation and Food Services 1,766 4% 2,841 6% 61% 25,281 8% 29,596 9% 17% Government (e) 1,754 4% 2,112 4% 20% 26,176 8% 28,823 8% 10% Other Services, except Public Administration 1,582 4% 1,706 3% 8% 13,535 4% 14,089 4% 4% Management of Companies and Enterprises (d) 936 2% 1,037 2% 11% 6,360 2% 5,401 2% -15% Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 646 2% 916 2% 42% 6,876 2% 6,503 2% -5% Information 761 2% 886 2% 16% 22,536 7% 17,731 5% -21% Finance and Insurance 788 2% 599 1% -24% 14,094 4% 15,088 4% 7% Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 146 0% 233 0% 59% 4,739 1% 6,009 2% 27% Educational Services (d) 135 0% 168 0% 24% 4,341 1% 4,845 1% 12% Natural Resources, Mining, Unclassified 47 0% 33 0% -29% 2,596 1% 2,088 1% -20% Utilities (e) Q 0% Q 0% 0% ----.MQ 0% ~ 0% 23% Total 40,464 100% 50,324 100% 24% 321,288 100% 340,735 100% 6% Notes: (a) Based on the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), Includes all employment covered by unemployment insurance, Does not include the self-employed workers and may exclude certain government workers, (b) Represents employment for third quarter, 2003, (c) Represents employment for third quarter, 2007, (d) City-specific employment data in the sectors of both the Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing sector, and the Mining Sector, The employment data for these two sectors has been combined to protect employer's confidentiality, (e) There is no employment in the Utilities sector at the city-level (employment only at the county level), (e) Government employment includes workers in various local, state and Federal sectors, not just public administration, For example, public school staff are in the Government category, Sources: Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), California Employment Development Department, 2008; BAE, 2008, Major Employers Table 8 lists major employers in the City of South San Francisco. These include biotech and medical device companies such as Genentech, Elan Pharmaceuticals, and Sieger Engineering; airport-related businesses, such as United Airlines, and a range of other companies including a retailer, food manufacturers, a janitorial service company, and a publishing company. Housing Needs Assessment 14 Table 8: Major Employers, South San Francisco, 2008 Name of Employer United Airlines Genentech Kaiser Medical Center Aeroground Amgen Exelixis Costco Entenmann's- Orowheat Cooper Companies Cell Genesys Elan Pharmaceuticals Actuate Corp Sieger Engineering Sugen San Mateo County Transit District See's Candies Trinity Building Services Future Us Theravance Type of Business Airline Biotechnology Medical Center Freight Handling Biotechnology Biotechnology Retail Food Manufacturing Medical Device Biotechnology Biotechnology Biotechnology Medical Device Biotechnology Transportation Food Manufacturing Janitorial Publishing Biotechnology Number of Employees 9,000 9,000 1,100 800 675 550 800 500 400 375 350 300 300 300 300 300 275 250 250 Sources: City of South San Francisco, 2008; CA Employment Development Department, 2008; Dunn & Bradstreet, 2008; BAE, 2009. Employed Residents Table 9 presents recent trends in employment for the City of South San Francisco and San Mateo County. South San Francisco is a "jobs rich" City with substantial in-commuting from other jurisdictions. As shown, there are approximately 30,000 employed residents in the City compared to 50,000 jobs, a ratio of 1.7 jobs per every working resident of the City. By comparison, San Mateo County has a much closer balance between the number of employed residents and total jobs with approximately 370,000 employed residents and 340,000 jobs, a ratio of 0.9 jobs per every working resident of the County. Since 2003, job growth in South San Francisco has been particularly fast, increasing at an average annual rate of 5.6 percent, adding substantially to a need to provide additional housing opportunities to support a fast-growing economy. Housing Needs Assessment 15 Table 9: Employment Trends, 2003 to 2007 (a) South San Francisco San Mateo County Avg. Annual Avg. Annual Rate of Change Rate of Change Q3 2003 Q3 2007 2003-2007 Q3 2003 Q3 2007 2003-2007 28,500 30,233 1,5% 345,333 366,067 1,5% 40,464 50,324 5,6% 321,288 340,735 1,5% 1.4 1,7 0,9 0,9 7,5% 4,9% 6,0% 4,0% Employed Residents (a) Total Jobs (b) Total Jobs/Employed Residents Unemployment Rate Notes: (a) Per EDD Labor Force Estimates, (b) Per the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), Sources: California Employment Development Department, 2008; BAE, 2008, Population and Employment Projections The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) projects South San Francisco's population to increase from 61,700 to 76,200 between 2005 and 2035, a 23.5 percent increase over 30 years. Household growth is expected to be slightly greater, rising from 20,130 households to 25,050, a gain of 24.4 percent. These projections reflect the growing need for residential development in South San Francisco. Although the City's growth outpaces the County, this growth is expected to fall slightly short of Bay Area-wide projections. Whereas San Mateo County's population is expected to grow at 19.4 percent over this 30 year period, the Bay Area will increase by more than 30 percent, and is expected to contain just over nine million residents in 2035, as demonstrated in Table 10. As illustrated in Table 10, South San Francisco will continue to contain more jobs than households over this 30 year period, deepening its reputation as a "jobs-rich" community. Whereas in 2005 South San Francisco maintained a 2: 1 Jobs-Housing Ratio, this imbalance will increase to 2.44 jobs per household in 2035. Compared with San Mateo County and Bay Area figures, South San Francisco's Jobs-Housing imbalance is disproportional; 2035 estimates for both the County and the Region hover around 1.6 Jobs per Household. Housing Needs Assessment 16 Table 10: Population, Household, and Job Projections, 2005 to 2035 Total Change % Change South San Francisco 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2005-2035 2005 - 2035 Population 61,700 63,400 66,600 69,200 71,500 73,900 76,200 14,500 23,5% Households 20,130 20,720 21,660 22,530 23,380 24,240 25,050 4,920 24.4% Jobs 42,240 44,650 46,490 50,130 53,540 56,720 61,160 18,920 44,8% Jobs - Housing Ratio 2.10 2.15 2.15 2.23 2.29 2.34 2.44 San Mateo County Population 721,900 741,000 772,300 800,700 823,400 842,600 861,600 139,700 19.4% Households 260,070 267,230 277,090 287,470 296,870 304,660 312,030 51,960 20,0% Jobs 337,350 363,060 391,910 423,100 454,170 487,420 522,000 184,650 54,7% Jobs - Housing Ratio 1.30 1.36 1.41 1.47 1.53 1.60 1.67 Bay Area (a) Population 6,936,450 7,246,950 7,730,000 8,069,700 8,592,150 8,712,800 9,031,500 2,095,050 30,2% Households 2,583,080 2,696,580 2,819,030 2,941,760 3,059,130 3,161,770 3,292,530 709,450 27,5% Jobs 3,449,640 3,693,920 3,979,200 4,280,700 4,595,170 4,921,680 5,247,780 1,798,140 52,1% Jobs - Housing Ratio 1.34 1.37 1.41 1.46 1.50 1.56 1.59 Note: (a) Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma Counties, Sources: ABAG, E-5 2008; Claritas, 2008; BAE 2008, Housing Characteristics Housing Stock Conditions The age of South San Francisco's housing stock is similar to that of San Mateo County. As shown in Table 11, the largest proportion of homes (30.0 percent) was built between 1950 and 1959 in South San Francisco. According to the 2000 Census, half (50 percent) of the City's housing stock was built before 1960, indicating a relatively old housing inventory. Unless carefully maintained, older housing stock can create health, safety, and welfare problems for occupants. Even with normal maintenance, dwellings over 40 years of age can deteriorate, requiring significant rehabilitation. Despite the presence of older homes in South San Francisco, virtually all housing units contain complete plumbing and kitchen facilities. As shown in Table 12, less than one percent of homes lack these facilities. Housing Needs Assessment 17 Table 11: Housing Structures, Year Built, 2000 (a) Year Built 1939 or earlier 1940 to 1949 1950 to 1959 1960 to 1969 1970 to 1979 1980 to 1989 1990 to 1994 1995 to 1998 1999 to March 2000 South San Francisco N urn ber Percentage 1 ,275 6% 2,815 14% 6,008 30% 3,467 17% 3,496 17% 1,734 9% 416 2% 606 3% 344 2% Total 1 000/0 260,576 1 000/0 20,161 San Mateo County Number Percentage 24,472 9% 32,708 13% 64,205 25% 51,676 20% 45,968 18% 24,422 9% 7,865 3% 6,609 3% 2,651 1 % Note: (a) Data is from the 2000 Census. It does not include units built after March 2000. Source: US Census, SF3-H34, 2000; BAE, 2008. Table 12: Housing Conditions, South San Francisco, 2000 Plumbing Facilities Number Percentage Owners Complete plumbing facilities 12,298 99.8% Lacking complete plumbing facilities 24 0.2% Total Owners 12,322 100.0% Renters Complete plumbing facilities 7,294 99.0% Lacking complete plumbing facilities 75 1.0% Total Renters 7,369 100.0% Kitchen Facilities Owners Complete kitchen facilities 12,273 99.6% Lacking complete kitchen facilities 49 0.4% Total Owners 12,322 100.0% Renters Complete kitchen facilities 7,292 99.0% Lacking complete kitchen facilities 77 1.0% Total Renters 7,369 100.0% Source: US Census, SF3, H48 and H51; BAE, 2008. Distribution of Units by Structure Type As shown in Table 13, a majority of housing units in South San Francisco are single-family detached homes; 58 percent of homes were single-family detached dwelling units in 2008. Both South San Francisco and San Mateo County maintained a constant share of single- family detached Housing Needs Assessment 18 units since 2000, when the City and County's shares made up 59 and 58 percent of the overall housing stock, respectively. Large multifamily housing units (defined as units in structures containing five or more dwellings) represent the second largest housing category in South San Francisco and have experienced the most rapid growth between 2000 and 2008. The number of large multifamily housing units grew by 11 percent while single family detached dwellings grew by only two percent between 2000 and 2008. But at 20 percent in 2008, South San Francisco still has a smaller proportion of large multifamily housing units compared to San Mateo County, where over a quarter (26 percent) of all housing was in large multifamily structures. Single- family attached homes comprised the third largest housing category in South San Francisco at 12 percent in 2008, a higher figure than the nine percent of all homes in San Mateo County. The remaining housing categories, small multifamily homes (defined as units in structures containing 2 to 4 dwellings) and mobile homes represented relatively small proportions of South San Francisco's housing stock in 2008 and have experienced little or no growth since 2000. Housing Needs Assessment 19 Table 13: Housing Units by Type, 2000 to 2008 (a) 2000 2008 0/0 Change South San Francisco Number of Units 0/0 Total Number of Units 0/0 Total 2000-2008 Single Family Detached 11,815 59% 12,020 58% 2% Single Family Attached 2,485 12% 2,551 12% 3% Multifamily 2 to 4 Units 1,668 8% 1,686 8% 1% Multifamily 5+Units 3,761 19% 4,160 20% 11% Mobile Home 409 2% 409 2% 0% Total 20,138 1 000/0 20,826 1000/0 30/0 0/0 Change San Mateo Cou nty Number of Units 0/0 Total Number of Units 0/0 Total 2000-2008 Single Family Detached 150,286 58% 153,583 57% 2% Single Family Attached 22,702 9% 22,937 9% 1% Multifamily 2 to 4 Units 18,252 7% 18,575 7% 2% Multifamily 5+Units 65,854 25% 69,607 26% 6% Mobile Home 3,484 1% 3,599 1% 3% Total 260,578 1 000/0 268,301 1000/0 30/0 0/0 Change Bay Area (b) Number of Units 0/0 Total Number of Units 0/0 Total 2000-2008 Single Family Detached 1,376,861 54% 1,466,501 54% 7% Single Family Attached 224,824 9% 233,612 9% 4% Multifamily 2 to 4 Units 266,320 10% 272,843 10% 2% Multifamily 5+Units 623,388 24% 699,127 26% 12% Mobile Home 61,011 2% 61,328 2% 1% Total 2,552,404 1 000/0 2,733,411 1000/0 70/0 Notes: (a) Housing estimates for January 1, 2001 through January 1, 2007 and provisional population and housing estimates for January 1, 2008 for California, San Mateo County and the city of South San Francisco. (b) Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma Counties. Source: CA Department of Finance, 2008; BAE, 2008. Building Permit Trends Building permit trends in South San Francisco support the evident growth in multifamily units experienced between 2000 and 2008. Since 1999, large multifamily units have made up the majority of new development. Since 1999, South San Francisco issued 748 building permits for these larger complexes, while only 354 permits were issued for new single family development, leading to a relatively small increase in the City's single-family housing stock (see Table 14). Housing Needs Assessment 20 Table 14: Units Permitted by Building Type, South San Francisco, 1999 to 2008 (a) Building Type 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 (b) Total Single Family 240 155 65 71 126 18 6 30 12 1 484 2 Units 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 2 7 3 & 4 Units 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 or More Units 80 Q Q Q 1 360 96 192 99 Q Z4.8 Total 320 155 65 71 130 380 102 222 111 3 1,239 Note: (a) US Bureau of the Census provides construction statistics by permit-issuing place and by county on new privately-owned residential housing units authorized by building permits. Data updated monthly. (b) Includes January 2008 - June 2008 only. Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Building Permit Estimate 2008; BAE, 2008. Overcrowding Overcrowding refers to a household with an average of 1.01 or more persons per room, with those rooms being bedrooms and dining rooms but excluding bathrooms and kitchens. Units with more than 1.5 persons per room are considered to be severely overcrowded. As shown in Table 15, South San Francisco households were more likely to be overcrowded than San Mateo households in 2000. Of all households in South San Francisco, 16 percent of households were overcrowded or severely overcrowded versus 12 percent in San Mateo County. Overcrowding was much more common in South San Francisco's renter-occupied households, with 29 percent overcrowded, while only eight percent of owner-occupied households in South San Francisco were overcrowded. Housing Needs Assessment 21 Table 15: Overcrowded Households, 2000 (a) South San Francisco Owners Renters T ota I Persons per Room HH's Percent HH's Percent HH's Percent - 1.51 or more (Severely Overcrowded) 124 1% 1246 17% 1370 7% 1.01 to 1.50 (Overcrowded) 818 7% 898 12% 1716 9% 1.00 or less 10,971 92% 5,225 71% 16, 1 96 84% - Total 11,913 1 000/0 7,369 1 000/0 19,282 1 000/0 0/0 Overcrowded by Tenure 80/0 290/0 160/0 San Mateo County Owners Renters T ota I Persons per Room HH's Percent HH's Percent HH's Percent - 1.51 or more (Severely Overcrowded) 5,136 3.3% 13,770 14.1% 18,906 7.4% 1.01 to 1.50 (Overcrowded) 5,335 3.4% 6,891 7.0% 12,226 4.8% 1.00 or less 145,793 93.3% 77,178 78.9% 222,971 87.7% - Total 156,264 100.00/0 97,839 100.00/0 254,103 100.00/0 0/0 Overcrowded by Tenure 70/0 210/0 120/0 Note: (a) The U.S. Census defines overcrowded an unit as one occupied by 1.01 persons or more per room (excluding bathrooms and kitchens). Units with more than 1.5 persons per room are considered severely overcrowded. Source: U.S. Census, SF3-H20, 2000; BAE, 2008. Inventory of Existing Affordable Units As presented in Table 16, the City of South San Francisco is home to 815 income-restricted affordable housing units, including 471 family units and 344 senior units. Units at Risk of Conversion During Next Ten Years The California Housing Partnership Corporation identifies only one affordable housing development in South San Francisco as at risk for conversion to market rate housing during the next 10 years. The Fairway Apartments development is owned by a private, for-profit entity; was financed using Section 221 (d)( 4) funds with project-based Section 8; and affordability restrictions will expire in December 2010. Options for retaining this affordable housing resource in the community include preserving the units by working with nonprofit and other public agencies, or replacing them. An analysis of these two options follows. Housing Needs Assessment 22 Table 16: Inventory of Income-Restricted, Affordable Housing Units, 2009 Name of Development Location Number of Affordable Units Family 260 Hillside Blvd. 310, 312 Miller Ave. 317 - 321 Commercial Ave. 339 - 341 Commercial Ave. 440 Commercial Ave. 714 Linden Ave. 90 Oak Ave. Archstone South (Solaire) Bronstein's 206 Grand Ave. Fairway Apartments Grand Hotel Grand Oaks Greenridge Housing Metropolitan Hotel Oak Farms Park Station Schrier South City Lights Sundial Apartments Willow Gardens 260 Hillside Blvd. 310, 312 Miller Ave. 317 - 321 Commercial Ave. 339 - 341 Commercial Ave. 440 Commercial Ave. 714 Linden Ave. 90 Oak Ave. 101 McLellan Dr. Grand Ave. 206 Grand Ave. 77 Westborough Blvd. 731 Airport Blvd. 99 Oak Ave. 1565 EI Camino Real 220 Linden Ave. Oak and Grand Aves. 1488 EI Camino Real 350 Grand Ave. Gellert & Westborough Blvds. 215 4th Ln. Willow Gardens 1 7 15 4 4 3 2 72 6 6 74 16 43 34 62 5 15 3 52 11 36 Senior Housing Chestnut Creek Senior Apartments Magnolia Plaza Rotary Plaza 65 Chestnut Ave. 630 Baden Ave. 433 Alida Way. 40 125 179 Total Affordable Housing Units 815 Note: Soura:s: City of South San Frandsro, 2009; BAE, 2009. Preserve Affordability In Project-Based Section 8 properties, such as the Fairview Apartments, the owner of the building receives rent from each unit equal to the HUD established Fair Market Rent (FMR) for the area.2 Where the FMR is less than actual market rents, the owner realizes less income from the property than he or she would without affordability restrictions. Hence, in order to incentivize a property owner to continue to contract out his or her buildings as a Project-Based Section 8 property once mortgage restrictions expire, an ongoing subsidy is required to make up for the gap between FMR and actual market rent. As shown in Table 17, there is a gap of approximately $390 per unit per FMRs are defined by HUD as the 40th percentile rent drawn from the distribution of rents of all units occupied by recent movers. Housing Needs Assessment 23 month between FMR and actual market rent in South San Francisco. Hence, for a 74-unit development, the average monthly gap is $29,000. If the property owner were willing to enter into a rental subsidy agreement with the City or some other entity that would subsidize the rents on behalf of the lower-income renters, this would require an ongoing annual payment of approximately $348,000. In previous years, the Department of Housing and Urban Development has worked with the owner of the Fairview Apartments to extend the affordability period. Another option would be for the City to work with a nonprofit housing provider to negotiate the purchase of the building. Replace Affordable Units As an alternative to providing ongoing monthly rent subsidies, the City or another entity could attempt to purchase or develop replacement housing units that could be rented to the displaced lower-income households at similar rents. In order to make this possible, it would be necessary to provide a subsidy for the purchase or construction of the replacement units that would be the equivalent of $348,000 per year in current dollars. The initial investment in existing or new housing units that would be necessary to allow a $348,000 reduction in annual rent can be estimated by calculating the net present value of mortgage payments equal to $29,000 per month on the theory that if the owner (e.g., a non-profit housing organization) can reduce its required mortgage payments by $29,000 per month, then it could reduce the rents that it needs to charge its tenants by a similar amount. Hence, as shown in Table 17, based on a 30-year mortgage term at 7.5 percent interest, it would take an initial investment of approximately $4.1 million to reduce the monthly debt service by $29,000 per month. This analysis likely understates the true cost of preserving or replacing the units, as it would be quite difficult to assemble an appropriate combination of subsidies to acquire the property or develop a similar project with the same mix of unit sizes and affordability levels. Table 17: At-Risk Housing Preservation Analysis, Fairview Apartments # Units 74 FMR (a) $1 ,658 Monthly Market Rent (b) Per Unit Gap (c) $2,050 $392 Total Gap (d) $29,008 Annual Preservation Cost (e) Total Replacement Cost (f) $348,096 $4,148,655 Notes: (a) 2009 Fair Market Rent for 2-bedroom apartment in San Mateo County as established by HUD (b) Prevailing market rent for 2-bedroom apartment in South San Francisco per RealFacts (c) Difference between FMR and market rent per unit (d) Total difference between FMR and market rent if all units were rented at market rents (e) Annual rent subsidy needed preserve current affordability levels in current 2009 dollars, equals total monthly gap multiplied by 12. (f) Net present value of the annual rent subsidy based on a 30-year mortgage at an interest rate of 7.5 percent. Housing Needs Assessment 24 Financial Resources A vailable to the City to Assist in Preservation Clearly, the costs are substantial to preserve or replace housing units that currently rent below market rates, yet the City has access to a range of different funds that could potentially assist in a preservation effort including the following: . CDBG Entitlement Funds . Redevelopment Agency Low-Mod Housing Funds . Mortgage Revenue Bonds . State Grant Programs · Federal Grant Programs . Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) . HUD Section 8 "Mark to Market" Program Where units such as the Fairview Apartments are at risk of conversion, it is the City's policy to work to preserve them, if possible. Key potential partners in this effort include HUD as well as a range of affordable housing developers and property managers who have expressed an interest in working with local communities on preservation of affordable housing projects, including such well-known affordable housing providers as Mercy Housing, Inc., EAH, Inc., BRIDGE Housing Corporation, the Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition, and Eden Housing. Numerous other organizations working to preserve affordable housing units are listed in a database maintained by the State Department of Housing and Community Development. Market Conditions This section of the needs assessment provides information on market conditions for housing in South San Francisco and San Mateo County. This information is important, because it reveals the extent to which the private housing market is providing for the needs of various economic segments of the local population. The information on housing market condition is combined with local demographic and employment information to identify those segments of the population that face difficulties in securing housing in South San Francisco at costs that do not place them under excessive housing cost burden. Rental Market Overview A review of rental market trends in South San Francisco was conducted for this Housing Element by reviewing data from Real Facts, a commercial database service that tracks rental apartment occupancy statistics and rents within South San Francisco and other California cities3. Data from Real Facts focuses on large, professionally-managed apartment complexes with 50 units or more. With approximately 7,500 renter-occupied housing units in the City, Real Fact data describes approximately 11 percent of the total rental market. As shown in Table 18, Real Facts reports rents for studio units averaging $1,068 per month, one-bedroom, one-bath units averaging $1,875 per Housing Needs Assessment 25 month, two-bedroom, two-bath units averaging $2,562 per month, and three bedroom townhouses averaging $2,295. Table 18: Rental Market Trends at Large Apartment Complexes, South San Francisco Current Market Data, 1 Q 2009 Percent Avg. Avg. Avg. Unit Type Number of Mix Sq.Ft. Rent RentlSq.Ft. Stud io 55.0 6.5% 400.0 $1,068 $2.67 1 BR/1 BA 327.0 38.5% 792.0 $1,875 $2.37 1 BR Townhouse 10.0 1.2% 1112.0 $2,445 $2.20 2 BR/1 BA 90.0 10.6% 814.0 $1,778 $2.18 2BR/1.5 BA 12.0 1.4% 920.0 $1,600 $1.74 2 BR/2 BA 188.0 22.1% 11 34.0 $2,562 $2.26 2 BR Townhouse 144.0 16.9% 883.0 $1 ,730 $1.96 3 BR Townhouse 24.0 2.8% 1100.0 $2,295 $2.09 Totals 850.0 100.00/0 874.0 $1,955 $2.24 Average Rent History 2007 -2008 2007 -2009 Unit Type 1 Q 2007 1 Q 2008 0/0 Change 1 Q 2009 0/0 Change Stud io $919 $1,075 17.0% $1,068 16.2% 1 BR/1 BA $1 ,349 $1,790 32.7% $1,875 39.0% 2BR/1 BA $1 ,546 $1 ,791 15.8% $1,778 15.0% 2BR/2BA $1 ,990 $2,427 22.0% $2,562 28.7% 2BR Townhouse $1 ,441 $1,596 10.8% $1 ,730 20.1% 3 BR Townhouse $1 ,961 $2,295 17.0% $2,295 17.0% Average Annual Rent: $1,419 $1,867 31.60/0 $1,955 37.80/0 Occupancy Rate Average Year Annual 2005 96.3% 2006 97.4% 2007 87.1% 2008 86.8% 1 Q 2009 92.7% Note: (a) Represents only housing complexes with 50 units or more. Sources: RealFacts, Inc., 2009; BAE,2009. Consistent with trends elsewhere in the Peninsula and in San Francisco, Real Facts reports rental rates rose sharply during 2007 followed by a more modest increase in 2008. Overall rents were up 37.8 percent between the first quarter of 2007 and the first quarter of 2009. One-bedroom, one- bathroom units registered a particularly steep increase during this period, with monthly rents jumping from $1,349 to $1,875, a 39.0 percent increase. Interestingly, Real Facts reported a relatively high vacancy rate of approximately 13 percent among large apartment complexes in the City during 2007 and 2008, a marked increase over previous years, indicating prices may have Housing Needs Assessment 26 gone up somewhat faster than the market would bear. With rent increases beginning to moderate, for the first quarter 2009 vacancy rate stood at approximately seven percent. As Real Facts focuses on large apartment complexes, BAE also reviewed online listings for all rental units posted to Craigslist during May of 2009. These data show average asking rates that are substantially lower than for just the subset of large, professionally-managed complexes. Among all units listed for rent in the City during this period, average asking rents were $1,410 per month for one-bedroom units, $1,803 for two-bedroom units, $2,630 for three-bedroom units, and $3,087 for four-bedroom units. Table 19: Average Asking Rents, South San Francisco, May 2009 Percent Avg. Unit Type Number of Mix Ask. Rent 1 Bedroom 15 19% $1,410 2 Bedroom 34 42% $1 ,803 3 Bedroom 16 20% $2,630 4 Bedroom 1.Q 20% $3,087 81 100% Sources: Craigslist Apartment Listings, May 2009; BAE, 2009. Housing Needs Assessment 27 Ownership Market Overview A review of for-sale housing market conditions in South San Francisco was also conducted for this Housing Element by reviewing data from Data Quick, a commercial database service that tracks sales statistics in South San Francisco and other California cities. As shown in Table 20, the median sale price of a single-family home was $575,000 as of 2008. This was off substantially from a peak of $745,000 in 2006, but nonetheless represents a more than doubling of price since 1990. For condominiums, the median sale price stood at $408,000 in 2008, down from a high of $555,000 in 2006, but still more than double the price in 1990. Examining the for-sale residential market as a whole, including condominiums and single-family homes, Data Quick reported a median home sale price of $530,000 in South San Francisco during 2008, well below the countywide median of $680,000.4 Consistent with the recent drop in prices has been a notable decline in sales. During 2007, only 329 homes sold in South San Francisco, the lowest level in approximately 20 years. Similar, with only 78 sold during 2007, condominium sales volumes were also near a 20 year low. As will be described in the following section, while sale prices have dropped from their 2006 peak, they nonetheless have escalated much faster than wages across the past 20 years, meaning that finding affordable housing remains a pressing challenge for many South San Francisco households. 4 Source: California Home Sale Activity by City Recorded in the Year 2008, DataQuick. Housing Needs Assessment 28 Table 20: Units Sold and Median Price, South San Francisco, 1990 - 2008 Condos Single Family Homes Year # Units Sold Median Price # Units Sold Median Price 1990 154 $185,500 465 $262,500 1991 111 $181,000 438 $250,000 1992 104 $175,000 422 $237,500 1993 63 $165,750 409 $230,000 1994 89 $158,500 444 $232,500 1995 96 $169,000 402 $233,000 1996 101 $155,000 458 $230,000 1997 171 $171,000 660 $260,000 1998 145 $185,500 838 $302,750 1999 189 $225,000 815 $354,750 2000 136 $285,000 734 $445,000 2001 132 $339,000 542 $450,000 2002 179 $349,000 730 $485,000 2003 182 $370,000 805 $535,000 2004 197 $415,000 815 $630,000 2005 194 $535,000 618 $723,500 2006 163 $555,000 513 $745,000 2007 78 $495,000 329 $713,500 YTD 2008 (a) 58 $408,000 168 $575,000 Annual Avg. Rate of Change 1990 - 2000 4.4% 5.4% Annual Avg. Rate of Change 2000 - 2006 11.7% 9.0% Annual Avg. Rate of Change 2006 - 2008 -14.3% -12.1 % Note: (a) 2008 Year to Date data from January 1, 2008 through July 15, 2008. Source: DataQuick Information Systems, Custom Market Report 2008; BAE, 2008. Housing Affordability According to the federal government, housing is considered "affordable" if it costs no more than 30 percent of the household's gross income. Often, affordable housing is discussed in the context of affordability to households with different income levels. Households are categorized as very low income, low income, moderate income, or above moderate income based on percentages of the Area Median Income (AMI) established annually by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Income limits vary by household size. Table 21 provides the maximum income limits for households ranging from one to four people in size in San Mateo County in 2008. Very-Iow- and low income households are eligible for federal, state, and local affordable housing programs. Moderate income households are eligible for some state and local housing programs. These income categories are also used by the Association of Bay Area Governments in their Regional Housing Needs Allocation. Housing Needs Assessment 29 State Income Limit Table 21: Household Income Limits, San Mateo County, 2008 Income Category Extremely Low Income Very Low Income Low Income Median Moderate Definition 0% to 30% 31% to 50% 51% to 80% 81 % to 1 00% 1 01 % to 120% 1 $23,750 $39,600 $63,350 $66,500 $79,800 Number of Persons in Household 2 3 $27,150 $30,550 $45,250 $50,900 $72,400 $81,450 $76,000 $85,500 $91,200 $102,600 4 $33,950 $56,550 $90,500 $95,000 $114,000 Sources: California Department of Housing and Community Development, 2008; BAE, 2008. Incomes by Occupation As a way to illustrate the types of jobs available in South San Francisco and the typical wage paid by each, Table 22 presents average wages for the top 20 occupations for the Census Metropolitan Division comprised of San Francisco, San Mateo, and Marin Counties. As shown, the top 20 occupations include a range of well-paid jobs in the fields of management, engineering, health, and business as well as lower-paid jobs as security guards, clerks, cashiers, and janitors. Table 22: Wages for 20 Most Common Occupations, San Mateo County, 2008 Top 20 Occupations (a) General and Operations Managers Computer Software Engineers, Applications Registered Nurses Business Operations Specialists Accountants and Auditors Carpenters First-Line Supervisors/Managers of Office/Admin Support Workers Executive Secretaries and Administrative Assistants Bookkeeping, Accounting, and Auditing Clerks Customer Service Representatives Office Clerks, General Security Guards Laborers and Freight, Stock, and Material Movers, Hand Retail Salespersons Stock Clerks and Order Fillers Maids and Housekeeping Cleaners Janitors and Cleaners, Except Maids and Housekeeping Cleaners Cashiers Food Preparation and Serving Workers, Including Fast Food Counter Attendants, Cafeteria, Food Concession, and Coffee Shop Average Annual Wage $130,045 $103,829 $92,477 $82,406 $76,058 $60,555 $58,438 $52,072 $43,243 $40,597 $32,831 $29,921 $29,771 $29,049 $27,661 $27,400 $26,919 $25,738 $22,267 $20,391 (a) Listed above are the top 20 occupations by number of persons employed. Sources: California EDD and BLS Occupation Employment Statistics Survey, 2008; BAE, 2008. Based on these wage data, Figure 1 shows representative households, with hypothetical jobs and family compositions. Housing Needs Assessment 30 Figure 1: Representative Households for San Mateo County, 2008 Moderate-Income Familv Profile: Dad works as a carpenter, mom works as a bookkeeping clerk; they have two children. Estimated annual income: $104,000 Low-Income Familv Profile: Dad works as an security guard, mom works as a customer service representative; they have one child. Estimated annual income: $71,000 Verv-Low-Income Familv Profile: Mom works as a retail sales person and is the only source of financial support in her family; she has one child. Estimated annual income: $29,000 Extremelv-Low-Income Familv Profile: A grandparent living alone on Social Security. Estimated annual income: $13,000 Note: Above figure is based on a figure presented in The Face of Inclusionary Housing, a reported prepared by the Nonprofit Housing Association of Northern California. Wages are the average wage per occupation in San Francisco, San Mateo, and Marin Counties as of August 2008. Social Security income is based on the national average retiree benefit as of August 2008. Sources: NPH, 2007; California EDD and BLS Occupational Employment Statistics Survey, 2008; Social Secuirty Administration, 2008; BAE, 2008. Ability to Purchase/Rent Homes Table 23 shows affordability scenarios for four-person households with very low-, low-, and moderate-incomes. The analysis compares the maximum affordable sales price for each of these households to the market rate prices in South San Francisco between January 1, 2008 and August 1, 2008. The maximum affordable sales price was calculated using household income limits published by HCD, conventional financing terms, and assuming that households spend 30 percent of gross income on mortgage payments, taxes, and insurance. Appendix C shows the detailed calculations used to derive the maximum affordable sales price. Home sale data was obtained from DataQuick Information Systems. As shown in Table 20, the median sales price for three bedroom and larger single-family homes in South San Francisco was $582,000 during the sample period. By comparison, the highest cost residence that a moderate-income family could afford is $394,000. Less than two percent of Housing Needs Assessment 31 single-family homes sold between January 1, 2008 and August 1, 2008 fell within this price range. This analysis indicates that for all but above moderate-income households, current market prices present a serious obstacle to single-family homeownership. Although, they sold at a slightly lower median sale price during the same period, condominiums were also out of reach for low- and moderate- income households. Three bedroom and larger condominiums sold for a median price of $456,000 during the first seven months of 2008 with none selling below $394,000, a price that would be affordable to low- and moderate-income households. Table 23 also presents a comparison between the maximum affordable monthly rents for a four- person household with market rate rents for three-bedroom rental units. Maximum affordable monthly rents assumed that households pay 30 percent of their gross income on rent and utilities. According to RealFacts, the average monthly rent for a three-bedroom unit in South San Francisco in the second quarter of 2008 was $2,295. This analysis suggests that very low- and low-income renters must pay in excess of 30 percent of their incomes to compete in the current market without some form of rental subsidy. The gap is especially large for very low-income households who have to pay over 50 percent of their income to afford the average market rent. Only moderate- income households can afford the average monthly rent in South San Francisco. Housing Needs Assessment 32 co o o N o (.) .! (.) t: ns a- LL. t: ns U) .t: ... ~ o U) t: en t: In ~ o ::I: G> ... ns 0::: ... G> ~ a- ns :! ..... o ~ ~ .c ns "C a- o = <( (II') N ~ .c ns .... ~ .= :0- 'OJ: c: :!:: Q) 8!~ ..... Q) m O~O::: ...... ~ Q) ~ :E .g ~ c: a. Q) 0 a. tJ)c:- B::ce (/):!::Q) ..... 3: C') o ...... c: ...... Q) m c:~o::: ~ ~ ~ Q; :E .;: a.c:a. o Q)~ :0 m ~ 'E .;: oa. ..... :;:~ ><~ m :E :::R o o ci :::R o ~ o co ~ ..q- La (J') ~ Y7 ~ <( :::R o La .8 a. 2 Q) E o (,) C 1 o ....J ~ Q) > :::R o o ci :::R ~ ....r: (J') (V') 1'---_ N ~ (V') Y7 ~ <( :::R o co .8 a. 2 Q) E o (,) C 1 o ....J :::R o o ci :::R ~ ....r: ~U == ~ E Q) m (.) L1. c: I Q) Q)'O C, '00 c: Q) (j)0::: I'--- ..q (J') (V') (J') (V') Y7 ~ <( :::R o N .8 a. 2 Q) E o (,) C 1; ro Q) "'C o ~ ~ tJ) E ~ 'c E o '0 c: o U o o o <D La ..q Y7 o o o N- co La Y7 Q)Q) ~ - I.. ...... m c: :E Q) Q)O::: C') m I.. Q) > <C :c .i c Q) 0::: .~ ~;S :E g :E Q) (,) 6: Q) ro if) C .~ "'C Q) ~ La (J') N.. N Y7 co I'--- N.. ~ Y7 ~ <( :::R o La .8 a. 2 Q) E o (,) C 1 o ....J ~ Q) > La (J') N.. N Y7 I'--- N N Y7 ~ <( :::R o co .8 a. 2 Q) E o (,) C 1 o ....J ~ C ::J o U o Q) ro ~ C ro if) La (J') N.. N Y7 aj (,) 6: aj Q) (,) ro ~ if) S Q) ..Q :c ro ~ ~ o ~<( ~ . ~ .~ E .!.....o- 2 ~ coo' ::J (,) ._ E :5~~~ 'x <( ro ro - ~ 0)Q)2~ cO::roco ~ co '(ii Q) "'C ._ ~~a.2~ "'C ~~Icxico o =CO~o~N ..c (/) -g c ~ 0:: 0- ~ ~ro~OCOu ~ ~UN~I I ~-ooro<( C ~;; '* .~ = ~_ ~ (/)~~g~~ Q) ~Q)c~EO '3- \U S ro L1. N - =--if) c"'C ~ ::J co Q) c ro ro~ o o..cOif)..c!..... L1. _<( Q)o ro ~u~=~:5 6 "'Co~~:::<( "'C ~ .~ ..0_ ~ -E ~ ~ ~ g .~ .~ ~ .~ ..0 .~ ;::: ~ ~ :g Q) ~ c-g;:::c'5::J=~ Q)Q)cro"'CroO-- 0:: a.Q)if) Cc 0 5 Q)a.Q) roQ)CO :c<(s=c!.....Q)u ro .~ ~ ~ ~ E ~ 0 ~~:2~6e~'* ~~~~c~~~ E (/) (/) C Q)CO ro C ::J .~ :g ::J ~ (V') ~ ~ .Ex- ~ ::J E Q) ~.~ 00 'i:: E 0 E :+:; ..c 0 ~a..ooo!.....--o Q) e -0 g 8...~ N -gro~~:;~"'C2 roif)co --Q)(,) Q)~ + + ~ro-g~ .g ~ (V') ~ ~ ~ g ro a.. "'C a 0 ::J "'C .- Q) ~oQ)~~~~O:: ro~ O)~\f- C rooo if)<(2 mo:.: (/)0 ~E~"'Ccc~~ ..0 ::J (,) Q) Q) Q)::J _ roE!.....~~O::o~ 'E 'x ~ Q) Q) Q3 ..c .~ ~ ro Q) > a.~ ~o::J <(~..c=oroo \f---ro(V')-=::::l-ro EO(/)c(/)":::: ro ::J c$ 0 Q) Q)O::o E .Q ro "'C E ~ co .. 'x ro .~ Q) ::J !..... (V') (/) "ro-"'C(/)(/)Q)~Q) 2~~E~~~c~ o-ro----Oo z~Ue~~~ if) '+-' C Q.) E en en Q.) en en <( en "'C Q.) Q.) Z 0) c en ::J o I ~ o U I <( U ~ ..0 "'C Q) C ~ "'C (/) ro <Ii E o (,) C ('I) ('I) ..q ~ I'--- N Y7 ~ <( :::R o N .8 a. 2 Q) E o (,) C 1; ro Q) "'C o ~ Overpayment The Department of Housing and Urban Development (RUD) establishes that a household is "cost- burdened" (i.e., overpaying for housing) if it spends more than 30 percent of gross income on housing-related costs. A "severe housing cost burden" occurs when a household pays more than 50 percent of its income on housing costs. The prevalence of overpayment varies significantly by income, tenure, household type, and household size. The Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CRAS) data provides detailed information in this regard for different types of households. In general, overpayment disproportionately affects lower-income households. Figures 2 and 3 show the relationship between low-income households and the varying degrees of cost burden. The data show that renter households are much more likely to be overpaying than owners. The 2000 Census provides the most recent data on overpayment by tenure for South San Francisco. According to these data, 46 percent of extremely low-income, 42 percent of very low-income, and 44 percent of low-income homeowners were cost-burdened. At the same time, 77 percent of extremely low-income, 81 percent of very low-income, and 40 percent of low-income renter households were cost burdened. Figure 2: Housing Cost Burden for Renters, South San Francisco, 2000 Renter Cost Burden, South San Francisco, 2000 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% CIJ ill C 50% ()) e::: ~ 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Extremely Low Very Low Low Median Total Renter Households Household I ncome Level No Cost Burden Cost Burden 30%> to 50%> Cost Burden >50%> Housing Needs Assessment 34 Figure 3: Housing Cost Burden for Owners, South San Francisco, 2000 Owner Cost Burden, South San Francisco, 2000 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% en Q3 c $ 50% 0 ~ 0 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Extremely Low Very Low Low Median Total Owner Households Household I ncome Level No Cost Burden Cost Burden 300/0 to 500/0 Cost Burden >500/0 Projected Housing Needs Regional Housing Needs Allocation Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65584, the State, regional councils of government (in this case, ABAG) and local governments must collectively determine each locality's share of regional housing need. In conjunction with the State-mandated Housing Element update cycle that requires Bay Area jurisdictions to update their Housing Elements by June 30, 2009, ABAG allocated housing unit production needs for each county within the Bay Area and, with the exception of San Mateo County, also allocated housing unit production need to the city level. These allocations set housing production goals for the planning period that runs from January 1, 2007 through June 30, 2014. Housing Needs Assessment 35 In the case of San Mateo County, the County, in partnership with all twenty cities in the county, formed a subregion, for the purposes of conducting the RHNA, as allowed by state law. The San Mateo subregion designated the City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) as the entity responsible for coordinating and implementing the subregional RHNA process. Their process paralleled, but was separate from, the Bay Area's RHNA process. San Mateo County created its own methodology, issued draft allocations, and handled the revision and appeal processes. They also issued final allocations to members of the subregion. Although the subregion worked independently of the regional RHNA process, the final allocation methodology was ultimately similar to ABAG's methodology. Shown below, the RHNA process determined a need for 1,635 housing units in South San Francisco between January 1, 2007 and June 30, 2014. This need is divided among income categories with 23 percent of the need identified for very-low income households, 16 percent for low income households, 19 percent for moderate income households and the remaining 42 percent for above-moderate income households. Table 24: Regional Housing Needs Allocation, January 1, 2007 to June 30, 2014 I ncome Category Very Low (0-50% of AMI) Low (51-80% AMI) Moderate (81-120% of AMI) Above Moderate (over 120% of AMI) Projected Need 373 268 315 679 Percent of Total 23% 16% 19% 42% Total Units 1,635 1 000/0 Sources: ABAG, 2008; BAE, 2008. Between January 2007 and June 2009, there was a substantial amount of housing built or rehabilitated in South San Francisco. Pursuant to State law, the City is allowed to count this production toward its progress in meeting the determined need for the 2007 to 2014 planning period. As shown in Table 25, there were 815 units built in the City between January 1,2007 and June 30, 2009. These include 50 very low income units, 64 low income units, 74 moderate income units and 627 above moderate income units. In addition there were 15 housing units that were substantially rehabilitated and converted from market rate to affordable housing, including 6 very low income units and 9 low income units. Consequently, the City has a remaining balance of 805 units which it must plan for during the remainder of the planning period, including 317 very low income units, 195 low income units, 241 moderate income units, and 52 above-moderate income units. Housing Needs Assessment 36 Table 25: Housing Units Completed I Rehabilitated, January 1, 2007 to June 30, 2009 Affordability New Construction Very Low Low Moderate Above Total Archstone South (Solaire) 0 29 43 288 360 Grand Oaks 43 0 0 0 43 90 Oak Ave. 0 1 1 11 13 South City Lights 0 26 26 228 280 440 Commercial Ave. 4 0 0 0 4 Park Station 3 8 4 84 99 Stonegate Estates Q Q Q .ill .ill Total New Construction 50 64 74 627 815 Rehabilitation (a) 317 - 321 Commercial Ave. Q ~ Q Q 1.Q. Total Rehabilitation Units 6 9 0 0 15 Calculation of Remaining Need 2007-2014 RHNA 373 268 315 679 1,635 Total Credits (New & Rehab) (b) 56 73 74 627 830 Balance of RH NA 317 195 241 52 805 Note: (a) These units were acquired by the RDA, rehabilitated, and converted to income-restricted affordable housing units. (b) Sum of units constructed or rehabilitated between June 2007 and June 2009. Sources: BAE, 2009; City of South San Francisco, 2009. Special Housing Needs This section of the needs assessment profiles populations with special housing needs, including large families, single parent families, extremely low income households, persons with disabilities, elderly households, farm workers, and homeless persons and families. Large Households In 2000, South San Francisco contained a substantially greater proportion of large households (defined as five or more persons) than San Mateo County as a whole. As shown in Table 26, 17.9 percent of South San Francisco's households contained five or more persons in 2000, versus San Mateo County's 12.9 percent. Large households were only slightly more common among renters than owners in South San Francisco; 19.0 percent of renter households had five or more persons compared to 17.2 percent of homeowner households. Housing Needs Assessment 37 Table 26: Household Size by Tenure, 2000 Owner Renter Total South San Francisco Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 1-4 persons 10,204 82.8% 5,969 81.0% 16,173 82.1% 5+ Persons 2,118 17.2% 1,400 19.0% 3,518 17.9% Total 12,322 100.0% 7,369 100.0% 19,691 100.0% San Mateo County 1-4 persons 135,981 87.0% 85,396 87.3% 221,377 87.1% 5+ Persons 20,283 13.0% 12,443 12.7% 32,726 12.9% Total 156,264 100.0% 97,839 100.0% 254,103 100.0% Source: US Census, 2000, SF-3, H 17; BAE, 2008. While the prevalence of large households was relatively similar between renters and owners, as shown in Table 27, renters were much less likely to live in housing units with four or more bedrooms. Only four percent of South San Francisco renter households lived in units with four or more bedrooms, despite the fact that 19 percent of renter households had five or more members. By comparison, 22 percent of owner households lived in units with four or more bedrooms, while 1 7 percent of owner households had five or more members. Overall, these data point the need for additional rental housing opportunities for large households in South San Francisco. Table 27: Existing Housing Stock by Number of Bedrooms by Tenure, 2000 Owner Households Renter Households Total Households South San Francisco Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Stud io 268 2% 920 12% 1,188 6% 1 bedroom 771 6% 2,509 34% 3,280 17% 2 bed rooms 2,583 21% 2,421 33% 5,004 25% 3 bed rooms 6,042 49% 1,195 16% 7,237 37% 4 bed rooms 2,200 18% 288 4% 2,488 13% 5 or more bedrooms 458 4% 36 0% 494 3% Total 12,322 1 000/0 7,369 1000/0 19,691 1000/0 Owner Households Renter Households Total Households San Mateo County Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Stud io 2,187 1% 14,413 15% 16,600 7% 1 bedroom 9,824 6% 36,475 37% 46,299 18% 2 bed rooms 33,546 21% 30,707 31% 64,253 25% 3 bed rooms 69,940 45% 12,661 13% 82,601 33% 4 bed rooms 31 ,835 20% 2,918 3% 34,753 14% 5 or more bedrooms 8,932 6% 665 1% 9,597 4% Total 156,264 1 000/0 97,839 1000/0 254,103 1000/0 Source: US Census, SF3-H42, 2000; BAE, 2008. Housing Needs Assessment 38 Female-Headed Households Single female-headed households with children tend to have a higher need for affordable housing than family households in general. In addition, such households are more likely to need childcare since the mother is often the sole source of income and the sole caregiver for children within the household. Table 28 shows that in 2008, there were 1,120 single female householders with children in South San Francisco. As a proportion of all families, such households represented six percent of all households in South San Francisco and seven percent of family households in the City. San Mateo County contained a similar proportion of these households, totaling 12,017 households in 2008, which represented six percent of all households present in the county. In addition, both South San Francisco and San Mateo County contained a significantly smaller proportion of male householders with children; this household type made up two percent of both the city and the county. At the city level, there were 158 single female headed households with children living in poverty in South San Francisco in 2008. Table 28: Family Characteristics, 2000 South San Francisco San Mateo County Bay Area (a) Percent Percent Percent Household Type Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total 1-person household: 3,913 19% 62,267 26% 660,906 24% Male householder 1,642 80/0 26,626 120/0 299,035 1 00/0 Female householder 2,271 110/0 35,641 140/0 361,871 140/0 2 or more person household: 16, 164 81% 192,441 74% 1,895,884 76% Family households: 14,958 750/0 171,616 650/0 1,656,885 670/0 Married-couple family: 11,209 560/0 134,938 490/0 1,264,782 530/0 With own children under 18 years 5,567 280/0 62,797 240/0 610,289 250/0 Other family: 3,749 190/0 36,678 150/0 392,103 140/0 Male householder, no wife present: 704 40/0 6,463 30/0 64,577 30/0 With own children under 18 years 396 20/0 4,493 20/0 50,631 20/0 Female householder, no husband present 1,529 80/0 13,705 50/0 131,504 50/0 With own children under 18 years 1,120 60/0 12,017 60/0 145,391 50/0 Non- Family households: 1, 206 6% 20,825 9% 238,999 8% Female Householder 528 30/0 11,596 50/0 136,967 50/0 Male householder 678 30/0 9,229 40/0 102,032 40/0 Total Households 20,077 1000/0 254,708 1000/0 2,556,790 1000/0 Total Households Under Poverty Level 527 1000/0 6,515 1000/0 99,904 1000/0 Female-Headed Households Under Poverty Level 158 300/0 2,044 310/0 38,577 390/0 Note: (a) Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma Counties. Source: Claritas, 2008; BAE, 2008. Housing Needs Assessment 39 Extremely Low Income Households Extremely low income households are defined as households earning less than 30 percent of area median income (AMI). These households may require specific housing solutions such as deeper income targeting for subsidies, housing with supportive services, single-room occupancy units, or rent subsidies or vouchers. In 2000, 2,055 South San Francisco households earned less than 30 percent of AMI. Extremely low income (ELI) households represented 18 percent of all renter households and six percent of all owner households in the city. A majority of extremely low income households were severely overpaying for housing; 59 percent of renters and 31 percent of homeowners paid more than 50 percent of their gross income on housing. Table 29: Housing Needs for Extremely Low-Income Households, South San Francisco, 2000 Renters Owners Total Total Number of ELI Households 1,295 760 2,055 Percent with Any Housing Problems 82% 48% 69% Percent with Cost Burden (30% of income) 77% 46% 66% Percent with Severe Cost Burden (50% of income) 59% 31% 49% Total Number of Households 7,338 12,335 19,673 Percent ELI Households 18% 6% 10% Sources: HUD, State of the Cities Data System: Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) Special Tabulations from Census 2000; BAE, 2008. Seniors Generally, senior households tend to have higher rates of homeownership than other households, but also tend to earn less and in many instances face a significant housing cost burden. 1 Shown in Table 30, 77 percent of senior-headed households in South San Francisco owned their own home, compared to 58 percent of younger households. Table 30: Households by Age and Tenure, 2000 South San Francisco San Mateo County Householder 15- 64 vears Number Percent Number Percent Owner 8,819 58.3% 114,382 57.0% Renter 6,298 41.7% 86,138 43.0% Total 15,117 100.00/0 200,520 100.00/0 Householder 65 years and over Number Percent Number Percent Owner 3,503 76.6% 41 ,882 78.2% Renter 1 071 23.4% 11,701 21.8% Total 4,574. 1.00 00/0 53 583 100.00/0. Refers to a household whose householder IoentIfied hImlfierself to the Us Census Bureau as beIng 65 or older. Total Households 19,691 254,103 Percent Householders 65 plus years 23.20/0 21.10/0 Source: US Census 2000, SF3-H14; BAE, 2008. Housing Needs Assessment 40 Among elderly households, most earn well below the county Median Family Income (MFI).2 Shown in Table 31, only 11 percent of elderly renter households and 33 percent of elderly owner households earn 80 percent of MFI or more. Table 31: Household Income of Elderly Households, South San Francisco, 2000 (a) Elderly Renter Households (b) Number Percent 30% MFI or Less 478 45% 30% to 50% MFI 209 20% 50% to 80% MFI 264 25% 80% MFI of Greater 120 11% Total 1,071 1 000/0 Elderly Owner Households Number Percent 30% MFI or Less 438 14% 30% to 50% MFI 834 26% 50% to 80% MFI 908 28% 80% MFI or Greater 1,058 33% Total 3,238 1 000/0 Total Elderly Households Number Percent 30% MFI or Less 916 21% 30% to 50% MFI 1,043 24% 50% to 80% MFI 1,172 27% 80% MFI or Greater 1,178 27% Total 4,309 100% Notes: (a) Data are based on the HUD-published CHAS 2000 data series. (b) Median Family Income for San Mateo County. Sources: HUD, State of the Cities Data System: Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) special tabulations from Census 2000; BAE, 2008 For elderly residents, homeownership provides some level of security against increasing housing costs. Shown in Table 32, approximately 20 percent of elderly homeowners paid 30 percent or more of their income toward housing costs. This compares to 29 percent of homeowners in South San Francisco overall. While elderly homeowners are less likely than younger homeowners to face a cost burden, elderly renters are much more likely to overpay for housing. Overall, 60 percent of elderly households paid 30 percent or more of their income toward housing, compared to 40 percent of renters citywide. As distinguished from a senior-headed households (age 65 or older), an "elderly household" as defined by HUD is a household with one or more member who is 62 years of age or older. Housing Needs Assessment 41 Table 32: Housing Cost Burden of Elderly, South San Francisco, 2000 (a) All Elderly Extr. Low Very Low Low Median + Households Elderly Renter Households 478 209 264 120 1,071 % with any housing problems 72.8% 78.9% 48.9% 20.8% 62.3% % Cost Burden >30% 72.0% 78.9% 41.3% 20.8% 60.0% % Cost Burden >50% 45.8% 19.1% 0.0% 0.0% 24.2% Elderly Owner Households 438 834 908 1,058 3,238 % with any housing problems 31.5% 28.7% 18.5% 10.2% 20.2% % Cost Burden >30% 31.5% 28.2% 18.1% 9.5% 19.7% % Cost Burden >50% 13.5% 16.8% 9.3% 0.9% 9.0% Total Elderly Households 916 1,043 1,172 1 ,178 4,309 % with any housing problems 53.1% 38.8% 25.3% 11.3% 30.6% % Cost Burden >30% 52.6% 38.4% 23.3% 10.7% 29.7% % Cost Burden >50% 30.4% 17.3% 7.2% 0.8% 12.8% Notes: (a) Figures reported above are based on the HUD-published CHAS 2000 data series. Definitions: - Any housing problems: cost burden greater than 30% of income and/or overcrowding and/or without complete kitchen or plumbing facilities. - Cost Burden: Cost burden is the fraction of a household's total gross income spent on housing costs. For renters, housing costs include rent paid by the tenant plus utilities. For owners, housing costs include mortgage payment, taxes, insurance, and utilities. Sources: HUD, State of the Cities Data System: Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) special tabulations from Census 2000; BAE, 2008 Housing Needs Assessment 42 Figure 4: Housing Cost Burden, Elderly Households, South San Francisco, 2000 Owner Cost Burden in Elderly Households, South San Francisco, 2000 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% en L.. Q.) C S 50% 0 ~ 0 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Extremely Low Very Low Low Median Total Elderly Households Household I ncome Level No Cost Burden Cost Burden 30ok-50ok Cost Burden >50ok Persons with Disability Persons with a disability generally have lower incomes and often face barriers to finding employment or adequate housing due to physical or structural obstacles. Based on the 2000 Census, approximately 18 percent of South San Francisco residents were affected by one or more disability, compared to 16 percent of people countywide.3 As shown in Table 34, among the adult population with a disability, there was a much higher likelihood of not having a job than among the general population. This high rate of joblessness remains a contributing factor affecting the ability to find affordable housing.4 Per the Census definition, a person is counted as disabled if one of the following applies: 1) they were five years old and over and reported a long-lasting sensory, physical, mental or self-care disability; 2) they were 16 years old and over and reported difficulty going outside the home because of a physical, mental, or emotional condition lasting six months or more; or 3) they were 16 to 64 years old and reported difficulty working at ajob or business because of a physical, mental, or emotional condition lasting six months or more. 4 It should be noted that the percentage of people who are not employed is no the same as the unemployment rate. The unemployment rate, refers to the percentage of people actively seeking employment who are not Housing Needs Assessment 43 Table 33: Persons with Disability by Age, 2000 South San Francisco Population Total with Disability Population 364 9,195 362 3,981 6,043 35,689 1,550 4,527 1 725 3.169 10,044 56,561 Age 5 to 15 Age 16 to 20 Age 21 to 64 Age 65 to 74 Age 75 and Over Total Over Age 5 Percent with Disability 4.00/0 9.10/0 16.90/0 34.20/0 54.4 0/0 17.80/0 San Mateo County Population Total with Disability Population 3,769 100,129 5,229 39,596 68,045 431,768 12,059 44,849 18.338 39.883 107,440 656,225 Percent with Disability 3.80/0 13.20/0 15.80/0 26.90/0 46.00/0 16.40/0 Source: U.S.Census, SF3-P42, 2000; BAE 2008. Table 34: Persons with Disability by Employment Status, 2000 Working Age Population with Disability (a) Employed Not Employed (b) Total Number 3,884 2.159 6,043 South San Francisco 0/0 Total Population 640/0 360/0 1000/0 San Mateo County 0/0 Total Number Population 43,868 640/0 24.177 360/0 68,045 1000/0 Working Age Population with No Disability Employed Not Employed (b) Total Number 23,091 6.555 29,646 0/0 Total Population 780/0 220/0 1000/0 0/0 Total Number Population 286,973 790/0 76.750 210/0 363,723 1000/0 Percent of Working Age Population with Disability 170/0 160/0 Note: (a) Working age population here refers to persons age 20 to 64. (b) Not employed persons include persons not currently part of the active labor force (e.g., full-time students, stay-at-home parents, other people not currently seeking employment). The unemployment rate is calculated based on the active labor force and would be a lower number than presented above. Source: U.S. Census, SF3-P42, 2000; BAE 2008. Table 35 provides an inventory of the licensed community care facilities in South San Francisco that serve some of the City's special needs groups. Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly (RCFE), also known as "assisted living" or "board and care" facilities, provide assistance with some activities of daily living while still allowing residents to be more independent than in most nursing homes. Skilled nursing facilities, also known as nursing homes, offer a higher level of care, with registered nurses on staff 24 hours a day. Adult residential facilities offer 24 hour non-medical care for adults, ages 18 to 59 years old, who are unable to provide for their daily needs due to physical or mental disabilities. Group homes, such as small residential facilities that serve children or adults with chronic disabilities, provide 24 hour care by trained professionals. currently employed. Where people are not actively seeking employment (e.g., full-time students or persons unable to work due to a disability), they are not considered to be part of the labor force and are not counted in the unemployment rate. Housing Needs Assessment 44 Table 35: Community Care Facilities in South San Francisco, 2008 Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly Aegis Assisted Living Of San Francisco Alhambra Home Alta Mesa Care Home Araville Residential Care Home Araville Residential Care Home II Bautista Board And Care I Bel Amor III Bel Amor III Bel Amor IV Chad Corner Assisted Living Chester's Home Damenik's Home Delia's Retirement Home Double Happiness Care Home Elizabeth's Care Home Elizabeth's Care Home VII Ellen's Board And Care Family Affair Care Home Fook Hong Care Home Friendly Neighbors Residential Care Garrison Care Home Gentry Home Harrison Care Home Heirloom Gardens House of Love Care Home (Pending) J B A Residential Care Home Lilies Care Home Lilies Care Home Manalo's Board & Care III Manalo's Board & Care IV Manalo's Board And Care Manalo's Board And Care V Mccaffrey's Care Home Nobis Care Home Noralyn's Care Home Oikos Care Home Olympic Residential Care Home Savali's Residential Care Home S1. Catherine Home Sta I nes Care Home Sunvill Board And Care Home Sunvill Board And Care II Victoria Westborough Royale Winston Manor Home Adult Residential Facilities Albright Home Care Plus Residential Care Facility Chester's Home Gentry Home Healthy Lifestyles- Sherwood Way Lexy's Adult Residential Facility Rainbow Bright Adult Residential Facility Group Homes Mac's Children and Family Services, Inc. Tipperary Home Location 2280 Gellert Blvd. 498 Alhambra Road 306 Alta Mesa Drive 744 Palm Avenue 106 Sycamore Ave. 708 Circle Court 608 Theresa Drive 169 San Felipe Avenue 648 Joaquin Drive 2901 Shannon Dr. 2315 Tipperary Ave. 851 Baden Avenue 52 Arlington Drive 859 Camarita Circle 2530 Olympic Drive 2530 Wentworth Drive 1242 Mission Road 264 Southcliff Avenue 117 Arroyo Drive 2675 Shannon Drive 7 Hermosa Lane 2725 Shannon Drive 706 Palm Avenue 2305 Tipperary Avenue 675 Shannon Drive 2585 Ardee Lane 2535 Shannon Drive 2505 Tipperary Ave 853 Newman Drive 840 Camaritas Circle 807 Byron Drive 840 Alta Lorna Drive 2381 Olympic Drive 505 Palm Avenue 2780 Tipperary Ave 2311 Tipperary Avenue 2470 Olympic Drive 419 Hazelwood Drive 2530 Ardee Lane 779 Parkway Street 409 Holly Avenue 771 Camaritas Avenue 1252 Crestwood Drive 89 Westborough Blvd 20 Elkwood Drive 2501 Albright Way 34 Capay Circle 2315 Tipperary Ave. 2725 Sahnnon Drive 108 Sherwood Way 108 Greenwood Drive 29 Duval Drive 403 West Orange Ave 2465 Tipperary Ave. Capacity 100 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 15 6 6 6 6 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 99 6 6 6 6 6 6 4 6 6 6 Sources: California Department of Social Services, 2008; California Heathcare Foundation, 2008; BAE, 2009. Housing Needs Assessment 45 Families and Individuals in Need of Emergency Shelters or Transitional Housings According to the 2007 San Mateo County Homeless Census and Survey, there were 2,064 homeless people reported in San Mateo County on the night of January 30, 2007. This point-in- time study counted 1,094 homeless people living either on the street or in vehicles, a population referred to as "un sheltered" . An additional 970 homeless people were staying in shelters, transitional housing, jails, hospitals, or treatment facilities or were using a voucher to stay in a motel, a population referred to as "sheltered". U sing an annualization formula, the survey estimated 6,646 homeless people in San Mateo County on an annual basis. Within this dataset, 188 homeless individuals were counted in South San Francisco, including 97 unsheltered persons and 91 sheltered persons. With a total population of approximately 60,400 residents as of 2007, South San Francisco contained approximately 8.5 percent of the San Mateo County population. By comparison, it was home to 8.9 percent of the County's unsheltered persons and 9.4 percent of the sheltered population. Government Code Section 65583(a) requires that each City must include sufficient capacity to accommodate the need for emergency shelters. According to an inventory of shelter capacity in the County, there are 168 emergency beds.5 Accordingly, the Safe Harbor Shelter in South San Francisco, which provided 90 beds, accounts for 53 percent of emergency shelter capacity countywide, far exceeding the City's share of countywide general and homeless populations. Hence the City goes well beyond its obligation to provide for a share of the countywide emergency shelter facilities. Nonetheless, as part of the ongoing Zoning Ordinance update the City will be identifying a zoning district where an additional emergency shelter would be permitted by right. In addition, the City provides financial support for the not-for-profit organization, Community Overcoming Relationship Abuse (CORA), which provides emergency shelter for battered women and two agencies which provide housing referral and counseling services: the Shelter Network and the Human Investment Project. 5 Shelter and Safety Net Service Report. County of San Mateo Human Services Agency. January 2009. Housing Needs Assessment 46 Table 36: Homeless Population, San Mateo County, January 30, 2007 (a) Homeless Population Sheltered (b) Unsheltered Total Homeless Population Homeless Households Without Dependent Children With Dependent Children Total Homeless Households Demographics Age Ages 18-21 Ages 21-60 Ages 60+ Gender Male Female Presence of Children With Children Children Present < 18 years Children in Foster Care Disability Depression Mental Illness Physical Disability Drug Abuse Alcohol Abuse Chronic Health Problems Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Developmental Disability HIV/AIDS 3.0% 92.0% 5.0% 66.0% 34.0% 41.0% 68.0% 29.0% 57.0% 35.0% 35.0% 33.0% 31.0% 28.0% 26.0% 12.0% 2.0% San Mateo County Number Percentaae 970 47.0% 1.094 53.0% 2,064 100.0% Number Percentaae 1,649 92.9% 126 7.1 % 1,775 100.0% South San Francisco Number 91 97 188 Percentaae 48.4% 51.6% 100.0% Notes: (a) This point-in-time survey was conducted on the night of January 30, 2007. (b) Because the sheltered homeless population is defined by the shelter location, rather than physical presence of homeless persons within geographic boundary, this dataset is skewed. Sources: 2007 San Mateo County Homeless Census and Survey, HOPE, May 2007; BAE 2008. Housing Needs Assessment 47 Housing Constraints Section 65583(a)(4) of the California Government Code states that the Housing Element must analyze "potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, and local processing and permit procedures." Where constraints are identified, the City is required to take action to mitigate or remove them. In addition to government constraints, this section assesses other factors that may constrain the production of affordable housing in South San Francisco. These include infrastructure availability, environmental features, economic and financing constraints, and public opinion regarding affordable housing development. Government Constraints Government regulations affect housing costs, setting standards and allowable densities for development, and exacting fees for the use of land or the construction of homes. With respect to the housing market, the increased costs associated with such requirements are often passed on to consumers in the form of higher home prices and rents. Potential regulatory constraints include local land use policies (as defined in a community's general plan), zoning regulations and their accompanying development standards, subdivision regulations, urban limit lines, and development impact and building permit fees. Lengthy approval and processing times also may be regulatory constraints. General Plan The South San Francisco General Plan was last comprehensively updated in 1999 and has been amended since to incorporate the 2001 Transit Village Specific Plan and the 2002 Housing Element Update. Currently, the General Plan is being amended in the South EI Camino Real area to allow residential land-use through mixed-use development. As required by State Law, the General Plan includes a land use map indicating the allowable uses and densities at various locations in the City. Listed below are the primary residential land use designations in addition to commercial land use designations that allow residential development. Under existing designations the City permits the construction of a range of housing types, including opportunities for higher density housing up to 50 dwelling units per acre. With the adoption of the South EI Camino Real General Plan update, additional designations are expected to be added allowing housing development up to 60 dwelling units per acre. Housing Constraints 48 Table 37: Land Use Designation, South San Francisco General Plan, 2008 Land Use Designation Residential Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential High Density Downtown Residential Low Density Downtown Residential Medium Density Downtown Residential High Density Downtown Commercial Transit Village Residential Medium Density Transit Village Residential High Density Transit Village Commercial Transit Village Retail South EI Camino Real (Proposed) Maximum Allowable Density 8 du/acre 18 du/acre 30 du/acre 15 du/acre 25 du/acre 40 du/acre No Maximum/Residential Allowed on Upper Floors 30 du/acre 50 du/acre 30 du/acre 50 du/acre 60 du/acre (performance standards to allow greater density being contemplated) Sources: South San Francisco General Plan, 1999; BAE, 2009; The General Plan includes a range of policies to encourage and support a variety of housing opportunities in the City. Several key policies are discussed below. In order to balance community interests and assure continued support for medium- and high- density housing in South San Francisco, the City established Policy 2-G-l, which calls for the preservation of "the scale and character of established neighborhoods" and the protection of "residents from changes in non-residential areas". Consistent with this policy, the General Plan Land Use map designates medium-and high-density residential areas along major transit corridors and in the downtown area to avoid conflicts within existing neighborhoods. The City's political leadership credits this policy with facilitating recent multifamily housing development with minimal opposition from neighborhood or other interest groups. Policy 2-G-6 calls for the maximization of "opportunities for residential development, including through infill and redevelopment, without impacting existing neighborhoods or creating conflicts with industrial operations". Policy 2-G-7 calls for the encouragement of "mixed-use residential, retail, and office development in centers where they would support transit, in locations where they would provide increased access to neighborhoods that currently lack such facilities, and in corridors where such developments can help to foster identity and vitality". The City has worked to realize these policies in recent years with several key developments along EI Camino Real in the Transit Village area. The General Plan contains very few policies addressing the siting or design of housing. Those policies that do exist include Policy 2-1-2, which establishes height limits within the downtown and along major commercial corridors. These height limits range from 50 to 80 feet and are hence consistent with residential development of 30 dwelling units per acre and higher and are not Housing Constraints 49 considered an impediment to housing development. Policy 2-1-19 limits the allowable density of housing development on steep slopes by up to 50 percent compared to existing land use designations to prevent excessive grading. While this policy does work to limit the amount of housing development, it applies to a relatively small area of the City (only parcels with a slope greater than 20 percent) and provides some certainty as the minimum amount of housing development that will be allowed on steep sites, consistent with the General Plan. Finally, Policy 2-1-18, specifically allows for senior housing development in the City to be at a density of up to 50 dwelling units per acre regardless of underlying land use designations and allows for reduced parking standards to be applied to this type of development. Based on a review of the General Plan and discussion with key stakeholders, including developers, the General Plan is not an obstacle to housing development and is supportive of the development of a range of housing types, including substantial opportunities for medium- and-high density residential development. Zoning Ordinance The City is currently updating the Zoning Ordinance to ensure that current standards and guidelines support the implementation of the General Plan, including the Housing Element. The plan is currently in the public review process with an anticipated completion date for the update in Fall/Winter 2009. As it currently stands, a number of stakeholders identified the Zoning Ordinance as an obstacle to housing development, pointing to an inconsistency between allowable densities under the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance and high parking requirements imposed under the Zoning Ordinance. Completion of the Zoning Ordinance update is a key priority for the City and is identified as a goal of the Housing Element. When the update is complete the Zoning Ordinance will be consistent with the General Plan, providing developers with a desired level of certainty regarding allowed types of housing development. Moreover, the City is exploring parking standards and anticipates reduced parking requirements for certain types of housing units, including studio and one-bedroom apartments. Shown below is a list of existing districts which allow housing development, along with existing development standards. Housing Constraints 50 Table 38: Zoning and Development Standards, City of South San Francisco, 2008 Height and Bulk Setbacks Lot Size Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum Minimum Minimum Minimum Minimum Minimum Density Building Lot Coverage Residential Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard Lot Area (sq Lot Width (Units per District Height (ft) (%) FAR (ft) (ft) (ft) ft) (ft) Acre) C-1 35 50 15 0-10 0 5,000 50 21,8-30 P-C 50 50 20 0-10 0 5,000 50 21,8-30 D-C 50 100 3,0 0 0-5 0 5,000 50 21,8-30 R-1 35 50 0,5 15 5-10 20 5,000 50 8 R-2 35 50 1,0 15 5-10 20 5,000 50 18 R-3 50 65 15 5-10 1 0-11 ,5 5,000 50 30 R-E 30 0,5 20 10 20 32,600 120 1,3 TV-C 25-55 100 0-15 0 6 10,000 30 TV-R 55 100 0-15 0 6 5,000 50 TV-RM 25-35 75 0-15 5-10 6 5,000 30 TV-R H 45-55 75 0-15 5-10 6 5,000 50 1 per 20 O-S 30 25 20 10 0-15 500 acres Sources: City of South San Francisco, 2008; BAE, 2009, The City's main residential districts are the R-l, Single Family District, the R-2 Medium Density Residential District, and the R-3 Multiple Family Residential District. Residential development is also allowed the Transit Village (TV) districts and D-C, Downtown Commercial District as well as portions of the C-l, Retail Commercial District, and P-C, Planned Commercial District. The Rural Estates (R-E) and Open Space (O-S) districts cover a very small portion of the City, and are intended for the preservation of open-space and/or the rural character of certain unincorporated areas, allowing only very low-density residential development. As shown above, allowable densities in the R-l, R-2, and R-3 districts range from eight to 30 dwelling units per acre, while the commercial (C-l, P-C, and D-C) and TV districts allow densities between 21.8 to 50 dwelling units per acre. Based on a review of applicable development standards, including building heights, lot coverage standards, maximum F ARs and setbacks, it is feasible for developers to achieve maximum allowable residential densities within each district, while complying with other applicable development standards. Listed below are various types of residential uses permitted in the City and a description of which districts in which they are allowed. Housing Constraints 51 Single Family Residential. The Zoning Ordinance allows single family residential development by right in R-1, R-2, R-3, and R-E districts and subject to a conditional use permit in commercial districts. Multi-Family Residential. The Zoning Ordinance allows multi-family residential development by right in R-3 and TV district and subject to a conditional use permit in commercial districts. Residential Second Units. The Zoning Ordinance allows accessory or second dwelling units by right in the R-1, R-2, and R-3 districts. Applicable development standards are the same as for other types of development in each district. Special Residential Care Facility. The Zoning Ordinance defines a Special Residential Care Facility as a "State authorized, certified, or licensed family care home, foster home, or group home serving six or fewer mentally disordered or otherwise handicapped persons or dependent and neglected children, when such home provides care on a twenty-four-hour a day basis." Consistent with State Law, these small residential care facilities are permitted by right in all single family zones as well as the R-2 and R-3 zones. Group Care. The Zoning Ordinance defines Group Care facilities as those that provide services "in residential facilities licensed by the Director of the state Department of Social Services to serve seven or more persons." These facilities are permitted with a conditional use permit in all multi- family residential districts, including the R-2, R-3 and TV districts and are not subject to any minimum distance requirements in relationship to other special needs housing nor subject to any other special land use requirements. Emergency Shelter. Government Code Section 65583(a)(4) requires the identification of a zone or zones where emergency shelters are allowed as a permitted use without a conditional use or other discretionary permit. The City is already home to the 90-bed Safe Harbor homeless shelter which provides more than 50 percent of countywide emergency shelter capacity. In addition to this, the City is making provisions through its Zoning Ordinance Update to identify a zoning district where an additional emergency shelter would be permitted by right. Single-Room Occupancy. The Zoning Ordinance allows single-room occupancy uses with a conditional use permit in the in C-1, P-1, and D-C districts as well as TV-C, TV-R, and TV-RH districts. Transitional and Supportive Housing. Section 50675.2 of the State Health and Safety Code defines Transitional Housing as rental housing for stays of at least six months but where the units are re-circulated to another program recipient after a set period. Transitional Housing may be designated for homeless individuals or families and can take the form of group housing or multi- family units and may include supportive services. Section 50675.14 defines Supportive Housing as housing that is linked to onsite or offsite services, and is occupied by a target population such as Housing Constraints 52 low-income persons with mental disabilities, persons with AIDS, persons with substance abuse problems, or persons with disabilities originating before the age of 18. Services provided typically include assistance designed to help the target population retain housing, improve health, and may include mental health treatment or life skill training programs. Pursuant to SB 2, the City must explicitly permit transitional and supportive housing as described above and treat these uses identically to other residential uses in the same zone. For example, a multi-family transitional housing use in a multi-family zone should be treated the same as any other multi-family use proposed in the zone. Currently the Zoning Ordinance does not explicitly define the terms transitional and supportive housing, although in many instances such uses would be permitted as Group Residential, Group Care, or Special Residential Care Facilities. The Zoning Ordinance Update will explicitly address transitional and supportive housing to assure it is allowed subject only to those restrictions that apply to other residential uses of the same type in the same zone. Manufactured Housing. The Zoning Ordinance requires that all new houses, including manufactured homes on residential lots, be subject to design review. Manufactured housing in South San Francisco is treated the same as other types of residential development in all aspects of the entitlement process. Farmworker Housing. The Zoning Ordinance does not contain any specific provisions related to farm worker housing, although the Zoning Ordinance allows for Group Residential uses occupied by persons not defined as a family on a weekly or longer basis. Due to the high cost of land, lack of significant agricultural activity in the area, and lack of a significant farm worker population in the area, there is little need seen to more specifically address farm worker housing in the Zoning Ordinance and no expectation of any future proposals for this type of housing in the City is foreseen. Parking Developers and other key stakeholders identified the City's multi-family parking standard as an obstacle to housing development. The Zoning Ordinance currently requires 2.25 off-site parking spaces per multi-family residential projects with four or more units, regardless of unit size or number of bedrooms. The Zoning Ordinance does allow for the use of tandem parking assigned to a single dwelling unit to satisfy parking requirements, which is viewed as an important way to lessen the burden of parking requirements. Also, the Zoning Ordinance allows for a reduced parking requirement for Senior Residential facilities (between 0.5 and 1.25 spaces per unit) and for residential projects within the Transit Village zoning district (1.0 to 2.0 spaces per unit). As part of the Zoning Ordinance Update, the City is exploring lowered parking requirements. Fees and Exactions The City charges residential developers fees for planning and building services performed by the City. These fees are listed in Table 39. Within the City, developers of new residential projects also pay various impact fees to finance improvements to infrastructure and public facilities needed to Housing Constraints 53 serve new housing. In order to determine fees charged by the City of South San Francisco and other jurisdiction in San Mateo County, the 21 Elements Working Group conducted a survey of all jurisdictions in the County, asking that each provide fee information for the two developments described below: . A single-family unit with three-bedrooms, 2,400 square feet in size, on a 10,000 square foot lot, with a 400 square foot garage at density of four units per acre and construction cost of $500,000 and an estimated sale price $800,000. . A 10 unit condominium development consisting of 1,200 square foot, two-bedroom units on a half-acre site, with a construction cost of $400,000 per unit and a sale price of $500,000 per unit. Fees for the City for each of these hypothetical developments are listed below in Table 39. As shown, planning and building fees would be approximately $9,000 per unit for a single family unit as described above and approximately $51,000 for a 10-unit condominium development. Impact fees would be approximately $5,300 for a single family unit and $24,000 for a 10-unit condominium development. Based on results of this survey, South San Francisco's fees were found to be quite low compared to other jurisdictions in San Mateo County and are found not pose a significant constraint to housing development in the City. Shown in Figure 5 are charts showing a comparison of planning and building fees and impact fees for those jurisdictions participating in the survey. As shown, South San Francisco charges among the lowest fees of any jurisdiction in the County. Housing Constraints 54 Table 39: Planning/Building and Impact Fees, South San Francisco, 2008 Planning and Building Fees Design Review Building Permit Plan Check Title 24 Energy Fee Seismic Tax Engineering Plan Check Engineering Site Inspection Planning plan Check Plumbing Electrical Mechanical (Including fire systems) General Plan Surcharge Data Base Management Fee Sewer Connection Fee (Not Impact Fee) Other Planning and Building Total Impact Fees Fire School Other Impact Total Total Fees SFR Unit (a) $400 $2,876 $1,870 $288 $50 $0 $144 $173 $251 $317 $84 $750 $10 $1 ,683 $144 $9,040 $3,234 $1,979 $100 $5,313 $14,353 1 O-Unit MFR (b) $1 ,000 $13,100 $8,520 $1,310 $400 $660 $790 $0 $700 $1,060 $220 $6,000 $10 $16,830 $660 $51,260 $5,130 $18,510 $100 $23,740 $75,000 Notes: (a) Based on a single-family unit with three-bedrooms, 2,400 square feet in size, on a 10,000 square foot lot, with a 400 square foot garage at density of four units per acre and construction cost of $500,000 and an estimated sale price $800,000. (b) Based on a 10 unit condominium development consisting of 1,200 square foot, two-bedroom units on a half-acre site, with a construction cost of $400,000 per unit and a sale price of $500,000 per unit. Source: City of South San Francisco, 2008; BAE, 2008. Housing Constraints 55 Figure 5: Comparison of Planning/Building and Impact Fees, San Mateo Jurisdictions, 2008 Total Fees - Single Family Housing $60 ~ $40 s::: fa U) 5 $20 ..s::: I- $0 {::..o<::- o~ flJ.<::-0 ~0 .~ 6~ <Q~ v~ flJ.0 . (jflJ. ~0~ 6~ ~0C:J 4- ~ o ~~ . ~ ~t(j ~ CJ ..e~ O~ 0&0 _ i..~' f)n..,y ~ ~ 00. CJ~ . ~ OV $' <Q0 D..,..... .~~-<::' ~,~ ~~. ,"" OV CJ ~ V D..S' <) /~OC:J <. ~O .~C:J a-.flJ. ~O fl><::- Cd 00 v '~~ ~ ~O~ <(-0'6 0 ~~ o flJ.<::- Total Fees - 10 Unit Multifamily Housing Development $400 $300 U) '0 s::: m $200 ~ o ..s::: I- $100 $0 ~ o e;.~ <0 ~0 .~t(j <Q,..... ~0 . ~o:>t(j ~ <Qv 6~ ~~ <) 6~ 0' ~ <<0 ~flJ.0 .~ ~ . ~(jflJ. 0: ~t(j 6~ 00. ~O 0'6 ~ ~0C:J CJt(j fl><::- o 4- #' 00 Source: 21 Elements Working Group, 2008. Inclusionary Housing In December 2001, the City adopted an Inclusionary Housing Requirement (Chapter 20.125) as part of its Zoning Ordinance. Developers wanting to build four or more housing units are required to set aside and build 20 percent of the units affordable to and available to low and moderate income households, including 12 percent for households earning between 81 to 120 percent of Area Median Income and 8 percent for households earning between 50 and 80 percent of Area Median Income. Although concerns exist that inclusionary housing may constrain production of market rate homes, Housing Constraints 56 studies have shown evidence to the contrary. One school of thought is that the cost of an inclusionary housing requirement must ultimately be borne by either (1) developers through a lower return, (2) landowners through decreased land values, or (3) other homeowners through higher market rate sale prices. Another significant body of research and analysis suggests that in fact the cost of inclusionary housing and any other development fee "will always be split between all players in the development process."l Some academics have pointed out that, over the long term, it is probable that landowners will bear most of the costs of inclusionary housing, not other homeowners or the developer (Mallach 1984, Hagman 1982, Ellickson 1985). The most definitive empirical study on inclusionary housing was completed in 2008 by the Furman Center of New York University working for the Center for Housing Policy of the National Housing Conference. Entitled "The Effects of Inclusionary Zoning on Local Housing Markets: Lessons from the San Francisco, Washington DC and Suburban Boston Areas," this study measured the impact of inclusionary housing ordinances on median homes sale prices and residential development activity in these three regions. While findings for the DC and Boston regions were mixed, the Study found definitive evidence that inclusionary ordinances do not lead to higher home prices or a decrease in building activity in the Bay Area. This is attributed in large part to the more flexible nature of the ordinances in the Bay Area region and to the number of options that developers have to meet inclusionary requirements. In addition to this study, a 2004 study on housing starts between 1981 and 2001 in communities throughout California with and without inclusionary housing programs evidences that inclusionary housing programs do not lead to a decline in housing production. In fact, the study found that housing production actually increased after passage of local inclusionary housing ordinances in cities as diverse as San Diego, Carlsbad, and Sacramento.2 Included below is a chart of residential building permit activity five years before and after adoption of the inclusionary housing ordinance in South San Francisco. As shown, housing production was at its lowest level during 2001. However, following the adoption of the Ordinance in December 2001, housing production increased in each of the next three years. While this affect is largely attributable to the start of the housing boom, it is consistent with the findings of the studies referred to above, that housing production is not negatively impacted by passage of inclusionary housing ordinances. 1 W.A. Watkins. "Impact of Land Development Charges." Land Economics 75(3). 1999. 2 David Rosen. "Inclusionary Housing and Its Impact on Housing and Land Markets." NHC Affordable Housing Policy Review 1(3). 2004 Housing Constraints 57 Figure 6: Residential Building Permit Activity, 1996 to 2006 . .:J+JR~~. r. . J.~" '.. ... ....) .. . .. . ~.. . I =-..... ..'. . ., ~ .;~ ".1> ... IJ.. _ . .... ..' ~I'_:~ ... . .. .. - . ..... . . Note: Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance was adopted in December 2001 and took affect in 2002. Source: California Inclusionary Housing Policy Database, CCRH, 2007. In keeping with the Furman Center study findings cited above, the City of South San Francisco recognizes the need for a financially feasible program that does not constrain production. As such, the City's ordinance allows flexibility to allow developers to satisfy their inclusionary housing requirement through payment of an in-lieu fee, land donation, partnering with nonprofit housing developers or off-site construction. The City also offers a series of developer incentives, per State Density Bonus Law, that help offset the added cost of the inclusionary units. Finally, the City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance allows for developers to seek modification of the requirements due to undue hardship. These policies are in line with recommendations in On Common Ground: Joint Principles on Inclusionary Housing Policies, published by the Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California (NPH) and the Home Builders Association of Northern California (HBA) in 2005. The report points to the need for flexible inclusionary housing requirements, such as those established by South San Francisco, to allow for financially feasible residential development. Processing and Permit Procedures The entitlement process can impact housing production costs, with lengthy processIng of development applications adding to financing costs, in particular. Subdivision Approval. The City's subdivision process follows the statutory requirements of the State Subdivision Map Act, which ensures that local jurisdictions adhere to a reasonable time Housing Constraints 58 schedule when acting on subdivision applications. Design Review. Title 20.85 of the Zoning Ordinance requires Design Review for most types of new development in the City including new single- and multi-family residential development. Design Review may address any of the following topics: exterior design, materials, textures, colors, means of illumination, landscaping, irrigation, height, shadow patterns, parking, access, security, safety, and other usual on-site development elements. Design review is typically completed within four weeks for simple projects and can take up to twelve weeks if plans require revision. The submittal requirements are clearly delineated in an application check list with some latitude given to the Planning Division to waive certain requirements for small projects or to add additional requirements such as a shadow study where taller development will be located adjacent to single-story residential uses. Building Permit. Plan check and actual building permit issuance takes approximately three weeks after submittal of plans with planning approval. An additional two weeks may be required if the plans require revision. Once a building permit is issued, construction may commence immediately. South San Francisco's processing and permit procedures are reasonable and comparable to those in other San Mateo County communities. The permit process only increases in complexity and duration when the circumstances of individual projects warrant extra consideration on the part of local staff and officials. This is especially true of the environmental review component of the process. However, the City has little flexibility to change this, since the California Environmental Quality Act specifies procedures that local jurisdictions must observe in reviewing the impacts of development projects. Codes and Enforcement and On/Off Site Improvement Standards New construction in South San Francisco must comply with the California Building Code (2007). Thus, there are no extraordinary building regulations that would adversely affect the ability to construct housing in the City. The City requires that developers complete certain minimum site improvements in conjunction with new housing development. Required on-site improvements include grading and installation of water, sewer, storm drainage, gas, electricity, and cable utilities. Required off-site improvements include curbs, gutters, sidewalks, full street sections, and street lighting. Based on conversations with local developers, these site improvement standards are typical of many communities, and do not adversely affect housing production in the City. Housing for Persons with Disabilities Consistent with State Law, the following section analyzes governmental constraints to housing for persons with disabilities and describes ongoing and needed future actions to remove constraints or Housing Constraints 59 provide reasonable accommodations for such housing. Standards and Processes Analyzed below are City standards and processes within several categories identified by HCD as potential sources of constraints to housing for persons with disabilities. Reasonable Accommodations. Both the Federal Fair Housing Act and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act impose an affirmative duty on cities and counties to make reasonable accommodations in their zoning and land use policies when such accommodations are necessary to provide equal access to housing for persons with disabilities. Reasonable accommodations refer to modifications or exemptions to particular policies that facilitate equal access to housing. Examples include exemptions to setbacks for wheelchair access structures or reductions to parking requirements. Many jurisdictions do not have a specific process specifically designed for people with disabilities to make a reasonable accommodations request. Rather, cities provide disabled residents relief from the strict terms of their Zoning Ordinances through existing variance or conditional use permit processes. South San Francisco is one of these jurisdictions. Currently the City addresses reasonable accommodations on an ad hoc basis through variance and conditional use procedures. The City does not, however, have a formalized policy regarding reasonable accommodation procedures for persons with disabilities. In a May 15, 2001 letter, the California Attorney General recommended that cities adopt formal procedures for handling reasonable accommodations requests. While addressing reasonable accommodations requests through variances and conditional use permits does not violate fair housing laws, it does increase the risk of wrongfully denying a disabled applicant's request for relief and incurring liability for monetary damages and penalties. Furthermore, reliance on variances and use permits may encourage, in some circumstances, community opposition to projects involving much needed housing for persons with disabilities. For these reasons, the Attorney General encouraged jurisdictions to amend their Zoning Ordinances to include a written procedure for handling reasonable accommodations requests. The City of South San Francisco will explore a written administrative procedure for addressing reasonable accommodation requests as part of the Zoning Ordinance update. Zoning and Land Use Below is a discussion of existing zoning and land use policies in the City affecting the development of housing for persons with disabilities. Provision for Group Homes. Consistent with State Law, the City allows for Special Residential Care Facilities, which serve six persons or fewer, in all residential zoning districts without a special Housing Constraints 60 use permit and not subject to any special restrictions.3 These facilities are also conditionally permitted in the Open Space (O-S), Downtown Commercial (D-C), Retail Commercial (C-1), and Planned Commercial (P-C) Districts. The City also allows for Group Care Facilities serving seven or more persons, subject to a conditional use permit in all multi-family residential districts, including the R-2, R-3 and TV districts. These are not subject to any minimum distance requirements in relationship to other special needs housing nor subject to any other special land use requirements. Broad Definition of Family. Consistent with State Law, the City's Zoning Ordinance provides for a broad definition of family as "one or more persons occupying a premises and living as a single housekeeping unit" (Section 20.06.100). Families are distinguished from groups occupying a hotel, club, or fraternity or sorority house. This definition of family does not limit the number of people living together in a household and does not require them to be related. Alternative Residential Parking Requirements. The Zoning Ordinance establishes off-street parking standards for different residential uses. The ordinance allows reduced parking requirements for senior housing, residential care facilities for the elderly, and for group residential units. Encroachment. The City's Zoning Ordinance facilitates the development of housing accessible to persons with disabilities by allowing wheelchair access structures to encroach into required front, side, and rear yards. Section 20.71.050 establishes that encroachment into required setback areas is allowed with the approval of a minor use permit. Building Code and Permitting Uniform Building Code. In 2004, the City of South San Francisco adopted the 1997 Universal Administrative Code and the 2001 California Building Code published by the International Conference of Building Officials. In addition, the City adopted and implements the 1997 Uniform Housing Code, which provides requirements for the conservation and rehabilitation of housing. The City's Building Code does not include any amendments to the Universal Administrative Code, California Building Code, or Uniform Housing Code that might diminish the ability to accommodate persons with disabilities.4 Site and Building Accessibility. The City complies with all State and Federal standards and laws pertaining to the accessibility of sites and buildings for disabled persons. Permitting. The City does not require special permitting that could impede the development of group homes for six people or fewer. As discussed above, Special Residential Care Facilities are 3 A Special Residential Care Facility is a State authorized, certified, or licensed family care home, foster home, or group home providing twenty-four hour care for six or fewer mentally disordered or otherwise handicapped persons or dependent and neglected children (South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 20.06.230. 4 As a practical matter the City is following the 2007 California Building Code in evaluating projects and expects to formally adopt this code during 2009. Housing Constraints 61 permitted uses in all residential zoning districts. Furthermore, there are no siting requirements or minimum distances between facilities that apply to Special Residential Care Facilities of Group Care Facilities. Efforts to Remove Constraints As described above, current regulation standards and procedures in the City reflect several efforts to accommodate housing for persons with disabilities including the following: . Provision for small group homes in all residential zones by right; . Use of a broad definition of family; . Provisions to allow encroachment into required setbacks for wheelchair access structures; . Provision of alternative parking requirements for special needs housing; and . Implementation of the Uniform Building Code. Nonetheless, as addressed in the Housing Objectives, Policies, and Programs section of this Housing Element, it is recommended that the City adopt a formal reasonable accommodation policy. Non-Governmental Constraints In addition to governmental constraints, there may be non-governmental factors which may constrain the production of new housing. These could include market-related conditions such as land and construction costs as well as public opinion toward new development. Decline in Housing Market and A vailability of Financing Local residential developers reported that the decline in the housing market and current economic downturn represent a constraint to new housing production. As of 2008, home values in South San Francisco were approximately 25 percent lower than in 2006. Moreover, sales volumes have continued to decrease in each of the last five years. As a result of local, state, and national housing and economic trends, local developers predict that far fewer housing units will be produced over the next several years. A major short-term constraint to housing development is the lack of available financing due to "tight" credit markets. Local developers report that there is very little private financing available for both construction and permanent loans. Credit is available in rare cases because of the capacity of a development group or the unusual success of a project. However, developers suggest lenders are currently offering loans up to 50 percent of the building value, compared to 70 to 90 percent historically. This tight credit market continues to lead to a significantly lowered pace of housing development throughout the Bay Area and nationally. Land Costs Land costs in South San Francisco are generally high due to the high demand and limited supply of available land resulting from the developed nature of the City and surrounding communities. Local Housing Constraints 62 developers indicated that land prices are slowly adjusting during this economic downturn. However, developers generally reported that the market is not efficient and land owners' expectations of what their land is worth declines slowly. Unless land owners are compelled to sell their property, many will wait for the market to recover. Construction Costs According to 2009 R.S. Means, Square Foot Costs, hard construction costs for a two-story, wood- frame, single-family home range from $105 to $140 per square foot. Construction costs, however, vary significantly depending on building materials and quality of finishes. Parking structures for multi- family developments represent another major variable in the development cost. In general, below-grade parking raises costs significantly. Soft costs (architectural and other professional fees, land carrying costs, transaction costs, construction period interest, etc.) comprise an additional 10 to 15 percent of the construction and land costs. Owner-occupied multifamily units have higher soft costs than renter-occupied units due to the increased need for construction defect liability insurance. Permanent debt financing, site preparation, off-site infrastructure, impact fees, and developer profit add to the total development cost of a project. In recent months, key construction costs have fallen nationally in conjunction with the residential real estate market. Figure 7 illustrates construction cost trends for key materials based on the Producer Price Index, a series of indices published by the U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics that measures the sales price for specific commodities and products. Lumber prices have declined by 19 percent between 2004 and 2008. As shown in Figure 7, steel prices have fallen sharply since August 2008. Local developers have confirmed that construction costs, including labor, have fallen by approximately 10 percent in tandem with the weak housing market. However, it is important to note that although land cost and construction costs have waned, developers report that they have not fallen enough to offset the decrease in sales prices. Housing Constraints 63 Figure 7: Producer Price Index for Key Construction Costs 300 250 >< G) "C 200 .E G) CJ "i: e.. 150 I- G) CJ ~ "C 100 0 l- e.. 50 o (J) (J) (J) (J) I I C C co :J J J (J) 0 (J) 0 I I > L.. o a. Z <( o ~ o 0 I I a. ..c Q) Q) (f) LL ~ ~ N N ("I) ("I) 000 000 I I I I I I "5 u ~u en 01 J ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ LO o 0 0 0 I I I I C C > L.. co :J 0 a. J J Z <( LO <D o 0 I I a. ..c Q) Q) (f) LL <D <D I"--- I"--- ex:> ex:> (J) 000 0 0 0 0 I I I I I I I "5 u ~ u en 0') C J ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ Month Materials and components for construction - Lumber Steel Mill Products Base year: 1982 = 100 Sources: U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2009; BAE, 2009 Public Opinion In some communities, public opinion is a significant constraint to the production of higher density and affordable housing. To date, housing developers, City staff, and elected officials do not report significant public opposition to recent multi-family housing developments. Key to this success, elected officials stress the need to continue to work with neighbors to address concerns and the importance of the City's policies to protect single-family neighborhoods from significant change, while finding opportunities for multi-family housing development along key transit corridors and in the downtown area. Environmental & Infrastructure Constraints South San Francisco is a largely developed community with sufficient infrastructure in place to accommodate anticipated levels of development on most sites. A more detailed analysis of specific sites is included in the review of Housing Opportunity sites. The City Engineer reports that there are no significant issues related to the capacity of water, stormwater, or sewer systems that would preclude future housing development as anticipated by the General Plan. Housing Constraints 64 As a largely urbanized community, most housing sites in South San Francisco are infill in nature and present few environmental issues. In recent years, developers of multi-family housing have submitted Negative Declarations rather than EIRs for their projects, e.g., Park Station Lofts development. Looking forward, certain sites in the downtown area are thought to have some level of environmental contamination. Overall, such sites represent a small portion of the land available for development in the City. These sites are discussed in more detail in the Housing Opportunity sites section of this document. Opportunities for Energy Conservation Planning to maximize energy efficiency and the incorporation of energy conservation and green building features can contribute to reduced housing costs for homeowners and renters. In addition, these efforts promote sustainable community design, reduced dependence on vehicles, and can significantly contribute to reducing green house gases. All new buildings in California must meet the standards contained in Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations (Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings). These regulations were established in 1978 and most recently updated in 2005 with amended standards going into effect in 2009. Energy efficiency requirements are enforced by local governments through the building permit process. All new construction must comply with the standards in effect on the date a building permit application is made. The City's proposed Green Building Ordinance is tentatively scheduled to go to Council for adoption in Mayor June 2009. The Draft Ordinance includes Build-it Green's Green Point rating for residential construction and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) for non- residential construction. Housing Constraints 65 Housing Resources Available Sites for Housing The purpose of the adequate sites analysis is to demonstrate that the City of South San Francisco has a sufficient amount of land to accommodate its fair share of the region's housing needs during the planning period (January 1, 2007 - June 30, 2014). The State Government Code requires that the Housing Element include an "inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having the potential for redevelopment" (Section 65583(a)(3)). It further requires that the Element analyze zoning and infrastructure on these sites to ensure housing development is feasible during the planning period. Demonstrating an adequate land supply, however, is only part of the task. The City must also show that this supply is capable of supporting housing demand from all economic segments of the community and for various housing types, including multifamily rental, manufactured housing, and group housing, and transitional housing. High land costs in the Bay Area make it difficult to meet the demand for affordable housing on sites that are designated for low densities. The State has generally held that the most appropriate way to demonstrate adequate capacity for low and very low income units is to provide land zoned for multiple-family housing with an allowed density of 30 dwelling units per acre or more. Hence this analysis focuses on the identification of sites that could accommodate this level of density, in order to accommodate the need for lower-income housing units. For the purposes of this analysis, housing sites in South San Francisco have been grouped into three geographic areas. Each of these areas is described below, with accompanying maps and tables used to quantify development potential. Because more than a quarter of the 7.5-year planning period has already passed, the analysis also accounts for housing that has been constructed since January 1, 2007. The following analysis of sites in South San Francisco indicates the potential to develop 1,244 units of new housing during the current planning period. Moreover, nearly all opportunity sites would support housing densities of 30 units per acre or greater, providing favorable prospects for affordable units. Compared against the RHNA, the City's housing opportunity sites offer a development capacity that exceeds the needs determination by more than 50 percent. As discussed before, the City has a determined need of 1,635 units during the 2007 to 2014 planning period. A total of 830 units have already been approved, constructed, or rehabilitated in the City since the start of the current planning period in January 2007 and prior to the adoption of this Housing Element update. Hence, there is a remaining need for 805 units, compared against an available capacity for 1,244 units on identified sites. Housing Resources 66 Table 40: Summary of Housing Opportunity Sites Development Capacity Area Transit Village South EI Camino Real Downtown Total Capcity Acreage 18.0 8.5 4.3 30.8 Assumed Avg. Density 35 56 34 40 Unit Capacity 622 474 149 1 ,244 Balance of 2007 - 2014 RHNA (a) 805 Capacity as a Percentage of Remaining RHNA Balance 1550/0 Note: (a) See Table 25. Equals RHNA minus units built/rehabilitated between January 2007 and June 2009. Sources: City of South San Francisco, 2009; BAE, 2009. The available sites inventory conducted for the Housing Element focuses on sites with the potential for 10 or more units. It also focuses on sites with near-term development potential, where the site is currently vacant, highly underutilized, or where developers have come forward with plans to redevelop existing uses. There may be additional sites in South San Francisco with housing potential, including individual vacant lots and developed sites with marginally viable existing uses. Approximately 50 percent of the City's near-term residential development potential is in the Transit Village area, which is already zoned for medium (30 dwelling units per acre) to high (50 dwelling units per acre) density residential development. An additional 38 percent of near-term residential development potential is in the South EI Camino Real area where existing zoning allows densities of up to 30 dwelling units per acre, and where the City is currently amending the General Plan and updating the zoning to facilitate mixed-use and high-density residential development. Finally, 12 percent of near-term residential development potential is in the Downtown area, which is currently zoned for mixed-use residential development up to 30 dwelling units per acre and where the General Plan allows for higher densities Transit Village Sites With the adoption of the BART Transit Village Plan in 2001, the City of South San Francisco established zoning standards and design guidelines that promote a vibrant mixed-use district consistent with the area's role as an important transit hub. A key element of the plan was to upzone various parcels to allow for more intensive residential development. Since its adoption, the City has realized more than 450 units of residential development within the Transit Village, including a 361-unit apartment development, which includes 70 units deed restricted for low- and moderate-income households, and a 99-unit condominium development with 20% of the units deed restricted for low and moderate income households. Built at densities of approximately 50 dwelling units per acre, these properties are consistent with the City's vision for higher density, mixed use development in the area. Looking ahead there are several vacant or underutilized parcels in and around the Transit Village Housing Resources 67 area that present an excellent opportunity for housing development. Listed in Table 41 and shown in Figure 8, these parcels contain 18 acres of land with a combined capacity for 622 units of housing. Table 41: Housing Opportunity Sites in Transit Village Area Existi n9 Allowable Estimated Actual IlL Site APN Acres Existi na Use Adiacent Uses Zonina/GP DU/Acre (a) DUI Acre Units Ratio (b) 1 010-213-070 0.5 Vacant MFR, BART, Retail TV-C/TV-RM 30 30 14 0.0 2 011-171-500 0.1 Vacant SFR SFR,MFR TV-RM 30 30 3 1.0 2 011-171-330 1.d Vacant BART TV-RM 30 30 44 0.5 3 010-292-130 1.3 Vacant Motel Hospital, MFR TV-C 30 30 38 0.1 3 010-292-280 1.3 Vacant TV -RH 50 50 63 0.0 3 010-292-270 ~ Lumber Yard TV -RH 50 50 156 0.0 4 NA TV -RM/P-C-L 30 30 5 011-327 -050 R-3-L 30 23 6 011-312-090 MFR R-3-L 30 24 7 NA 1.5 Vacant Calma Creek P-C-L 30 30 45 0.0 7 NA Vacant P-C-L 30 30 TOTAL 18.0 35 622 Sites Estimated 30 DUI Acre + 17.2 603 Note: (a) Allowable density is based on existing, adopted zoning standards. (b) Ratio of Improvement (or Building) Value to Land Value. Sources: City of South San Francisco, 2009; BAE, 2009. Making these sites good candidates for housing development during the planning period, each opportunity site is owned by a single entity, including Sites 4 and 7, which were recently acquired by the Redevelopment Agency. Moreover, all are either vacant or underutilized in the sense of having very little improvement value compared to the high values of underlying land. . Sites 1, 4, 6, and 7 are entirely vacant. . Site 2 is highly underutilized and contains only a vacant single family residence with no other permanent structures. The site is currently listed for sale by a commercial broker and the City has engaged in pre-development discussions with an interested developer for the site. . Site 3 consists of three parcels in common ownership. One parcel (010-292-130) contains a vacant motel use whose parking lot is currently used as overflow parking for the adjacent hospital. Per current San Mateo County Assessor's records, the value of improvements on the site is only one-tenth the value of the underlying land. The next parcel (010-292-280) Housing Resources 68 is vacant. The final parcel (010-292-270) is leased to a lumber yard and has minimal built improvements which are valued at less than one-tenth the value of underlying land. . Site 5 contains a small Cal Water pumping station but is otherwise vacant. Housing Resources 69 o t"- ~ fn t: ns I- m .... 0 t: 0 N w~ m <( ... u 0 0 L() 0 (") ~ 01 Ln a:J "t:J::!:(,,)(,,)~(,,)NN(,,)M (J) m:J 0 ~c 0 N t: E 0 ~ ~I t) ~ .tl .~ .... I'- I'- 00 N 1'-1 N en 0 .0 c. ~~~~~~L()~ c ro C. co U: 0 (.) c (j) C') ro Q) (f) U t: :!l J L!"! <!:! <!:! <!:! ~ L!"! ~ I C! ..c s.... fn '5 ::J ~ (j)UO~L()~OO~~ 0 0 0 <C (f) (j) ::I: '+- Q) 0 0:: z.. ml ~ u 0) C :!::or-NM~Ln<Dr-....O Qj (j) en I- ~ ::J ::J 0 0 I (f) Capacity Analysis Below is an analysis of the realistic development capacity of housing opportunity sites in the Transit Village area. This analysis considers factors including recent development trends, lot size, physical constraints, and infrastructure. Small Sites. Site 1 is small, approximately one-half acre in size. Nonetheless, located in the heart of the Transit Village, adjacent to BART and other multifamily residential development, it is expected to develop with relatively dense multifamily development. Approximately one quarter of the site is zoned TV -C, which allows multifamily residential above commercial with a density of up to 30 dwelling units per acre, while the remaining three-quarters is zoned as TV - RM, which also allows residential development up to 30 dwelling units per acre. Based on the following development standards for the site, it could comfortably accommodate approximately 14 dwelling units (i.e., 30 dwelling units per acre): . Lot Size == 20,875 square feet . Minimum Setback Requirement == 0 to 10 feet . Maximum FAR == 2.0 . Maximum Building Size == 41,750 square feet (FAR x Lot Size) . Gross Residential Square Footage == 30,000 square feet (assume approx. 70 percent residential) . Net Residential Square Footage == 25,000 square feet (assume 15 percent for common areas) . Average Unit Size == 1,200 square feet (typical for two-bedroom unit) . Expected Number of Units == 14 units Site 5 and 6 are located adjacent to existing multifamily housing developments and are located in an R-3-L zone, which allows residential development up to 30 dwelling units per acre. Both sites are less than an acre in size. Site 5 currently houses a Cal Water pumping station that occupies approximately 1,500 square feet of the site, while the remainder of the site is vacant. Site 6 is entirely vacant. Allowing for the Cal Water pumping station to remain, Site 4 has approximately 12,150 square feet of area available for residential development. Site 6 is approximately 22,000 square feet in size. The City's most recent experience with small scale residential development in the R-3-L zone is a Habitat for Humanity development at 440 Commercial Avenue. This development was built within a single-family neighborhood at a density of 25 dwelling units per acre. Assuming a similar intensity of development, Site 4 would accommodate approximately seven units, while Site 5 would accommodate approximately 12 units. Other Sites. Sites 2, 3, 4 and 7 are larger, measuring between 1.6 and 7.6 acres in size and are zoned to allow densities of between 30 to 50 dwelling unit per acre, not including the available affordable housing density bonus allowed under local ordinance and state law. With other recent multifamily development in the Transit Village area, having recently been completed at the Housing Resources 71 maximum density as allowed under existing zoning, 50 dwelling units per acre, it is assumed development on these sites will be able to achieve the maximum densities as allowed under current zoning. Hence, sites zoned for TV - RM are assumed to be able to accommodate development of 30 dwelling units per acre, while sites zoned for TV-RH are assumed to be able to accommodate development of 50 dwelling units per acre. Sites 4 and 7 are part of the ongoing EI Camino Real / Chestnut Specific Plan process, which may ultimately allow higher density development on these sites. Based on these density assumptions, the larger sites in the Transit Village area could accommodate 588 housing units. Environmental and Infrastructure Analysis There are no known environmental issues that would limit development of the identified sites in the Transit Village Area. Recent residential developments in the area, including the 99-unit Park Station project completed in 2008, have submitted negative declarations. Moreover, no sites in the area are listed with the State as having known or potential contamination.l The City Engineer has confirmed that infrastructure in the area is sufficient to support identified levels of development, including the capacity of sewer, water, and waste water treatment facilities. As is common practice in the City, developers may be required to pay for intersection or other infrastructure improvements to offset project-specific impacts. South EI Camino Real Sites The City is currently amending the General Plan policies that pertain to South EI Camino Real area updating the Zoning Ordinance. The City expects both of these planning projects to be completed in 2009. The South EI Camino Real General Plan update is intended to help transform an area with a concentration of aging strip retail, into a more vibrant, transit corridor, including substantial mixed use high-density (60 du/acre) residential development. For purposes of this analysis, the City has identified three sites along the South EI Camino Real corridor with near-term redevelopment potential for multifamily housing. While numerous other sites along the corridor are also ultimately expected to support residential development, due to existing developer interest and/or a high degree of underutilization, these three present the most significant and realistic opportunity for housing development within the current Housing Element cycle, ending in 2014. Listed in Table 42 and shown in Figure 9 are the near-term housing opportunity sites in the South EI Camino Real corridor. These sites total 21.3 acres and could accommodate approximately 475 housing units. Source: Department of Toxic Control Substances, March 2009. Housing Resources 72 ns G) l- e:( ca G) 0::: o t: E ns (J W .s:: ... ~ o tJ) t: fn G) ~ tJ) ~ ~ t: ~ ~ o c. c. o C') t: fn ~ o ::I: N ~ ~ .c ns .... :::::! ;~ - .... co 0::: JI ~I "t:J m ........ co .- E U) . _ s::: .... G) &Ie n; .a (.) <C I~ "t:Je m >< U) co o~ a. o ~ ~I ! .;; s::: G) e 0')>< s::: co ~:i!!: U) .>< W ~I U) 0::- G) LL U) (f) ::::l ~g2 G) ..c Q) (.) t) 0:: co (f) "..c <C:F I Q) U) E ::::l 0 I~ .!: ~ ;? .... . _ u... U) ..c ~~ JI ~I ~I ~I <( ~I Q) b <( :3 o o L() Q) b <( :3 o o <.0 Q) en :J "'0 Q) >< ~ Q) b ~ :J o o (") 0:: o ~ ~I o ~ o o <.0 ~ ~ ~ o co ~I ~ ~ ~I a::l uuu ~I C") 0 ~I Q) 2 bU5 <(,+- ~ 0 o~ o~ <.0 C o ~ ~ c o Q) Q):!:::: b(f) <(,+- _ 0 :::::l o o <.0 Q) b <( :3 o o <.0 ~ ~ <(<( :3:3 00 00 <.0 <.0 Q) en :J "'0 Q) >< ~ Q) Q) Q) en CJ') en :J:J:J "'0 "'0 "'0 Q) Q) Q) >< >< >< ~~~ Q) b ~ :J o o (") ~ ~ <(<( :3:3 00 00 (") (") 0:: o ~ mmm .~ .~ .(3 Q) Q) ;1 <.0 L() ~I o 0 ".J o ~ ~ C") co ~ ~ ~ o 000 NC")f'-.. N N N C") C") (") co co co ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ 000 m 000 Q) t) 6 .co Q3 0:: ~ ...... ~ ~ or- N C)~ 2 en ::::l o J:e 0:::1- 02 U.w W:i!!: ...Ja.. ~g ...Jw <t> >W <ce ...J ~ o I- oj en "'0 c.. :J c co 0: m ~ g -g~N co Q) W --.J..c<( .8 a::l Q) .~ m :::::lmo ~~~ - if) 6 Ol '+- t) C 0 en ~ ~.(3 :::::l ~ ~ ~-gu: ~roc cco~ Q)2..c ~U5-s 60~ c..~o E :; z.. o~U .Q ~ en Qj&~~ 15--0 z ~e(f) (j) Q) u s.... ::J o (j) Q) 0:: 0) c (j) ::J o I Figure 9: Housing Opportunity Sites in South EI Camino Real Area Site 8 9 10 Total Notes: (a) Net of 12 existing units. (b) Assumes density of 60 du/acre on on 1/3 of site. CaDacitv 88 (a) 295 ~ 474 DUI Acre 50 60 (b) 60 (b) 56 Source: City of South San Francisco, 2009; BAE, 2009. Housing Resources 74 Capacity Analysis Below is an analysis of the development capacity of housing opportunity sites in the South EI Camino Real area. This analysis considers factors including recent development trends, lot size, physical constraints, and infrastructure. All sites described below will be covered by the South EI Camino Real General Plan update and are expected to be zoned for mixed-use development, accommodating up to 60 dwelling units per acre. Site 8 is currently home to a mobile home park containing 12 housing units. The redevelopment agency has provided a predevelopment and acquisition loan to Mid-Peninsula Housing for the purpose of building an affordable housing development on the site. Mid-Peninsula is currently in the design phase for the development and anticipates a building with approximately 100 units of housing at a density of approximately 50 dwelling units per acre, slightly less than the maximum density of 60 dwelling units per acre currently under consideration as part of the South EI Camino Real General Plan amendment. Net of existing units on the site, the Mid-Peninsula project is expected to realize approximately 88 net new units on the site. The Redevelopment Agency has developed a comprehensive relocation plan for existing residents on the site, including the option for them to move into the new development. Site 9 is currently home to an aging retail center anchored by Safeway and consists of a single parcel measuring 14.8 acres in size. The City has held predevelopment discussions with the property owner who has expressed an interest in redeveloping the site as a mixed use retail and residential development. Under current scenarios, approximately one third of the site would be occupied by residential buildings, while the remainder of the site would remain for commercial uses. Assuming a density of 60 dwelling units per acre for this third of the site, consistent with densities currently under consideration as part of the South EI Camino Real General Plan amendment, the site could accommodate 295 units. If a larger portion of the site were developed with residential uses, the site could accommodate a substantially greater number of units.l Immediately adjacent, Site 10, consists of three parcels owned by a single entity. Existing uses include parking areas and a vacant movie theater, which has since been replaced by a large Cineplex, located approximately one block away within a separate retail complex. While there are no known development plans for the site, the General Plan update is expected to allow mixed-use development on the site including residential development of 60 dwelling units per acre or higher. Assuming a density of 60 dwelling units per acre for this third of the site, it could accommodate approximately 90 dwelling units. 1 As anticipated by the proposed South EI Camino Real General Plan amendments, over the long term the South EI Camino Real corridor is expected to transition from lower density commercial development, to mixed use development, including residential uses. The above housing opportunity analysis recognizes that this transition will be an incremental process and hence assumes that only a portion (one-third) of the selected commercial sites would transition to residential use during the 2007 to 2014 planning period. As described above, these sites enjoy good prospects for near term redevelopment as they are the subject of active developer interest, in the case of Site 9, and home to a vacant use, in the case of Site 10. Housing Resources 75 Environmental and Infrastructure Analysis The South EI Camino Real Corridor is located approximately two miles from the San Francisco International Airport and is situated directly below one of the principal flight paths. Consequently, the corridor is subject to airport-related height limitations ranging from 161 to 361 feet. In addition, new construction of residential development in the area must be insulated such that normal aircraft operations will not result in indoor noise levels greater than 65 dB CNEL. Whereas current height limits, as set by the General Plan, are substantially less than would be permissible under the airport-related height restrictions and whereas substantial residential development exists in the vicinity of the South EI Camino Real Corridor that has been sufficiently insulated to meet noise standards, proximity to the airport is not expected to be a binding constraint that would prevent medium to high density residential development in the South EI Camino Real Corridor. Nonetheless, proximity to the airport will necessitate an additional item for consideration as developers conceive housing developments in this area of the City. Notwithstanding the area's proximity to the airport, there are no known environmental issues that would limit development of the identified sites in the South EI Camino Real Corridor. Furthermore, the City is currently preparing a mitigated negative declaration for its General Plan amendment that will lay the ground work for future high-density residential development in the area. As with the Transit Village area, the City Engineer has confirmed that the existing infrastructure in the South EI Camino Real area is sufficient to support identified levels of development, including the capacity of sewer, water, and waste water treatment facilities. As is common practice in the City, developers may be required to pay for intersection and other infrastructure improvements to offset project-specific impacts. Downtown Sites The City's historic downtown area encompasses a range of under utilized publicly- and privately- owned parcels which are suitable for mixed-use residential development. Through the ongoing comprehensive zoning ordinance update and related efforts, the City has already paved the way for housing on key parcels in the downtown area in keeping with the long-term goal of creating a vibrant and sustainable urban center. For this Housing Element, the City has identified nine key sites in the downtown area with near-term redevelopment potential. Listed below in Table 43 and shown in Figure 10, eight of these sites are owned by the City/RDA and one is privately owned. In total, they represent 4.3 acres with a combined development capacity for 143 units. Housing Resources 76 :::::!;~ ~ -~o 0::: :c~ (I) en-- ... ro ~& m enl ~ :!:: C") 1 ....,c~ .:i:J "t:J ~i E .- ._ en 0 ""'cC") en m We :;;~ ~ ~~ e::J 0'))(0 c co 0 :.;;::::EC") en .;< W .~_ -7 5~ NU ~ en5 m ~ en C :J .Q ....,Cii c-- mCf) U en co ro ~<.9 <C - 0::: LL ~ ns G) I- <( t: ~ o ... t: ~ o C t: fn G) ~ rn ~ ~ t: ~ ~ o c. c. o C') t: fn ~ o ::I: m en :J-- C ro c t) ~~ .;< W jl:1 o L() Zl~ a.o <CN ~ o M ~ ~ .c ns .... ~I~ en~ <( z <( o 0::: o C") (I) u ~ ::J o o C") -7 ~ u ro .0 Q; E E o U C ro t) ro > o ~ C") L() ~ ~ N N <( z <( z <( o 0::: ~I N ~ o C") (I) u ~ ::J o o ~ (I) u ~ ::J o o C") 0::: o I o .....J U o ro .0 Q; E E o U o:::~ LL ~ 0:::- LL Cf) C ro t) ro > 61 o o C") ~ ~ ~ N ~ o o ~ o ~ ~ C") N ~ o C") ~ <( z o C") (I) u ~ ::J o o C") .....J U o .~ :n ::J a. .~ :n ::J a. o C") C") ~ ~ C") N ~ o L() <( z <(<(<(<( zzzz <( o 0::: <(<(<(<( 0000 0:::0:::0:::0::: ~I ~L()N o C") 0000 C") C") C") C") (I) u ~ ::J o o C") (I) (I) (I) (I) u u u u ~~~~ ::J::J::J::J 0000 0000 C") C") C") C") .....J U o .....J.....J.....J.....J I I I I U~~~ ouuu .~ :n ::J a. 0:::- LL ~ ro .0 Q; E E o U Q) (5 I (5 .....J Ol C ~ ro a. .~ :n ::J a. ~ ::J t5 OlE ~ . ~ Cf) Ol ::J 32 Ol.~ 0 ~~~~ -roaJd> .~ 0._ ~ 0::: ~(5tE c.....Jo u:::: Ol c ~ ro a. C") a C")N~ 000 o <D N ~ ~ C") N ~ o 0000 C")<DC")~ ~ ~ 0 0 ~~~~ C") C") C") C") C") C") C") C") N N N N ~ ~ ~ ~ 0000 <D ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ <(<( zz <(<( zz <(<( 00 0:::0::: z.. U N ~I L() 00 C") C") 00 C") C") (I) (I) u u ~~ ::J::J 00 00 C") C") (I) (I) u u ~~ ::J::J 00 00 C") C") .....J .....J uu 00 .....J .....J uu 00 ro .0 Q; E E o U ro .0 Q; E E o U (5 .....J Ol C ~ ro a. .~ :n ::J a. c o ~ U5 ~ u:::: C ro t) ro > ;; ;;1 N a 00 o ~ ~ ~ <D <D ~ ~ C") C") N N ~ ~ 00 00 o ~ ~ ~ L() L() C") C") C") C") N N ~ ~ 00 <X) <X) 0) 0) CJ) ~ or- t"- t"- M ~ a.i ::J . roO) >0 o "'ON c _ row .....J<( EaJ (1)0) ::Jo roo >N --0 .~ ~ 32 .0 ::J C aJ ~ L..LL o C -::;ro cCf) (I)..c E-- (I) ::J > 0 0Cf) 0..'0 Ez.. 'Ou .Q en Cii (I) Qj 0::: ~ __ ::J 0--0 Z ~ Cf) (j) Q) u s.... ::J o (j) Q) 0:: 0) c (j) ::J o I ...J <C l- e I- Size Estimated Site (Acres) Caoacitv DU/Acre 11 1.4 43 30 12 0.3 10 30 13 0.3 24 72 14 0.3 10 30 15 0.3 10 30 16 0.3 10 30 17 0.7 22 30 18 0.2 7 30 19 0.3 H 45 Total 4.3 149 34 Housing Resources 78 Capacity Analysis Currently, the Downtown Area is covered primarily by two zoning districts: the Retail Commercial (C-l) Zone and the Downtown Commercial (D-C) Zone. Both districts allow multifamily residential construction up to 30 dwelling units per acre. Within the Retail Commercial Zone the main development standards controlling the building envelope are a maximum 50 percent lot coverage and a maximum building height of 35 feet. For the Downtown Commercial Zone development standards are less restrictive, allowing a 100 percent lot coverage and a maximum height of 50 feet. For both districts, required setbacks are relatively small, between zero and 15 feet. Consistent with these development standards, sites in the downtown area could comfortably accommodate a density of30 dwelling units per acre.l One site that has been slated for higher density residential development is Site 14. The RDA controls this site and plans to take it through the entitlement process including seeking a General Plan and zoning amendment to allow for a residential density of approximately 72 dwelling units per acre. The RDA is currently working with an architect on a plan for 24 units on the site and expects to move forward with the entitlement process during 2009. Publicly-Owned. Among the best near-term opportunities for housing development in South San Francisco are various publicly-owned sites in the downtown area. Through its Downtown Strategy planning process the City has established a redevelopment vision for these sites that would transform vacant and underutilized sites into multifamily residential and mixed use developments, contributing to the vitality of downtown. These sites fall into three categories: . Vacant sites (Sites 12 and 14); . Underutilized public parking lots (Sites 13, 15, 16, and 18); and . Surplus City facilities, including a municipal office building (Site 1 7) and a closed firehouse (Site 19). In all cases, these sites have been identified for future housing and mixed-use development through the Downtown Strategy with the City expressing an intention and willingness to sell them in order to realize residential mixed use development on the sites. In total these sites measure 2.8 acres with a capacity for 106 dwelling units. Privately-Owned. In addition to these publicly-owned sites, there is at least one privately-owned site in the Downtown Area with good near-term potential for housing development. Site 10, a 1 Calculation of maximum density based on Downtown Commercial Zone development standards. . One acre = 43,560 square feet . 43,560 x 50 percent maximum lot coverage = 21,780 square feet (maximum building footprint) . 21,780 x 2 stories of residential = 43,560 gross square feet of residential development . Net residential square feet = 37,026 square feet (assume 15 percent for common areas) . Average unit size = 1,200 square feet (typical for two bedroom unit) . Maximum density = 30.9 du/acre (37,026 square feet / 1,200 feet) Housing Resources 79 vacant site at the north end of downtown held in a single ownership. At a density of 30 dwelling units per acre, this 1.4 acre site could accommodate 43 housing units. Environmental and Infrastructure Analysis Certain sites within the Downtown Area have suspected of environmental contamination, which may require clean up, in order to facilitate housing development. These include Site 10, 11, 12, and 17. As of March 2009, Phase II Environmental Site Assessments were not available for any of these sites. As with the Transit Village area, the City Engineer indicated that infrastructure in the downtown area is sufficient to support identified levels of development, including the capacity of sewer, water, and waste water treatment facilities. One obstacle to development of public parking lots is the need to first develop a replacement garage. As of March 2009, the City/RDA has fully funded such a project, the Miller Avenue Garage, and was accepting bids for work. The City anticipates the project will break ground in 2009, creating the potential for the redevelopment of City-owned parking lots during 2010. Analysis of Ability to Accommodate Various Housing Types As described, housing opportunity sites in the Transit Village, South EI Camino Real, and Downtown area are able to accommodate a range of housing types. . Lower Income Multifamily Residential. Nearly all sites identified can realistically accommodate densities of 30 dwelling units to the acre or greater, a level of density, which the State acknowledges is consistent with allowing for lower-income multifamily housing. . Special Residential Care Facilities. This housing type would be permitted on the two housing opportunity sites identified in the Transit Village area as being in the R-3 zone. . Group Care Facilities. These facilities would be permitted with a conditional use permit on housing opportunity sites in the Transit Village area located in R-3 and TV districts. . Transitional Housing. As part of the Zoning Ordinance Update, the City will explicitly address transitional and supportive housing to assure it is allowed subject only to those restrictions that apply to other residential uses of the same type in the same zone Hence transitional housing will be a permitted or conditionally-permitted use on all identified housing opportunity sites. . Group Residential. Consistent with the existing Zoning Ordinance, Group Residential uses would be permitted on those housing opportunity sites located in the R-3, D-C, and C- 1 districts. Group Residential is a broad category encompassing housing that is occupied by persons not defined as a family on a weekly or longer basis. While none of the sites identified above would accommodate an Emergency Shelter based on existing zoning, the City already has an existing emergency shelter facility that is sufficient to accommodate local demand. Moreover, as part of the Zoning Ordinance Update, the City will be identifying at least one district in the City where an emergency shelter can be built by right Housing Resources 80 Financial Resources The City of South San Francisco has access to a variety of existing and potential funding sources available for affordable housing activities. These include programs from federal, state, local and private resources. Community Development Block Grant Program Funds Through the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (RUD) provides funds to local governments for a wide range of housing and community development activities for low-income persons. Based on previous allocations, South San Francisco expects to receive approximately $3.0 million in CDBG funds during the remaining 2009 to 2014 period. In accordance with the policies established by the City Council, South San Francisco is committed to increasing and maintaining affordable housing in the City. CDBG funds are used for site acquisition, rehabilitation, first-time homebuyer assistance, development of emergency and transitional shelters and fair housing/housing counseling activities. Additional activities in support of the new construction of affordable housing include site clearance and the financing of related infrastructure and public facility improvements. Redevelopment Set-Aside Funds In accordance with State law, the South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency (RDA) sets aside 20 percent of all tax increment revenue generated from its redevelopment project areas to fund projects that increase, improve or preserve the supply of affordable housing. Housing developed with these set-aside funds must be deed restricted and affordable to low- and moderate-income households. Between 2009 and 2014, the Agency expects to receive approximately $40 million in set-aside funds. HOME Investment Partnership Act Funds The HOME Investment Partnership Act authorized by Congress in 1991 under the National Affordable Housing Act provides a source of federal financing for a variety of affordable housing projects. The City of South San Francisco is a participating jurisdiction in the San Mateo County HOME Consortium and is eligible to apply for funding from the Consortiums annual grant allocation. Funds are distributed on a competitive basis through a request for proposals process administered by San Mateo County. HOME funds may be used by the City for direct expenditure or may be issued as low-interest loans to a private or not-for-profit developer to jointly undertake the production of housing units that will be affordable to low-income residents. Under the program, 30-year rent regulatory restrictions are recorded with the property to ensure future affordability. HEART South San Francisco is a member of the Housing Endowment and Regional Trust (HEART), which raises funds from public and private sources to meet critical housing needs in San Mateo County. Housing Resources 81 Formed in 2003 as a public/private partnership among the cities, the county, and the business, nonprofit, education, and labor communities, to date, HEART has received over $8 million in funding gifts and pledges to meet critical housing needs in San Mateo County. HEART has pledged $1,000,000 of funding toward an affordable housing development proposed by Mid- Peninsula housing on South EI Camino Real Avenue. Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) Created by the 1986 Tax Reform Act, the LIHTC program has been used in combination with City and other resources to encourage the construction and rehabilitation of rental housing for lower- income households. The program allows investors an annual tax credit over a ten-year period, provided that the housing meets the following minimum low-income occupancy requirements: 20 percent of the units must be affordable to households at 50 percent of area median income (AMI) or 40 percent of the units must be affordable to those at 60 percent of AMI. The total credit over the ten-year period has a present value equal to 70 percent of the qualified construction and rehabilitation expenditure. The tax credit is typically sold to large investors at a syndication value. Section 8 Assistance The Section 8 program is a federal program that provides rental assistance to very-low income persons in need of affordable housing. This program offers a voucher that pays the difference between the current fair market rent and what a tenant can afford to pay (e.g. 30 percent of their income). The voucher allows a tenant to choose housing that may cost above the payment standard but the tenant must pay the extra cost. This program is administered by the San Mateo County Housing Authority. Opportunities for Energy Conservation With respect to residential construction, opportunities primarily take the form of construction of new homes using energy efficient designs, materials, fixtures, and appliances, or retro- fitting existing homes to be more energy efficient (e.g., weather stripping, upgrading insulation, upgrading to more energy efficient fixtures and appliances). At a minimum, new housing construction in South San Francisco must comply with the State of California Title 24 energy efficiency standards. The City's Building Division is currently drafting a Green Building Ordinance, which will likely require new homes or substantial remodels to achieve a set number of "Build-it Green" points. Staff expects the Green Building Ordinance to be adopted by City Council in the Summer of 2009. These requirements are and would be enforced through the building plan check process. In addition to the design and construction of individual buildings, the development industry is becoming increasingly aware of opportunities for energy conservation at the site planning level and even at the community planning level. New developments are increasingly being planned so that building orientations will take advantage of passive solar energy benefits. Larger scale land use planning is increasingly considering benefits of compact urban form (i.e., higher densities) as a means to reduce auto dependency for transportation, and the benefits of mixed-use land use patterns to make neighborhoods more self-contained so that residents can walk or bicycle to places Housing Resources 82 of work, shopping, or other services. Compact urban development patterns are also necessary to improve the effectiveness of buses and other forms of public transit. If effective public transit is available and convenient, energy will be conserved through reduced auto use. In the future, the City will consider incorporating these and/or other sustainable development principles into new developments that are planned within South San Francisco. Summary Consistent with the City's long-term commitment to supporting high-quality residential development, South San Francisco continues to make resources available for housing production. These include primarily sites for housing development, and a variety of funding sources, as summarized below: . South San Francisco has an adequate number of sites to accommodate its share of the regional housing need between 2007 and 2014. There is sufficient land to support the production of more than 1,195 new housing units. . Nearly 100 percent of the City's development capacity consists of higher density housing sites (densities exceeding 30 units per acre) all of which are located within developed areas already served with needed infrastructure, including sewer, water, stormwater, and transportation facilities. . The City's housing capacity is found primarily in three areas: the Transit Village, South EI Camino Real, and the Downtown area. . South San Francisco has a variety of financial resources to support affordable housing production, including most importantly HOME funds and Redevelopment Housing Set Aside funds as well as access to HEART funds. Housing Resources 83 Housing Plan Based on the needs, constraints and resources identified above, the following section of the Housing Element sets forth South San Francisco's housing plan for the 2007 to 2014 planning period. The City has established this plan in consideration of its own local needs and priorities, as well as its obligations under State Housing Element law. The Housing Plan is structured as a series of goals and related implementing policies. Accompanying each implementing policy are one or more programs that the City will implement over the 2007 to 2014 planning period. These programs are summarized in a seven-year Action Plan which presents the programs together with implementing agencies, funding sources and time- frames for implementation. Finally, the Housing Plan sets forth quantified objectives for housing construction, rehabilitation and conservation for the Housing Element planning period. The following definitions describe the nature of the statements of goals, policies, implementation programs, and quantified objectives as they are used in the Housing Element. Goal: Ultimate purpose of an effort stated in a way that is general in nature. Implementing Policies: Specific statement guiding action and implying clear commitment. Program: An action, procedure, program, or technique that carries out policy. Implementation programs also specify primary responsibility for carrying out the action and an estimated time frame for its accomplishment. The time frame indicates the calendar year in which the activity is scheduled to be completed. These time frames are general guidelines and may be adjusted based on City staffing and budgetary considerations. Quantified objectives (where applicable to individual implementation programs) are the number of housing units that the City expects to be constructed, conserved, or rehabilitated. Quantified Objective: The number of housing units that the City expects to be constructed, conserved, or rehabilitated, and the number of households the City expects will be assisted through Housing Element programs based on general market conditions during the timeframe of the Housing Element. Housing Plan 84 Promote New Housing Development Goal 1. Promote the provision of housing by both the private and public sectors for all income groups in the community (Existing Goal 1) Implementing Policies Policy 1-1: The City shall implement zoning to ensure there is an adequate supply of land to meet its 2007 to 2014 ABAG Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 373 very low income units, 268 low income units, 315 moderate income units, and 679 above moderate units. (Existing Policy 1-1) Program l-lA - Vacant and Underutilized Land Inventory: The City shall annually update its inventory of vacant and underutilized parcels identified in this Housing Element. The City shall also conduct an annual review of the composition of the housing stock, the types of dwelling units under construction or expected to be constructed during the following year, and the anticipated mix, based on development proposals approved or under review by the City, of the housing to be developed during the remainder of the period covered by the Housing Element. This analysis will be compared to the City's remaining 2007 to 2014 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) to determine if any changes in land use policy are warranted (Existing Program l-lA). Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development Time Frame: Annually Funding Source: City funds Quantified Objective: NQ Policy 1-2: The City shall continue to implement the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. (Existing Policy 1-2) Program 1-2A - Inclusionary Housing Ordinance: The City shall continue to implement the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requiring new residential development over four units to provide a minimum of twenty (20) percent low- and moderate-income housing. (Existing Program 1-2A) Responsibility of. Department of Economic and Community Development; City Council Time Frame: Ongoing Funding Source: NA Quantified Objective: 40 low-income units and 60 moderate-income by 2014. units Policy 1-3: Asfeasible, the City will investigate new sources offundingfor the City's affordable housing programs. (Existing Policy 1-3) Housing Plan 85 Program 1-3A - Investigate Commercial Linkage Fee. The City will investigate the feasibility of a commercial linkage fee to support affordable housing. (Revised Program 1- 3A) Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development, Planning Division; City Council Time Frame: FY 2009-2010 Funding Source: City funds Quantified Objective: NQ Policy 1-4: The City shall work with for-profit and non-profit developers in consolidating infill parcels designated for multi-family residential development when it facilitates efficient development of the parcels. (Existing Policy 1-4) Program 1-4A - Site Assembly: The Redevelopment Agency shall acquire or work with nonprofit housing developers to acquire sites that are either vacant or were developed with underutilized, blighted, and/or nonconforming uses and will make the sites available for developing affordable housing. (New Program). Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development, South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency and the Housing and Redevelopment Division Time Frame: 2007-2014 Funding Source: 20 percent Redevelopment Housing Set-aside Fund Quantified Objective: Acquire land sufficient for 60 units by 2014. Policy 1-5: The City shall promote the construction of lower cost units by providing incentives and encouraging mixed use projects, second units, density bonuses, loft-style units, and manufactured housing. (Existing Policy 1-5) Program 1-5A - Complete Revision of Zoning Ordinance: The City shall complete the ongoing revision of its Zoning Ordinance to assure that it has the tools and flexibility needed to encourage a variety of unit sizes and mix of housing types including single family homes, duplexes, condominiums, apartments, townhomes, lofts, mobile homes, senior projects, residential second units and manufactured housing. The Zoning Ordinance revision will include the following: a) Revised residential parking standards b) Reduced discretionary review of housing development c) More specific design standards d) Consistency between the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan e) Identification of a zoning district where an emergency shelter is permitted by right f) Allowance for transitional and supportive housing subject only to those restrictions that apply to other residential uses of the same type in the same zone. Housing Plan 86 (Revised Existing Program 1-5A) Responsibility: Economic and Community Development, Planning Division; Planning Commission; City Council Time Frame: Complete review and amendments by December 2009. Funding Source: City funds Quantified Objective: NQ Policy 1-6: The City shall review and continue to implement the Density Bonus Ordinance (Existing Policy 1-6A) Program 1-6A - Review Density Bonus Ordinance: In conjunction with the overall update of the City's Zoning Ordinance, the City shall review the Density Bonus Ordinance for projects that include affordable housing in over 20 percent of the project. The ordinance will be modified to be consistent with State law as necessary. (Existing Program 1-6A) Responsibility of. Department of Economic and Community Development, Planning Division; Planning Commission; City Council Time Frame: December, 2009 Funding Source: NA Quantified Objective: 50 units by 2014. Policy 1-7: The City shall encourage a mix of residential, commercial and office uses in the areas designated as Downtown Commercial, mixed Community Commercial and High Density Residential, mixed Business Commercial and High Density Residential, mixed Business Commercial and Medium Density Residential in the General Plan and in the South San Francisco BART Transit Village Zoning District. (Existing Policy 1-7) Program 1- 7 A - Increased Residential Densities in the Downtown Area. Explore increased residential densities and modified development standards for parcels in the downtown area to support the objectives of the Downtown Strategy and General Plan policies. Policy 1-8: The City shall support and facilitate the development of second units on single-family designated and zoned parcels. (Existing Policy 1-8) Program 1-8A - Continue to support the development of secondary dwelling units. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development, Planning Division; Planning Commission; City Council Time Frame: December, 2009 Funding Source: City funds Quantified Objective: 20 second units by 2014. Program 1-8B - Second Dwelling Unit Community Education: Actively promote community education on second units by posting information regarding second units on the Housing Plan 87 City's website and providing brochures at the public counter in the One Stop Permit Center. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development, Planning Division Time Frame: Ongoing Funding Source: City funds Quantified Objective: NQ Policy 1-9: The City shall maximize opportunities for residential development, through infill and redevelopment of underutilized sites, without impacting existing neighborhoods or creating conflicts with industrial operations. Program 1-9A - Through the Zoning Ordinance update 'I South EI Camino Real General Plan update 'I the EI Camino Real/Chestnut Specific Plan'l the City will identify opportunities for residential development through infill and redevelopment of underutilized site s. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development, Planning Division Time Frame: Ongoing Funding Source: City funds Quantified Objective: NQ Housing Plan 88 Remove Constraints to Housing Development Goal 2. The City of South San Francisco will take necessary steps to remove government and public infrastructure constraints to housing development through administrative support, intergovernmental cooperation, public-private partnerships and permit streamlining. (New Goal) Implementing Policies Policy 2-1: The City shall continue to operate the "One Stop Permit Center" in order to provide assistance from all divisions, departments, and levels of City government, within the bounds of local ordinances and policies, to stimulate private housing development consistent with local needs. (Revised Existing Policy 1-11) Program 2-1A - Expedite Permit Review: To support private market construction, the City shall work with property owners, project sponsors, and developers to expedite the permit review process; design housing projects that meet the goals, objectives and policies of this Housing Element; provide timely assistance and advice on permits, fees, environmental review requirements, and affordable housing agreements to avoid costly delays in project approval; and interface with community groups and local residents to ensure public support of major new housing developments. (Existing Program l-llA). Responsibility of. Department of Economic and Community Development, Planning Division, Building Division and Housing and Redevelopment Division Time Frame: Ongoing Funding Source: City funds Quantified Objective: NQ Policy 2-2: The City shall ensure the availability of adequate public facilities, including streets, water, sewerage, and drainage, throughout the residential areas of the city. Residential development will be encouraged, as designated on the General Plan Land Use Map, where public services and facilities are adequate to support added population or where the needed improvements are already committed All dwelling units will have adequate public or private access to public rights-of-way. (Existing Policy 1-13) Policy 2-3: The City shall continue to cooperate with other governmental agencies and take an active interest in seeking solutions to area-wide housing problems. The City supports efforts such as the San Mateo County Sub RHNA effort which seek to bring the 21 jurisdictions of San Mateo County together to address common housing and planning needs. (Existing Policy 1-14) Program 2-3A - MCC Program. The City shall participate with San Mateo County in its Housing Revenue Bond and Mortgage Credit Certificate programs. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development, Housing Plan 89 Housing and Community Development Division Time Frame: Ongoing Funding Source: California Debt Limit Allocation Committee Quantified Objective: Assist 20 moderate income households with home purchases Policy 2-4: The City shall ensure that new development promotes quality design and harmonizes with existing neighborhood surroundings. (Existing Policy 1-15) Program 2-4A - City will implement design guidelines under consideration as part of the Zoning Ordinance update. Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development, Planning Division Time Frame: 2009/2010 Funding Source: City funds Quantified Objective: NQ Policy 2-5: The City shall support excellence in design through the continued use of the design review board and/or staff and adherence to CEQA while ensuring that this process is carried out expeditiously. (Existing Policy 1-16) Policy 2-6: The City shall ensure that developers and city residents are made aware of key housing programs and development opportunities. (Existing Policy 1-18) Program 2-6A: Disseminate Information on Affordable Housing Programs. To widen the availability of information to interested residents, the City shall update its website to include information on affordable housing, housing programs, and inclusionary units. (Revised Existing Program 1-18A) Responsibility of. Department of Economic and Community Development Time Frame: Ongoing Funding Source: City funds Quantified Objective: NQ Housing Plan 90 Conserve Existing Housing & Neighborhoods Goal 3: South San Francisco will strive to maintain and preserve existing housing resources, including both affordable and market-rate units (Formerly Goal 2). Implementing Policies Policy 3-1: Encourage Private Reinvestment in older residential neighborhoods and the private rehabilitation of housing. (Existing Policy 2-1) Policy 3-2: As appropriate, the City shall use State and Federal funding assistance to the fullest extent these subsidies exist to rehabilitate housing. The City shall continue to give housing rehabilitation efforts high priority in the use of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. (Existing Policy 2-2) Program 3-2A - Housing Rehabilitation Program: The City will provide funds to assist very low- and low-income owner and renter households to undertake repairs to their homes to bring them into a good state of repair and maintain them as viable units in the local housing stock. Policy 3-3: The City shall prioritize Federal, State and Redevelopment Agency funds for the acquisition and rehabilitation of housing in older residential neighborhoods. The City will target funds in order to preserve the older housing stock that exists in older neighborhoods and for low income families earning less than 80 percent of the Area Median Income (AM!). (Existing Policy 2- 3) Policy 3-4: The City shall maintain and improve neighborhoods through the use of systematic code enforcement, regulatory measures, cooperative neighborhood improvement programs and other available incentives. The City shall focus on properties in older neighborhoods such as Village Way, Willow Gardens, Town of Baden, Downtown (or Old Town), Irish Town, and Peck's Lots. (Existing Policy 2-4) Program 3-4A - Enforce Housing'l Building and Safety Codes: The City shall continue to aggressively enforce uniform housing, building, and safety codes. (Existing Program 2-4A) Responsibility: City Attorney; Fire Department, Building Division Time Frame: Ongoing Funding Source: City funds Quantified Objective: NQ Program 3-4B - Eliminate Blight: The City shall seek to eliminate incompatible land uses or blighting influences from residential neighborhoods through targeted code enforcement and other available regulatory measures. (Existing Policy 2-4B) Housing Plan 91 Responsibility: City Attorney; Fire Department, Building Division Time Frame: Ongoing Funding Source: City funds Quantified Objective: NQ Policy 3-5: The City shall continue to support the revitalization of older neighborhoods by keeping streets, sidewalks, and other municipal systems in good repair. The City shall continue to work cooperatively with other agencies and utilities concerning the maintenance of their properties and equipment in South San Francisco. (Existing Policy 2-6) Program 3-5A -Capital Improvement Program for Older Neighborhoods: As appropriate, the City shall create a capital improvement program to upgrade housing in older neighborhoods such as Village Way, Willow Gardens, Town of Baden, Downtown (or Old Town), Irish Town, and Peck's Lots. (Existing Program 2-6A) Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development Time Frame: Ongoing Funding Source: General Fund Quantified Objective: NQ Policy 3-6: The City shall ensure that rehabilitation efforts promote quality design and harmonize with existing neighborhood surroundings. (Existing Policy 2-7) Policy 3-7: The City shall strive to maintain its existing single- and multi-family housing stock. (Existing Policy 2-9) Program 3-7 A - Low Interest Loans for Housing Rehabilitation: The City shall provide low-interest loans for rehabilitation of single-family and multi-family housing by supporting the Housing Rehabilitation Program with continued CDBG funding. The City shall give priority to homes in the Downtown Target Area. (Existing Program 2-9A) Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development, Housing and Community Development Division Time Frame: Ongoing Funding Source: CDBG Quantified Objective: 40 Units by 2014. Program 3-7B - Support SSF PHA. The City shall support the South San Francisco Housing Authority in the continued operation and rental of 80 units of public housing. (Existing Program 2-9B) Responsibility: South San Francisco Housing Authority Housing Plan 92 Time Frame: On-going Funding Source: HUD funds and return on rents Quantified Objective: Preserve 80 units. Policy 3-8: The City shall strive to preserve and/or improve existing boarding houses and Single Room Occupancy (SRO) developments. (Existing Policy 2-10) Program 3-8A - Financial Assistance for SROs. The City shall provide financial assistance for physical improvements to existing boarding rooms and Single Room Occupancies in the Downtown area. (Existing Program 2-1 OA) Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development, South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency Time Frame: 2007-2014 Funding Source: 20 percent Redevelopment Housing Set-aside Fund Quantified Objective: NQ Policy 3-9: The City shall strive to limit the conversion of apartment units to condominiums. (Existing Policy 2-11) Program 3-9A - Condominium Conversion Limitations. The City shall continue to enforce limits on the conversion of apartment units to condominiums. As specified in Chapter 19.80 of the Municipal Code, condominium conversions are allowed only if they meet the following general criteria: a. A multiple-family vacancy rate of at least five percent exists; b. The conversion has an overall positive effect on the City's available housing stock; c. Adequate provisions are made for maintaining and managing the resulting condominium projects; d. The project meets all building, fire, zoning, and other applicable codes in force at the time of conversion; and e. The conversion is consistent with all applicable policies of the General Plan. (Existing Program 2-11A) Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development, Planning Division Time Frame: Ongoing Funding Source: NA Quantified Objective: NQ Policy 3-10: The City shall use its best efforts to insure the preservation of subsidized housing units at risk of converting to market rate housing. (Existing Policy 2-13) Housing Plan 93 Maintain and Improve Quality of Life Goal 4: The maintenance and improvement of the quality of life, safety and historic integrity of existing neighborhoods is a high priority for the City of South San Francisco (Formerly Goal 5) Implementing Policies Policy 4-1: The City shall prohibit new residential development in areas containing major environmental hazards (such as floods, and seismic and safety problems) unless adequate mitigation measures are taken. (Existing Policy 5-1) Policy 4-2: The City shall require the design of new housing and neighborhoods to comply with adopted building security standards that decrease burglary and other property-related crimes. (Existing Policy 5-2) Program 4-2A - Administer Minimum Building Security Standards. The City shall continue to administer Chapter 15.48, Minimum Building Security Standards, of the Municipal Code. (Existing Program 5-3B) Responsibility: Police Department Time Frame: On-going Funding Source: General Fund Quantified Objective: All new residential units shall comply with City standards. Policy 4-3: As appropriate and required by law, the City shall continue the abatement of unsafe structures. (Existing Policy 5-3) Program 4-3A - Review Proiects for Maior Environmental Hazards during the Environmental Review Process. The City shall review residential projects for major environmental hazards during the environmental review process. The City shall not approve the projects unless the hazards are adequately mitigated. (Existing Program 5-3A) Responsibility of. Department of Economic and Community Development, Planning Division Time Frame: On-going Funding Source: General Fund Quantified Objective: All residential projects. Policy 4-4 - The City shall require new residential developments to comply with the Aircraft Noise/Land Use Compatibility Standards for the San Francisco International Airport Plan Area, as contained in the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Plan. (Existing Policy 5-4) Housing Plan 94 Program 4-4A - Review all new residential development for compliance with the County Airport Land Use Plan. Any incompatible residential use will either be eliminated or mitigation measures will be taken to reduce interior noise levels within the acceptable range in accordance with the Noise Element. (Existing Program 5-4A) Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development, Planning Division Time Frame: On-going Funding Source: General Fund Quantified Objective: All new residential projects. Program 4-4B - Support the Airport Noise Insulation Program. Assist homeowners in insulating units adversely affected by airport noise, pursuant to the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979 (Section 49 USC 2101 et seq.). This is a broad-based project to reduce aircraft-associated noise inside residences. This program is available regardless of income level. (Existing Policy 5-4B) Responsibility: Department of Public Works Time Frame: 2007-2014 Funding Source: NA Quantified Objective: To insulate existing homes within the 65 CNEL zone. Housing Plan 95 Support Development of Special Housing Needs Goal 5. Support the development of an adequate supply of safe, decent and affordable housing for groups with special housing needs (revised existing goal 3) Implementing Policies Policy 5-1: The City shall continue to give special attention in housing programs to the needs of special groups, including the disabled, large families, the elderly, and families with low incomes. (Existing Policy 3-1) Senior Housing Policy 5-2: The City shall encourage the development ofhousingfor elderly. (Existing Policy 3-2) Policy 5-3: The City shall encourage non-profit groups to provide housing for the elderly citizens of South San Francisco. The City should encourage the development of senior housing in higher density areas close to shopping and transportation. (Existing Policy 3-3) Program 5-3A - Density Bonus for Senior Housing. The City shall continue to grant density bonuses for senior housing projects. The City shall allow up to 50 units per acre for senior housing projects and permit reduced parking standards. (Existing Program 3-3A) Responsibility of. Department of Economic and Community Development, Planning Division and Housing and Community Development Division Time Frame: Ongoing Funding Source: NA Quantified Objective: 10 senior housing units between 2007 and 2014. Program 5-3B - Minor Housing Repair Program for Seniors. The City shall continue to provide funding for minor repairs of homes owned and occupied by low-income senior citizens. Eligible repairs include plumbing, electrical, painting, carpentry, roof repairs, and masonry work. (Existing Program 3-3B) Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development, Housing and Community Development Division Time Frame: Ongoing Funding Source: CDBG funds Quantified Objective: 100 units from 2007 to 2014 Policy 5-4: The City shall encourage the establishment of a range of housing types for seniors including residential board and care facilities for the elderly in the community. (Existing Policy 3-4) Program 5-4A -Reduced Parking Requirement for Board and Care Facilities. Housing Plan 96 The City shall continue to allow reduced parking requirements for residential board and care facilities. (Existing Program 3-4A) Responsibility of. Department of Economic and Community Development, Planning Division Time Frame: Ongoing Funding Source: NA Quantified Objective: NQ Housing for the Disabled Policy 5-5: Consistent with State law, the City shall require the inclusion of handicapped accessible units in all housing projects. In all new apartment projects with five or more units, State law requires that five percent of the units constructed be fully accessible to the physically disabled. (Existing Policy 3-5) Program 5-5A - Ensure Consistency with State Accessibility Laws. The City shall review development plans to assure consistency with state handicap and accessibility laws and require modifications for accessibility. (Existing Program 3-5A) Responsibility: Fire Department, Fire Prevention/Building Division Time Frame: Ongoing Funding Source: NA Quantified Objective: Enforcement of applicable State and federal standards. Program 5-5B - Revise Zoning Ordinance to Facilitate Housing for the Disabled. The City shall complete a review of its Zoning Ordinance and other development procedures to ensure compliance with fair housing laws and ensure that these regulations do not create a hardship for persons with disabilities. The City shall amend its Zoning Ordinance and change its permit processing procedures, as needed, to facilitate accessibility for disabled persons. (Revised Existing Program 3-5B) Responsibility: Department of Economic and Community Development, Planning Division Timeframe: December, 2009 Funding Source: City funds Quantified Objective: NQ Policy 5-6: The City shall continue to support programs to modify existing units to better serve the needs of disabled citizens. (Existing Policy 3-6) Program 5-6A- The City shall continue to provide funds to make housing units accessible to the disabled. (Existing Program 3-6A) Housing Plan 97 EXHIBIT B CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE INITIAL STUDY /MITIGA TED NEGATIVE DECLARA TION City of South San Francisco General Plan 2007 -2014 Housing Element Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft May 15, 2009 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION State Clearinghouse File No.: TBD; City of South San Francisco General Plan - 2007-2014 Housing Element Name of Project City of South San Francisco General Plan - 2007-2014 Housing Element Project Description The proposed project is an update to the Housing Element of the City of South San Francisco's ("City") General Plan. The current Housing Element was adopted by the City Council and certified by the State of Califon1ia ("State") in 2002, and the General Plan was most recently amended by the City Council on October 13, 1999. This Housing Element (update) focuses on housing needs from January 1, 2007 through June 30, 2014 in accordance with the Housing Element planning period for San Francisco Bay Area jurisdictions established by State law. The City has prepared its General Plan - 2007-2014 Housing Element to meet the requirelnents of State law and local housing objectives, and is consistent with the other elelnents of the City's General Plan, adopted in October 1999, with the exception of some of the land use designations for some of the identified oppo11unity sites. A General Plan Alnendment is currently underway to make the land use designations consistent with the Housing Elenlent density and requirements. Finding The City of South San Francisco, by Gerry Beaudin on May 15, 2009, completed a review of the proposed project and determined that the 2007-2014 Housing Element ("proposed project") could have a significant effect on the environment, but there would not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the Initial Study for the proposed project would apply to the proposed project. No Environlnental hnpact Report is required. Mitigation Measures Air Quality: Mitigation Measure AQ-l and AQ-2 would reduce the itnpact associated with air quality plans to a less-than-significant level: AQ-1 Implement feasible control measures for construction en1ission of PM-10. The project sponsor shall ensure implementation of the following mitigation lneasures during project construction, in accordance with BAAQMD standard mitigation requirements: . Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. . Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose lnaterials or require all trucks to lnaintain at least two feet of freeboard. . Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. . Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. . Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. AQ-2 Green Building Measures for New Construction. The following green building measures shall be incorporated, at the discretion of the Planning Departlnent, into new residential construction: . Trees and other shade structures shall be incorporated to maximize summer shade and to minimize winter shade. Canopy cover shall extend over 50 percent of non-perlneable surfaces following a ten-year growth period. . Residential construction shall use "green" celnerrt, which contains recycled materials (slag or fly-ash) and is produced using emission-reducing technologies, if available, structurally appropriate for the intended use, and where feasible and practicable. . New constrllction shall use energy efficient lighting, to the extent feasible and appropriate. At the IninilTIUln, all buildings shall achieve a 15 percent reduction in energy use associated with lighting over existing Title 24 standards. . Residential buildings shall include passive solar design features that include roof overhangs or canopies that block sumlner shade, but that allow winter sun, from penetrating south facing windows. . Roofing materials used in cOlnmerciallretail buildings sllall be Energy Star@ certified. All roof products shall also be certified to meet A TSM high emissivity requirelnents. . Where feasible, recycled, rapidly renewable, reclaiIned and/or celiified components shall be used in the construction of new residential buildings. Cultural Resources: Mitigation Measures CR-I and CR-2 would reduce ilnpacts to paleontological/ geological features and hlunan remains to a less-than-significant level: CR-l' Protect unique paleontological/geological features. Should a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature be identified at an opportunity site during any phase of construction, the project sponsor shall cease all construction activities at the site of the discovery and immediately notify the City. The project sponsor shall retain a qualified paleontologist to provide an evaluation of the find and to prescribe mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less- than-significant level. Work may proceed on other parts of the project site while mitigation for paleontological resources or geologic features is carried out. The project sponsor shall be responsible for ilnplementing any additional prescribed lnitigation measures prescribed by the paleontologist and approved by the City. CR-2 Protect hun1an remains. If human remains are discovered at any project construction sites during any phase of construction, all ground-disturbing activity within 100 feet of the resource shall be halted and the City and the County Coroner shall be notified imInediately, according to Section 5097.98 of the State Public Resources Code and Section 7050.5 of the State Health and Safety Code. If the remains are determined by the County Coroner to be Native American, the NAHC shall be notified within 24 hours, and the guidelines of the NAHC shall be adhered to in the treatment and disposition of the remains. The project sponsor shall also retain a professional archaeologist with Native American burial experience to conduct a field investigation of the project site, and consult with the Most Likely Descendant, if any, identified by the NAHC. As necessary, the archaeologist lnay provide professional assistance to the Most Likely Descendant, including the excavation and removal of the human remains. The City shall be responsible for approval of recolnmended mitigation as it deems appropriate, taking account of the provisions of State law, as set forth in CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5(e), and Public Resources Code, Section 5097.98. The project sponsor shall implement approved mitigation, to be verified by the City, before the resulnption of ground disturbing activities within 100 feet of where the reln'ains were discovered. Noise: Mitigation Measure NO-l would reduce the itnpact associated with construction noise to a less- than-significant level: NO-l Implement best managen1ent practices to reduce construction noise. The project sponsor shall incorporate the following practices into the construction doculnents to be implemented by the project construction contractor. These control measures, such as installation of noise control devices (e.g., mufflers), selection of quieter machinery, and other noise control measures (e.g., surrounding stationary equipment with noise barriers), would not require Inajar equiplnent redesign: a. MaxiInize the physical separation between nOIse generators and nOIse receptors. Such separation includes, but is not liInited to, the following measures: . Use heavy-duty mufflers for stationary equipment and barriers around particularly noisy areas of the site or around the entire site; . Use shields, iInpervious fences, or other physical sound barriers to inhibit transmission of noise to sensitive receptors; . Locate stationary equipInent to minilnize noise impacts on the COlnlTIUnity; and . Minimize backing lnovements of equipInent. b. Use quiet construction equiplnent whenever possible. c. Ilnpact equiplnent (e.g., jack halnmers and pavement breakers) shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise associated with cOlnpressed air exhaust from pneulnatically-powered tools. Compressed air exhaust silencers shall be used on other equipment. Other quieter procedures, such as drilling rather than using impact equiplnent, shall be used whenever feasible. d. Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines. e. Select routes for movement of construction-related vehicles and equipment in conjunction with the City's Planning Department so that noise-sensitive areas, including residences and schools, are avoided as much as possible. f. The construction contractor shall send advance notice to neighborhood residents within 50 feet of the project site regarding the construction schedule and including the telephone nlllnber for the disturbance coordinator at the constnlction site. Reasons for Conclusion An Initial Study of the proposed project was undertaken and prepared in accordance with the City's environmental guidelines for the purpose of ascertaining whether the proposed project Inight have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study is on file with the City of South San Francisco, obtained at the City's Economic and Community Development Department - Planning Division, City Hall Annex, 315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco, California, 94080. Copies of the document Inay also be viewed at the Office of the City Clerk, West Orange Library, and the Grand Avenue Library. I hereby certify that this Mitigated Negative Declaration, along with the attached Initial Study were released for public review begil1ning May 15,2009, through June 15,2009. ~" Prepared for The City of South San Francisco Planning Division 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 (650) 877-8583 Prepared by PBS&J 353 Sacramento Street, Suite 1000 San Francisco, CA 94111 (415) 361-1500 City of South San Francisco General Plan 2007 -2014 Housing Element Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft May 15, 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I . INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1-1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration.......................................................... .1-1 IS /MND Approach .......................................................................................... 1-2 Mitigation Measures the City Requires as Standard Conditions of Project Approval........... .1-3 II . PRO JECT INFO RMA TI 0 N .............................................................................. II -1 III. EN'IIR()NMEN1rAL CIIECFCLIS1r F()RM ..........................................................111-1 1'1. EN'IIRO NMENT AL SETTING....................................................................... 1'1-1 'I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION .............................................................................. '1-1 Project Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. '1-1 Relationship of the lIousing Element to the City's General Plan.................................. '1-2 lIousing Element Update Process....................................................................... '1-2 Major Assumptions of the lIousing Element.......................................................... '1-2 Related Planning Efforts.................................................................................. '1-7 Descriptions of Opportunity Areas...................................................................... '1-8 Transit '1illage Area....................................................................................... '1-8 South EI Camino Real Area............................................................................. '1-10 Downtown Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. '1-11 'II. E'I ALUA TION OF EN'IIRONMENT AL IMPACTS............................................. '11-1 1. Aesthetics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. '11-1 2. Agriculture Resources.......................................................................... 'II - 5 3 . Air Quality ....................................................................................... '11-6 4. Biological Resources .......................................................................... 'II -14 5. Cultural Resources............................................................................. '11-17 6. Geology and Soils.............................................................................. 'II -20 7. lIazards and lIazardous Materials........................................................... '11-25 8. lIydrology and Water Quality............................................................... '11-30 9. Land Use and Planning ....................................................................... 'II - 36 10. Mineral Resources ............................................................................. 'II -40 11 . Noise ............................................................................................. 'II -41 12. Population and lIousing....................................................................... '11-46 13. Public Services................................................................................. '11-48 14. Recreation....................................................................................... 'II-52 15. Transportation/Traffic......................................................................... 'II-54 16. Utilities and Service Systems................................................................ 'II-59 16. Mandatory Findings of Significance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 'II -64 City of South San Francisco General Plan - 2007-2014 Housing Element - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page i Draft May 15, 2009 FIGURES Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 TABLES Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Re gi onal Location.................................................................................. IV - 2 Planning Area (with Opportunity Sites) ........................................................ IV - 3 Op po rtuni ty Site s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. V - 3 Transit Village Area Sites.......................................................................... V-4 South EI Camino Real Area Sites................................................................. V - 5 Downtown Area Sites... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. V-6 Transit Village....................................................................................... V-9 South EI Camino Real ........................................................................... . V-I 0 Downtown Area ................................................................................... V -12 APPENDICES Appendix A Standard Conditions and Limitations for Commercial Industrial and Multi-Family Residential Projects Appendix B Greenhouse Gas Calculations City of South San Francisco General Plan - 2007-2014 Housing Element - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft Page ii May 15,2009 I. INTRODUCTION In accordance with State law, the City of South San Francisco ("City") proposes to adopt a General Plan Amendment ("GPA") for the 2007-2014 Housing Element1 ("proposed project") as a part of the City's General Plan. An updated Housing Element is required of each city in the State of California ("State") to address the housing needs of all residents, in all income levels, over the planning period (2007-2014). The City's previous Housing Element was adopted in December 2002. The City's Draft 2007-2014 Housing Element may be viewed and printed by going to the City's web site at www.cLssf.ca.us or www.ssf.net. A copy of the 2007-2014 Housing Element, as well as this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ("IS/MND"), and the environmental documents upon which this IS/MND relies, may also be obtained at the City's Economic and Community Development Department - Planning Division, City Hall Annex, 315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco, California, 94080. Copies of the document may also be viewed at the Office of the City Clerk, West Orange Library, and the Grand Avenue Library. For additional information, please call the Economic and Community Development Department - Planning Division, at 650.877.8535, or e-mail "gerry. beaudin@ssf.net. " INITIAL STUDy/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION This IS/MND has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), which can be found in the State Public Resources Code ("PRC"), Section 21000 et. seq., and the CEQA Guidelines, found in State Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 15000 et. seq., as amended. The Initial Study identifies the potential environmental impacts associated with adoption and implementation of the City's 2007-2014 Housing Element. Pursuant to Section 15074 of the State Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, when considering adoption of a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration, the Lead Agency is bound by the following: A. Any advisory body of a public agency making a recommendation to the decision-making body shall consider the proposed Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration before making its recommendation. B. Prior to approving a Project, the Lead Agency shall consider the proposed Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process. The decision-making body shall adopt the proposed Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration only if it finds on the whole of the record before it that there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment and that a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the Lead Agency's independent judgment and analysis. Throughout this document, the 2007-2014 Housing Element will be referred to as the "Housing Element" or the "proposed project." City of South San Francisco General Plan - 2007-2014 Housing Element - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft Page 1-1 May 15,2009 C. When adopting a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration, the Lead Agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which its decision is based. D. When adopting a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration, the Lead Agency shall also adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has either required in the Project or made a condition of approval to avoid or mitigate significant environmental impacts. E. A Lead Agency shall not adopt a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration for a Project within the boundaries of a comprehensive airport land use plan or if a comprehensive airport land use plan has not been adopted for a Project within two nautical miles of a public use airport without first considering whether the Project will result in a safety hazard or noise problem for persons using the airport or for persons residing or working in the Project area. The Lead Agency for the 2007-2014 Housing Element is the City of South San Francisco. The decision-making body is the City of South San Francisco City Council. During the 30-day comment period, please mail comments on this IS/MND to the project manager for the Lead Agency following address: Gerry Beaudin, Senior Planner City of South San Francisco Economic and Community Development Department - Planning Division P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 IS/MND ApPROACH This IS/MND evaluates the environmental impacts of the 2007-2014 Housing Element. Since the Housing Element is a planning document, which does not authorize or analyze any specific development proposals, this IS/MND has been prepared as a programmatic review. As such, this document focuses on the overall effects of the adoption and implementation of the Housing Element in the Planning Area. The analysis does not examine the effects of individual, site-specific projects that may occur within the overall umbrella of this program in the future. Impacts of such projects will necessarily be evaluated once the specific projects have been proposed. General Plan elements, including the Housing Element, include proposed policies that are intended to be general, with details to be worked out during implementation. Thus, many of the impacts associated with implementation of the 2007-2014 Housing Element can only be described in general terms. Furthermore, the development of 1,200 dwelling units ("du") to meet this Housing Element would be subject to goals, policies, and programs under the General Plan (including the 2007-2014 Housing Element), Municipal Code (which included the City's Building Code and Zoning Ordinance), and the Standard Conditions and Limitations ("SCL") for multi-family residential projects, promulgated by the City of South San Francisco General Plan - 2007-2014 Housing Element - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft Page 1-2 May 15,2009 City. Accordingly, environmental reVIew for the 2007-2014 Housing Element relies on the environmental review that was certified and adopted for the City's General Plan, subsequent GPAs, and zoning code ordinances. Relevant goals, policies, and programs, as well as SCLs have been included, when appropriate, to mitigate or reduce potential impacts. MITIGATION MEASURES THE CITY REQUIRES AS STANDARD CONDITIONS OF PROJECT ApPROVAL The following Conditions of Approval ("COA") implement environmental mitigations and, are required through the City's standard project review and approval procedures. Each of the following requirements identified in this section will be imposed upon and incorporated into the proposed project as conditions of approval and or conditions of issuance of a building permit. Implementation of these COA, along with mitigation measures identified in this document, will insure that impacts associated with the proposed project remain less than significant. Air Quality: Mitigation Measure AQ-l and AQ-2 would reduce the impact associated with air quality plans to a less-than-significant level: AQ-1 Implement feasible control measures for construction emission of PM-10. The project sponsor shall ensure implementation of the following mitigation measures during project construction, in accordance with BAAQMD standard mitigation requirements: . Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. . Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or requIre all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. . Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. . Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. . Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. AQ-2 Green Building Measures for New Construction. The following green building measures shall be incorporated, at the discretion of the Planning Department, into new residential construction: . Trees and other shade structures shall be incorporated to maximize summer shade and to minimize winter shade. Canopy cover shall extend over 50 percent of non-permeable surfaces following a ten-year growth period. . Residential construction shall use "green" cement, which contains recycled materials (slag or fly-ash) and is produced using emission-reducing technologies, if available, structurally appropriate for the intended use, and where feasible and practicable. City of South San Francisco General Plan - 2007-2014 Housing Element - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft Page 1-3 May 15,2009 . New construction shall use energy efficient lighting, to the extent feasible and appropriate. At the minimum, all buildings shall achieve a 15 percent reduction in energy use associated with lighting over existing Title 24 standards. . Residential buildings shall include passive solar design features that include roof overhangs or canopies that block summer shade, but that allow winter sun, from penetrating south facing windows. . Roofing materials used in commercial/retail buildings shall be Energy Star@ certified. All roof products shall also be certified to meet A TSM high emissivity requirements. . Where feasible, recycled, rapidly renewable, reclaimed and/or certified components shall be used in the construction of new residential buildings. Cultural Resources: Mitigation Measures CR-1 and CR-2 would reduce impacts to paleontological/ geological features and human remains to a less-than-significant level: CR-l Protect unique paleontological/geological features. Should a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature be identified at an opportunity site during any phase of construction, the project sponsor shall cease all construction activities at the site of the discovery and immediately notify the City. The project sponsor shall retain a qualified paleontologist to provide an evaluation of the find and to prescribe mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. Work may proceed on other parts of the project site while mitigation for paleontological resources or geologic features is carried out. The project sponsor shall be responsible for implementing any additional prescribed mitigation measures prescribed by the paleontologist and approved by the City. CR-2 Protect human remains. If human remains are discovered at any project construction sites during any phase of construction, all ground-disturbing activity within 100 feet of the resource shall be halted and the City and the County Coroner shall be notified immediately, according to Section 5097.98 of the State Public Resources Code and Section 7050.5 of the State Health and Safety Code. If the remains are determined by the County Coroner to be Native American, the NAHC shall be notified within 24 hours, and the guidelines of the NAHC shall be adhered to in the treatment and disposition of the remains. The project sponsor shall also retain a professional archaeologist with Native American burial experience to conduct a field investigation of the project site, and consult with the Most Likely Descendant, if any, identified by the NAHC. As necessary, the archaeologist may provide professional assistance to the Most Likely Descendant, including the excavation and removal of the human remains. The City shall be responsible for approval of recommended mitigation as it deems appropriate, taking account of the provisions of State law, as set forth in CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5(e), and Public Resources Code, Section 5097.98. The project sponsor shall implement approved mitigation, to be verified by the City, before the resumption of ground disturbing activities within 100 feet of where the remains were discovered. City of South San Francisco General Plan - 2007-2014 Housing Element - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft Page 1-4 May 15,2009 Noise: Mitigation Measure NO-l would reduce the impact associated with construction noise to a less- than-significant level: NO-l Implement best management practices to reduce construction noise. The project sponsor shall incorporate the following practices into the construction documents to be implemented by the project construction contractor. These control measures, such as installation of noise control devices (e.g., mufflers), selection of quieter machinery, and other noise control measures (e.g., surrounding stationary equipment with noise barriers), would not require major equipment redesign: a. Maximize the physical separation between nOIse generators and nOIse receptors. Such separation includes, but is not limited to, the following measures: . Use heavy-duty mufflers for stationary equipment and barriers around particularly noisy areas of the site or around the entire site; . Use shields, impervious fences, or other physical sound barriers to inhibit transmission of noise to sensitive receptors; . Locate stationary equipment to minimize noise impacts on the community; and . Minimize backing movements of equipment. b. Use quiet construction equipment whenever possible. c. Impact equipment (e.g., jack hammers and pavement breakers) shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically-powered tools. Compressed air exhaust silencers shall be used on other equipment. Other quieter procedures, such as drilling rather than using impact equipment, shall be used whenever feasible. d. Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines. e. Select routes for movement of construction-related vehicles and equipment in conjunction with the City's Planning Department so that noise-sensitive areas, including residences and schools, are avoided as much as possible. f. The construction contractor shall send advance notice to neighborhood residents within 50 feet of the project site regarding the construction schedule and including the telephone number for the disturbance coordinator at the construction site. City of South San Francisco General Plan - 2007-2014 Housing Element - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft Page 1-5 May 15,2009 II. PROJECT INFORMATION 1. PROJECT TITLE City of South San Francisco General Plan - 2007-2014 Housing Element 2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS City of South San Francisco Economic and Community Development Department (mailing) P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 (physical) 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER Gerry Beaudin, Senior Planner 650.877.8535 4. PROJECT LOCATION City of South San Francisco 5. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS City of South San Francisco Economic and Community Development Department (mailing) P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 (physical) 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION City-wide; Planning Area, encompasses all General Plan Designations 7. ZONING City-wide; Planning Area, encompasses all Zoning Districts 8. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT See Section V (Project Description), below, for a full description. 9. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING See Section IV (Environmental Setting), below. 10. OTHER PuBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE ApPROVAL IS REQUIRED None. City of South San Francisco General Plan - 2007-2014 Housing Element - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft Page 11-1 May 15,2009 III. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Ilnpact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages: D Aesthetics D Agriculture Resources D Air Quality D Biological Resources D Cultural Resources D Geology /Soils D Hazards & Hazardous D Hydrology / Water Quality D Land Use / Planning Materials 0 Mineral Resources D Noise D Population / Housing D Public Services D Recreation D Trans portati an/T raffi c D Utilities I Service SystelTIS D Mandatory Findings of Signifcance Determination (To be cOlnpleted by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: o I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ~ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environlTIent, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been lnade by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. D I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. D I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant lUlless mitigated" ilTIpact on the environlnent, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by lnitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as describeon attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. o I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the enVirOll1TIent, because all potentially signficant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or Initigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation meaS.lres that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing fU11her is required. Susy Kalkin'l Chief Planner NalTIe 5)/>/0, Date / City of South San Francisco General Plan - 2007-20 J 4 Housing Elelnent -Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft Page //1-1 May 15, 2009 IV . ENVIRONMENT AL SETTING The City of South San Francisco ("Planning Area") is located in northern San Mateo County ("County"), on the San Francisco Peninsula ("Peninsula") (see Figure 1, Regional Location). The City is adjacent to the cities of Brisbane, Colma, Daly City, Pacifica, and San Bruno, as well as unincorporated portions of the County. The City is served by Highway 101 ("U .S. 101 "), Interstate 380 ("1-380"), Interstate 280 ("1-280"), and Caltrain, as well as a BART station, which opened in June 2003 (see Figure 2, Planning Area [with Opportunity Sites]). In addition, the City is adjacent to the San Francisco International Airport ("SFO") and is anticipating the construction of a Ferry Terminal during the current Housing Element planning period (2007-2014). The City measures 9.6 square miles and was incorporated in 1908. The City is home to a collection of compact neighborhoods including an active and walkable downtown. Its population has tripled since the Second World War, but population growth has moderated in recent years, as the community has become increasing developed. East of U.S. 101 is an office and industrial area, where many of the City's biotechnology businesses are located as well as the Oyster Point Marina, situated on the San Francisco Bay ("Bay"). The City is known as the birth place of the biotechnology industry. City of South San Francisco General Plan - 2007-2014 Housing Element - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft Page IV-1 May 15,2009 CONTRA COST A ~ ~ o 4 8 MILES NORTH NOT TO SCALE 1000008084 FIGURE 1 Regional Location V. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project is an update to the Housing Element of the City's General Plan. The current Housing Element was adopted by the City Council and certified by the State in 2002, and the General Plan was most recently amended by the City Council on October 13, 1999. This Housing Element (update) focuses on housing needs from January 1, 2007 through June 30, 2014 in accordance with the Housing Element planning period for San Francisco Bay Area jurisdictions established by State law. The City has prepared its General Plan - 2007-2014 Housing Element to meet the requirements of State law and local housing objectives, and is consistent with the other elements of the City's General Plan, adopted in October 1999, with the exception of some of the land use designations for some of the identified opportunity sites. A General Plan Amendment ("GPA") is currently underway to make the land use designations consistent with the Housing Element density and requirements. The purpose of a Housing Element is to identify current and projected housing needs, and set forth goals, policies, and programs that address those needs. The 2007-2014 Housing Element, a component of the City's General Plan, is a statement by the City of its current and future housing needs and proposed actions to facilitate the provision of housing to meet those needs at all income levels, and presents a comprehensive set of housing policies and actions for the years 2007-2014. The City adopted its current Housing Element in December 2002. The 2002 Housing Element was subsequently "certified" as legally adequate by the State Department of Housing and Community Development ("HCD"). This project description includes a discussion of the following: . Project Background; . Relationship of the Housing Element with to City's General Plan; . Housing Element Update Process; . Major Assumptions of the Housing Element; . Related Planning Efforts; and . Descriptions of Opportunity Areas. PROJECT BACKGROUND The Association of Bay Area Governments ("ABAG"), in its final Regional Housing Needs Allocation ("RHNA") figures, allocated the City 1,635 housing units for the period from 2007 to 2014. The timeframe for this RHNA process is January 1, 2007, through June 30, 2014 (a seven and a half year planning period). This unit count includes the need for 373 very low-, 268 low-, and 315 moderate- income units. The allocation is equivalent to an annual need of 218 housing units for the seven-and-a- half-year time period. A total of 830 units have been approved, constructed, or rehabilitated in the City since the start of the current planning period in January 2007. Hence, there is a remaining need for 805 units. City of South San Francisco General Plan - 2007-2014 Housing Element - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft Page V-1 May 15,2009 RELATIONSHIP OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT TO THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN State Law requires that a General Plan and its constituent elements ".. .comprise an integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of policies for the adopting agency. 2" This implies that all elements have equal legal status and no one element is subordinate to any other element. The Housing Element must be consistent with land use goals and policies set forth in the Land Use Element, and closely coordinated with the Circulation Element of the General Plan. The Housing Element must also be consistent with area Specific Plans including those currently being developed in South San Francisco described under "Related Planning Efforts," below. As part of the implementation process for this Housing Element, a GPA and Zoning Ordinance Update are required to achieve internal consistency. HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE PROCESS The Draft 2007-2014 Housing Element will be presented to the City's Planning Commission and City Council for review before being forwarded to the HCD in June 2009. After a mandatory 60-day review period, HCD will provide the City with comments and recommendations on the Draft 2007- 2014 Housing Element. MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT Housing Opportunity Sites. The City is built out, and all new housing opportunity sites identified in the 2007-2014 Housing Element are located on a limited number of infill and redevelopment sites near transit, providing the City with the chance to promote high-quality transit and pedestrian-oriented neighborhoods that include a full range of housing types and affordability levels (see Figure 3, Opportunity Sites). To meet ABAG's housing needs determination, the Housing Element has identified 19 opportunity sites for mixed-use and high-density housing development. These 19 opportunity sites are geographically clustered into three areas: . The Transit Village area . The South EI Camino Real area . The Downtown area The Transit Village area is zoned for medium (30 dwelling units/acre ["du/ac"]) to high (50 du/ac) density residential development, and provides approximately 31 percent of the City's near-term residential development potential (see Figure 4, Transit Village Area Sites). The South EI Camino Real area provides approximately 55 percent of the City's near-term residential development potential (see Figure 5, South EI Camino Real Area Sites). The City is currently amending its General Plan and updating the Zoning Ordinance to facilitate mixed-use and high-density residential development in the South EI Camino Real area. The Downtown area provides approximately 14 percent of the City's near-term residential development potential (see Figure 6, Downtown Area Sites). The Downtown area is currently zoned for mixed-use residential development of up to 30 du/ac; however, an ongoing downtown strategy planning process may lead to increased densities. California Government Code, Section 65300.5. City of South San Francisco General Plan - 2007-2014 Housing Element - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft Page V-2 May 15,2009 FIGURE 5 South EI Camino Real Area Sites 1000008084 FIGURE 6 Downtown Area Sites 1000008084 Goals and Policies. Taking into account the needs, constraints, and resources identified above, the City has developed a "Housing Plan" in consideration of its own local priorities, as well as its obligations under State law. The Housing Plan is structured as a series of goals and related implementing policies. Accompanying each implementing policy, there are one or more programs that the City will implement over the 2007-2014 planning period. The proposed Goals, Policies, and Programs contained in the 2007-2014 Housing Element have been modified from the 2002 Housing Element based on the Housing Needs Assessment, Constraints Analysis, and Housing Resources inventory contained within the 2007-2014 Housing Element. The goals listed below form the core of the City's vision for the preservation and development of residential areas: . Goal 1: Promote the provision of housing by the private, public and non-profit sectors for all income groups in the community. . Goal 2: Take necessary steps to remove government and public infrastructure constraints to housing development through administrative support, intergovernmental cooperation, public- private partnerships and permit streamlining. . Goal 3: Strive to maintain and preserve existing housing resources, including both affordable and market-rate units. . Goal 4: Maintain and improve the quality of life, safety and historic integrity of existing neighborhoods as a high priority for the City. . Goal 5: Support the development of an adequate supply of safe, decent and affordable housing for groups with special housing needs. . Goal 6: Ensure that all households have equal access to the City's housing resources. . Goal 7: Promote energy efficiency in residential development within the City, including reduction of energy use through better design and construction in individual homes, and also through energy efficient urban design. To establish benchmarks to assess the progress toward achieving the City's housing goals, the 2007- 2014 Housing Element also presents a five-year action plan, along with quantified objectives for the construction, rehabilitation, and preservation of housing. RELATED PLANNING EFFORTS Under a separate action from its 2007-2014 Housing Element, the City is currently evaluating the environmental effects (CEQA compliance) of certain GPA/Zoning Ordinance changes to the South EI Camino Real and Downtown areas. This process is expected to be completed in approximately three to six months. El Camino Real/Chestnut Specific Plan. The purpose of the Specific Plan is to create an implementable development vision for the area around the intersection of EI Camino Real and Chestnut City of South San Francisco General Plan - 2007-2014 Housing Element - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft Page V-7 May 15,2009 Avenue. The gross plan area is approximately 65 acres. It is within one mile of the South San Francisco BART station and located one and a half miles west of Downtown. The anticipated completion date for the Specific Plan is Fall/Winter 2009. South El Camino Real General Plan Update. The current land use designation for much of the southern portion of EI Camino Real is "Community Commercial." Community Commercial designation does not allow for residential or mixed-use development. The proposed/drafted GPA allows for mixed-use development throughout the southern portion of the corridor. The height limits are proposed to be increased to allow for 80 feet as of right, and up to 120 feet with additional review and approval. This is up from the existing 50-foot height limit that currently exists for most of the properties on South EI Camino Real. Finally, the permitted Residential Density has been set at 60 units per acre, with increases possible through the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process. The anticipated completion date for the South EI Camino Real General Plan Update is Summer 2009. Zoning Ordinance Update. The South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance Update is underway to ensure that current standards and guidelines support the implementation of the General Plan, including the Housing Element. The update is structured into four "modules." Staff, the City's consultant, and the City's Planning Commission are currently working through modules 2 and 3. The anticipated completion date for the update is Fall/Winter 2009. DESCRIPTIONS OF OPPORTUNITY AREAS Transit Village Area The Transit Village area is located in the northwestern portion of the City, and is generally bound by McLellan Drive to the north, Chestnut Avenue to the south and east, and EI Camino Real to the west (see Figure 4). The Transit Village area was recently identified in the BART Transit Village Plan. With the adoption of the BART Transit Village Plan in 2001, the City of South San Francisco established zoning standards and design guidelines that promote a vibrant mixed-use district consistent with the area's role as an important transit hub. A key element of the plan was to upzone various parcels to allow for more intensive residential development. Since its adoption, more than 450 residential units have been developed within the Transit Village; including a 361-unit apartment development, of which 70 units are designated for low- and moderate-income households; and a 99-unit condominium development. Built at densities of approximately 50 dulac, these properties are consistent with the City's vision for higher density, mixed-use development in the area. Six housing opportunity sites were identified in and around the Transit Village area, as listed in Table 1, and shown in Figure 4. These six parcels contain approximately 18 acres of land with a combined capacity for up to 622 housing units. City of South San Francisco General Plan - 2007-2014 Housing Element - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft Page V-8 May 15,2009 Table 1 Transit Village Estimated Existing Allowable Actual Site Acres Existing Use Adjacent Uses Zoning du/ aca du/ ac Units BART, Multi-Family Transit Village 0.5 Vacant Residential ("MFR"), & ("TV") - 30 30 14 Retail/ Commercial Residential ("C") ("R") & -C Site 1 0.5 30 14 Vacant & 2 0.1 Single Family SFR & MFR TV-RM 30 30 3 Residential (" SFR") 2 1.5 Vacant BART TV-RM 30 30 44 Site 2 1.6 30 47 3 1.3 Vacant Motel Hospital & MFR TV-C 30 30 38 3 1.3 Vacant TV-RH 50 50 63 3 3.1 Lumber Yard TV-RH 50 50 156 Site 3 5.6 257 TV-RM & TV- 4 7.6 Vacant MFR, Colma Creek Planned 30 30 228 Commercial ("P-C") Site 4 7.6 30 228 5 0.3 Utili ty MFR R-3-L 30 23 7 Site 5 0.3 23 7 6 0.5 Vacant SFR & MFR R-3-L 30 24 12 Site 6 0.5 24 12 7 1.5 Vacant Colma Creek P-C-L 30 30 45 7 0.4 Vacant Hospital P-C-L 30 30 12 Site 7 1.9 30 57 TOTAL 18.0 35 622 Source: City of South San Francisco, 2009; BAE, 2009 Notes: a. Allowable density is based on existing, adopted zoning standards. As listed, the Transit Village area housing opportunity sites are either currently vacant or underutilized. Sites 1, 3, 5, and 6 are entirely vacant. Site 2 contains a vacant single family development but otherwise has no permanent structures. Site 2 is currently listed for sale by a commercial broker and the City has engaged in pre-development discussions with an interested developer for the site. Site 4 contains a small Cal Water pumping station but is otherwise vacant. In all cases, each opportunity site City of South San Francisco General Plan - 2007-2014 Housing Element - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft Page V-9 May 15,2009 IS owned by a single entity, including Sites 3 and 6, which were recently acquired by the Redevelopment Agency. South El Camino Real Area The South EI Camino Real area is located in the South-central portion of the City, and is generally bound by Orange Avenue to the north, Noor Avenue to the south, Huntington Avenue to the east, and EI Camino Real to the west (see Figure 5). The City is currently amending the General Plan policies that pertain to the South EI Camino Real area, updating the Zoning Ordinance to allow for residential development and increased densities. The City expects both of these planning projects and accompanying CEQA documentation to be completed in 2009. The South EI Camino Real General Plan update is intended to help transform an area with a concentration of aging strip retail into a more vibrant transit corridor, including substantial mixed-use high-density (60 du/acre) residential development. For purposes of this analysis, the City has identified three sites along the South EI Camino Real corridor with near-term redevelopment potential for multi-family housing. These three housing opportunity sites are listed in Table 2 and shown in Figure 5. These sites total 21.3 acres and could accommodate approximately 474 housing units. Table 2 South El Camino Real Existing Proposed Estimated Existing Adjacent Max Max Actual Site Acres Use Uses GP Density GP Density Density Units Mobile High School, Mixed 8 2.0 Home SFR, & MDR 30 du/ac Use 60 du/ac 50 du/ac 100 Retail ("MU") Site 8 2.0 Less 12 existing residential units 88 60 du/ac 9 14.8 Retail Retail, Office MDR 30 du/ac MU 60 du/ac (on 1/3 295 of site) Site 9 14.8 295 10 0.6 Parking C 30 du/ac MU 60 du/ac 13 10 0.5 Parking C 30 du/ac MU 60 du/ac 60 du/ac 10 (on 1/3 10 3.8 Vacant Retail, Office C 30 du/ac MU 60 du/ac of site) 68 Cinema Site 10 4.5 91 TOTAL 21.3 474 Source: City of South San Francisco, 2009; BAE, 2009. City of South San Francisco General Plan - 2007-2014 Housing Element - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft Page V-10 May 15,2009 While numerous other sites along the corridor are also ultimately expected to support residential development, due to existing developer interest and/or a high degree of underutilization, these three present the most significant and realistic opportunities for housing development within the current Housing Element cycle, ending in 2014. Downtown Area The Downtown area is located in the northeastern portion of the City, and is generally bound by Linden Avenue to the north, Commercial Avenue to the south, U.S. 101 to the east, and Maple Avenue to the west (see Figure 6). The City is currently developing a Downtown Strategy to establish a vision for future development in the Downtown area. Covering a range of underutilized publicly- and privately-owned parcels, the strategy provides conceptual development plans for numerous sites throughout the Downtown. As part of the strategic planning process the City is exploring potential changes to zoning and the General Plan to accommodate increased densities and support a more vibrant mix of land uses. Building on the Downtown Strategy and for purposes of this analysis, the City has identified 10 sites in the downtown area with near-term redevelopment potential. These nine housing opportunity sites are listed below in Table 3 and shown in Figure 6. Sites 12, 13, 16, 17, and 18 are owned by the Redevelopment Agency ("RDA"); Sites 14, 15, and 19 are owned by the City; and Sites 10 and 11 are privately owned. As indicated in Table 3, these 10 sites total 4.3 acres, with a combined development capacity of up to 143 units. The City's 2007-2014 Housing Element is consistent with the City's long-term commitment to supporting high-quality residential development and will be required of comply with the goals, policies, and programs already established under the City's General Plan, in addition to those proposed under the Housing Element. Furthermore, future development will also be subject to the City's multi-family residential SCLs (included as Appendix A, Standard Conditions and Limitations). There is sufficient land to support the production of more than 1,195 new housing units. Nearly 100 percent of the City's development capacity consists of higher density housing sites (densities exceeding 30 du/ac), all of which is located within developed areas already served with needed infrastructure, including sewer, water, stormw ate r , and transportation facilities. City of South San Francisco General Plan - 2007-2014 Housing Element - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft Page V-11 May 15,2009 Table 3 Downtown Area Existing Adjacent Uses Existing Estimated Actual Site Acres Use Zoning Max Density Density Units 11 1.4 Vacant MFR, Gas C-1- L 30 du/ acre 30 43 Station, Utility Site 11 1.4 30 43 12 0.3 Vacant SFR, MFR, C C-1- L 30 du/acre 30 10 Site 12 0.3 30 10 13 0.3 Auto SFR, MFR, C DHDR 40 du/acre 72 24 Site 13 0.3 72 24 14 0.3 Restaurant SFR, MFR, C C-1- L 30 du/acre 30 10 Site 14 0.3 30 10 Hotel, MFR, Downtown 15 0.3 Parking Commercial 30 du/acre 30 10 Public ("D-C") Site 15 0.3 30 10 16 0.3 Parking Hotel, MFR, D-C-L 30 du/ acre 30 10 Public Site 16 0.3 Less 6 existing residential units 30 4 17 0.3 Financial C D-C-L 30 du/acre 30 10 Building 17 0.2 Parking C-1- L 30 du/ acre 30 5 17 0.1 0 C-1- L 30 du/ acre 30 2 17 0.2 C C-1- L 30 du/acre 30 5 Site 17 0.7 30 22 18 0.1 Vacant C D-C-L 30 du/acre 30 2 18 0.1 Vacant C D-C-L 30 du/acre 30 4 Site 18 0.2 30 7 Vacant 19 0.2 Fire C D-C-L 30 du/acre 30 5 Station 19 0.3 Parking D-C-L 30 du/ acre 30 10 Site 19 0.3 30 14 TOTAL 4.3 143 Source: City of South San Francisco, 2009; BAE, 2009. City of South San Francisco General Plan - 2007-2014 Housing Element - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft Page V-12 May 15,2009 VI. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The development of approximately 1,200 dwelling units ("du") under the City's 2007-2014 Housing Element, of which 805 dus need to be developed by the City to meet its remaining RHNA allocation, would be subject to the goals, policies, and programs of the City's General Plan (including the 2007- 2014 Housing Element), the City's Standard Conditions and Limitations for multi-family residential projects (included as Appendix A), and the Municipal Code (which includes the City's Building Code and Zoning Ordinance). As such, the Housing Element would have less-than-significant impacts or no impacts on the following items: Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact 1. Aesthetics Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a D D D ~ scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock D D D ~ outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its D D D ~ surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect D D D ~ day or nighttime views in the area? Discussion: a) Scenic Vistas The opportunity sites are not located within formally designated public vistas, nor would they result in the obstruction of any formally designated public vista. The South San Francisco General Plan does not contain policies pertaining to scenic vistas; thus, the proposed project would not conflict with an adopted planning policy regarding scenic vistas. b) Scenic Resources and Scenic Routes The City of South San Francisco does not have formally designated scenic routes; however, Highway 280 is a state designated scenic highway located along the western side of the City. The proposed project would not conflict with an adopted planning policy regarding scenic routes. The South San Francisco General Plan does not contain policies pertaining to scenic routes. As such, the Housing Element would not impact scenic resources along scenic routes. City of South San Francisco General Plan - 2007-2014 Housing Element - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft Page VI-1 May 15,2009 c) Visual Character South San Francisco's industrial roots are reflected in its urban character, which contrasts with a visually distinct setting. San Bruno Mountain to the north, the ridge along Skyline Boulevard to the west, and the San Francisco Bay to the east provide the City with particular visual resources. The City is contained by hills on three sides and the terrain within the City ranges from the flatlands along the water to hills to the east and north. Hills are visible from all parts of the City, and Sign Hill and San Bruno Mountain are visual landmarks. Much of the City's topography is rolling, resulting in distant views from many neighborhoods. General Plan. Development under the Housing Element would be subject to the following General Plan policies with regard to visual character: . Policy 2-G-1: Preserve the scale and character of established neighborhoods, and protect residents from changes in non-residential areas. . Policy 2-G-6: Maximize opportunities for residential development, including through infill and redevelopment, without impacting existing neighborhoods or creating conflicts with industrial operations. . Policy 2-/-2: Establish height limitations for specific areas as delineated on Figure 2-3 (from the City's General Plan). For these specific areas, do not regulate heights separately by underlying base district uses. . Policy 2-/-7: Establish a comprehensive design standards and guidelines strategy. . Policy 2-/-8: As part of establishment of design guidelines and standards, and design review, improve the community orientation of new development. . Policy 2-/-9: Ensure that any design and development standards and guidelines that are adopted reflect the unique patterns and characteristics of individual neighborhoods. 2007-2014 Housing Element. The following goal applies to scenic resources and would be followed with the implementation of the Housing Element: . Goal 4: The maintenance and improvement of the quality of life, safety and historic integrity of existing neighborhoods is a high priority for the City of South San Francisco (Formerly Goal 5). While future development under the 2007-2014 Housing Element would be required to be consistent with the City's General Plan, to fully achieve the vision of the 2007-2014 Housing Element, the City is exploring GPAs/Zoning Ordinance changes, which would alter portions of the City's land use designations and zoning within the South EI Camino Real and Downtown area opportunity sites. In the South EI Camino Real area, this would include a change in the land use designation to a mix of uses ("mixed-use"), which could include residential development of up to 60 du/ac. In the Downtown area, this would also include a change in the land use designation to mixed use, while exploring the City of South San Francisco General Plan - 2007-2014 Housing Element - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft Page VI-2 May 15,2009 possibility of increased density. Both areas currently allow for up to 30 dulac, with one opportunity site within the Downtown area allowing density of up to 40 du/ac. Such densities could require the raising of the height limitations in the zoning of the opportunity sites. Standard Conditions and Limitations. The following Standard Conditions and Limitations are applicable to the Housing Element: . Item 9: No additional signs, flags, pennants or banners shall be installed or erected on the site without prior approval. . Item 10: Adequate trash areas shall be provided and enclosed by a six (6) foot high decorative masonry wall. Adequate solid gates and vehicular access to such areas shall be provided. . Item 11: All ducting for air conditioning, heating, blower systems, accessory mechanisms and all other forms of mechanical or electrical equipment which are placed on or adjacent to the building shall be screened from public view. . Item 12: All parking spaces, driveways, maneuvering aisles, turn-around areas and landscaping areas shall be kept free of debris, litter and weeds at all times. Site, structures, paving, landscaping, light standards, pavement markings and all other facilities shall be permanently maintained. . Item 13: There shall be no open storage of materials or equipment on the subject property, except as approved by each permit. Municipal Code. Title 13 of the City's Municipal Code outlines the City's Tree Preservation. The regulations contained within the Title 13 provide strict guidelines for the protection and preservation of City street trees and protected trees. Title 2 of the City's Municipal Code outlines the City's Historic Preservation Commission's guidelines to preserving neighborhood character. In addition, Title 20 of the City's Municipal Code outlines the City's guidelines to preserving for keeping with the visual character of the street or area in which a project is proposed. Development under the Housing Element would adhere to all of the above-mentioned Municipal Codes. d) Light or Glare General Plan. The City of South San Francisco's General Plan does not contain goals, polices, or programs that are related to light and glare, therefore, the Housing Element would not conflict with an adopted planning policy regarding light and glare. Standard Conditions and Limitations. In addition to Item 12, above, the following Standard Conditions and Limitations is applicable to the Housing Element: . Item 8: All exterior lights shall be installed in such a manner that there shall be no illumination on adjacent properties or streets which might be considered either objectionable by adjacent property owners or hazardous to motorists. City of South San Francisco General Plan - 2007-2014 Housing Element - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft Page VI-3 May 15,2009 Municipal Code. Title 20 of the City's Municipal Code outlines the City's General Sign Standards. The regulations contained within the Title 20 provide guidelines to minimize glare and spillover light. Development under the Housing Element would adhere to Title 20 of the Municipal Code. Finding: Compliance with the goals, policies, and programs of the City's General Plan, Municipal Code Titles 13 and 20, and Standard Conditions and Limitations Items 8 through 13, would ensure that the scale and character of the City's existing neighborhoods remain intact under the Housing Element, there would not be impacts to scenic vistas or scenic resources and there would not be impacts with regard to light and glare. As such, the proposed project would have no impact to aesthetics. City of South San Francisco General Plan - 2007-2014 Housing Element - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft Page VI-4 May 15,2009 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 2. Agriculture Resources In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland D D D ~ Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? D D D ~ c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? D D D ~ Discussion: a - c) Farmland Impacts As stated in the 2002 Initial Study/Negative Declaration for the 2002 Housing Element, the City is located in a heavily urbanized area and does not contain agricultural resources within its limits. 3 No Prime Farmlands, Unique Farmlands, or Farmlands of Statewide Importance have been identified at, or around, the opportunity sites. No parts of the opportunity sites are under a Williamson Act contract and no part of the opportunity sites or surrounding areas are zoned for agricultural uses (South San Francisco General Plan and Zoning Ordinance). Finding: The proposed project would have no impact to agricultural resources and would not convert designated Farmland to non-agricultural use. City of South San Francisco, Negative Declaration/Initial Study for the South San Francisco General Plan/Housing Element Update., October 16, 2002. City of South San Francisco General Plan - 2007-2014 Housing Element - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft Page VI-5 May 15,2009 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact 3. Air Quality Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation D ~ D D of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or D D D ~ projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal D D D ~ or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial D D D ~ pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a D D D ~ substantial number of people? t) Result in a cumulatively considerable D D ~ D increase in greenhouse gas emissions? Discussion: a) Conflict with Air Quality Plan The Bay Area is currently designated as a nonattainment area for State and national ozone standards and as a nonattainment area for the State PM-IO standard. As required by federal and State air quality laws, the 2001 Bay Area Ozone Attainment Plan and the 2000 Bay Area Clean Air Plan have been prepared to address ozone nonattainment issues. In addition, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) has prepared the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy. General Plan. Development under the Housing Element would be subject to the following General Plan policies with regard to air quality plans: . Policy 7.3-/-1: Cooperate with the BAAQMD to achieve emissions reductions for nonattainment pollutants and their precursors, including carbon monoxide, ozone, and PM-IO, by implementation of air pollution control measures as required by State and federal statutes. City of South San Francisco General Plan - 2007-2014 Housing Element - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft Page VI-6 May 15,2009 . Policy 7.3-1-3: Adopt the standard construction dust abatement measures included in BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. The standard mitigation referred to in Policy 7.3-1-3 would apply to all projects under the Housing Element that are subject to CEQA. Mitigation Measure AQ-l, as follows, would reduce any impacts to air quality plans to a less-than-significant level: AQ-J Implement feasible control measures for construction emission of PM-JOe The project sponsor shall ensure implementation of the following mitigation measures during project construction, in accordance with BAAQMD standard mitigation requirements: . Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. . Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. . Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. . Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. . Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. b) and c) Air Quality Standards Northwest winds are most common in South San Francisco, reflecting the orientation of wind gaps within the mountains of the San Francisco Peninsula. The persistent winds in South San Francisco result in a relatively low potential for air pollution. However, during the fall and winter months, there are periods of several days when winds are light and local pollutants can accumulate. The BAAQMD monitors and regulates air quality pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act, as amended, and the J988 California Clean Air Act. In particular, the BAAQMD regulates ozone (03), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (N02), sulfur dioxide (S02), particulate matter (PM-I0), and lead (Pb). In general, within the City, residents and workers may experience occasional violations of PM- 10 standards due to construction activities and other local dust sources. Residents and workers may also experience elevated concentrations of carbon monoxide along congested freeway segments and at congested intersections. General Plan. Development under the Housing Element would be subject to Policies 7.3-1-1 and 7.3- 1-3, as listed above. In addition, the Housing Element would be subject to the following General Plan policies with regard to air quality standards: . Policy 7. 3-G-J: Continue to work toward improving air quality and meeting all national and State ambient air quality standards and by reducing the generation of air pollutants both from stationary and mobile sources, where feasible. City of South San Francisco General Plan - 2007-2014 Housing Element - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft Page VI- 7 May 15,2009 . Policy 7.3-G-2: Encourage land use and transportation strategies that promote use of alternatives to the automobile for transportation, including bicycling, bus transit, and carpooling. . Policy 7.3-/-2: Use the City's development review process and the CEQA regulations to evaluate and mitigate the local and cumulative effects of new development on air quality. . Policy 7.3-/-4: Require new residential development and remodeled existing homes to install clean- burning fireplaces and wood stoves. 2007-2014 Housing Element. The following goal, polices, and programs from the 2007-2014 Housing Element apply to air quality standards and would be followed with the implementation of the Housing Element. . Goal 7: The City of South San Francisco will promote energy efficiency in residential development within the City, including reduction of energy use through better design and construction in individual homes, and also through energy efficient urban design. . Policy 7-1: The City shall continue to promote the use of energy conservation features in all new residential structures. . Program 7-2A: The City shall continue to provide information on energy-efficient standards for residential buildings (e. g., brochures and other information). . Policy 7-3: The City shall promote the use of weatherization programs for existing residential units especially among low-income households. . Policy 7-4: The City shall encourage the use of energy efficient and energy conserving design and construction techniques in all types of projects (including new construction and remodeled and rehabilitated structures). Standard Conditions and Limitations. The following Standard Conditions and Limitations IS applicable to the Housing Element: . Item 14: The construction and permitted use on the property shall be so conducted as to reduce to a minimum any noise vibration or dust resulting from the operation. Municipal Code. Title 8 of the City's Municipal Code restricts the burning of solid waste. The regulations contained within Title 8 provide guidelines to minimize air pollution from the burning of solid waste. City of South San Francisco General Plan - 2007-2014 Housing Element - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft Page VI-8 May 15,2009 d) Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Pollution Concentrations General Plan. Development under the Housing Element would be subject to the following General Plan policies with regard to sensitive receptors: . Policy 7.3-G-3: Minimize conflicts between sensitive receptors and emISSIons generators by distancing them from one another. e) Odors During construction, various diesel-powered vehicles and equipment in use on construction sites would create odors. These odors are temporary and not likely to be noticeable beyond the construction sites. Residential land uses are not anticipated to result in indoor emissions. Offensive odors are typically associated with industrial land uses rather than residential uses. General Plan. The City of South San Francisco's General Plan does not contain goals, polices, or programs that are related to odor; therefore, the Housing Element would not conflict with an adopted planning policy regarding odor. Municipal Code. Title 8 of the City's Municipal Code restricts the burning of solid waste, and Title 20 outlines restrictions on odors generated by certain land uses. The regulations contained within the Municipal Code provide guidelines to minimize odors affecting surrounding land uses. Development under the Housing Element would adhere to Titles 8 and 20 of the Municipal Code. f) Result in a Cumulative Considerable Increase in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Overview. Global climate change is a long-term alteration of global weather patterns, as measured by wind patterns, storms, precipitation, and temperatures. The science of global climate change is evolving and remains subject to debate and uncertainties; however, recent reports from the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ("IPCC") have concluded that global climate change is likely due, at least in part, to emissions of greenhouse gases ("GHG") from human activities. 4 Greenhouse gases are most frequently produced by the burning of fossil fuels for transportation and electricity generation, and include carbon dioxide ("C02"), methane ("CH4"), nitrous oxide ("N20"), sulfur hexafluoride ("SF6"), perfluorocarbons ("PFC"), and hydrofluorocarbons ("HFC"). They allow sunlight to enter the atmosphere but trap a portion of the outward-bound infrared radiation, thereby warming the air. The process is similar to the effect greenhouses have in raising the internal temperature. Greenhouse gases have varying global warming potential ("GWP"). The GWP is the potential of a gas or aerosol to trap heat in the atmosphere; it is the cumulative radiative forcing effects of a gas over a specified time horizon resulting from the emission of a unit mass of gas relative to a reference gas. Because C02 contributes to over 80 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, GWP is measured in Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Working Group I: The Physical Basis of Climate Change, http://ipcc- wg 1. ucar. edu/w 1 /w 1- report.html. City of South San Francisco General Plan - 2007-2014 Housing Element - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft Page VI-9 May 15,2009 C02 equivalencies (C02e). The GWP of CH4 is 23 times the GWP of C02, while the GWP is 296 times the GWP of C02. According to the 2006 California Climate Action Team Report,5 the following climate change effects, which are based on the IPCC predictions, can be expected in California over the course of the next century: . A diminishing Sierra snow pack resulting in depletion and destabilization of the State's water supply; . Increasing temperatures from 8 to 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit under the higher emission scenarios, leading to a 25 percent to 35 percent increase in the number of days ozone pollution levels are exceeded in most urban areas; . Increased vulnerability of forests due to pest infestation and increased temperatures; and . Increased electricity demand, particularly in the hot summer months. Additionally, health effects may arise from predicted temperature increases and extreme weather events. The frequency of outbreaks of climate-sensitive diseases, such as malaria, dengue fever, yellow fever, and encephalitis, may increase. Extreme events such as flooding and hurricanes may displace people and harm crops. Climate change may also contribute to air quality problems from increased frequency of smog and particulate air pollution. Greenhouse Gas Reduction Policies. Currently the federal government does not actively regulate emissions of GHGs; however, the State has been proactive in developing GHG emissions limits. In 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger issued Executive Order S-3-05, which sets forth a series of target dates by which statewide emission of GHGs would be progressively reduced as follows: . By 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels; . By 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; and . By 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. In 2006, the State Legislature passed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill No. 32; California Health and Safety Code Division 25.5, Sections 38500, et seq., or AB 32), which requires the California Air Resources Board ("CARB") to design and implement emission limits, regulations, and other measures, such that feasible and cost-effective statewide GHG emissions are reduced to 1990 levels by 2020 (representing an approximate 25 percent reduction in emissions). CARB has also approved a 1990 emissions inventory of 427 million metric tons per year of C02e emissions, with a 2020 target reduction of 169 million metric tons C02e per year. In June 2007, CARB directed staff to pursue 37 early actions for reducing GHG emissions under AB 32. The early actions include development of: a low carbon fuel standard, regulations for refrigerants with high GWP, guidance and protocols for local governments to facilitate GHG reductions, and California Environmental Protection Agency Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature, March 2006 City of South San Francisco General Plan - 2007-2014 Housing Element - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft Page VI-10 May 15,2009 measures for ports and industries. 6 In total, the 44 recommended early actions have the potential to reduce GHG emissions by at least 42 million metric tons C02e per year by 2020, representing about 25 percent of the estimated reductions needed by 2020.7 General Plan. The City's General Plan contains several policies that would help to reduce residential GHG emissions. These include the following: . Policy 1-7: The City shall encourage a mix of residential, commercial and office uses in the areas designated as Downtown Commercial, mixed Community Commercial and High Density Residential, mixed Business Commercial and High Density Residential, mixed Business Commercial and Medium Density Residential in the General Plan and in the South San Francisco BART Transit Village Zoning District. . Policy 1-9: The City shall maximize opportunities for residential development, including through infill and redevelopment of underutilized sites, without impacting existing neighborhoods or creating conflicts with industrial operations. . Policy 7.3-G-2: Encourage land use and transportation strategies that promote use of alternatives to the automobile for transportation, including bicycling, bus transit, and carpooling. . Policy 4. 3-G-1: Develop a comprehensive and integrated system of bikeways that promote bicycle riding for transportation and recreation. . Policy 4.3-G-2: Provide safe and direct pedestrian routes and bikeways between and through residential neighborhoods, and to transit centers. . Policy 4.3-G-3: In partnership with employers, continue efforts to expand shuttle operations. . Policy 4.3-G-4: In partnership with the local business community, develop a transportation systems management plan with identified trip-reduction goals, while continuing to maintain a positive and supportive business environment. . Policy 4.3-/-8: Adopt a TDM program or ordinance which includes, but is not limited to, the following components: o Establishment of baseline TDM requirements for all new projects generating more than 100 peak period trips. o Establishment of additional requirements for all new projects seeking a FAR bonus. California Air Resources Board, September 2007a. Draft List of Early Action Measures to Reduce Greenhouse California Air Resources Board Res. No. 07-55 (December 6, 2007). City of South San Francisco General Plan - 2007-2014 Housing Element - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft Page VI-11 May 15,2009 o An ongoing monitoring and enforcement program to ensure TDM measures are actually implemented. o Reduce parking requirements for new projects implementing a TDM Program. New housing units developed pursuant to the Housing Element would have the potential to generate approximately 13,844 metric tons of C02e. This includes 3 metric tons C02e from direct natural gas consumption, 1,494 metric tons C02e from indirect electricity generation, 1,379 metric tons C02e from solid waste emissions, and 10,967 metric tons C02e from project-related vehicle trips. Additional emissions would be generated during construction; however, these cannot be accurately estimated at the program level due to the variables associated with individual construction projects. Calculations are provided as Appendix B. The GHG emissions associated with implementation of the Housing Element would contribute to the cumulative global climate change impact. However, the General Plan policies identified above would help to minimize GHG emissions by reducing energy consumption, minimizing solid waste generation, and providing trip reductions. Moreover, as discussed in the project description, the new housing units would consist of infill development and would be located near public transit facilities. The City also has several policies encouraging mixed-use development, which has proven trip reduction benefits. This land use pattern would result in energy efficiency and a reduction in the number and length of single- occupancy vehicle trips, the largest GHG-generating source of emissions associated with the Housing Element. With implementation of the Mitigation Measure below, the Housing Element's contribution to the cumulative global climate change effect would be less than significant: AQ-2 Green Building Measures for New Construction. The following green building measures shall be incorporated, at the discretion of the Planning Department, into new residential construction: . Trees and other shade structures shall be incorporated to maximize summer shade and to minimize winter shade. Canopy cover shall extend over 50 percent of non-permeable surfaces following a ten-year growth period. . Residential construction shall use "green" cement, which contains recycled materials (slag or fly-ash) and is produced using emission-reducing technologies, if available, structurally appropriate for the intended use, and where feasible and practicable. . New construction shall use energy efficient lighting, to the extent feasible and appropriate. At the minimum, all buildings shall achieve a 15 percent reduction in energy use associated with lighting over existing Title 24 standards. . Residential buildings shall include passive solar design features that include roof overhangs or canopies that block summer shade, but that allow winter sun, from penetrating south facing windows. . Roofing materials used in commercial/retail buildings shall be Energy Star@ certified. All roof products shall also be certified to meet A TSM high emissivity requirements. City of South San Francisco General Plan - 2007-2014 Housing Element - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft Page VI-12 May 15,2009 . Where feasible, recycled, rapidly renewable, reclaimed and/or certified components shall be used in the construction of new residential buildings. Finding: Compliance with the goals, policies, and programs of the City's General Plan, Standard Conditions and Limitations Item 14, the Municipal Code, and Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 would ensure that development under the Housing Element would comply with federal, State, and local air quality standards. The Housing Element would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan and would not result in a cumulatively considerable a net increase of criteria non-attainment pollutants (ozone precursors and PM -10). In addition, it would not violate any air quality standard, expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, or create objectionable odors. As such, the proposed project would have less-than-significant impact to air quality. City of South San Francisco General Plan - 2007-2014 Housing Element - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft Page VI-13 May 15,2009 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact 4. Biological Resources Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, D D D ~ policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or D D D ~ by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, D D D ~ vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or D D D ~ with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological D D D ~ resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? t) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, D D D ~ or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? City of South San Francisco General Plan - 2007-2014 Housing Element - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft Page VI-14 May 15,2009 Discussion: a) - d) Habitat, State and Federal Regulations, Waters, and Wildlife Corridors South San Francisco's natural environment has undergone drastic changes during its history of urbanization; many natural areas have been completely developed, the Bay has been filled, and the hillsides have been graded extensively. However, the remaining presence of hillsides and marshlands gives the City a wide diversity of plant and animal life and habitat. General Plan. Development under the Housing Element would be subject to the following General Plan policies with regard to habitat and state and federal regulations: . Policy 2-/-13: As part of development review in environmentally sensitive areas require specific environmental studies and/or review as stipulated in Section 7.1: Habitat and Biological Resources Conservation. . Policy 7.1-G-1: Protect special status species and supporting habitats within South San Francisco, including species that are State or federally listed as Endangered, Threatened, or Rare. . Policy 7.1-G-2: Protect and, where reasonable and feasible, restore saltmarshes and wetlands. . Policy 7.1-/-1: Cooperate with State and federal agencies to ensure that development does not substantially affect special status species appearing on any State or federal list for any rare, endangered, or threatened species. Require assessments of biological resources prior to approval of any development on sites with ecologically sensitive habitat, as depicted in Figure 7 -1 (of the City's General Plan). . Policy 7.1-/-4: Require development on the wetlands delineated In Figure 7-1 to complete assessments of biological resources. Municipal Code. Title 20 of the City's Municipal Code outlines the City's guidelines to requiring that construction of projects is consistent with the City's habitat conservation plan. Development under the Housing Element would adhere to Title 20 of the Municipal Code. e) and f) Local Policies and Ordinances and Habitat Conservation Plans Any development under the Housing Element would comply with the San Bruno Mountain and Sign Hill Habitat Conservation Plans ("HCP"); however, none of the opportunity sites are located within these HCP-protected areas. Title 20 of the City's Municipal Code outlines the City's guidelines requIrIng that construction of projects is consistent with the City's habitat conservation plan. Development under the Housing Element would adhere to Title 20 of the Municipal Code. City of South San Francisco General Plan - 2007-2014 Housing Element - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft Page VI-15 May 15,2009 Finding: Compliance with the goals and policies of the City's General Plan would ensure that development under the Housing Element would not result in impacts to biological resources. Development at the opportunity sites identified in the 2007-2014 Housing Element would occur as infill, in an urbanized and built-out City. Since the opportunity sites would not be located on identified ecologically sensitive lands, the Housing Element would not have a substantial adverse effect on any species, riparian or natural habitats, federally-protected wetlands, migratory corridors, or nursery sites. In addition, the Housing Element would not conflict with local policies or provisions of an adopted RCP. As such, the proposed project would have no impact to biological resources. City of South San Francisco General Plan - 2007-2014 Housing Element - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft Page VI-16 May 15,2009 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact 5. Cultural Resources Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource D D D ~ as defined in '15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological D D D ~ resource pursuant to '15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or D ~ D D unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal D ~ D D cemeteries? Discussion: a) Historic Resources Despite its rich history, the City has relatively few designated historic resources. Local, state, and national historic resources are accorded special protection against alteration and demolition under the City's Municipal Code and State and federal law. Historic resources in the City of South San Francisco include: the potential Downtown Historical Commercial District, which is composed of late 19th and early-mid 20th century commercial buildings; the national historic landmark, Sign Hill; and many local landmarks, including several homes, commercial, and industrial buildings. General Plan. Development under the Housing Element would be subject to the following General Plan policies with regard to historic resources: · Policy 7.5-G-1: Conserve historic, cultural, and archaeological resources for the aesthetic, educational, economic, and scientific contribution they make to South San Francisco's identity and quality of life. · Policy 7.5-G-2: Encourage municipal and community awareness, apprecIatIon, and support for South San Francisco's historic, cultural, and archaeological resources. · Policy 7.5-/-1: Explore the feasibility of establishing a Downtown South San Francisco Historical Commercial District, to promote the revitalization and redevelopment of the area. City of South San Francisco General Plan - 2007-2014 Housing Element - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft Page VI-17 May 15,2009 · Policy 7.5-/-2: Institute downtown urban design guidelines, and require a design reVIew of developments in the proposed Downtown South San Francisco Historical Commercial District to ensure that the height, massing, and design of buildings furthers Downtown's character. · Policy 7.5-/-3: Explore mechanisms to incorporate South San Francisco's industrial heritage In historic and cultural preservation. 2007-2014 Housing Element. The following goal from the 2007-2014 Housing Element applies to historic resources and would be followed with implementation of the Housing Element: · Goal 4: The maintenance and improvement of the quality of life, safety and historic integrity of existing neighborhoods is a high priority for the City of South San Francisco (Formerly Goal 5). Municipal Code. Title 2 of the City's Municipal Code outlines the City's Historic Preservation Commission's guidelines to preserving neighborhood character. In addition, Title 20 of the City's Municipal Code outlines the City's guidelines to preserving for keeping with the visual character of the street or area in which a project is proposed. Development under the Housing Element would adhere to Title 2 and Title 20 of the Municipal Code. b) - d) Archaeological Resources Consistent with its history as an Ohlone settlement location, South San Francisco has Native American village sites and shell mounds scattered around the City. Known resources include: a Native American archaeological village containing household items, projectile points, dietary debris, and human burials, located within the EI Camino Corridor Redevelopment Area; and a large shell mound and two small shell middens near the south slope of San Bruno Mountain. South San Francisco's coastal location, and its rich history as a center of industry, makes the existence of additional prehistoric and historic archaeological resources likely. General Plan. In addition to policies 7.5-G-l, 7.5-G-2, and 7.5-1-3, as listed above, development under the Housing Element would be subject to the following General Plan policies with regard to archaeological resources: · Policy 7.5-/-4: Ensure the protection of known archaeological resources in the City by requiring a records review for any development proposed in areas of known resources. · Policy 7.5-/-5: In accordance with State law, require the preparation of a resource mitigation plan and monitoring program by a qualified archaeologist in the event that archaeological resources are uncovered. The standard mitigation referred to in Policy 7.5-1-5 would apply to all projects under the Housing Element that are subject to CEQA. The following Mitigation Measures would reduce the impact to cultural resources to a less-than-significant level: City of South San Francisco General Plan - 2007-2014 Housing Element - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft Page VI-18 May 15,2009 CR-1 Protect unique paleontological/geological features. Should a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature be identified at an opportunity site during any phase of construction, the project sponsor shall cease all construction activities at the site of the discovery and immediately notify the City. The project sponsor shall retain a qualified paleontologist to provide an evaluation of the find and to prescribe mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. Work may proceed on other parts of the project site while mitigation for paleontological resources or geologic features is carried out. The project sponsor shall be responsible for implementing any additional prescribed mitigation measures prescribed by the paleontologist and approved by the City. CR-2 Protect human remains. If human remains are discovered at any project construction sites during any phase of construction, all ground-disturbing activity within 100 feet of the resource shall be halted and the City and the County Coroner shall be notified immediately, according to Section 5097.98 of the State Public Resources Code and Section 7050.5 of the State Health and Safety Code. If the remains are determined by the County Coroner to be Native American, the NAHC shall be notified within 24 hours, and the guidelines of the NAHC shall be adhered to in the treatment and disposition of the remains. The project sponsor shall also retain a professional archaeologist with Native American burial experience to conduct a field investigation of the project site, and consult with the Most Likely Descendant, if any, identified by the NAHC. As necessary, the archaeologist may provide professional assistance to the Most Likely Descendant, including the excavation and removal of the human remains. The City shall be responsible for approval of recommended mitigation as it deems appropriate, taking account of the provisions of State law, as set forth in CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5(e), and Public Resources Code, Section 5097.98. The project sponsor shall implement approved mitigation, to be verified by the City, before the resumption of ground disturbing activities within 100 feet of where the remains were discovered. Finding: Compliance with the goals, policies, and programs of the City's General Plan and Municipal Code and implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-1 and CR-2 would ensure that development under the Housing Element would comply with federal and State laws protecting cultural resources. Development under the 2007-2014 Housing Element would be required to survey for cultural, pre- historic, and historic resources, and abide by any applicable federal and/or State laws. In addition, should any sensitive resources be discovered during the construction of future development under the 2007-2014 Housing Element, all building activity should cease until a resource mitigation plan and monitoring program is prepared by a qualified professional. As such, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact to cultural resources. City of South San Francisco General Plan - 2007-2014 Housing Element - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft Page VI-19 May 15,2009 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact 6. Geology and Soils Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based D D D ~ on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? D D D ~ iii) seismic-related ground failure, D D D ~ including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? D D D ~ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the D D D ~ loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and D D D ~ potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building D D D ~ Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems D D D ~ where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? City of South San Francisco General Plan - 2007-2014 Housing Element - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft Page VI-20 May 15,2009 Discussion: a) i) - iii) Surface Fault Rupture, Seismic Ground-Shaking, and Seismic-Related Ground Failure The City is subject to earthquakes from seismic activity generated both on nearby and distant fault systems. There are approximately 30 known faults in the Bay Area that are considered capable of generating earthquakes. Because of its presence within South San Francisco, the San Andreas Fault is considered a source of high earthquake hazard to the entire City. Both ground rupture, with associated displacement and ground cracking, and high levels of ground shaking that would accompany a rupture in the area, are possible hazards. The San Andreas Fault is included within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. Additionally, the San Gregorio Fault Zone is also located in the vicinity of the City. The San Gregorio Fault is a major right oblique slip fault; the closest location of the fault is approximately 7 miles west of the City. The fault has been active, although there has not been a known large magnitude surface faulting earthquake on the San Gregorio Fault. In addition to these potentially active fault traces, there are several fault traces within City limits that are considered to be potentially inactive. They are the Serra, Coyote Point/Hillside, and San Bruno Fault Zones. General Plan. Development under the Housing Element would be subject to the following General Plan policy with regard to surface fault rupture, seismic ground-shaking, and seismic-related ground failure: · Policy 8.1-G-l: Minimize the risk to life and property from seismic activity and geologic hazards in South San Francisco. Municipal Code. Title 15 of the City's Municipal Code outlines the City's Building Code, which incorporates the 2001 California Building Code ("CBC"). The regulations contained within the City's Building Code provide strict guidelines for where structures can be placed in regards to geological suitability. In addition, Title 19 of the City's Municipal Coded outlines expansive soil investigation requirements prior to the construction of a subdivision. Development under the Housing Element would adhere to Title 15 and Title 19 of the Municipal Code. a) iv) Landslides and c) Geologic Instability The parts of the San Francisco Bay region that have the greatest susceptibility to landsliding are hilly areas underlain by weak bedrock units of slope greater than 15 percent. In South San Francisco this hazard is primarily located on the southern flank of San Bruno Mountain and near Skyline Boulevard. The opportunity sites are not within landslide areas. Most of the lowland areas of South San Francisco are mapped by the County of San Mateo as potentially having liquefaction hazards, with moderate liquefaction potential in the alluvial fan of Colma Creek and in a narrow strip of land south of Sister Cities Boulevard. City of South San Francisco General Plan - 2007-2014 Housing Element - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft Page VI-21 May 15,2009 General Plan. As mentioned above, development under the Housing Element would be subject to Policy 8.1-G-l with regard to geologic hazards. Municipal Code. Title 15 of the City's Municipal Code outlines the City's Building Code, which incorporates the CBC. The regulations contained within the City's Building Code provide strict guidelines for where structures can be placed in regards to geological suitability. In addition, Title 19 of the City's Municipal Code outlines expansive soil investigation requirements prior to the construction of a subdivision. Development under the Housing Element would adhere to Title 15 and Title 19 of the Municipal Code. b) Erosion or Loss of Topsoil According to the City's General Plan, the City can be categorized by three geological zones: Lowland Zone. A large portion of the City, primarily east of U. S. 101, is underlain by deposits of Bay mud up to 80 feet deep in some places. Associated development hazards include expansive soil, settlement, and corrosivity. Seismic hazards include earthquake wave amplification and liquefaction. Development in the lowland zone often requires engineering solutions to address soil constraints and the increased risk of geologic and seismic hazard in this area. Upland Zone. Soils in this zone are mostly developed, covered by urban land and cut-and-fill. The cut-and-fill in some areas has superimposed the alluvial soils of the Colma Creek floodplain. The difficulty in this zone is the varying nature of the fill, which was laid with varying attention to engineering practices. There is a moderate potential for expansive soil and/or erosion hazard here. Hillside Zone. The Hillside Zone includes some slopes of over 30 percent. The native soils of this zone are characterized as various sandy and gravelly loams with generally high to very high erosion potential, low strength and stability, and shallow depth. These areas are susceptible to soil creep and small landslides . General Plan. Development under the Housing Element would be subject to the following General Plan policies with regard to erosion or loss of top soil: . Policy 8.1-/-2: Steep hillside areas in excess of 30 percent grade should be retained in their natural state. Development of hillside sites should follow existing contours to the greatest extent possible. Grading should be kept to a minimum. Standard Conditions and Limitations. The following Standard Conditions and Limitations IS applicable to the Housing Element: . Item 6: Prior to construction, all required building permits shall be obtained from the City's Building Division. City of South San Francisco General Plan - 2007-2014 Housing Element - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft Page VI-22 May 15,2009 Municipal Code. Title 13 of the Municipal Code outlines the City's Tree Preservation. The regulations contained within the Title 13 provide strict guidelines for the protection and preservation of City street trees and protected trees that help prevent erosion and loss of top soil. Title 14 outlines watercourse protection from erosion. Title 15 of the City's Municipal Code outlines the City's Building Code, which incorporates the CBC. The regulations contained within the City's Building Code provide strict guidelines for where structures can be placed in regards to geological suitability. In addition, Title 19 outlines erosion control for subdivisions and Title 20 outlines the general erosion control requirements. Development under the Housing Element would adhere to Titles 13, 14, 15, 19, and 20 of the Municipal Code regarding erosion control. d) Expansive Soils Refer to the above discussion under Item b, Erosion or Loss of Topsoil, for a brief description of the soil types found in the City. General Plan. In addition to the aforementioned Policy 8 .1-G-l, development under the Housing Element would be subject to the following General Plan policies with regard to expansive soils: . Policy 8.1-/-1: Do not permit special occupancy buildings, such as hospitals, schools, and other structures that are important to protecting health and safety in the community, in areas identified in Figure 8-2. . Policy 8.1-/-3: Explore programs that would build incentives to retrofit unreinforced masonry buildings. 2007-2014 Housing Element. The following goal, polices, and program from the 2007-2014 Housing Element apply to expansive soils and would be followed with the implementation of the Housing Element: . Goal 4: The maintenance and improvement of the quality of life, safety and historic integrity of existing neighborhoods is a high priority for the City of South San Francisco. . Policy 4-1: The City shall prohibit new residential development in areas contaInIng major environmental hazards (such as floods, and seismic and safety problems) unless adequate mitigation measures are taken. . Policy 4-3: As appropriate and required by law, the City shall continue the abatement of unsafe structures. . Program 4-3A: Review Projects for Major Environmental Hazards during the Environmental Review Process. City of South San Francisco General Plan - 2007-2014 Housing Element - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft Page VI-23 May 15,2009 Standard Conditions and Limitations. Item 6 of the Standard Conditions and Limitations, as described above, is applicable to the Housing Element in regard to expansive soils. Municipal Code. Title 15 of the City's Municipal Code outlines the City's Building Code, which incorporates the CBC. The regulations contained within the City's Building Code provide strict guidelines for where structures can be placed in regards to geological suitability. In addition, Title 19 of the Municipal Code outlines expansive soil investigation requirements prior to the construction of a subdivision. Development under the Housing Element would adhere to Titles 15 and 19 of the Municipal Code regarding expansive soils. e) Capability of Soils to Support Septic Tanks 2007-2014 Housing Element. Development under the Housing Element would be subject to Policies 4-1 and 4-3, along with Program 4-3A, as listed above, with regard to expansive soils. Implementation of the programs associated with these goals of the proposed project will serve as a beneficial impact to the Planning Area through the use of systematic code enforcement, regulatory measures, and cooperative neighborhood improvement programs. and the maintenance and improvement of the quality of life and safety of the structures within the City. Standard Conditions and Limitations. The following Standard Conditions and Limitations IS applicable to the Housing Element: . Item 16: Prior to anyon-site grading, a grading permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer. Municipal Code. Title 15 of the City's Municipal Code outlines the City's Building Code, which incorporates the CBC. The regulations contained within the City's Building Code provide strict guidelines for where structures can be placed in regards to geological suitability. Development under the Housing Element would adhere to Titles 15 of the Municipal Code regarding septic tanks. Finding: Compliance with the goals and policies of the General Plan, Title 15 of the Municipal Code, and Standard Conditions and Limitations Item 16 would ensure that development under the Housing Element would comply with federal and State laws protecting geologic resources. The General Plan policies listed above have been crafted to ensure that future development would comply with federal and State laws in regards to geology and soils, and the City's Municipal Code would ensure that future development is in compliance with the standards established by the State. In addition, future development under the 2007-2014 Housing Element would be required to prove site suitability, in regards to geologic hazards, through a geological investigation. As such, the proposed project would have no impact to seismic-related failures, geologic instability, erosion, expansive soils, and the support of septic tanks. City of South San Francisco General Plan - 2007-2014 Housing Element - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft Page VI-24 May 15,2009 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact 7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine D D D ~ transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident D D D ~ conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within D D D ~ one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code D D D ~ Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, D D D ~ would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? t) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result D D D ~ in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency D D D ~ response plan or emergency evacuation plan? City of South San Francisco General Plan - 2007-2014 Housing Element - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft Page VI-25 May 15,2009 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? D D D ~ Discussion: a) - d) Hazardous Materials Numerous industrial and commercial operations, both past and present, have manufactured, handled, stored, and disposed of hazardous materials in South San Francisco. Hazardous material sites include manufacturing operations, active and abandoned landfills, facilities with leaking underground storage tanks (USTs), permitted dischargers, and generators of hazardous wastes. Most hazardous materials concentrations are located in the East of 101 area; however there are 114 know sites with leaking USTs within the City as identified by the Cortese List, published in December 1994. No sites in the Transit Village or South EI Camino Real areas are listed with the State as having known or potential contamination. 8 However, certain sites within the Downtown area have been suspected of environmental contamination, which may require clean up, in order to facilitate housing development. These include Site 10, 11, 12, and 17. As of March 2009, Phase II Investigations were not available for any of these sites. Prior to development at these sites, a Phase II Investigation and, if required, remediation shall be completed in accordance with the City's Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) and Policies 8.3-G-2 and 8.3-1-2, described below. General Plan. Development under the Housing Element would be subject to the following General Plan policies with regard to hazardous materials: . Policy 8. 3-G-l: Reduce the generation of solid waste, including hazardous waste, and recycle those materials that are used, to slow the filling of local and regional landfills, in accord with the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989. . Policy 8.3-G-2: Minimize the risk to life and property from the generation, storage, and transportation of hazardous materials and waste in South San Francisco. Comply with all applicable regulations and provisions for the storage, use and handling of hazardous substances as established by federal (Environmental Protection Agency ["EPA"]), State (Department of Toxic substances Control ["DTSC"], Regional Water Quality Control Board ["RWQCB"], California Occupational Safety and Health Administration ["Cal OSHA"], California Environmental Protection Agency ["Cal EPA"]), and local (County and City) regulations. Department of Toxic Control Substances, March 2009. City of South San Francisco General Plan - 2007-2014 Housing Element - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft Page VI-26 May 15,2009 . Policy 8.3-/-2: Continue to maintain hazardous waste regulations in the City's Zoning Ordinance. . Policy 8.3-/-3: Prepare a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) coverage for the sites included in the Cortese List of Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites. . Policy 8.3-/-4: Establish an ordinance specifying routes for transporting hazardous materials. 2007-2014 Housing Element. The following policy from the 2007-2014 Housing Element applies to hazardous materials and would be followed with the implementation of the Housing Element: . Policy 4-1: The City shall prohibit new residential development in areas containing major environmental hazards (such as floods, and seismic and safety problems) unless adequate mitigation measures are taken. (Existing Policy 5-1) Municipal Code. Title 8 of the Municipal Code outlines health and welfare regulations and Chapter 8.16 discusses disposal of hazardous materials. Title 14 of the Municipal Code outlines coordination with hazardous materials inventory and response program. In addition, Title 15 of the Municipal Code outlines the City's Fire Code with respect to hazardous materials. Also, Title 20 of the Municipal Code outlines regulations on the storage of hazardous materials. Development under the Housing Element would adhere to Titles 8, 14, 15, and 20 of the Municipal Code. e) and f) Safety Hazards Due to Nearby Airport or Airstrip The City is located just north of the San Francisco International Airport, and within the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission's (ALUC) jurisdiction. The ALUC allows development within ALUC boundaries, provided that development is below a prescribed height limit. In 1981, the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Plan, in coordination with Federal Aviation Regulation Part 77, established a 211-foot height limit for some buildings within ALUC jurisdiction. The South EI Camino Real area is located approximately two miles from SFO, and is situated directly below one of the principal flight paths. Consequently, the area is subject to airport-related height limitations. In addition, new construction of residential development in the area must be insulated such that normal aircraft operations will not result in indoor noise levels greater than 65 dB CNEL. Whereas current height limits, as set by the City's General Plan, are substantially less than would be permissible under the airport-related height restrictions (ranging from 161 to 361 feet), and whereas substantial residential development exists in the vicinity of the South EI Camino Real area that has been sufficiently insulated to meet noise standards, proximity to the airport is not expected to be a binding constraint that would prevent medium to high density residential development in the South EI Camino Real area. City of South San Francisco General Plan - 2007-2014 Housing Element - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft Page VI-27 May 15,2009 2007-2014 Housing Element. The following policy from the 2007-2014 Housing Element applies to airport-related hazards and would be followed with the implementation of the Housing Element: . Policy 4-4: The City shall require new residential developments to comply with the Aircraft Noise/Land Use Compatibility Standards for the San Francisco International Airport Plan Area, as contained in the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Plan. (Existing Policy 5-4) Municipal Code. Title 20 of the Municipal Code outlines the Airport Related District Use regulations and the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Plan. Development under the Housing Element would adhere to Title 20 of the Municipal Code. g) Conflict with Emergency Response Plan or Emergency Evacuation Plan In 1995, the City prepared an Emergency Response Plan, integrated with the San Mateo Area/ County Multi-Hazard Functional Plan. The City's plan is in compliance with existing law. The objectives of the plan are to reduce life, injury, and property losses through effective management of emergency forces. The City's plan also defines the duties of the Operations, Planning, Logistics and Finance Units, and defines the roles of the South San Francisco Emergency Operations Center and other emergency services organizations. In addition, it describes the operations and procedures that should occur during the pre-emergency, emergency, and recovery periods; and establishes rules affecting registration and use of volunteer disaster service workers. General Plan. Development under the Housing Element would be subject to the following General Plan policies with regard to the Emergency Response Plan: . Policy 8.6-G-1: Use the City's Emergency Response Plan as the guide for emergency management in South San Francisco. . Policy 8.6-/-1: Maintain and update the City's Emergency Response Plan, as required by State law, to minimize the risk to life and property of seismic and geologic hazards, flooding, hazardous materials and waste, and fire. . Policy 8.6-/-3: Coordinate regular emergency drills with emergency organizations, including City and County Fire, Police, Emergency Medical Services, and Public Works; San Francisco International Airport; and California Environmental Protection Agency. h) Exposure of People or Structures to Wildland Fires Many areas of open space within the City pose a substantial risk of fire hazard to surrounding resources. Topographic, climatic, and land use conditions create fire hazards, along with accumulations of unmaintained vegetation and poor access to public infrastructure. Sign Hill, the Hillside School area, and the area along Dundee Drive have the highest fire risk due to a combination of fuel characteristics, infrastructure, and adjacent uses. City of South San Francisco General Plan - 2007-2014 Housing Element - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft Page VI-28 May 15,2009 General Plan. Development under the Housing Element would be subject to the following General Plan policies with regard to wildland fires: . Policy 8.4-G-1: Minimize the risk to life and property from fire hazards in South San Francisco. . Policy 8.4-1-2: Explore incentives or programs as part of the comprehensive fire hazard management program to encourage private landowners to reduce fire hazards on their property. . Policy 8.4-/-3: Require site design features, fire retardant building materials, and adequate access as conditions for approval of development or improvements to reduce the risk of fire within the Ci ty . 2007-2014 Housing Element. Policy 4-1 from the 2007-2014 Housing Element, as aforementioned, applies to wildland fires and would be followed with the implementation of the Housing Element. Municipal Code. Title 15 of the Municipal Code outlines building and construction requirements and Chapter 15.24 provides the fire code that new buildings must adhere to. The development under Housing Element would adhere to Title 15 of the Municipal Code. Finding: Compliance with the goals, policies, and programs of the City's General Plan and Municipal Code Titles 8 and 15 would ensure that future development under the Housing Element would comply with federal and State laws in regard to hazards and hazardous materials. As such, the proposed project would not be impacted by hazards and hazardous materials. City of South San Francisco General Plan - 2007-2014 Housing Element - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft Page VI-29 May 15,2009 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact 8. Hydrology and Water Quality Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or D D D ~ waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater D D D ~ table level (e. g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a D D D ~ stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase D D D ~ the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or D D D ~ provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? t) Otherwise substantially degrade water D D D ~ quality? g) Place housing within a IOO-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood D D D ~ Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a IOO-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or D D D ~ redirect flood flows? City of South San Francisco General Plan - 2007-2014 Housing Element - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page VI-3D Draft May 15,2009 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? D D D ~ D D D ~ Discussion: a) Violation of Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements The City is a member of the San Mateo Countywide Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (STOPPP), an organization of the City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) of San Mateo County holding a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Storm Water Discharge permit. STOPPP's goal is to prevent polluted storm water from entering creeks, wetlands, and the San Francisco Bay. The City requires the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for new development and construction as part of its storm water management program, as levied through standard City conditions of project approval. General Plan. Development under the Housing Element would be subject to the following General Plan policies with regard to the violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements: . Policy 7.2-G-1: Comply with the San Francisco Bay RWQCB regulations and standards to maintain and improve the quality of both surface water and groundwater resources. . Policy 7.2-/-1: Continue working with the San Francisco Bay RWQCB in the implementation of the NPDES, and continue participation in STOPPP for the protection of surface water and groundwater quality. . Policy 7.2-/-2: Review and update the Best Management Practices adopted by the City and in STOPPP as needed. . Policy 8.2-/-1: Continue working with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) in the implementation of the San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (STOPPP). Municipal Code. In addition, Title 14 of the Municipal Code outlines water and sewage regulations; Chapter 14.04 discusses stormwater management and discharge control and Chapter 14.08 discusses water quality control. The development under Housing Element would adhere to Title 14 of the Municipal Code. In addition, Title 19 of the Municipal Code outlines the process for the City Council City of South San Francisco General Plan - 2007-2014 Housing Element - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft Page VI-31 May 15,2009 to determine if a subdivision has violated water quality standards through disposal of its wastewater. Development under the Housing Element would adhere to Title 14 and 19 of the Municipal Code. b) Deplete or Interfere Substantially with Groundwater The area southwest of Colma Creek is underlain by a portion of the San Mateo Groundwater Basin, which stretches from Daly City to Menlo Park. Groundwater flows from Lake Merced easterly toward the San Francisco Bay. Much of the alluvium that underlies the lowland areas of the City is capable of transmitting groundwater, especially in the southwestern portion of the City. Low elevation and the Colma Creek flood plain in the eastern part of the City provide conditions conducive to relatively high groundwater, especially in areas near the creek. In the southern part of the City, groundwater is found throughout the year just a few feet below ground surface. A small portion of the City's potable water supply is derived from eight groundwater wells in the vicinity of Chestnut and Mission Streets. The Colma/Merced aquifers lie at a depth of 200 to 300 feet and are capable of providing about 1,530 acre-feet per year of water. The Colma/Merced aquifers have some high levels of nitrate and manganese, but otherwise have good water quality. General Plan. Development under the Housing Element would be subject Policies 7.2-G-1 and 7.2-1- 1, above, with regard to groundwater. Municipal Code. In addition, Title 14 of the Municipal Code outlines water and sewage regulations; Chapter 14.04 discusses stormwater management and discharge control and Chapter 14.08 discusses water quality control. The development under Housing Element would adhere to Title 14 of the Municipal Code. In addition, Title 19 of the Municipal Code outlines the process for the city council to determine if a subdivision has violated water quality standards through disposal of its wastewater. Development under the Housing Element would adhere to Title 14 and 19 of the Municipal Code. c) and d) Alter Existing Drainage Patterns: Erosion and Siltation Effects and Flooding Effects Colma Creek, the City's main natural drainage system, is a perennial stream with a watershed of about 16.3 square miles that trends in a roughly southeasterly direction through the center of the City. The basin is bounded on the northwest by San Bruno Mountain and on the west by the ridge traced by Skyline Boulevard. Colma Creek is almost entirely channelized west of the Bayshore Freeway. There are some sedimentation basins, but no other impoundments on Colma Creek. Drainage is controlled by a series of lined creek beds and storm drains. Runoff in the hills is relatively rapid because of steep slopes and clay soils, and is slower in the flat lowland areas. Runoff is collected in storm drains and is discharged to Colma Creek or the San Francisco Bay. Some infiltration into the ground occurs, but because the City is largely developed with high proportions of impermeable surface, runoff is relatively high. General Plan. Development under the Housing Element would generally be in the flatland areas and would not significantly alter existing drainage patterns. City of South San Francisco General Plan - 2007-2014 Housing Element - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft Page VI-32 May 15,2009 Municipal Code. Title 14 of the Municipal Code outlines water and sewage regulations; Chapter 14.04 discusses stormwater management and discharge control and Chapter 14.08 discusses water quality control. Title 15 outlines building and construction requirements and Chapter 15.54 provides flood damage protection regulations. In addition, Title 19 of the Municipal Code outlines the process for the city council to determine if a subdivision has violated water quality standards through disposal of its wastewater. The development under Housing Element would adhere to Title 14, 15, and 19 of the Municipal Code, regarding drainage patterns. e) and f) Runoff Exceeding Drainage Capacity/Increased Polluted Runoff and Otherwise Degrade Water Quality Discharges into the water from fixed points, known as point sources, consist mostly of effluent discharges from industrial facilities and municipal wastewater systems. Waste discharges are regulated through NPDES permits, with specific requirements established in each NPDES permit. Requirements are mandated by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), and in South San Francisco specifically by the San Francisco Bay RWQCB. Nonpoint sources of pollution include general pollutants entrained in runoff from streets, open areas, and urban lands in which runoff is not collected and directed into a wastewater treatment plant. In general, nonpoint source pollution has been difficult to manage. General Plan. In addition to the aforementioned Policies 7.2-G-l, 7.2-1-1, 7.2-1-2, and 8.2-1-1, development under the Housing Element would be subject to the following General Plan policies with regard to increased polluted runoff and overall water quality: . Policy 7.2-G-2: Enhance the quality of surface water resources and prevent their contamination. . Policy 7.2-G-3: Discourage use of insecticides, herbicides, or toxic chemical substances within the city. Municipal Code. Title 14 of the Municipal Code outlines water and sewage regulations; Chapter 14.04 discusses stormwater management and discharge control and Chapter 14.08 discusses water quality control. Title 15 outlines building and construction requirements and Chapter 15.54 provides flood damage protection regulations. In addition, Title 19 of the Municipal Code outlines the process for the city council to determine if a subdivision has violated water quality standards through disposal of its wastewater. The development under Housing Element would adhere to Title 14, 15, and 19 of the Municipal Code, regarding drainage patterns. g) - i) Flood Hazards Periodic flooding occurs in South San Francisco, but is confined to certain areas along Colma Creek. Colma Creek handles much of the urban runoff generated in the City; since South San Francisco is highly urbanized, runoff levels are high and there is increased potential for flood conditions during periods of heavy rainfall. The principal flooding problem in the city is an inadequate culvert and City of South San Francisco General Plan - 2007-2014 Housing Element - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft Page VI-33 May 15,2009 channel system where Colma Creek runs under the Southern Pacific Railroad (SPRR) line. Peak flood flows in Colma Creek back up and pond east of the tracks, and water moves away from the creek along city streets. Flood depth during a 100-year storm is two to three feet in the ponding area at the tracks. Many homes in South San Francisco may be exposed to this hazard as they were constructed with insufficient elevation to remain above even shallow floodwaters. New development west of the SPRR right-of-way may be constrained by potential flooding, but careful design could minimize flooding hazards and damage. . Policy 8.2-G-1: Minimize the risk to life and property from flooding in South San Francisco. . Policy 8.2-/-2: Use the City's development review process to ensure that proposed development subject to the 100-year flood provides adequate protection from flood hazards, in areas identified in Figure 8-3 of the General Plan. 2007-2014 Housing Element. The following policy from the 2007-2014 Housing Element applies to hydrology and water quality and would be followed with the implementation of the Housing Element: . Policy 4-1: The City shall prohibit new residential development in areas containing major environmental hazards (such as floods, and seismic and safety problems) unless adequate mitigation measures are taken. (Existing Policy 5-1) Municipal Code. Title 15 outlines building and construction requirements and Chapter 15.54 provides flood damage protection regulations. In addition, Title 19 of the Municipal Code outlines the process for the city council to determine if a subdivision has violated water quality standards through disposal of its wastewater. The development under Housing Element would adhere to Title 15 and 19 of the Municipal Code, regarding drainage patterns. j) Tsunami Hazards Earthquakes can cause tsunami (tidal waves) and seiches (oscillating waves in enclosed water bodies) in the Bay. As portions of the City are located adjacent San Francisco Bay, and are low-lying, tsunami or seiche inundation is a possibility. Wave run-up is estimated at approximately 4.3 feet (mean sea level ["msl"]) for tsunami with a 100- year recurrence and 6.0 feet (msl) for a 500-year tsunami. Earthquake damage inflicted on structures and infrastructure within the city is not only a function of the seismic risks outlined above, but also of the form, structural design, materials, construction quality, and location of the structure. Since the 1970s, the Uniform Building Code ("UBC") in California has incorporated minimum strength standards to which a building must be designed. New construction in South San Francisco is required to meet the requirements of the 1994 UBC, and buildings of special occupancy are required by the State to meet more stringent design requirements. City of South San Francisco General Plan - 2007-2014 Housing Element - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft Page VI-34 May 15,2009 Finding: Compliance with the goals and policies of the City's General Plan and Municipal Code Titles 14 and 15 would ensure that future development would comply with federal and State laws with regard to hydrology and water quality. Future development under the 2007-2014 Housing Element would be required to adhere to regulations pertaining to hydrology and water quality. As such, the proposed project would result in no impact to hydrology and water quality. City of South San Francisco General Plan - 2007-2014 Housing Element - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft Page VI-35 May 15,2009 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact 9. Land Use and Planning Would the project: a) Physically divide an established D D D ~ community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general D D D ~ plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community D D D ~ conservation plan? Discussion: a) Division of an Established Community Development under the Housing Element would not divide established communities and would adhere to all applicable goals, policies, and programs. b) Conflicts with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect As indicated in the 2007-2014 Housing Element, among the government constraints to development of adequate housing are the General Plan's existing land use designations. Future development under the 2007-2014 Housing Element would be required to be consistent with the City's General Plan. Concurrent with the adoption of the 2007-2014 Housing Element, the City is exploring GPAs/Zoning Ordinance changes, which would alter portions of the City's land use designations and zoning within the South El Camino Real and Downtown areas and facilitate fulfillment of the Housing Element's goals. At the South El Camino Real area, this would include a change in the land use designation to a mix of uses ("mixed-use"), which could include residential development of up to 60 du/ac. At the Downtown area, this would also include a change in the land use designation to mixed use, while exploring the possibility of increased density. Both areas currently allow for up to 30 dulac, with one opportunity site within the Downtown area allowing density of up to 40 du/ac. Though not proposed as part of the Housing Element, the Housing Element acknowledges that achievement of such densities could require the raising of the height limitations in the zoning of the opportunity sites. To the extent required, future planning and development proposals, including pending General Plan Amendments, will be required to evaluate the impacts of such increases in height restrictions. Discrepancies between City of South San Francisco General Plan - 2007-2014 Housing Element - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft Page VI-36 May 15,2009 the existing and proposed land use designations and zoning can be found in Tables 2 and 3 of this document. For example, Site 10 (within Table 2) is currently designated for retail/commercial uses, with a maximum density of up to 30 du/ac. Upon adoption and implementation of the South El Camino Real General Plan Update (described in Section V of this document), the land use designation will change to mixed-use, with a maximum density of up to 60 du/ac. Under a separate action from its 2007-2014 Housing Element, the City is currently evaluating the environmental effects (CEQA compliance) of the GPA/Zoning Ordinance changes to the South El Camino Real and Downtown areas. This process is expected to be completed in approximately three to six months, and the aforementioned GPAs/Zoning Ordinance changes will not occur until this process is complete. Hence, the existing land use designations constitute a government constraint to achievement of the allotted housing needs articulated in the 2007-2014 Housing Element. However, the 2007-2014 Housing Element would be consistent with and subject to several existing General Plan policies (including the following), and would not obstruct achievement of remaining General Plan policies. General Plan. Development under the Housing Element would be subject to the following General Plan policies with regard to applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation: · Policy 2-G-1: Preserve the scale and character of established neighborhoods, and protect residents from changes in non-residential areas. · Policy 2-G-2: Maintain a balanced land use program that provides opportunItIes for continued economic growth, and building intensities that reflect South San Francisco's prominent inner bay location and excellent regional access. · Policy 2-G-3: Provide land use designations that maximize benefits of increased accessibility that will result from BART extension to the city and adjacent locations. · Policy 2-G-4: Provide for continued operation of older industrial and serVIce commercial businesses at specific locations. · Policy 2-G-5: Maintain Downtown as the City's physical and symbolic center, and a focus of residential, commercial, and entertainment activities. · Policy 2-G-6: Maximize opportunities for residential development, including through infill and redevelopment, without impacting existing neighborhoods or creating conflicts with industrial operations. · Policy 2-G-7: Encourage mixed-use residential, retail, and office development in centers where they would support transit, in locations where they would provide increased access to neighborhoods that currently lack such facilities, and in corridors where such developments can help to foster identity and vitality. City of South San Francisco General Plan - 2007-2014 Housing Element - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft Page VI-37 May 15,2009 · Policy 2-G-8: Provide incentives to maximize community orientation of new development, and to promote alternative transportation modes. · Policy 2-/-1: Update the City's Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations contained in the Municipal Code for consistency with the General Plan. · Policy 2-/-2: Establish height limitations for specific areas as delineated on Figure 2-3 (of the City's General Plan). For these specific areas, do not regulate heights separately by underlying base district uses. · Policy 2-/-3: Undertake planned development for unique projects or as a means to achieve high community design standards, not to circumvent development intensity standards. · Policy 2-/-8: As part of establishment of design guidelines and standards, and design reVIew, improve the community orientation of new development. · Policy 2-/-9: Ensure that any design and development standards and guidelines that are adopted reflect the unique patterns and characteristics of individual neighborhoods. 2007-2014 Housing Element. The following goal, policies, and programs from the 2007-2014 Housing Element would lead to enforcement of existing codes, revitalization, rehabilitation, and redevelopment of blighted properties, furthering preservation of existing communities. . Goal 1: Promote the provision of housing by both the private and public sectors for all income groups in the community. (Existing Goal 1) . Policy 1-7: The City shall encourage a mix of residential, commercial and office uses in the areas designated as Downtown Commercial, mixed Community Commercial and High Density Residential, mixed Business Commercial and High Density Residential, mixed Business Commercial and Medium Density Residential in the General Plan and in the South San Francisco BART Transit Village Zoning District. (Existing Policy 1-7) . Program 1-7A: Increased Residential Densities in the Downtown Area. . Policy 1-9: The City shall maximize opportunities for residential development, through infill and redevelopment of underutilized sites, without impacting existing neighborhoods or creating conflicts with industrial operations. . Program 1-9A: Through the Zoning Ordinance update, South El Camino Real General Plan update, the El Camino Real/Chestnut Specific Plan, the City will identify opportunities for residential development through infill and redevelopment of underutilized sites. . Policy 3-6: The City shall ensure that rehabilitation efforts promote quality design and harmonize with existing neighborhood surroundings. (Existing Policy 2-7) City of South San Francisco General Plan - 2007-2014 Housing Element - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft Page VI-38 May 15,2009 Municipal Code. Title 20 of the City's Municipal Code outlines the City's zoning regulations. Development under the Housing Element would adhere to Title 20 of the Municipal Code. c) Conflict with Conservation Plans Any development under the Housing Element would comply with the San Bruno Mountain and Sign Hill HCPs; however, none of the opportunity sites are located within these HCP-protected areas. General Plan. Development under the Housing Element would be subject to the following General Plan policies with regard to conservation plans: . Policy 2-/-13: As part of development reVIew In environmentally sensitive areas specific environmental studies and/or review as stipulated in Section 7.1: Habitat and Biological Resources Conservation. Municipal Code. Title 20 of the City's Municipal Code outlines the City's guidelines requiring that construction of projects is consistent with the City's habitat conservation plan. Development under the Housing Element would adhere to Title 20 of the Municipal Code. Finding: Compliance with the goals and policies of the City's General Plan and the Municipal Code would ensure that development under the Housing Element would not divide an established community or conflict with conservation plans. While the Housing Element identifies opportunity sites that are not currently designated and/or zoned for residential use, or not currently zoned at the densities proposed in the Housing Element, in accordance with state law, the Housing Element has identified local efforts (most of which are already underway) to remove these government constraints on meeting the regional housing need. Further, because the Housing Element will advance (and be subject to) several existing General Plan policies, without hindering achievement of the remaining policies, the Housing Element does not conflict with the General Plan. Nor does the Housing Element conflict with other applicable plans. As such, the Housing Element would have no impact to land use and planning. City of South San Francisco General Plan - 2007-2014 Housing Element - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft Page VI-39 May 15,2009 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 10. Mineral Resources Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? D D D ~ D D D ~ Discussion: a) and b) Loss of Mineral Resources There are no known mineral resources at the opportunity sites. The CGS Mineral Resource Zones and Resource Sectors San Francisco and San Mateo Counties map classifies the opportunity sites as MRZ- 1, which constitutes an area "where adequate information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that little likelihood exists for their presence." According to the CGS maps, the nearest mineral deposit classified areas are Sector NN, which is less than 1 mile north of Downtown South San Francisco, and Sector X, which is approximately 1 mile north of Downtown South San Francisco. 9 Finding: The opportunity sites do not contain any locally or regionally-significant mineral resources. As such, the Housing Element would have no impact on the loss of mineral resources. California Geological Survey, Special Report 146 - Mineral Land Classification: Aggregate Materials in the San Francisco-Monterey Bay Area, Part II: Classification of Aggregate Resource Areas South San Francisco Bay Production-Consumption Region, Plates 2.42, and 2.3. 1983. City of South San Francisco General Plan - 2007-2014 Housing Element - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft Page VI-40 May 15,2009 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact 11. Noise Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or D D D ~ noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or D D D ~ groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project D D D ~ vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the D ~ D D project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, D D D ~ would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? t) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in D D D ~ the project area to excessive noise levels? Discussion: a) - c) Exposure of Persons to or Generation of Noise Levels in Excess of Standards, Exposure of Persons to or Generation of Excessive Groundborne Noise Levels, a Substantial Temporary or Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels in the Project Vicinity above Levels Existing Without the Project. Noise is an important and complex issue in South San Francisco. The City has a comparatively high level of noise exposure, stemming from aircraft flyovers and proximity to major roadways, including U.S. 101, 1-280, Skyline Boulevard, Junipero Serra Boulevard, Westborough Boulevard, El Camino Real, and Hickey Boulevard. In addition, BART, Caltrain, and Southern Pacific freight trains create City of South San Francisco General Plan - 2007-2014 Housing Element - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft Page VI-41 May 15,2009 noise and vibration impacts within the community. Noise is primarily a concern with regard to noise- sensitive uses such as residences, schools, churches, and hospitals. Although noise is also controlled around commercial, industrial, and recreational uses, community noise levels rarely exceed maximum recommended levels for these uses. According to the Noise Element of the General Plan, residential areas should have a range of less than 65 dBA. If the noise level is between 65 to 70 dBA, development would require analysis of noise reduction requirements and noise insulation as needed. General Plan. Development under the Housing Element would be subject to the following General Plan policies with regard to an increase in noise levels: . Policy 9-G-1: Protect public health and welfare by eliminating or minimizing the effects of existing noise problems, and by preventing increased noise levels in the future. . Policy 9-G-2: Continue efforts to incorporate noise considerations into land use planning decisions, and guide the location and design of transportation facilities to minimize the effects of noise on adjacent land uses. . Policy 9-/-4: Ensure that new noise-sensItIve uses, including schools, hospitals, churches, and homes, in areas near roadways identified as impacting sensitive receptors by producing noise levels greater than 65 dB CNEL (Figure 9-3 of the City's General Plan), incorporate mitigation measures to ensure that interior noise levels do not exceed 45 dB CNEL. . Policy 9-/-5: Require that applicants for new noise-sensitive development in areas subject to noise generators producing noise levels greater than 65 dB CNEL, obtain the services of a professional acoustical engineer to provide a technical analysis and design of mitigation measures. . Policy 9-/-6: Where site conditions permit, require noise buffering for all noise-sensitive development subject to noise generators producing noise levels greater than 65 dB CNEL. This noise attenuation method should avoid the use of visible sound walls, where practical. . Policy 9-/-7: Require the control of noise at source through site design, building design, landscaping, hours of operation, and other techniques, for new developments deemed to be noise generators. Standard Conditions and Limitations. The following Standard Conditions and Limitations IS applicable to the Housing Element: . Item 14: The construction and permitted use on the property shall be so conducted as to reduce to a minimum any noise vibration or dust resulting from the operation. Municipal Code. In addition, Title 8 of the Municipal Code, Health and Welfare, provides a chapter on noise regulations (Chapter 8.34). This chapter outlines the regulations pertaining to noise levels and compliance. Development under the Housing Element would adhere to Title 8 of the Municipal Code. City of South San Francisco General Plan - 2007-2014 Housing Element - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft Page VI-42 May 15,2009 d) Substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project. Project construction at the opportunity sites would most likely result in temporary short-term noise increases due to the operation of heaving grading and demolition equipment. Noise levels from grading operations typically range from about 94 to 97 dBA at 25 feet for certain types of earthmoving and impact equipment. Construction noise would be lower ranging, from 75 to 85 dBA at 25 feet for most types of construction equipment. The following mitigation measure would reduce the temporary increase in ambient noise levels due to construction to a less-than-significant level: NO-1 Implement best management practices to reduce construction noise. The project sponsor shall incorporate the following practices into the construction documents to be implemented by the project construction contractor. These control measures, such as installation of noise control devices (e. g. , mufflers), selection of quieter machinery, and other noise control measures (e.g., surrounding stationary equipment with noise barriers), would not require major equipment redesign: a. Maximize the physical separation between nOIse generators and nOIse receptors. Such separation includes, but is not limited to, the following measures: . Use heavy-duty mufflers for stationary equipment and barriers around particularly noisy areas of the site or around the entire site; . Use shields, impervious fences, or other physical sound barriers to inhibit transmission of noise to sensitive receptors; . Locate stationary equipment to minimize noise impacts on the community; and . Minimize backing movements of equipment. b. Use quiet construction equipment whenever possible. c. Impact equipment (e.g., jack hammers and pavement breakers) shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically-powered tools. Compressed air exhaust silencers shall be used on other equipment. Other quieter procedures, such as drilling rather than using impact equipment, shall be used whenever feasible. d. Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines. e. Select routes for movement of construction-related vehicles and equipment in conjunction with the City's Planning Department so that noise-sensitive areas, including residences and schools, are avoided as much as possible. City of South San Francisco General Plan - 2007-2014 Housing Element - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft Page VI-43 May 15,2009 f. The construction contractor shall send advance notice to neighborhood residents within 50 feet of the project site regarding the construction schedule and including the telephone number for the disturbance coordinator at the construction site. Municipal Code. In addition, Title 8 of the Municipal Code, Health and Welfare, provides a chapter on noise regulations (Chapter 8.34). This chapter outlines the regulations pertaining to noise levels and compliance. In addition, Title 20 of the City's Municipal Code outlines the City's standards and regulations for construction noise. Development under the Housing Element would adhere to Titles 8 and 20 of the Municipal Code. e) andf) Aircraft Noise South San Francisco lies in the flight path of a large portion of departures from the San Francisco International Airport (SFIA), particularly large, heavy aircraft climbing slowly over the coast range for Pacific Rim destinations. Aircraft flyovers comprise the City's major noise source. The SF/A Airport Land Use Plan, prepared by the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission, identifies standards for different types of development in areas impacted by aircraft noise. These standards have been adopted by the City. In addition, the City has joined other San Mateo County jurisdictions in a Memorandum of Understanding with SFIA for aircraft noise mitigation efforts, to be funded by SFIA and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Average aircraft noise levels measured in 1997 indicates that areas in the southwestern part of the City experience noise levels in excess of 65 dB CNEL. A smaller area in the vicinity of El Camino Real near the San Bruno border has noise levels in excess of 70 dB CNEL. General Plan. Development under the Housing Element would be subject to the following General Plan policies with regard to aircraft noise: . Policy 9-/-1: Work to adopt a pass-by (single event) noise standard to supplement the current 65 dB CNEL average noise level standard as the basis for aircraft noise abatement programs. . Policy 9-/-2: Work to adopt a lower average noise standard for aircraft-based mitigation and land use controls. 2007-2014 Housing Element. Implementation of the following policy and programs from the 2007- 2014 Housing Element will further implement the City's continued efforts of abating noise associated with it close proximity to SFIA: . Policy 4-4: The City shall require new residential developments to comply with the Aircraft Noise/Land Use Compatibility Standards for the San Francisco International Airport Plan Area, as contained in the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Plan. (Existing Policy 5-4) . Program 4-4A: Review all new residential development for compliance with the County Airport Land Use Plan. City of South San Francisco General Plan - 2007-2014 Housing Element - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft Page VI-44 May 15,2009 . Program 4-4B: Support the Airport Noise Insulation Program. Municipal Code. Title 15 of the City's Municipal Code outlines real estate transfer disclose regarding airport noise. Development under the Housing Element would adhere to Title 15 of the Municipal Code. Finding: Compliance with the goals and policies of the General Plan and Title 8 of the Municipal Code and the implementation of Mitigation Measure NO-l would ensure that future development would comply with federal, State, and local noise standards. As such, the Housing Element would have a less-than- significant impact regarding noise generation. City of South San Francisco General Plan - 2007-2014 Housing Element - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft Page VI-45 May 15,2009 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact 12. Population and Housing Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or D D D ~ indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure )? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction D D D ~ of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of D D D ~ replacement housing elsewhere? Discussion: With a population of nearly 64,000 residents, South San Francisco is the fourth largest City in the County. Between 1990 and 2000, the City's population grew at a rate that was similar to the region, averaging an increase of 1.09 percent per year. Since 2000, growth in the City has slowed substantially, reflecting its increasingly developed character. Between 2000 and 2008, average annual population growth in the City was just 0.64 percent, still faster than the population growth rate for the County (0.56 percent), but substantially slower than the region-wide population growth rate of 0.92 percent per year. Consistent with these data, the City has continued to account for a somewhat outsized share of population growth within the County. Between 2000 and 2008, South San Francisco accounted for 9.9 percent of countywide population growth, although it accounts for only 8.6 percent of total countywide population. a) Population Growth The potential development of approximately 1,200 dwelling units under the City's 2007-2014 Housing Element, of which 805 dus need to be developed by the City to meet its remaining RHNA allocation, would be subject to the goals, policies, and programs of the City's General Plan (including the 2007- 2014 Housing Element), Municipal Code (which includes the City's Building Code and Zoning Ordinance), and Standard Conditions and Limitations (for multi-family residential projects). All of the goals, policies, and programs outlined in the 2007-2014 Housing Element are designed to allow the City utilize its existing housing stock in the most efficient and inclusive ways possible. This includes the acquisition of blighted and underutilized properties within the Planning Area. City of South San Francisco General Plan - 2007-2014 Housing Element - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft Page VI-46 May 15,2009 The potential development of approximately 1,200 dus over the remaInIng duration of the current planning period (2009 to 2014) would not induce substantial population growth, but rather would be built to meet the City's housing needs in accordance with ABAG's RHNA. b) and c) Displacement of Housing or People The 2007-2014 Housing Element does not include any measures that would displace any of its residents; instead, it works to make more housing available to its current and future (projected) residents. This would not, however, cause a direct increase in the City's population, as the purpose of the 2007-2014 Housing Element is to meet the needs of the RHNA's future projections. Municipal Code. Title 19 of the City's Municipal Code outlines the City's Relocation assistance plan. Development under the Housing Element would adhere to Title 19 of the Municipal Code. Finding: The Housing Element would have no impact to population and housing or displacement of people. City of South San Francisco General Plan - 2007-2014 Housing Element - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft Page VI-47 May 15,2009 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact 13. Public Services Would the project: a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? D D D ~ Police protection? D D D ~ Schools? D D D ~ Parks? D D D ~ Other public facilities? D D D ~ Discussion: a) i) Fire Protection The South San Francisco Fire Department works to prevent or reduce the loss of life and property due to fire, sub-standard building construction, natural disasters, hazardous materials, and emergency medical incidents by means of direct response, public education and code development and enforcement. The 85 members of the South San Francisco Fire Department provide residents with fire suppression, emergency medical services, code enforcement, fire investigation, and public education. The South San Francisco Fire Department provides a full emergency medical services program for our citizens with certified paramedics on the fire engines and quints as well as staffing two full time Advanced Support ambulances. The department staffs three engine companies, two quints (combination fire engine and fire truck), and a battalion chief in addition to the two ambulances. Minimum on-duty staffing at one time is 20 persons. 10 10 City of South San Francisco Fire Department, "Fire Department Mission Statement", accessed at http://www.ci.ssf.ca.us/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=258 on Apri128, 2009. City of South San Francisco General Plan - 2007-2014 Housing Element - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft Page VI-48 May 15,2009 General Plan. Development under the Housing Element would be subject to the following General Plan policies with regard to fire protection services: . Policy 8.4-G-2: Provide fire protection that is responsive to citizens' needs. Municipal Code. Title 15 of the City's Municipal Code outlines the City's Fire Code. Development under the Housing Element would adhere to Title 15 of the Municipal Code. a) ii) Police Protection The South San Francisco Police Department's jurisdictional area includes the entire City. Two unincorporated pockets, including the California Golf and Country Club, are under the jurisdiction of the San Mateo County Sheriff's office. As of 1999, when the General Plan was published, the Department had a total of 122 employees, with 80 sworn officers and 37 police units. The ratio of officers in 1999 was 1.4 per 1,000 residents. The Police, Fire, and Parks and Recreation departments share facilities within the City's Municipal Building. The Police Department also has one station, located in the Municipal Building at 33 Arroyo Drive. The Department is generally able to respond to high-priority calls within two to three minutes. These times are within the department's response time goals. The entire City is patrolled except for the undeveloped Sierra Point area. The Department typically works a four-beat system, but the watch supervisor has the discretion to deploy his personnel as he sees fit to accomplish daily goals and objectives. Each beat is typically staffed by a one-officer unit with between six and nine other officers consisting of traffic, K-9, training, float, and supervisory units available for backup and overlap. General Plan. Development under the Housing Element would be subject to the following General Plan policies with regard to police protection services: . Policy 8.5-G-1: Provide police services that are responsive to citizen's needs to ensure a safe and secure environment for people and property in the community. . Policy 8.5-/-1: Ensure adequate police staff to provide rapid and timely response to all emergencies and maintain the capability to have minimum average response times. . Policy 8.5-/-3: Reduce crime by strengthening the police/community partnership. . Policy 8.5-/-5: Continue to coordinate law enforcement planning with local, regional, State and federal plans. Municipal Code. Title 2 of the City's Municipal Code states that the City's police department will adhere to State Standards. Development under the Housing Element would adhere to Title 2 of the Municipal Code. City of South San Francisco General Plan - 2007-2014 Housing Element - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft Page VI-49 May 15,2009 a) iii) Schools South San Francisco Unified School District operates all public schools serving the City, the Serramonte area of Daly City, and a small area of San Bruno. The District is the largest school district in San Mateo County. The District operates 16 schools, including 6 elementary (K - 5), 3 middle (6-8), and 2 high schools. The District also runs a continuation high school, an adult school, a preschool child care center, and three day care schools. General Plan. Development under the Housing Element would be subject to the following General Plan policies with regard to schools: . Policy 5.2-G-1: Support efforts by the South San Francisco Unified School District to maintain and improve educational facilities and services. . Policy 5.2-/-2: Investigate creation and application of a single-purpose school zone to all school sites. a) iv) Parks Despite the relatively small quantity of parkland in South San Francisco, a broad range of outdoor recreation opportunities exist, each reflecting the variety of the city's landscape and pattern of development. These range from shoreline open space on San Francisco Bay, to Sign Hill Park, situated at an elevation of more than 600 feet. In addition, the San Bruno Mountain County Park, which is a major regional open space resource and prominent visual landmark, lies directly north of the city. As of 1999, when the General Plan was published, South San Francisco included 319.7 acres of parks and open space, or 5.4 acres per 1,000 residents, for public use. This includes 70 acres of developed parkland (community, neighborhood, mini, and linear parks), 168.5 acres of open space, and 81.2 acres of school lands. While the overall amount of parkland appears adequate to meet the community's needs, closer analysis reveals that only 1.2 acres of developed parkland, excluding school parks and open space, is available per 1,000 residents. General Plan. Development under the Housing Element would be subject to the following General Plan policies with regard to parks: . Policy 5.1-/-2: Maintain parkland standards of 3.0 acres of community and neighborhood parks per 1,000 new residents, and of 0.5 acres of parkland per 1,000 new employees, to be located in employment areas. . Policy 5.1-/-3: Prefer in-lieu fees to dedication, unless sites offered for dedication provide features and accessibility similar in comparison to sites shown on Figure 5-1 of the General Plan. . Policy 5.1-/-5: Use the PROS Master Plan process to achieve additional parkland acreage, as necessary, to meet the residential parkland need at General Plan buildout. City of South San Francisco General Plan - 2007-2014 Housing Element - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft Page VI-50 May 15,2009 . Policy 5.1-/-9: Review the current regulations for the dedication of parkland in subdivisions to ensure that requirements are adequate to meet the standards of the General Plan at Plan buildout. Municipal Code. Title 19 of the City's Municipal Code outlines requirements for subdivisions and Chapter 19.24 discusses improvements, including recreational facility dedication and in lieu fees, to be made by the developers. These regulations provide strict guidelines for dedication of land, payment of fees, or both, for park and recreation land in subdivisions. Development under the Housing Element would adhere to Title 19 of the Municipal Code. a) v) Other Public Facilities Other Public Facilities in the City include libraries and community centers. There are two libraries in the City and a Community Learning Center. These services are available to all South San Francisco residents. 2007-2014 Housing Element. The following policy from the 2007-2014 Housing Element applies to public services and would be followed with the implementation of the Housing Element: . Policy 2-2: The City shall ensure the availability of adequate public facilities, including streets, water, sewerage, and drainage, throughout the residential areas of the city. Residential development will be encouraged, as designated on the General Plan Land Use Map, where public services and facilities are adequate to support added population or where the needed improvements are already committed. All dwelling units will have adequate public or private access to public rights-of-way. (Existing Policy 1-13) Finding: Compliance with the goals and policies of the City's General Plan and Municipal Code Title 19 would ensure that future development under the Housing Element would comply with federal and State laws in regards to public services. Future development under the 2007-2014 Housing Element would be required to provide adequate police, fire, school, and parks services. As such, the Housing Element would have no impact to public services. City of South San Francisco General Plan - 2007-2014 Housing Element - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft Page VI-51 May 15,2009 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 14. Recreation Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? D D D ~ D D D ~ Discussion: a) and b) Recreation Community and recreation centers provide many classes and services that are central to South San Francisco's recreation programs. The City has six community/recreation buildings, some of which are used for specialized services such as senior programs at the Magnolia Center, public meetings at the Municipal Services Building, and Boys and Girls Club programs at the Paradise Valley Recreation Center. The City also has an indoor public pool at Orange Park. Outdoor pools at South San Francisco High School and El Camino High School supplement Orange Pool in the summer. The City offers a variety of recreation and special programs, ranging from pre-school day care to senior activities. Both indoor and outdoor recreational programs occur in a combination of school and City facilities. The types of programs offered range from recreational and competitive swimming to classes and performances in the cultural and performing arts. The City offers programs geared toward specific age groups, such as teenagers or seniors, and day camp, preschool, and after-school programs for children. General Plan. Development of up to 1,200 residential units under the Housing Element could increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks and recreational facilities. Therefore, development under the Housing Element would be subject to the following General Plan policies with regard to recreation: . Policy 5.1-/-2: Maintain parkland standards of 3.0 acres of community and neighborhood parks per 1,000 new residents, and of 0.5 acres of parkland per 1,000 new employees, to be located in employment areas. City of South San Francisco General Plan - 2007-2014 Housing Element - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft Page VI-52 May 15,2009 . Policy 5.1-/-3: Prefer in-lieu fees to dedication, unless sites offered for dedication provide features and accessibility similar in comparison to sites shown on Figure 5-1 of the General Plan. . Policy 5.1-/-5: Use the PROS Master Plan process to achieve additional parkland acreage, as necessary, to meet the residential parkland need at General Plan buildout. . Policy 5.1-/-9: Review the current regulations for the dedication of parkland in subdivisions to ensure that requirements are adequate to meet the standards of the General Plan at Plan buildout. Municipal Code. Title 19 of the City's Municipal Code outlines requirements for subdivisions and Chapter 19.24 discusses improvements, including recreational facility dedication and in lieu fees, to be made by the developers. These regulations provide strict guidelines for dedication of land, payment of fees, or both, for park and recreation land in subdivisions. Development under the Housing Element would adhere to Title 19 of the Municipal Code. Finding: The additional of residential development could increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks, as well as other recreational facilities. However, compliance with the goals and policies of the City's General Plan and Municipal Code Title 19 would ensure that future development under the Housing Element would comply with federal and State laws in regards to public services. Future development under the 2007-2014 Housing Element would be required to provide adequate recreational areas for present and future residents of South San Francisco. As such, the proposed project would have no impact to recreation. City of South San Francisco General Plan - 2007-2014 Housing Element - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft Page VI-53 May 15,2009 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact 15. Transportation/Traffic Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial D D D ~ increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion D D D ~ management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic D D D ~ levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or D D D ~ dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? D D D ~ t) Result in inadequate parking capacity? D D D ~ g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative D D D ~ transportation (e. g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Discussion: a) and b) Increase in Traffic in Relation to Existing Traffic Load and Street System Capacity The 1995 Congestion Management Program for San Mateo County reports 1-280 operating at Level of Service (LOS) F and u.S. 101 operating at LOS D in the vicinity of South San Francisco during peak commute hours. Levels of service were calculated for the City's roadway segments with current daily volume counts. Current congestion on South San Francisco streets occurs along the Oyster Point Boulevard, East Grand Avenue, Dubuque Avenue, and Airport Boulevard corridors, and on Westborough Boulevard near the 1-280 interchange and the Junipero Serra Boulevard intersection. Other locations with congestion include the intersection of El Camino Real with Westborough City of South San Francisco General Plan - 2007-2014 Housing Element - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft Page VI-54 May 15,2009 Boulevard/ Chestnut Avenue and the Airport Boulevard/Produce A venue/U . S. 101 interchange. During the evening peak commute period, East Grand Avenue under the U.S. 101 overpass has some back up. In general, the City's transportation system can adequately serve existing travel demand. Most travel is conveyed by automobile and the roadway system within the City has capacity to accommodate additional growth. However, traffic volumes on the regional roadways that provide access to the City, U.S. 101, and 1-280, are projected to exceed their capacities during commute periods. General Plan. The addition of up to 1,200 residential units under the Housing Element would likely result in an increase in vehicular traffic. However, development under the Housing Element would be subject to the following General Plan policies related to transportation and traffic: . Policy 4.2-G-5: Make efficient use of existing transportation facilities and, through the arrangement of land uses, improved alternate modes, and enhanced integration of various transportation systems serving South San Francisco, strive to reduce the total vehicle-miles traveled. . Policy 4.2-G-7: Provide fair and equitable means for paying for future street improvements including mechanisms such as development impact fees. (Amended by City Council Resolution 98- 2001, September 26, 2001) . Policy 4.2-G-8: Strive to maintain Level-of-Service ("LOS") D or better on arterial and collector streets, at all intersections, and on principal arterials in the CMP during peak hours. . Policy 4.2-G-9: Accept LOS E or F after finding that: 1) There is no practical and feasible way to mitigate the lower level of service; and 2) The uses resulting in the lower level of service are of clear, overall public benefit. . Policy 4.2-G-10: Exempt development within one-quarter mile of a Caltrain. . Policy 4.2-/-7: Continue to require that new development pays a fair share of the costs of street and other traffic and transportation improvements, based on traffic generated and impacts on service levels. . Policy 4.2-/-10: Design roadway improvements and evaluate development proposals based on LOS standards. . Policy 4.3-/-8: Adopt a Transportation Demand Management ("TDM") program or ordinance which includes, but is not limited to, the following components: 1) Establishment of baseline TDM requirements for all new projects generating more than 100 peak period trips; 2) Establishment of additional requirements for all new projects seeking a FAR bonus; 3) An ongoing monitoring and enforcement program to ensure TDM measures are actually implemented; 4) Reduce parking requirements for new projects implementing a TDM Program. (Amended by City Council Resolution 98-2001, Adopted September 26, 2001) City of South San Francisco General Plan - 2007-2014 Housing Element - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft Page VI-55 May 15,2009 . Policy 4.3-/-9: Favor TSM programs that limit vehicle use over those that extend the commute hour. Municipal Code. Title 11 of the City's Municipal Code outlines the City's standards and regulations for traffic and vehicles. Development under the Housing Element would adhere to Title 11 of the Municipal Code. c) Alter Air Traffic Patterns South San Francisco lies in the flight path of a large portion of departures from SFIA, particularly heavy aircraft that climb over the coast range for Pacific Rim destinations. However, the Housing Element would not affect or alter existing air traffic patterns that are already in place. d) Hazards Due to Design Features or Incompatible Uses The Housing Element does not implement the construction or modification of any roadway, or the addition of incompatible uses. e) Emergency Access Municipal Code. The Housing Element would be required to comply with the Building Code provisions for emergency access as prescribed by law. Title 15 of the Municipal Code discusses regulations pertaining to buildings and construction. f) Parking The City's Zoning Ordinance has parking requirements to ensure that adequate numbers of parking spaces are provided onsite for most uses. The Downtown area has a parking district: instead of each property owner providing their own parking, parking is consolidated into City-owned lots. In general, the amount of parking in the Downtown area is currently sufficient; however, there are a few locations with capacity shortages. The industrial areas of the City experience on-street truck parking. The parked trucks and the loading/unloading activities frequently interfere with vehicular circulation. General Plan. Development under the Housing Element would be subject to the following General Plan policies with regard to parking: . Policy 4.3-/-11: Establish parking standards to support trip reduction goals by allowing parking reductions for projects that have agreed to implement trip reduction methods, such as paid parking. (Amended by City Council Resolution 98-2001, Adopted September 26, 2001) . Policy 4.3-/-12: Amend the Zoning Ordinance to reduce minimum parking requirements for all projects proximate to transit stations and for projects implementing a TDM program. City of South San Francisco General Plan - 2007-2014 Housing Element - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft Page VI-56 May 15,2009 . Policy 4.3-/-13: Investigate opportunities for shared parking facilities whenever possible to reduce the number of new parking stalls required. Municipal Code. Title 11 of the City's Municipal Code outlines requirements vehicles and traffic while Chapters 11.40 (Stopping, Standing, or Parking) and 11.56 (Parking Lots, Parking Meters, and Parking Zones) specifically discusses parking. In addition, Title 20, Zoning Ordinance, discusses parking regulations in individual districts. These regulations outlined in the Municipal Code provide strict guidelines for parking in the City. Development under the Housing Element would adhere to Title 11 of the Municipal Code. g) Alternative Transportation Shuttle buses, vanpools, bicycle facilities, pedestrian facilities and informal carpools, also serve the travel needs of South San Francisco. These modes provide an alternative to the single-occupant automobile. South San Francisco is also served by public transportation, such as SamTrans, Caltrain, and BART. General Plan. Development under the Housing Element would be subject to the following General Plan policies with regard to alternative transportation: . Policy 4. 3-G-1: Develop a comprehensive and integrated system of bikeways that promote bicycle riding for transportation and recreation. . Policy 4.3-G-2: Provide safe and direct pedestrian routes and bikeways between and through residential neighborhoods, and to transit centers. . Policy 4.3-G-3: In partnership with employers, continue efforts to expand shuttle operations. . Policy 4.3-G-4: In partnership with the local business community, develop a transportation systems management plan with identified trip-reduction goals, while continuing to maintain a positive and supportive business environment. . Policy 4.3-/-1: Prepare and adopt a Bikeways Master Plan that includes goals and objectives, a list or map of improvements, a signage program, detailed standards, and an implementation program. . Policy 4.3-/-4: Require provision of secure covered bicycle parking at all existing and future multifamily residential, commercial, industrial, and office/institutional uses. . Policy 4.4-G-1: Promote local and regional public transit serving South San Francisco. . Policy 4.4-G-2: Explore mechanisms to integrate various forms of transit. Municipal Code. Title 11 of the City's Municipal Code outlines requirements vehicles and traffic; Chapter 11.24 discusses pedestrian regulations and Chapter 11.44 discusses bicycle licenses. These regulations provide strict guidelines for alternative modes of transportation. Development under the Housing Element would adhere to Title 11 of the Municipal Code. City of South San Francisco General Plan - 2007-2014 Housing Element - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft Page VI-57 May 15,2009 Finding: The general plan policies listed above are extensive, and have been crafted to ensure that future development would comply with federal and State laws in regards to transportation/traffic. Policy 4.2- G-9 would ensure that development of future projects under the 2007-2014 Housing Element would not create significant traffic impacts on a project or cumulative level. In addition, almost 60 percent of future development under the 2007-2014 Housing Element would be for low/moderate income households, with convenient access to bus and commuter rail service, likely reducing the amount of vehicle trips the average new household would make. Under the Housing Element, there would be no change in air traffic patterns, hazardous designs, emergency access, parking capacity, and applicable plans and policies supporting alternative transportation. As such, the Housing Element would have no impact to transportation/traffic. In addition, per the City's General Plan, Policy 4.3-1-8 (described above) the City has adopted a TDM which includes a methodology to determine eligibility for land use intensity bonuses, procedures to ensure continued maintenance of measures that result in intensity bonuses, requirements for off-site improvements, and reduced parking requirements. City of South San Francisco General Plan - 2007-2014 Housing Element - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft Page VI-58 May 15,2009 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact 16. Utilities and Service Systems Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional D D D ~ Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing D D D ~ facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the D D D ~ construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing D D D ~ entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it D D D ~ has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the providers existing commitments? t) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the D D D ~ projects solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid D D D ~ waste? Discussion: The construction of up to 1,200 residential unites in South San Francisco would increase the demand for water, waste water treatment, and solid waste removal. To the extent that housing is developed on vacant parcels, an increase in impervious surfaces could increase storm water runoff. However, development under the Housing Element would be subject to General Plan polices and the Municipal Code. City of South San Francisco General Plan - 2007-2014 Housing Element - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft Page VI-59 May 15,2009 a), b), and e) Water and Wastewater Treatment Standards, Facilities, and Capacity Potable water is provided for the City and much of County by the California Water Service Company ("CWSC"), which purchases most of its supply from the San Francisco Water Department ("SFWD"). The City's sanitary sewer system has an interconnecting network of gravity sewers, force mains, and nine pump stations, which function together to bring wastewater from individual homes and businesses to the wastewater treatment plant. All wastewater produced within the City is treated at the City's Water Quality Control Plant ("WQCP"), which is located at the end of Belle Air Road, near the edge of the San Francisco Bay. The WQCP is jointly owned by the cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno, and it treats all wastewater generated within the two cities. The WQCP also has contracts to treat most of the wastewater produced by the City of Colma and a portion of the wastewater produced by the City of Daly City. The 1999 General Plan EIR indicated that major water delivery, and major wastewater treatment facilities were adequate, or would be improved, in order to meet project water and wastewater demand growth. General Plan. Development under the Housing Element would be subject to the following General Plan polices with regard to water and wastewater treatment standards, facilities, and capabilities. . Policy 5.3-G-1: Promote the orderly and efficient operation and expansion of the water supply system to meet projected needs. . Policy 5.3-G-3: Promote the equitable sharing of the costs of associated with providing water service to new development. . Policy 5.3-G-4: Promote the orderly and efficient operation and expanSIon of the wastewater system to meet projected needs. . Policy 5.3-G-5: Promote the equitable sharing of the costs of associated with providing wastewater service to new development. . Policy 5.3-G-6: Maintain environmentally appropriate wastewater management practices. . Policy 5.3-/-1: Work with California Water Service Company and Westborough County Water District to ensure coordinated capital improvements with respect to the extent and timing of growth. . Policy 5.3-/-3: Ensure that future residents and businesses equitably share costs associated with providing water service to new development in South San Francisco. . Policy 5.3-/-4: Ensure coordinated capital improvements with respect to the extent and timing of growth. . Policy 5.3-/-5: Ensure that future residents and businesses equitably share costs associated with providing wastewater service to new development in South San Francisco. City of South San Francisco General Plan - 2007-2014 Housing Element - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft Page VI-60 May 15,2009 . Policy 5.3-/-6: Monitor industrial discharges to ensure that wastewater quality continues to meet various federal, State, and regional standards; treatment costs should remain affordable. 2007-2014 Housing Element. The following policy from the 2007-2014 Housing Element applies to waste water facilities and would be followed with the implementation of the proposed project: . Policy 2-2: The City shall ensure the availability of adequate public facilities, including streets, water, sewerage, and drainage, throughout the residential areas of the city. Residential development will be encouraged, as designated on the General Plan Land Use Map, where public services and facilities are adequate to support added population or where the needed improvements are already committed. All dwelling units will have adequate public or private access to public rights-of-way. (Existing Policy 1-13) Municipal Code. Title 14 of the Municipal Code outlines water and sewage regulations; Chapter 14.04 discusses stormwater management and discharge control and Chapter 14.08 discusses water quality control. Development under the Housing Element would adhere to Title 14 of the Municipal Code. c) Storm Water Drainage Facilities Colma Creek, the City's main natural drainage system, is a perennial stream with a watershed of about 16.3 square miles that trends in a roughly southeasterly direction through the center of the City. The basin is bounded on the northwest by San Bruno Mountain and on the west by the ridge traced by Skyline Boulevard. Colma Creek is almost entirely channelized west of the Bayshore Freeway. There are some sedimentation basins, but no other impoundments on Colma Creek. Drainage is controlled by a series of lined creek beds and storm drains. 2007-2014 Housing Element. Policy 2-2, as aforementioned, from the 2007-2014 Housing Element applies to drainage facilities and would be followed with the implementation of the proposed project. Municipal Code. Title 14 of the Municipal Code outlines water and sewage regulations; Chapter 14.04 discusses stormwater management and discharge control and Chapter 14.08 discusses water quality control. d) Water Supply South San Francisco has two water suppliers. The CWSC serves the portion of the City east of Interstate 280, which represents the majority of South San Francisco's area, including the opportunity sites. The CWSC also serves San Carlos and San Mateo with no restrictions on water allocation among these communities. The five-year average growth in the number of accounts is the basis for the utility's projections of the number of water users through 2020. Water use projections for 2020 range from 5.9 million gallons per day ("MGD") to 9.1 MGD. Assuming the SFWD contract allocation is not modified during the remaining contract period, the CWSC has adequate supply to meet even the highest projected demand. City of South San Francisco General Plan - 2007-2014 Housing Element - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft Page VI-61 May 15,2009 General Plan. In addition to Policies 5.3-G-1, 5.3-G-3, 5.3-1-1, and 5.3-1-3, above, development under the Housing Element would be subject to the following General Plan polices with regard to water supply: . Policy 5.3-G-2: Encourage water conservation measures for both existing and proposed development. . Policy 5.3-/-2: Establish guidelines and standards for water conservation and actively promote the use of water-conserving devices and practices in both new construction and major alterations and additions to existing buildings. 2007-2014 Housing Element. The following policy from the 2007-2014 Housing Element applies to drainage facilities and would be followed with the implementation of the proposed project: . Policy 7-1: The City shall continue to promote the use of energy conservation features in all new residential structures. (Existing Policy 6-1) . Program 7-1B: Complete Green Building Ordinance: The City shall complete the ongoing Green Building Ordinance to assure that new dwelling units and significant remodels incorporate green building practices and materials into the design. f) and g) Solid Waste Disposal and treatment of solid and hazardous waste is overseen by San Mateo County. Solid waste is collected from South San Francisco homes and businesses and then processed at the Scavenger Company's materials recovery facility and transfer station (MRF/TS). Materials that cannot be recycled or composted are transferred to the Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill, located along State Route 92 between Half Moon Bay and the City of San Mateo. Allied Waste Industries, formerly Browning- Ferris Industries, owner of the Ox Mountain Landfill, has a permit for forward expansion of the Corinda Los Trancos Canyon at Ox Mountain. When the permit expires in 2016, either Corinda Los Trancos will be expanded further or Apanolio Canyon will be opened for fill. The Ox Mountain Landfill currently has a maximum disposal rate of 3,598 tons per day. 11 In 2007, household waste disposal from South San Francisco was 9,697 tons, with an overall waste disposal from the City of 88,194 tons. 12 11 California Integrated Waste Management Board, "Active Landfills Profile for Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill (41-AA-0002)," accessed at: http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Profiles/Facility/LandFill/LFProfile1.asp? COID=41&FACID=41-AA-0002, accessed on April28, 2009. California Integrated Waste Management Board, "Jurisdiction Profile for City of South San Francisco," accessed at: http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/profiles/Juris/JurProfile1.asp?RG=C&JURID =511&JUR= South + San + Francisco, accessed on April 28, 2009. 12 City of South San Francisco General Plan - 2007-2014 Housing Element - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft Page VI-62 May 15,2009 General Plan. Development under the Housing Element would be subject to the following General Plan polices with regard to solid waste. . Policy 8. 3-G-1: Reduce the generation of solid waste, including hazardous waste, and recycle those materials that are used, to slow the filling of local and regional landfills, in accord with the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989. . Policy 8.3-/-1: Continue to work toward reducing solid waste, increasing recycling, and complying with the San Mateo County Integrated Waste Management Plan. Municipal Code. Title 8 of the City's Municipal Code outlines the City's health and welfare regulations, and Section 8.16 discusses the solid waste requirements of the City. These guidelines establish strict guidelines for the handling of solid waste. Development under the Housing Element would adhere to Title 8 of the Municipal Code. Finding: Compliance with development under the Housing Element would be subject to the goals, policies, and programs of the City's General Plan, and Titles 8 and 14 of the Municipal Code. Adherence to these regulations would ensure that future development would provide adequate water and wastewater collection and treatment and solid waste removal for present and future residents of South San Francisco. As such, the Housing Element would have no impact to utilities and services systems. City of South San Francisco General Plan - 2007-2014 Housing Element - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft Page VI-63 May 15,2009 16. Mandatory Findings of Significance a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Discussion: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation No Impact Less Than Significant Impact D D D ~ D D D ~ D D D ~ Development at the opportunity sites identified in the 2007-2014 Housing Element would occur as infill, in an urbanized and built-out City. In addition, biological and cultural resources would be subject to the regulations outlined in the Biological and Cultural Resources sections of this document, which would ensure compliance with federal and State regulations protecting sensitive biological and cultural resources. Compliance with the City's Building Code, General Plan Policy 8.1-G-1 (discussed in the Geology and Soils Section), and 2007-2014 Housing Element Policy 4-1 (discussed in the Hazards/Hazardous Materials Section) would ensure no adverse environmental effects would occur to human beings through pre-construction investigations, regulation of project placement, and adherence to building standards. The 2007-2014 Housing Element is a forecast of all current and future residential growth within the City, and the analysis contained in this document takes into account all of the effects of this growth. City of South San Francisco General Plan - 2007-2014 Housing Element - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft Page VI-64 May 15,2009 As has been stated throughout this document, all current and future development will be subject to the goals, policies, and programs of the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, and Standard Conditions and Limitations, in addition to all federal and State regulations. While such issues and traffic, emissions, and noise may increase incrementally, the policies and regulations already in place at time of implementation of the proposed project, and the mitigation measures outlined below, will ensure that future development under the proposed project would not have a significant cumulative impact. Air Quality: Mitigation Measure AQ-1 and AQ-2 would reduce the impact associated with air quality plans to a less-than-significant level: AQ-1 Implement feasible control measures for construction emission of PM-10. The project sponsor shall ensure implementation of the following mitigation measures during project construction, in accordance with BAAQMD standard mitigation requirements: . Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. . Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or requIre all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. . Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. . Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. . Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. AQ-2 Green Building Measures for New Construction. The following green building measures shall be incorporated, at the discretion of the Planning Department, into new residential construction: . Trees and other shade structures shall be incorporated to maximize summer shade and to minimize winter shade. Canopy cover shall extend over 50 percent of non-permeable surfaces following a ten-year growth period. . Residential construction shall use "green" cement, which contains recycled materials (slag or fly-ash) and is produced using emission-reducing technologies, if available, structurally appropriate for the intended use, and where feasible and practicable. . New construction shall use energy efficient lighting, to the extent feasible and appropriate. At the minimum, all buildings shall achieve a 15 percent reduction in energy use associated with lighting over existing Title 24 standards. . Residential buildings shall include passive solar design features that include roof overhangs or canopies that block summer shade, but that allow winter sun, from penetrating south facing windows. City of South San Francisco General Plan - 2007-2014 Housing Element - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft Page VI-65 May 15,2009 . Roofing materials used in commercial/retail buildings shall be Energy Star@ certified. All roof products shall also be certified to meet A TSM high emissivity requirements. . Where feasible, recycled, rapidly renewable, reclaimed and/or certified components shall be used in the construction of new residential buildings. Cultural Resources: Mitigation Measures CR-1 and CR-2 would reduce impacts to paleontological/ geological features and human remains to a less-than-significant level: CR-1 Protect unique paleontological/geological features. Should a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature be identified at an opportunity site during any phase of construction, the project sponsor shall cease all construction activities at the site of the discovery and immediately notify the City. The project sponsor shall retain a qualified paleontologist to provide an evaluation of the find and to prescribe mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. Work may proceed on other parts of the project site while mitigation for paleontological resources or geologic features is carried out. The project sponsor shall be responsible for implementing any additional prescribed mitigation measures prescribed by the paleontologist and approved by the City. CR-2 Protect human remains. If human remains are discovered at any project construction sites during any phase of construction, all ground-disturbing activity within 100 feet of the resource shall be halted and the City and the County Coroner shall be notified immediately, according to Section 5097.98 of the State Public Resources Code and Section 7050.5 of the State Health and Safety Code. If the remains are determined by the County Coroner to be Native American, the NAHC shall be notified within 24 hours, and the guidelines of the NAHC shall be adhered to in the treatment and disposition of the remains. The project sponsor shall also retain a professional archaeologist with Native American burial experience to conduct a field investigation of the project site, and consult with the Most Likely Descendant, if any, identified by the NAHC. As necessary, the archaeologist may provide professional assistance to the Most Likely Descendant, including the excavation and removal of the human remains. The City shall be responsible for approval of recommended mitigation as it deems appropriate, taking account of the provisions of State law, as set forth in CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5(e), and Public Resources Code, Section 5097.98. The project sponsor shall implement approved mitigation, to be verified by the City, before the resumption of ground disturbing activities within 100 feet of where the remains were discovered. Noise: Mitigation Measure NO-1 would reduce the impact associated with construction noise to a less- than-significant level: NO-1 Implement best management practices to reduce construction noise. The project sponsor shall incorporate the following practices into the construction documents to be implemented by the project construction contractor. These control measures, such as installation of noise control devices (e.g., mufflers), selection of quieter machinery, and other noise control measures (e.g., City of South San Francisco General Plan - 2007-2014 Housing Element - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft Page VI-66 May 15,2009 surrounding stationary equipment with noise barriers), would not require major equipment redesign: a. Maximize the physical separation between nOIse generators and nOIse receptors. Such separation includes, but is not limited to, the following measures: . Use heavy-duty mufflers for stationary equipment and barriers around particularly noisy areas of the site or around the entire site; . Use shields, impervious fences, or other physical sound barriers to inhibit transmission of noise to sensitive receptors; . Locate stationary equipment to minimize noise impacts on the community; and . Minimize backing movements of equipment. b. Use quiet construction equipment whenever possible. c. Impact equipment (e.g., jack hammers and pavement breakers) shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically-powered tools. Compressed air exhaust silencers shall be used on other equipment. Other quieter procedures, such as drilling rather than using impact equipment, shall be used whenever feasible. d. Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines. e. Select routes for movement of construction-related vehicles and equipment in conjunction with the City's Planning Department so that noise-sensitive areas, including residences and schools, are avoided as much as possible. f. The construction contractor shall send advance notice to neighborhood residents within 50 feet of the project site regarding the construction schedule and including the telephone number for the disturbance coordinator at the construction site. City of South San Francisco General Plan - 2007-2014 Housing Element - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft Page VI-67 May 15,2009 Appendices Appendix A Standard Conditions and Limitations for Commercial Industrial and Multi-Family Residential Projects STANDARD CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS FOR COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL AND MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS 1. Unless the use has commenced or related building permits have been issued within two (2) years of the date this permit is granted, this permit will automatically expire on that date. A one year plan extension may be granted in accordance with provisions of the SSFMC. 2. The permit shall not be effective for any purpose until the property owner or a duly authorized representative files an affidavit, prior to the issuance of a building permit, stating that the property owner is aware of, and accepts, all of the conditions of the permit. 3. The permit shall be suspended and the privileges granted by the permit shall lapse, if any of the conditions are violated, or if any law, statute or ordinance is violated, provided that the applicant has been given written notice to cease the violation and has failed to do so for a period of 30 days. 4. Minor changes or deviations from the Conditions of Approval of the permit may be approved by the Chief Planner. Major changes require approval of the Planning Commission, or final approval body of the City. 5. Neither the granting of this permit nor any conditions attached thereto shall authorize, require or permit anything contrary to, or in conflict with any ordinances specifically named therein. 6. Prior to construction, all required building permits shall be obtained from the City==s Building Division. 7. All conditions of the permit shall be completely fulfilled to the satisfaction of the affected City Departments and Divisions Planning and Building Divisions prior to occupancy of any building. Any request for temporary power for testing equipment will be issued only upon substantial completion of the development. 8. All exterior lights shall be installed in such a manner that there shall be no illumination on adjacent properties or streets which might be considered either objectionable by adjacent property owners or hazardous to motorists. 9. No additional signs, flags, pennants or banners shall be installed or erected on the site without prior approval. 10. Adequate trash areas shall be provided and enclosed by a six (6) foot high decorative masonry wall. Adequate solid gates and vehicular access to such areas shall be provided. Standard Condition (cont.) 11. All ducting for air conditioning, heating, blower systems, accessory mechanisms and all other forms of mechanical or electrical equipment which are placed on or adjacent to the building shall be screened from public view. 12. All parking spaces, driveways, maneuvering aisles, turn-around areas and landscaping areas shall be kept free of debris, litter and weeds at all times. Site, structures, paving, landscaping, light standards, pavement markings and all other facilities shall be permanently maintained. 13. There shall be no open storage materials of materials or equipment on the subject property, except as approved by each permit. 14. The construction and permitted use on the property shall be so conducted as to reduce to a minimum any noise vibration or dust resulting from the operation. 15. All sewerage and waste disposal shall be only by means of an approved sanitary system. 16. Prior to anyon-site grading, a grading permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer. 17. All existing utility lines, underground cable conduits and structures which are not proposed to be removed shall be shown on the improvement plans and their disposition noted. 18. Landscape Maintenance a. All landscape areas shall be watered via an automatic irrigation system which shall be maintained in fully operable condition at all times. b. All planting areas shall be maintained by a qualified professional; the landscape shall be kept on a regular fertilization and maintenance program and shall be maintained weed free. c. Plant materials shall be selectively pruned by a qualified arborist; no topping or excessive cutting-back shall be permitted. Tree pruning shall allow the natural branching structure to develop. d. Plant materials shall be replaced when necessary with the same species originally specified unless otherwise approved by the Chief Planner. . * RevIsed February1999 Appendix B Greenhouse Gas Calculations Electricity Cales Project Area Electricity Generation Rate* Use Subtotal units 5,626.50 kWH/year/unit Residential 4,529,333 sf 53.3 kWH/year/sf Grocery sf 47.45 kWH/year/sf Restaurant sf 21.7 kWH/year/sf Hospital sf 11.55 kWH/year/sf University sf 10.5 kWH/year/sf High School sf 5.9 kWH/year/sf Elementary School sf 12.95 kWH/year/sf Office sf 9.95 kWH/year/sf Hotel sf 4.35 kWH/year/sf Warehouse sf 13.55 kWH/year/sf Retail sf 10.5 kWH/year/sf Miscellaneous Total 4,529,333 kWH/year * From SCAQMD CEQA Handbook (use other rates as appropriate) Natural Gas Cales Area Natural Gas Generation Rate* Use Subtotal (kwh/year) sf 5.9 cf/unit/month Single-family Residential 56,994 sf 12.95 cf/unit/month Multi-family Residential customers 9.95 cf/customer/month Industrial sf 4.35 cf/sf/month Hotel sf 13.55 cf/sf/month Retail sf 10.5 cf/sf/month Office Total 56,994 cf/year * From SCAQMD CEQA Handbook (use other rates as appropriate) or 569.94 therms/yeal Solid Waste Cales Area Solid Waste Generation Rate* Use Subtotal (tons/year) sf 0.01 Ibs/sf/day Office sf 0.025 Ibs/sf/day Shopping Center sf 0.0312 Ibs/sf/day Department Store sf 0.0142 Ibs/sf/day Man ufactu ri ng/warehouse sf 0.007 Ibs/sf/day School beds 16 Ibs/bed/day Hospital unit 10 Ibs/unit/day Single-family Residential 1,469 unit 4 Ibs/unit/day Multi-family Residential Total 1,469 tons/year * CIWMB Estimate Solid Waste Generation Rates (use other rates as appropriate) Greenhouse Gas Emission Worksheet Operational Emissions Project: Indirect Emissions from Electricity Use Total Project Annual KWh: 4,529,333 kWH/year Project Annual MWh: 4,529 MWH/year Emission Factors for Electricity Use: C02 * CH4 * N20 * 724.12 Ibs/MWh/year 0.0302 Ibs/MWh/year 0.0081 Ibs/MW h/year Total Annual Operational Emissions (metric tons) = (Electricity Use (kWh) x EF)/ 2,204.62 Ibs/metric ton Conversion to Carbon Dioxide Equivalency (C02e) Units based on Global Warming Potential (GWP) CH4 21 GWP N20 310 GWP Annual Emissions from Electricity Use: Total Emissions 1487.6851 metric tons 0.0620 metric tons 0.0166 metric tons IProject Total Total C02e Units 1487.7 metric tons C02e 1.3 metric tons C02e 5.2 metric tons C02e 1,494 metric tons C02e C02 emissions: CH4 emissions: N20 emissions: References * California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol, Reporting Entity-Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Version 3.1, Appendix C, January 2009. Indirect Emissions from Natural Gas Use Total Project Usage: 570 therms/year** Emission Factors for Natural Gas Use: C02 CH4 N20 11.67 Ibs/therm 0.001 Ibs/therm 0.00002 Ibs/therm Annual C02 emissions: CH4 emissions: N20 emissions: Emissions from Natural Gas Use: Total Emissions 3.0169 metric tons 0.0003 metric tons 0.0000 metric tons IProject Total Total C02e Units 3.0 metric tons C02e 0.0 metric tons C02e 0.0 metric tons C02e 3 metric tons C02e References Emission factors for N02, CH4, and N20 taken from CCAR General Reporting Protocol, Version 3.1, January 2009; Appendix C. Sources: California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol, Reporting Entity-Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Version 3.1, January 2009. Third Assessment Report, 2001, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks, 1990-2000 (April 2002). Indirect Emissions from Solid Waste Source Project (Operational) Solid Waste tons/year 1 ,469 GHG Emissions Landfill Gas (metric tons/year) tons/year C02 CH4 166.7 106.1 60.6 C02 Equivalent Emissions Emissions (metric tons/year) C02 CH4 Total 106.1 1,273.31 1 ,3791 metric tons C02e Methodology and emission factors from State Workbook: Methodologies for Estimating Greenhouse Gas Emissions (pages 5-1 to 5-3). 81 cry ~ "'" <0 (j) o "'r"'"" 81 cry ~ "'" <0 (j) o "'r"'"" ~I "'" ~I "'" ~ ~ cry cry ~I "'" ~I "'" - ~ ~ s.... m 0 0 Q) N N >- -- en c 0 C ~I "'r"'"" ~I "'r"'"" en "'r"'"" "'r"'"" ~ C 0 0 ~ .Q (j) en c .~ 81 (j) 81 (j) 0 E .w w CD ~ ~ Q) 0 > ro 0 N N N "'r"'"" "'r"'"" "'" :J 0 C 0 C > N <( 0 .~ s.... z ~I 0 ~I 0 E 0 '+-eo cry Q.) ..... N if) N -e s.... N "'r"'"" W "'r"'"" 0 :J c.. > I-- Q) r-- <( 0:: 0 ~ ~ 0 i= s.... N if) m () r-- ~I 0 w ~I 0 E m 0 ~ ~ '+-eo Z E E 0 0 0 N "'r"'"" 0 "'r"'"" :J W 0 U) if) <( if) c 0 if) ~ .Q 0:: w I-- W en LL <( s.... LL --.J Q) ~ <( > 0 i= z c c if) 0 c 0 0 w i= Q) ~ z <( C -0 -0 E Q) Q) 0 0::: :J en en W ~ 0 m m if) a.. W U (JJ (JJ if) S- O S- O> 0 en en ~ Q.) 0 Q.) c Q) c c w 10 z 10 .00 10 .Q .Q W 0) <( 0) :J ~ en en :;::: :;::: 0 .~ .~ --.J .E w .E I c E E u c U c :E m 0::: LL U) W W I ::J :J ::J a. U) w (ij (ij Q) Q) C- O co U) c ~ ~ Q.) if) Q.) (If') 0 --.J >. >. ~ Q) ~ ..c ..c <( ........ <( ........ oq- E Q) Q) en W en ~ () > > Z c 0::: c Q) m 0 0 g <( g Q) E z .....J -0 -0 i= 0 m m if) u.. if) 0 m 1:5 1:5 0 0 <( --.J 0 --.J Q) N Z Q) Q) 0:: 0:: 0::: <( <( ........ W ~ 0> Q) ~ .0' .0' I ~ I-- I-- m N s.... s.... C a.. 0 :J 0 a. ~ LL a. a. 0 0 0 I-- if) I-- Planning Commission Staff Report DATE: June 18, 2009 TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: Use Permit Modification and Design Review allowing an addition of 5,181 square feet enabling the relocation of the existing food court, the loading dock and receiving area, situated at 1600 E1 Camino Real (APN 010-212-100) in the Transit Village Commercial Zoning District (TV -C), in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.27,20.81 &, 20.85. Owner & Applicant: Costco, Wholesale Corp. Case No.: P08-0061 [UPM 08-0003 & DR08-0027] Env. Doc.: Categorical Exemption Section 15061(b)(3) RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission approve P08-0061, subject to making the fmdings of approval and adopting the conditions of approval. BACKGROUNDIDISCUSSION: The 15.1 acre site is developed with a 146,645 square foot one-story retail store and a gas station, approved in 1999 (PUD 98-084, UP 98-084 & ND 98-084) and constructed in 2000. The new addition would contain a total of 5, 181 square feet of floor area consisting of a food court (1,320 square feet) and the loading dock and receiving area (3,861 square feet). Theses changes will allow the relocation of the existing food court, reducing the conflicts in the check out area, and allow the relocation of the loading dock and receiving area, resulting in a minor expansion of the retail area into the former non-public area. The project site's General Plan Land Use Element designation, Community Commercial, allows retail uses. The proposed project complies with the General Plan goals and policies encouraging reinvestment, expansion and maintenance of commercial sites, and Policy 3.4-1-4 that allows a big-box retail use on the project site. The proposed project is also consistent with policies encouraging retail uses in the Transit Village. Retail stores in excess of30,000 square feet are allowed in the Transit Village Commercial (T-V- C) Zone District [SSFMC Section 20.27.030], subject to an approved Use Permit by the City's Planning Commission and based on finding that the store will not conflict with the adjacent neighborhood oriented uses. The 146,645 square foot store was approved prior to the establishment of the Transit Village Zoning District. The 5,181 square foot expansion (3.5% of Staff Report To: Planning Commission Subject: UPM 08-0003 & DR 08-0027 June 18, 2009 Page 2 of 3 the existing floor area) is a minor expansion that will improve internal check out operations and result in a small expansion of the store area devoted to retail display (1,320 square feet). The limited retail area expansion will not have an adverse effect on the other existing smaller scale Transit Village retail uses as the products and services offered are generally different. The improvements comply with the City's development standards as displayed in the table in Exhibit #A. The existing facility has a total of 852 parking spaces and exceeds the minimum parking requirement of708 parking spaces [SSFMC Section 20.74.070]. The minor expansion and relocation of the handicap parking spaces will result in the loss of 20 parking spaces. Despite the reduction in parking, the facility will exceed the minimum requirement of 765 parking spaces for the expanded facility by 67 spaces. The existing 122,701 square feet of landscaping exceeds the minimum landscape requirement of 10% of the total site area. The proposed project includes minor changes to the existing landscaping including reconfiguring of severa11andscape areas, the addition of 727 square feet of new landscape areas, and some new planting comprised of trees, shrubs and ground cover. Most of the new landscaping is provided in close proximity to the new loading docks to provide screening and improve truck circulation, and near the store entry in the vicinity of the new handicap parking. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD The project was reviewed by the Design Review Board at their meeting of August 19,2008. The Board members were generally supportive ofthe proposed project and offered the following comments: 1. Confer with the Building Official regarding the ADA parking configuration and clustering the ADA parking to minimize path of travel crossing of vehicular travel lanes. 2. Redwood and Black Pine tree's are acceptable, but consider revising the plant list with hardier plant types. Shrub list is adequate. 3. Add evergreen trees to screen the loading dock area from the adjacent residential area and include additional landscaping around the proposed food court expansion. The applicant has revised the plans incorporating the design suggestions. The Building Official has reviewed the plans and concurs with the applicant that the proposed relocation ofthe handicap stalls is consistent with the ADA requirements that the stalls are required to be as close as possible to the store entry. While the area at the store entry is congested, no accidents between vehicles and passengers at the main entry have been reported. Staff Report To: Planning Commission Subject: UPM 08-0003 & DR 08-0027 June 18, 2009 Page 3 of 3 Potential vehicle and passenger conflicts can be further reduced at the main store entry, but would require reconfiguring the main drive aisle away from the store entry and either extending the plaza area (in the former main ais1eway) and/or relocating the handicap stalls closer to the store entry. However, because the applicant is confident that the proposed plan will reduce conflicts and is subject to a one year review, city staffis not recommending any changes at this time. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The proposed development was determined by City staff to be Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act [CEQA] pursuant to Section 15061 (b )(3). Pursuant to these provisions the project was judged not to have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Because the project is exempt, in accordance with the CEQA, the Planning Commission need take no further action. CONCLUSION: The proposed project complies with the General Plan and Zoning Code development requirements. The proposed project has been reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board. Conditions of approval are recommended to meet city development standards and design requirements. Therefore, it is recommended that the Planning Commission approve P08-0061, Attachments: Exhibit #A - Development Data Draft Findings of Approval Draft Conditions of Approval Development Review Board Minutes - August 19, 2008 Applicant's Narrative Photo & Plans EXHIBIT A DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Lot Area: 15.12 Acres (658,627 SF) Height Maximum: 50 FT Automobile Parking Minimum: 765 Floor Area Ratio Maximum: 0.5 Floor Area: Retail: Food Court: Receiving: Gas Station: Total: Lot Coverage: Maximum: 50% Landscaping: Minimum: 10% Setbacks: Front Sides North South Rear Minimum 15 FT OFT OFT 20FT Existing: 30.67 FT Proposed: 30.67FT Existing: 852 Proposed: 832 Existing: 0.229 Proposed: 0.23 Existing: 141,464 SF 1,320 SF 3,861 SF 3,840 SF 150,485 SF Proposed: 146,645 SF 1,320 SF 3,861 SF 3,840 SF 155,666 SF Existing: 22.9% Proposed: 23.6% Existing: 18.6% Proposed: 18.75% Existing: Proposed 10FT 10 FT 43+FT 43+FT 15+FT 15+FT 28+FT 28+FT Notes: Parking is required at a rate of 5/1 ,OOOSF plus 5 for the gas station (SSFMC Chapter 20.74). DRAFT FINDINGS OF APPROVAL USE PERMIT 08-0003 1600 EL CAMINO REAL (As recommended by City Staff June 18, 2009) As required by the Use Permit Procedures [SSFMC Chapter 20.81], the following findings are made in approval of Use Permit Modification 08-0003 allowing an addition of 5,181 square feet enabling the relocation of the existing food court, the loading dock and receiving area, situated at 1600 E1 Camino Real, based on public testimony and the materials submitted to the City of South San Francisco Planning Commission which include, but are not limited to: revised Landscape, Site and Building Plans prepared by David Babcock & Associates, dated April 24, 2009; Civil plans prepared by Kier & Wright Civil Engineers & Surveyors, Inc., dated April 2008 and May 2008; Planning Commission staff report, dated June 18,2009; and Planning Commission meeting of June 18, 2009: 1. The proposed expansion will not be adverse to the public health, safety or general welfare of the community, or detrimental to surrounding properties or improvements. The project has been designed in accordance with the City of South San Francisco Design Guidelines to provide an adequate quality of fit with the existing building and the surrounding commercial developments. The new landscaping will make the site more visually pleasing and help screen views of the loading area from adjacent properties. Conditions of approval are required which will ensure that the development complies with local development standards, the approved plans. 2. The proposed expansion complies with the General Plan Land Use Element designation of the site of Community Commercial which allows retail facilities and encourages the maintenance and improvements of existing buildings. 3. The proposed expansion is adjacent to other commercial and residential uses and complies all applicable standards and requirements of SSFMC Title 20. * * PROPOSED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1600 EL CAMINO REAL P08-0061 (As recommended by City Staff on June 18, 2009) A. PLANNING DIVISION 1. The applicant shall comply with the City's Standard Conditions and with all the requirements of all affected City Divisions and Departments as contained in the attached conditions, except as amended by the conditions of approval. 2. The construction drawings shall substantially comply with the Planning Commission approved plans, as amended by the conditions of approval including the revised Landscape, Site and Building Plans prepared by David Babcock & Associates, dated Apri124, 2009 and Civil plans prepared by Kier & Wright Civil Engineers & Surveyors, Inc., dated April 2008 and May 2008, submitted in association with P08-006l [Use Permit Modification 08-0003 & Design Review 08- 0027]. 3. Prior to the final inspection, any and all dead landscaping and missing plants shall be replaced in kind. The landscape plan shall be subject to the review and approval by the City's Chief Planner. 4. The project shall be subject to a one-year review from the effective date of the Planning Commission decision. At the time of the review the Planning Commission may modifY, add or delete conditions of approval, take other action or extend the reVIew. 5. Any change in the hours of operation, landscape area, number of parking spaces or any other aspect ofthe project for which a Use Permit is being sought, shall require a modification of the Use Permit to be first approved by the Planning Commission. 6. Prior to the issuance of the Building Permit for the interior work, the applicant shall provide a Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM) to help reduce traffic. The TDM Plan shall be prepared by a qualified transportation planner acceptable to the city and shall comply with the minimum requirements contained in SSFMC Chapter 20.120 and shall be subject to the review and approval of the City's Chief Planner. (Planning Division: Steve Carlson, Senior Planner, 650/877-8353, Fax 650/829-6639) B. ENGINEERING DIVISION 1. STANDARD CONDITIONS The developer shall comply with the conditions of approval for commercial projects, as detailed in the Engineering Division's "Standard Conditions for Commercial and Industrial Developments", contained in our "Standard Development Conditions" booklet, dated January 1998. This booklet is available at no cost to the applicant from the Engineering Division. 2. SPECIAL CONDITIONS A. The owner shall, at his/her expense, repair any broken sidewalk, curb and gutter fronting the property. B. Any work performed in the City's right-of-way shall require an encroachment from the Engineering Division. The owner shall apply and pay all fees and deposits for the encroachment permit. (Engineering Division: Sam Bautista, Senior Engineer, 650/829-6652) C. POLICE DEPARTMENT requirements: Municipal Code Compliance The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 15.48 of the Municipal Code, "Minimum Building Security Standards" Ordinance revised May 1995. The Police Department reserves the right to make additional security and safety conditions, if necessary, upon receipt of detailed/revised building plans. Building Security 1. Doors a. The jamb on all aluminum frame-swinging doors shall be so constructed or protected to withstand 1600 lbs. of pressure in both a vertical distance ofthree (3) inches and a horizontal distance of one (1) inch each side of the strike. b. Glass doors shall be secured with a deadbo1t 10ckl with minimum throw of one (1) inch. The outside ring should be free moving and 1 The locks shall be so constructed that both the deadbolt and deadlocking latch can be retracted by a single action of the inside door knob/lever/turnpiece. A double-cylinder deadbolt lock or a single-cylinder deadbolt lock without a turnpiece may be used in "Group B" occupancies as defmed by the Uniform Building Code. When used, there must be a readily visible durable sign on or adjacent to the door stating "This door to remain unlocked during business hours", employing letters not less than one inch high on a contrasting background. The locking device must be of type that will be readily distinguishable as locked, and its use may be revoked by the Building Official for due cause. case hardened. c. Employee/pedestrian doors shall be of solid core wood or hollow sheet metal with a minimum thickness of 1-3/4 inches and shall be secured by a deadbo1t lock! with minimum throw of one (1) inch. Locking hardware shall be installed so that both deadbolt and deadlocking latch can be retracted by a single action of the inside knob, handle, or turn piece. d. Outside hinges on all exterior doors shall be provided with non- removable pins when pin-type hinges are used or shall be provided with hinge studs, to prevent removal ofthe door. e. Doors with glass panels and doors with glass panels adjacent to the doorframe shall be secured with burglary-resistant glazini or the equivalent, if double-cylinder deadbolt locks are not installed. f. Doors with panic bars will have vertical rod panic hardware with top and bottom latch bolts. No secondary locks should be installed on panic-equipped doors, and no exterior surface-mounted hardware should be used. A 2" wide and 6" long steel astraga1 shall be installed on the door exterior to protect the latch. No surface-mounted exterior hardware need be used on panic- equipped doors. g. On pairs of doors, the active leaf shall be secured with the type of lock required for single doors in this section. The inactive leaf shall be equipped with automatic flush extension bolts protected by hardened material with a minimum throw of three-fourths inch at head and foot and shall have no doorknob or surface-mounted hardware. Multiple point locks, cylinder activated from the active leaf and satisfying the requirements, may be used instead of flush bolts. h. Any single or pair of doors requiring locking at the bottom or top rail shall have locks with a minimum of one throw bolt at both the top and bottom rails. 2. Windows a. Louvered windows shall not be used as they pose a significant security problem. 25/16" security laminate, 1/4" polycarbonate, or approved security film treatment, minimum. b. Accessible rear and side windows not viewable from the street shall consist of rated burglary resistant glazing or its equivalent. Such windows that are capable of being opened shall be secured on the inside with a locking device capable of withstanding a force of two hundred- (200) 1bs. applied in any direction. c. Secondary locking devices are recommended on all accessible windows that open. 3. Roof Openings a. All glass skylights on the roof of any building shall be provided with: 1) Rated burglary-resistant glass or glass-like acrylic materia1.2 or: 2) Iron bars of at least 1/2" round or one by one-fourth inch flat steel material spaced no more than five inches apart under the skylight and securely fastened. or: 3) A steel grill of at least 1/8" material or two inch mesh under skylight and securely fastened. b. All hatchway openings on the roof of any building shall be secured as follows: 1) If the hatchway is of wooden material, it shall be covered on the outside with at least 16 gauge sheet steel or its equivalent attached with screws. 2) The hatchway shall be secured from the inside with a slide bar or slide bolts. The use of crossbar or padlock must be approved by the Fire Marshal. 3) Outside hinges on all hatchway openings shall be provided with non-removable pins when using pin-type hinges. c. All air duct or air vent openings exceeding 8" x 12" on the roof or exterior walls of any building shall be secured by covering the same with either of the following: 1) Iron bars of at least 1/2" round or one by one-fourth inch flat steel material, spaced no more than five inches apart and securely fastened. or: 2) A steel grill of at least 1/8" material or two inch mesh and securely fastened and 3) If the barrier is on the outside, it shall be secured with galvanized rounded head flush bolts of at least 3/8" diameter on the outside. 4. Lighting a. All exterior doors shall be provided with their own light source and shall be adequately illuminated at all hours to make clearly visible the presence of any person on or about the premises and provide adequate illumination for persons exiting the building. b. The premises, while closed for business after dark, must be sufficiently lighted by use of interior night-lights. c. Exterior door, perimeter, parking area, and canopy lights shall be controlled by photocell and shall be left on during hours of darkness or diminished lighting. 5. Numbering of Buildings a. The address number of every commercial building shall be illuminated during the hours of darkness so that it shall be easily visible from the street. The numerals in these numbers shall be no less than four to six inches in height and of a color contrasting with the background. b. In addition, any business, which affords vehicular access to the rear through any driveway, alleyway, or parking lot, shall also display the same numbers on the rear of the building. 6. Alarms a. The business shall be equipped with at least a central station silent intrusion alarm system. NOTE: To avoid delays in occupancy, alarm installation steps should be taken well in advance of the final inspection. 7. Traffic, Parking, and Site Plan a. Handicapped parking spaces shall be clearly marked and properly sign posted. b. Off-Street Parking Required: All vehicles associated with this business must be parked on the premises. No vehicles may be parked or stored on the public street. NOTE: For additional details, contact the Traffic Bureau Sergeant at 650/829-934. 8. Misc. Security Measures Commercial establishments having one hundred dollars or more in cash on the premises after closing hours shall lock such money in approved type money safe with a minimum rating ofTL-15. (Police Department: Sergeant Jon Kallas 650/877-8927) D. FIRE DEPARTMENT 1. Install fire sprinkler system per NFP A 13/SSFFD requirements under separate fire plan check and permit for overhead and underground. 2. Fire sprinkler system shall be central station monitored per California Fire Code section 1003.3. 3. Install exterior listed horn/strobe alarm device. 4. All buildings shall provide premise identification in accordance with SSF municipal code section 15.24.100. 5. Provide verification that the new and existing areas don't exceed the fire sprinkler system size limits per NFP A 13. 6. Project must meet all applicable Local (SSF Municipal Code, Chapter 15.24 Fire Code), State and Federal Codes. Local Fire Code and vehicle specifications and templates available at http://www.ssfnet/depts/fire/preventionlfire permits. asp (Fire Department: Luis Da Silva, Fire Marshal, 650/829-6645) E. WATER QUALITY 1. A plan showing the location of all storm drains and sanitary sewers must be submitted. 2. The onsite catch basins are to be stenciled with the approved San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Logo (No Dumping! Flows to Bay). 3. Existing catch basins are to be retrofitted with catch basin inserts or equivalent. These devices must be shown on the plans prior to the issuance of a permit. 4. Trash handling area must be shown on plans and must be covered, enclosed and must drain to sanitary sewer. This drain must be connected to a grease removal device prior to discharge into the sanitary sewer. This must be shown on the plans prior to issuance of a permit. 5. Loading dock area should be designed with an over hang and any drain must be connected to the sanitary sewer system. This must be shown on plans prior to issuance of a permit. 6. The applicant must install a grease removal device. The grease removal device must be connected to all wash sinks, mop sinks, and floor sinks and must be upstream of the domestic waste stream. Sizing of the interceptor must be in accordance with the uniform plumbing code. This must be shown on the plans prior to the issuance of a permit. 7. A signed maintenance agreement for the grease interceptor must be submitted prior to the issuance of a permit. 8. Install a separate process line for sample monitoring before mixing with domestic waste in sanitary sewer. This must be shown on plans prior to the issuance of a permit. 9. Plans must include location of concrete wash out area and location of entrance/outlet of tire wash. 10. An erosion and sediment control plan must be submitted. 11. Applicant may be required to pay an additional sewer connection fee at a later time based on anticipated flow, BOD and TSS calculations. (Water Quality Division: Cassie Prudhel, Coordinator, 650/829-3840) The Board had the following comments: 1. Locate the accessory structure between the Palm tree and the Laurel tree and add a landscape buffer at the property line for screening to minimize the impact of the structure on the existing Cypress tree. 2. Plant climbing vines (Ficus Pumi1a) at the base ofthe enclosure to further screen the enclosure. 3. Remove "Blackberry bushes" from the parking lot planting plan and select a more typical plant for this area. 4. Reduce the depth ofthe parking space depth from 18 feet 0 16 feet to allow for a deeper planting area and a 2 foot vehicle overhang. 5. Remove all signage from the plans or include the necessary details for sign reVIew. 6. Recommend consulting with a landscape professional regarding species selection and a fina110cation for the accessory structure. 2. OWNER APPLICANT ADDRESS PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NAME Costco Wholesale Corp Costco Wholesale Corp 1600 El Camino Real P08-0061, UPM08-0003 & DR08-0027 UPM - Food Court Expansion & Loading Dock (Case Planner: Steve Carlson) DESCRIPTION Use Permit Modification and Design Review allowing expansion of the food court and the loading dock area, situated at 1600 E1 Camino Real in the Transit Village Commercial Zoning District (TV -C), in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.27, 20.81 & 20.85. The Board had the following comments: 1. Confer with the Building Official regarding the ADA parking configuration and clustering the ADA parking to minimize path of travel crossing of vehicular travel lanes. 2. Redwood and Black Pine tree's are acceptable, but consider revising the plant list with hardier plant types. Shrub list is adequate. 3. Add evergreen trees to screen the loading dock area from the adjacent residential area and include additional landscaping around the proposed food court expansion. Recommend Approval with Conditions. B!lq /06 III: KRAsNOW I SAUNDERS I CORNBLATH LLP 500 NORTH DEARBORN 5TREET SECOND FLOOR CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60654 (312) 755-5700 FAX: (312) 755-5720 WWW.KSC-LAW.COM February 11, 2009 VIA EMAIL (web-ecd@ssf.net) AND VIA FIRST CLASS U.S. MAIL Mr. Steven Carlson Senior Planner City of South San Francisco Planning Division 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 PCB ! 1 200..9 Re: Costco Wholesale Corporation ("Costco"): Warehouse No. 475, 1600 EI Camino Real, South San Francisco, CA (the "Warehouse") Dear Mr. Carlson: We are outside legal counsel to Costco and handle Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and other accessibility-related matters for Costco across the United States. Our representation of Costco in this area has included many matters relating to the accessibility requirements of the California Building Code (the "CBC") as they affect Costco's facilities throughout the State of California. At the request of our client, we are writing in connection with a pending planning permit application that Costco has submitted to the City of South San Francisco in connection with Costco's planned addition of a new food service area at the northwesterly portion of the Warehouse (the "Food Service Addition") and a new receiving area for the Warehouse. As reflected on the Concept Site Plan, prepared by Costco's architect for the subject project, including the Food Service Addition, David Babcock and Associates (the "Architect"), dated October 30,2008, and bearing project number 0008.P.B7 (sheet number 3), a copy of which has been previously provided to the City (the "Concept Plan"), the Food Service Addition will result in the loss of seven of the seventeen accessible parking spaces that are currently located adjacent to the northwesterly wall of the Warehouse. Costco's intention is, nevertheless, to include as part of the Food Service Addition project related parking lot work in order to ensure that the subject site continues to provide a total of seventeen accessible parking spaces. That intention is reflected on the Concept Plan which shows, in part, seventeen accessible parking spaces, albeit thirteen of those spaces have been moved from their current location along the northwesterly wall of the Warehouse. We have been advised by the Architect that the City has objected to the relocation of the accessible parking spaces, as reflected on the Concept Plan, ostensibly because the City believes that locating the accessible parking spaces across a drive aisle from the Warehouse entrance is . . KRAsNOW I SAUNDERS I CORNBLATH UP Mr. Steven Carlson Page 2 February 11, 2009 not safe. On behalf of Costco, we hereby request that the City reexamine its conclusions about the accessible parking space locations shown on the Concept Plan and, for the reasons set out below, approve the proposed relocation of the accessible parking spaces, as shown on the Concept Plan. Both the CBC and the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines ("ADAAG") mandate that the accessible parking spaces be located on the "shortest accessible route of travel from adiacent varking to an accessible entrance". See ADAAG ~ 4.6.2 and CBC ~ 1129B.l. Our experience to date, which has been quite substantial on this issue, is that the Department of Justice ("DOJ"), the federal agency charged with the enforcement of the public accommodation provisions of the ADA, as well as ADAAG's author, the U.S. Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board ("Access Board"), have consistently interpreted the foregoing requirement to mean that the accessible parking spaces must be the closest parking spaces to the accessible entrance, i.e., ifthere is a standard size parking space located closer to an accessible entrance than is an accessible parking space, that accessible parking space is not on the "shortest accessible route" to that entrance, as required by ~ 4.6.2 of ADAAG. In fact, you may be interested to know that the DOJ, through the United States Attorney's Office in Miami, Florida, filed a claim against Costco not long ago alleging that the location of the accessible parking spaces at Costco's Miami Lakes, Florida and Pembroke Pines, Florida warehouses violated ADAAG because several of the accessible parking spaces were not on the shortest accessible route to the respective warehouse entrances. Interestingly, as is the case with the Warehouse, the alleged offending accessible parking spaces were, in both instances, located adjacent to the warehouse thereby obviating the need for a person parking in one of those spaces to cross a drive aisle in order to travel from his or her vehicle to the warehouse entrance. However, at each warehouse, there were several standard size parking spaces located closer to the warehouse entrance even though they were located across a drive aisle from that entrance. As a result, Costco was required by the DOJ to relocate many of the accessible parking spaces so that they complied with the DOJ's interpretation of the noted "shortest accessible route" requirement. Costco accommodated the DOl's requirement in both instances. A copy of the revised site plans showing the relocated spaces for, respectively, Costco's Miami Lakes, Florida and Pembroke Pines, Florida locations that have been approved by DOJ is enclosed for your information and convenience. Also enclosed is a copy of a site plan for each of those Costco locations that depicts the parking lot conditions immediately prior to the DOJ approved accessible parking space relocation. Please note the location of the accessible parking spaces along the warehouse wall in each of those latter site plans. Please note, too, that just last week we spoke with both the DOJ and the Access Board and have confirmed that both agenciescontinue to interpret the said "shortest accessible route" requirement as described above in this letter. . . KRASNOW I SAUNDERS I CORNBLATH UP Mr. Steven Carlson Page 3 February 11, 2009 Given that the Food Service Addition project necessarily requires certain related parking lot work, we have advised Costco that, in view of DOJ's and the Access Board's interpretation of Section 4.6.2 of ADAAG, it would be most prudent to make the parking lot work portion of the project comply with that interpretation. Therefore, consistent with DOl's and the Access Board's interpretation of Section 4.6.2 of ADAAG, the Concept Plan reflects a relocation of the accessible parking spaces serving the Warehouse in a fashion that assures that those accessible parking spaces are on the "shortest accessible route" to the Warehouse entrance, as such quoted term is interpreted by DOJ and the Access Board and is enforced by the DOl It would NOT be consistent with such interpretation to leave all of the accessible parking spaces adjacent to the northwesterly wall of the Warehouse, as that would mean that there would then be many standard size parking spaces closer to the Warehouse entrance than many of the accessible parking spaces. While it is true that several of the relocated accessible parking spaces will be situated across a drive aisle from the Warehouse entrance, even if that condition posed a safety issue (and neither Costco nor the Architect believe that it does), such concern does NOT obviate the requirement under either ADAAG or the CBC that the accessible parking spaces be located on the shortest accessible route to the Warehouse entrance. Moreover, to the extent there is a safety issue here, we respectfully submit to the City that the same should be viewed as having been adequately addressed by virtue of (a) the crosswalks which are shown on the Concept Plan and which become part of the accessible route from the adjacent accessible parking spaces to the Warehouse entrance, and (b) the fact that, in compliance with CBC ~ 1129BA.3, none of the relocated accessible parking spaces will require a person with a disability who uses any of those spaces to walk or wheel behind more than his or her own vehicle in order to travel from his or her vehicle to the Warehouse entrance. We hope and trust that, with this letter, you will approve the location of the accessible parking spaces, as shown on the Concept Plan. Should you have any questions or require any additional information, however, please feel free to contact the undersigned. _ IO~ Iffi Frederick M. Kaplan ' FMK:mm Enclosures cc: Alfonso Reyes (David Babcock and Associates) (w/encl.-via email- areyes@dbabcock.com) Joseph Welch (Mulvanny G2) (w/encl. - via email-joseph.welch@mulvannyG2.com) i s I ~ I i~ I ~ II n ~ ,<9 m >- <( g~q~ - ~~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ i ~ d~ o ~..~ U ~ ! g g H .... 1:5.... _" .. _ U m w 8 ...., " 0" ! g:~ .. it "'~ is ~ !I ~~ CI !l: 51 1I a!i i w ii! ffi ~u. 2 Ii ~ VI d1~ D <( () It Ul \I) <( f- Z () It IL 8 f- Ul :L -l <( ll. ~~ \ \\ \ \ \ ~ \ \ \ \ \ \J II I ~ ~ ...- i 'I ~ 0 !; II Ii I i ~U! ~ b I~ I I ii~ wm :l _I ; - I! II! $ ~I! i~ - ~!i ~!F" ,K ~ II ~~~ H~ ~ ~n - u '" ~ ~,.;!! i ~!.i :l ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ I II :;; CI ~ ;is ~ ~ I l!l~ ti.. Ie!l: is _ ~ __ ~ h ~ UU U2 ~ ~ ~ .. ..\1"!l!";;~... "-~!!lj!! U iIO iIO~;;/ & 5b "a.. I!!", > ~ ~!s !it I@@e g~ ~r5 iil.. ...... :::InN:::I^'.... H.Lb~ OM"N .q-,SSI w \l tl.. ,r,'itot z~ <(~ ....J~ a..~ < Wi C:~ en (!) z - I- en - >< W \l~ ~ ;;. ~ Ii ~ 'V ~ \l ~ ~( uM - I~ ~~ ~ ~') '-.:.~ ~~ ~J k N.1 ~ k~ K l ~ ~ '-..'J t. ~ ...... W ~ ....J <( en W ....J o I $~ O~ 0.; I-~ en~ 0; 0; (------ ----- ------ .11-&51 . . L.. ------ ------ -.. ---- ----- ------ ---- ----- ~ ~ ~ b. ,~ 'b\J ~ 1:: ~:t A< ~ - {>J.u :; (fl: \)- )~ A:: IN I'> ...,l ~/14 ~~ /'l... \) !~~ {;~ l C> III\.! ~ ~ ~ ..... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . \S ~ $ ;lj1lf "I 1:1 ~ f j < ~ II" I" ," ~ :-' ) . ;! ~h~~ ~ I ~ -.: t 1-- , ~ ... l::! \J.. I z: -l A :5: tp tt a.. ~ '~ ~ w ~ \ I- ~ I~) ~ Ci5~ l N (!) N(J.q z "';; i= - f ~ K~ l ~ <. '"' ~ ^vJ \..l ~ .).. l'R ~ ~ ~ W ....J ~ W ....J o I~ S~ "- Oui ()~ I-~ en~ 0: ()~ 11. $1 II !II!II ~ itll ~ ~ I J ~~:i:i nu ~ n ~u~ " i i fil ~ fil fil U SinN! ii ~;! Ii ~ I i ~ i it " O~~ 15 - m ~ h ~e - ~I ~a.. <( ~~~ ~ ! 0 ~ S~ 11: <( 0 w ~ w W LL :i ~ ~ 8ii! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ I- ~ 0 ~ .... I-G.. !l ~ 0' .. () ~ .. ~ ~ g~ ~ ~ W ili.dB .. *:H~ 0 fi.i Iil~ ~ ~ ...., ~ i.i ~ ~ ll~ S~~ !!!~!l~Iil:: z Z !~~ i~~t;;~~~I~~~ ~ 0.. !.i ~ ~ ~ ~ i~ ~~~ "i.~~~~~;t~5!!!:i! U o::~ a.. 11 ~ ~ ~ !; Iii a~ ~~g g f ~@~g g~ ~I f ia > ,." rn .., 10 5 ~~~~ .' . ~--I ~ I : ~ I :n I till! l,i!lll! I 1111- I !IlIlI , I I I~ i~= !~ 1 m I~ .~ ~ Z~ ::5; a..~ w~ 1-:;: - w en" >- 0:: <( Z - ::E ....J W 0:: a.. W ....J <( en w ....J 0,.; I~ s~ IL O~ u~ I-~ en~ o~ ()~ .AI \ 1J K~ -s....... G-' \~ ~ A ^'" s--, \..., ~)~ '\J~~ A~~ j':../,~c.; I~'€~ ..--... ~ ( t t~ ) ~t ~"V'v~ "'.; K ~ ~ \p ~ i;::, A.. {:!Q ~f ~ SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CALIFORNIA EL CAMINO TITLE SHEET 1 0008.P.137 APRil 24, 200_9. TITLE SHEET LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: t)AVlD- BABCOCK & ASSOCIATES- 3581 MT. DIABLO BLVD., SUITE 235 LAFAYETTE, CA. 94549 PHONE: (925) 283.5070 FAX: (925) 283-4823 CONTACT: DAVID BABCOCK CIVIL ENGINEER/SURVEY: ---- KIER & WRIGHT 1233 QUARRY LANE, SUITE 145 PLEASANTON. CA 94566 PHONE: (925) 249-6555 FAX: (925) 249-6563 CONTACT: STEVE CALCAGNO MULVANNY G2 ARCHITECTURE 1110 112TH AVENUE NE SUITE 500 BELLEVUE. WA 98004 PHONE: (425)463-1416 FAX: (425) 463-2050 CONTACT: JOSEPH WELCH ARCHITECTS: DAVID BABCOCK & ASSOCIATES 3581 MOUNT DIABLO BLVD., SUITE 235 LAFAYETTE, CA. 94549 PHONE: (925) 283-5070 FAX: (925) 283-4823 CONTACT: DAVID BABCOCK APPLICANT: COSTee WHOLESALE 999 LAKE DRIVE ISSAQUAH. WA 98027 PHONE: (425) 427-7540 FAX: (425) 313-8105 CONTACT: KIM SANFORD DA VJD BABCOCK & AssoclA TES -.~.--;-....;,.i7i..."""" l'..""'OIAJ1Ul...."'...um", l.>>.\1'TT1,C...a<IR-........_ TFL,9L.'lJ).....",f,u''IlS'''''....r.... --.- PROJECT DIRECTORY DESIGN REVIEW USE PERMIT MODIFICATION =+- VICINITY MAP N.T.S. APPLICATION FOR RECEIVING DOCK AND FOOD SERVICE ADDITION SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA COSTCO WHOLESALE 13 9 10 I I I I < . . -- .- 4 15 CONTEXT PHOTOS 8 '0'"'' $ ,... IWIJClU 1600 EL CAMINO REAL S. SAN FRANCISCO. CA DAVID BABCOCK & AssoclA TES ..<.".<.........-..-.-.;~-- lIOIWTI>V.aWIl"D.wrTIll' L>>~nTn..{...Uf<'>l<.~l~"'_ 1I'L.~I!lV"".f"".",-.,... --....... 0OO8.P.137 APRil 24. 2009 CONTEXT PHOTOS 2 , SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CAL FORNIA EL CAMINO CONCEPT SITE PLAN 3 OOOB.P .137 APRil 24 2009 CONCEPT SITE PLAN \I;::::::::: Q I' .~ I =_i i I' I " I O =,- , /', ~ :C~ 1/-:( > 61 ~ =...~ ~ , ' /::J ' , u-r+t:::::JJ..---- / ~~= -- '[? - ~- ',' ,pAAKfOQ$TAiU'~ / . '~M_ , I I = ~ =-.t- i (J_o I i oUi. ~ '-~... ~ >: i ,~+--- '\ ! _n ~ - ~" ~r ~ \ ~ .~ r",'~ ~ @ , ~ \ ,'- '~ , ~' " =i \ .~ II . A_~ " \_,~~)~\,-:-'-~,_~\ = ~= "tl \ ,,' 1'1 '0 ','I . \ ' \ ' c::J I' \_'--O-C---'---:-: \ ...... , L .--- - ---- - ----- --..---...--- --- 'm_ ~ ;g EL c:= R6.OCATUlACCESSlkl~ PlOII:OlGlITAUJI_Ili:..._ P__l"'-""'Ttltll "0.,~@ ~ q " - ~ ~ ...:u= .JI _fL @ .,- ,~ ~. '--~- - a. - ro~~,\ _ ~ -0 - - -u- IT - ~ - IT ~ .11- -+-- =-- = l..J= -0 = -~ NEW FOOD SERVICE RELOCATEDIJIDJCTlVE OW"",. CAM ElOSTWGTlRECENTER (E) 142'_11" . - J\ - \ \ \ \ ~-\\ - \ ~ ~ 0 i I \~ , . .1 - \i ',: "I 'r,"j' ~ .:--.'\ ;- , ~ ~fl : ,,~.I/ \ ,'ff/ ' :'/.I \ II : &01/ \ , .~// : -\i-'_'=--O=--O~' ~ \ \ "-.-.-.:=.--------' (flfVOCEtllOBlfSTlt w.u::w~, IAH o ' \0 ' ___----- I _----------------.3 NO (E) 45T-<l" \> b . ;g REAL IE) "'-0" IF I- (E1T11lEEMLl.(IYII'.) c:E@ ~ IT --. -r- RElOCATE) TRUCKOOCK- ~ NEW TRUCK DOCK SCREEN WAll. NEW RECEMNG I AOD/TlON . ,. ,~ ,- ,~ , I~~'~ (E) TRANSFORMER NEW COMPACTOR ~ DAVID BABCOCK & AsSOClA TES ...........~;;;..-:-u........ ".,o.rrPWlWRLVII.surrEm 1>>~\"ETT1..(:AtlfOL~lA""" TU ,91l.l'~'\O'I wwo_."'"" PROJECT DATA CLIENT: COSTCO WHOLESALE 999 LAKE DRIVE ISSAQUAH, WA 98027 PROJECT ADDRESS: 1600 EL CAMINO REAL SO. SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 ZONING: PLANNED COMMERCIAL SITE AREA: 15.12 ACRES (658,797 S.F.) JURISDICTION: CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO SETBACKS: FRONT; 20'-O~ BOUNDARIES THIS PLAN HAS BEEN INFORMATION: PREPARED BY USING DIGITAL DATA PROV1DED BY KIER & WRIGHT CIVIL ENGINEERS DATED FEBRUARY 2008 EXISTING BUILDING DATA: EXISTING BUILDING AREA 140,927 S.F. EXISTING TIRE CENTER 5,718 S.F. TOTAL EXISTING BUILDING AREA 146,645 S.F. PROPOSED BUILDING ADDITION; NEW FOOD SERVICE 1,320 S.F. NEW RECEIVING ADDITION 3,861 S.F. TOTAL REVISED BUILDING AREA 151,826 S.F. PARKING DATA; EXIST. PARKING 852 STALLS EXIST. PARKING DENSITY 5.81 STALLS/1,OOO S.F, REVISED PARKING: Ii> 10' WIDE STAlLS 474 STALLS Ii> 9' WIDE STALLS 331 STALLS (i)l-/C HANDICAP STALLS 18 STALLS TOTAL PARKING 823 STALLS TOTAL PARKING LOST -29 STALLS NEW PARKING RATIO 5.42 STALLS /1,000 S.F. CITY REQUIRED PARKING 759 STALLS CITY REQUIRED PARKING RATIO 5.00 STALLS /1,000 SF VICINITY MAP ~~ O'02C" ~ w ~I-:- I 1600 EL CAMINO REAL S. SAN FRANCISCO, CA COSTCO WHOLESALE - SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CA RACK COUNT: GROCERY RACKS CENTER SECTION HARDLlNE RACKS NOTES: EXISTING CONDITIONS TO BE FIELD VERIFIED. NEW RECEIVING ADDITION NEW FOOD SERVICE TOTAl REVISED BUILDING 206 21,886 S.F. 158 3,852 S.F. 1,320 S.F. 51,817 $.F. 2. ......J ,~, 3' ''4'' '..J .'-, .5 ! '.- 1. :'6, '-' EXIST. BUILDING AREA EXIST. TIRE CENTER TOTAL EXIST. BUILDING 140,927 S.F. 5,718 S.F. 146,645 S.F. ;;: '->- PROJECT DATA EXIST. BUILDING DATA: .1;_ ,~ ~ ''1.''~ ...,,:out. II j. . :> I II' Ii J ~ l' i-....", =' '''''''''''''J "'''' ~~' :~'f -= I .~.,="..,:"._-._ -', "... -~..- .A: r ,~ r~ - .. ~ ,. j - I , t,J '-, "!...x,~; ',~.,; 10' ,~ CONCEPT FLOOR PLAN APRIL 24 2009 4 97.1810.11 APRil 24, 2009 CONCEPT FLOOR PLAN -- '1O"1I"M"~""!ISUTl"!"'" IIl'lUVUII'WA,_ ,0Cll'OOOI'US.."UOO2 L ., , _. ------~-~ l j ':::..::.:c'-"-. Ie -'--= -...-......-- I '"' !:~ ~ " . L ~,,.., -- ~ ^ x- C' CO j + El CAMINO REAL, CA #475 '6DO€lCA""~REAL SOUTH SMl FRANCISCO, CA 904080 ~: ---. . , '8', '-' 0- , - '~'l > '"";;;~;r~" i-;~r'i I Ii ,;~~'bt ~ ~''''P~ '';'. '~"'" ''''''~~ ;c:, ",i~~ '- t-li _~ _+1'~n~: ~, ~li:..;'" - - -~i~i """ ""i ..;.~ ,-.--.-, H- ." ' ' , r-t- ""'t-t--I " i' " '+"-- I~H : +....~ ., +-..-; ~;" ,-- ,.;.;.i ''''11 I'--i---+---I ;.g.... . . , .' 1 ,~+-+-; ~.. f-H-j t- f~+-t--I t- to'........_-i---.._~+-- t'_-i---...~ ~...- '" " r:-:-l-rr -- I~-- ,-+++-1 f-t- H-H H~ t-r-M '-.- ,~+-+_; r-T-' f+H !;t-i f-t-t--I ,-t-, H-H ~-:t:; L'tl+j ~~n tti c '-.. .. E' '..../ F' D _0 F' G'- --,,/ F- .~. H">- ,~ n LJ -+~ - " :r:J-"ur ~ !;l~ ~ ~c ~ ~c ~ ~c An..... - ,~ - :: - - - ..-- ., ~ ~- 1 I 1 I - . ~ L -. - -;;:. - ----- - --" -. """'" - - ;\>;u :',...... - ___':1-.__"'- H" ~..,- >- - " . T 1 I , I -_..~- I :i L , ,,"'..,., -~ ~ I I - - " \; 'n Ii ---,,-~; 11 ~~~- ~,'~ r ~ r-n r--:-~ LL':': ,_,,--, ,., I _.~ =~ti9.. ..-':..- r-,-:-c .D~L______, I >, -..- -~ --c r------r-- 'f...-- -. , I~'.. I: -~ "oOq I _U. .__. ~,., --I~. "'~ I, _ , " ~ 0'.=. ._~ J", ',.-', - :J---,_o :.:=:. __ .~ I 0, -~ I =u ----\.1;, D""'~: _ vl II: ..nEIIT IUO I m~ ~: _ ir ;~.; ^~,:~ ~~<--.~-~ I.:"'~. IJ~~ -"~ri " ~ ;, " :% i:"T>;;4Ii-"",~ _.., f!)(. _. '-<; ~;;:; ~.' .. ~ w r...............-~ .0>."....., II- ,."....1 ""'H,. I ?lUE'jj ..\ jj C-, ~ ,. 1 , -. L~ ' r- )VI. .. ~ I, ~ -L I- . ~ -,~. ~ .. -:;:.+- tIJ --. - ~ .- f . i ~~ ,-, . D,: -.iF '-. Ie;\. .-' ~ -------j H i '.-/ E' '."J $ C B" \6< 32' ,___ I F'. tJ -(~ , 't(";--_. '-' r. :1i ,~ " '" _~"______4 ,~) 'f~_~=~,; "~!1~~':= ~=== == ~ .... o>n_i -...,. , /C'. '3' 'T .'~-- -~-- ,:,,; '~"--:,- - .,.~ .4. '.../ ~"', 5j /-', .6' " , I f' ~-"~ - , " I! .-.. '/g'\ 'T I I ~c..~i :!..:..:.;. -=---- ::::..1:-,;:---- "'"= --'-----.. I , '10) ,-, :~~j /-., -l,'S" (2) SOUTH ELEVATION :11::':; lSTCO ~WHOI-"'--I: - SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CALIFORNIA (EL CAMINO FOR REFERENCE ONLY: ""'"' EXISTING BUILDING ELEVATIONS m o o KEY PLAN iii:fr~ ....... ~ ~ Gf 0"'W I ..... o . - I I I f - CD I CD I 's' "\;/ I o .' ~ - ~ ~ I Ds7Q l"~--I 1600 El CAMINO REAL S. SAN FRANCISCO, CA DAVID BABCOCK & AsSOCIATES ....".......n...'.~- ,,.'WTDlABlDBL\rD.5UtI't.DI UJArrrn-C~,,"""" Tll- _,"''"_ ."" '-'l:IUOV .......-...- OOOB.P .137 APRil 24. 2009 EXISTING BUILDING ElEVA TrONS 5 4 !== 'rr i. I =~21i~;:~" 1+ iaEai~t ~ . "~" i 1] wp__ -- iZI~4"1 r , ' .., -- -- ---=.-. -=~ -- @ I I EAST ELEVATION f SCOLEolllr.H" @ I f @) I @ CD I I I 0) I 3)-NORTH ELEVATION_~vw... 'urH I CD I '-~"n--'-'- ""'~.. .;. ;1:'lil: .,1;:= 1,,1' Ili':I:; I , ~~:F'~'e;;;:':~~I$,C;i:;;::'%:~0::~~ -- ---- o I I ,. I .,..--- o . - I fll . o I @ I ~ o I WEST ELEVATION . I,...,~"'~""'~~ I II<'-'U;lIWo\'''' @ I ~............'...._.. I " . I f I f f 2 ENTRY ELEVATION ,~m_" II<'-'U;lJtI"ol'''' o ~". WHIOI--15 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CAL IFORN IA EL . "'''' ~FL..A.StWlG 2 '1IIAI'lIllA!llNGwAU. :1WA1'1Il'.A.ll1NGHORlZOHTAl. I . MAI'lIUDlNG IIERT. S'mlPE , """""'" a CNKPI A'MING , ""'" . """"""'"'" ; ,wAUP,l,(XlJGo4TFlX'lUlE CAMINO EXTERIOR FINISH SCHEDULE ,~""'" - ,FINISH ."'"'" 1-..F...cTl.flER Ir<<lTES 0 ~ ~SHEETltIfTAL - ,- I CO!.OR 10 w.TQl - ...... """"'''''''''''''' """"'" I: """" VERlFY81.OCI(COlOR CONCRETEt.IASClNIf!'UNrT ""''''''''''' """" IoIATCHESEXlS'TJ<;Gf'lllClA; 1m TOINSTAl..1ATION ::r- """"'''''''"''''''' ""''''''''''' """" 0 I"flECISOIQlTCIIlJ{D3ol5} ,- SNETYREOS.W.408t ...... ...... W STN<<>NGSENolFlOOF ,- """"'''''''... ,.,... MEiALDOOR&r:W.iE 'PAINT MATcilEiOSioo ~""""""" W,TCHEXISDIG ~ IlEVERSE PAIl lETAL ,- .....TOlEXlSTlNG ru.TCHEXISTING ~""""""" KEY PLAN lMTCHmsTlNG W,TCHEXIS1WG MATCHEXISTl"IG .....TCtlEXl$1lNG MATCHEXI$TI<IG -.- - """'" CONCEPT BUILDING ELEVATIONS DA VJD BABCOCK & AsSOCIATES .""",..........,...,...; l"'ldTl>WIlDBLVD.",-,""U' v.unTn.(AUf(lIl.~lA"''''' Ta ~,1t~_ fAA <OZ'.'ln....ll --- OOOB.P .137 APRIL 24. 2009 CONCEPT BUILDING ELEVATIONS 6 4 SCOOE:I/If"a!'-r I @ 0 I I I 0......n l ~-Q~- ::::mm ITHt ~1Il.! ., +!!.!!..... 5' SOUTH ELEVATION :"::;; I o @:E l' -.... << I - 1600 El CAMINO REAL S. SAN FRANCISCO. CA ~ ".. 'I' ". ,...........j"""""'j I I - FU.OPeNI~TOIM.TCH / rh~ AOJACENTFlNISH~ ---------- ,------------:\ I I(C) @ ~E _ ~umG IT NEW CONSTRUcTION I III fqJ 1 ~"." "... .~. ~.~ ,.,If, ..;; '" _~CV i '" @ I , . - FU oPEHlJIIG TO MATOl AClJACENTFIHISH c @ 3 '-/T'! NORTH ELEVATION !iCM..E:l/"-.'""" "'." " .x." -0.,...",' .c-" I 0) I 'I" ,., . ~ -~I' ..~ ,.1 I c , o I ~ .", . c ~ ~ c WEST ELEVATION - lJW.'"-fI' @ I @ I I ~ I: '4,.."'.0:-, ~ ,.~ """-~'.~."-'*' "c" L___~ 1 <'~ ~ i)_ENTRY ELEVATIO ---- NEW CONSTRUCTI 1-1" :1 C?,-@-j I NEW CONSr"UCTION : I f 0) I SOUTH SAN ?~~ //,/ FRANCISCO - - ~ 0_--- ____ ~ ......\' -- ~ = I U , ! n..__ I 11_-: , U I I / " CJ- I G- ? =.,= - ~'~,:t _ . t::::::::; t=:J t=:1.....).:t.1. -i' fir::; % ,,;;11 lil:i; , i L -.-.~ I --.---=- e-=r - ~ I L EXISDo1G elm I>KJ lANDSCAPE ! 0-- -;- = ",""",",,ro"""'(m') _ ,_' _ =~_~ , I : ~ - = ~ \ ~,\ ~ = = ~ " ~.~ lb --M \ \. \ " \ _~-\r.-n-'~ I = = d \-~\~'~\ ;:\_'1 \~\j3 { ~ \~_....-~-- ." ,-- ..":!.' , ' ~ ..---- ---- ----- -- CAL ---- I FORN .- - i - ~ I~_~ = ~ -- IA ------- ----- ==c=J ~ n=- e v- ~ EL CAM '" 1 e3 !!!9 t: H " "'1-!~' 1I't-1-1i l"~X'" I If @Jf T , -I- +- o c::::::::' I NO - r: =0 CONCEPT LANDSCAPE PLAN , , = \ - ' , - o-=- " \ " ' ,,' I '- .:..', \ _ -0::// : 1/;' \ [:9 ,,;/! : , '(?/ 0 \ '0'o~ ' r::o=---o=---o=---o~' o~' \ \ \o_'_._o==------ \- : - ____---- I __------ --.J -M 0\ -- \ \ - \\ ~- \ \ __ u ~o=- T [ .J ( '''' -0- M"JIo-~.. -o=- -0_ -F = (')= .+-. o - ~~__..".- ;r::?:"<--:~ - --=,- ---,,:--- EL CAM .----~.-::::==:;:= - - ..::= '=::'-::::=.' =,~~-=:.::._- c;:::-...;:::::-~- ---.- - - EXISl1NGlANOSCAPING NO REAL -- TREE SYMBOLS LEGEND SVMBOL BOTANICAL I COMMON NAME ~ ~ LopfloslemotlCQllMnusI 2."bQx MaldledStarl<laIllS .......... @ ~...celsal 2." no. Ma~Starld.aI<l. ~_Z.....-C__T_ 0 P......n'll"'IAustn""~Plne 2." box MatchedStanclln'tIS @ Sequ<>llOllfKTlP.l'wert$'~Bl>e'1 2.' box MalChIIdStar<lanlt ApIos8UeCoaslRe<IwoocI SHRUB LEGEND ~ M",oIOI'lnltl6ar1Clgrouno:lcoverslh"be~ ,nc:luIlm,Orr.bIo>w"lgpoWrt....plant~pWnS: SHRUBS AND PERENNIALS '''' ADel<..grand......E<lW8r(IGoucl>oll" ",. EClWard Gouctw Arleha _1grMdlftora'~'1 ,,. .........- AQ..p'''ll_~...P.1l'1 ,,. P_.Pan~_nlhus o...esvegeUll ,,. _c. ......boIW",BIuoIl.' ,,. W...BiusIl_ ElKllllonoII 'f.-s.1 I ",. F,-.EscaIonolI El.IIYOQ'I;>edInaIU!.'Munc:h<.m'/ ,,. !Auncl'IlunElJ')'ODC ~~'h""",,'1 15 gal. --, RnaI>I>ooiep<s'ndtGa"Cl8nl'1 ,,. .....lllteFlowtltlncl....~ Roseap,'P1nkF_C8rpefl ,,. P'I'Ik F_CaopeI Row GROUND COVERS "" _~'PacIfleMISI'I ,,. pooar.cMlOl"""ftlAIl. Gaz...."\"brM._'V_'or'Ontnge., ,,. y.....,OnI'9'Gala..... IRRIGATION SYSTEM STATEMENT The mgllbQll.,.18m d bola wal_ "lfcOlt/l'Iowf\aw. low QalIcnDQe syslem<leSlllrllld to provoOe~.....JIPOrt""plamgr<lWll'land"'Il<.Q_JJl\IrooledplBnlmalel'l.I'Il'I'I4e 1M>IdrtIg..."u.~w.~oc.al>Oll, T....~amdl>flpmgnlm_..........ngQllflf8lOn ~"'IIe.t)'''''''''ng~_dlXll'l__(leSl...''''......~'''''). orngatlOl'l mat.....opecteclbrl!le_...lMt~Of'Ilt>e_.afd\lrabllll)'and"n..aI -~~ ~~ OHI'2O' ~ ~ 1"""1-,- I DsTcl vrr--'" 1600 El CAMINO REAL S. SAN FRANCISCO. CA DAVID BABCOCK & AsSOClA TES .,,,,,,,,,,...;:;..,..-;-u,,. ''''''''''.DWIWBI.VtI..",,",-l'' lM.n:"LUI....OL~"'~'"' lU.l'Ol'l""~_f.u'orn>:O~l ......._.- DODS.P .137 APRil 24. 2009 CONCEPT LANDSCAPE PlAN 7 :r '~~ j ""~-..:;_.-'""'".~. ~-- \ -". -' &0.....-/.,. "~ ~~-_--_-- ~~to"'" r"~' ,.". - - " ...,/, ~ ~ - ~ --- ---- - - -.... . . ..... \ - ,~. l..:"' ~ . -- =::s- ~~ ;:-_.~ I.. "" ~"'--'-"'._ ~, \'. -..----~.:.-c----- ''''''''''- '" ;"I-I~ ~ fS!!!T '\---00.' ~''''----T ~'- " ~ ..,,:.;,... .'. ~","'d-'. ,,~~ ;;, 1:P ~~ ~~ ~<,v- ---tit~~-' . ~7'- .. .. ,-- F\"'l: ~ I "", .--:::-"", " ~ ~_~J-.\.1'T____-- - .. , """ .,,"-. '-. ~ --- - - l--.;;;;:;:- \ '~'_~~~J..---::......- ,.J" /""" /.....~~ -..L-- ;~I" -::- -" ~- I _ ~ l..--'~--- ~~_\_~ _----- '" " /'" .......... ~ - ~ - -io~'" 't -' - -:- " _--: ""\l--~-- I "" .1" /,,,,f"-....-___ __... -_oJ.. _--- .. \ / ' ";.-'=- , ~_.... - --- - -- - I, ~ \Vj'"'" )/'~" /0"" ~ ,',' ,3,=:: . . ~ ~ n ';,~'-::=-~~~;bd - l-- _ ~-:;t~?~E ~ " i) i / /- - ~ h~" ~.:'t'1-tn 11 . .~.\~~~:::' '_ - ,I ~ II ." r ~ _.. ."\~' \"\ ~\ \~ ~ , .. '~ \\:u t---tt' ~ l_ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~u~ ~ U 0", '\1'> (,l, Ita \ \ ~ ... hI'" '" - ....J 4>: l' 4 ~ ~~... b q. .11' \ ~'\ ,'Il '\"_dl\' ......1:11 I I , ...... / , ___ .. ,<0 ...- \. ~.g-...{- -. _ ~ _ __ __'"" _. _ _ _ -.,.L"., ,l:J \ \ \, A- \ \ I ....! II_""'-..rf' 'I .> - <r'l"l {... ,:;_ S'SS - a ~. , \ ,\ l eo. ~ ' \ ~fo I " f ~"-~ . ,~~ ..':;l:. '__, _:- -:--:l; .~' ,H- '-0;;:\'== ' --, - , 'il #,1, \.~, I, I \,;f.:.J '::;~'-'Z["'-l-'-"'-'--~~~--;;"" ~~ ~~::;;&~'F-'-Ik ::-7 ~ .~.. :~~' = 1 . ! \ ,\ ~~,:" \f\~ o' d '. ' f. Wld,.h . W ,~ .<g,t,,-- / ~ ~,~ '1') ~ II \~ 'U<:\ ~.... :f-+--~?~~ zit. '//~"~ - \ -!'" r. o:::::;r = .8>' U \ Il\ 0, I ~1;1 m "fZ~~',{, -'~ " '~ ~ / ::. 'fi. 1=.10., .1I<l,~= k '. l = ,0:1-'0> 10"PSS( ,-.-1"'1 ..e.. I "'<i. 0(> 2Ol)4., 410.1'1. \ \ " ,L,-==:r=:i:":'~1 1%: '0~.' v.~ ' ,...~ \-i;li> ...' ..~~ .,., ~ v-~ 1 CiA \~\~ ,~~...~ P.' I J' 11!Ii' t!:;, \, ~ ""e>' r' 11~ V I:d \\, I. . \ ,..../1 WA' /fL~ / .f<:~,"'eo! =1 ~ ""..~Il' _ . '" ~ ;>' , , ~ k.. ~_ ' 1 \ ' ~ ,I' ./,1,. , ,~,~~.." ~~ . . , ~ rror1i IH., '\21 II IIIIIP ~ "~' "'II'., ; ,.,-,,~ ~ I ...-- .",...,.~.'~ \ \i!J '1-'i'Q u .JL--<"'U U U l h .--" ... (' I ~ /. ... ~ ~ ~ ~.;; 'b "", ~ L_1___ c:.________ L i( ,I', va.. r-.:::;:.:- ..' '_ ~1 qo''it ~ 4- ...~ 7 . rt ... - I, Y / i' '==> 3E = .03-' ~"'':;~ A~ -f'ic..... __ ':. I- I ," i",' " ='" I " ~.-=r= <;,,,,';>" ..."'..... ,P I _' II , / I . ..~ ...... ~ to.. I, AY" ' . I --...-- . .., I " ,:-- I , ~', ".~.' i 'U 1\ /r9~"" wr'/ Ii' / ~;>.... ~ ':' ..... =.'i5i . "" f--' ,C'-< .0/,6 . '~'I ==!;' 'b "'" i _, . " ~ i. ~- -:=:-'- '" ~ ~ . ~'l /I..ti ~~ '. IU. . ",.' ~ I . -.:::= ----- /.,,""::::. II f \"" S' -;1 = . If.... . ~.-~, - . ~ ~ ,~" ~~ . ~ I ~ '. ' ~ ^ I ~ .~"" ~~.. "" ".~, .~. - '" ~".;> 1 "" 4- ',," ..... Aca -~...., l': JI.'. ~ ~~, ../ !l.' ...~"",":on ~ ~~J~.. .un._ ...~ 'l'...rr. ..~ ,..,.t? ~ 2004 ~"""'I?- , ~"'t~\ I "~_.. ...~, ~A "" "tH' ~~ 1"1/.. . .*', ~~~'~. ,..,..' _ t. 63- 1::-;.", "fl!1 ~. ." -- I,~- _.~ ~~ - ~,: __'. ~'''.' .,' ~1 fi . ~ I I ] ~! '1 ., .~/. ffl~'~ .:<-,,"------~..~.... -~..-k"f}:." ~,., 0....,.1 ITI [" ~ i-'J " ...~"..c..t. _all '" '" l... II,+-- VI f\'~.T ~ .~ ~ <t;-' . <l" ~"ss-"" . f-> _11 ~ /. , I fJ.....'.(o C"'..r" ~ ~'.u ~... ..... ~ '>" ~., ~.t ~., ~ <t~J-~ <~~ '"). # __ _ _ _ .;> ".. 4,> 1- ".. ~. rt' ""~~' ;,:.~.",~..~.~0~,~,"0~1~~' nn,;;~:~r~< ." ....4".1f<"'.. .~~ ':""'_/hot,." '. .~, .~,. . ... , I V t. '1"'~' ~ ~ ~~ III! ~~. 111!f)r()~ I ,;r.;>' ';>-cT""ij>~"'- C-<<"'. . -8-~"'* ~ '''',,~ I,:, : Sl I ;:~,.J,""'''\~", W-',\.. .1~./ '\;:...# I;;j' '$~~ ""~";'''''Z ;L _~. ~:...".. ;'~:'il~j~"~" ''''..'If B..... n .. -J "C I I ..\\-~.. ...- {}'fl_' .! ~... -r, ~ ~,,~~O?..'" II ~ ... ~ o1ru~': fr~ 0 ~ ~t~:r .t,,"'- /" "~" "~/^'^ ., i~ . ,...iI r; ml~, .~ttd.:z I. " ,~. ,,,,~~.,...,, ". .", ~ . .,' I ~- ."., -"".... (< ~ pl "'" . ..:..~;:;> ~ " A~aI' rum - .,. ::r= .... ~ Ji..." ...' e; ..... -c> ! 1 II I ~ 1 j~ ..:-,. ~ I ~; " ",~, ~.. .";"~. ~ ~' po. ~ l T C';3r-( ~\\L ~ i t;:d'JJ, 1.-- .' . 1 \1 1'T1;ij\ I ~ 0 0 ~j~ ...- II ..i.,- . 91:'N ..' ."'" -;,' ,1. =t l . I ., ~ PARCElS f-> , . l"sC!------.. 0"" ,0; U...' .... oa.l'<)O ~ j Y lOT UN' ADJUSTMENT NO. 19 . . ~ " .' .~, ".l >'.' . . !,L'l ~ ;" . I I'll RECOROEOJUNE1.2000 II ~~, ~"'~' " ~ ~t l;/ ~ -..q J;> t 2ooo-0675860.R.;> 1:1".,."'- i' ~ ~ /:/ I. .. I -2 I I;' APN:010-212-IOO-1 ~ fI '. ."'. 0 l\.~o.~ .I. ;;, I ~]., U;::11< ~h.1!ji,;!.! ~- SrTHREA-ISI247rACRES .! ir=1, i H . 'ff, 'Y'f.-I-7itJ' ;rJ r ',L ~.~... _658.83ldQ.FT. ~ 0 ,.". l~ I~ ,,;m~.f" I '/ If "', : 1 :;\ " 0 W ~~.~' 83.90fF ~ ~ ..' ) 'L .... !S-:...-'" .1:'.1 i I?''''' '1'. ~, " ,'" '" ",. 1'., ~ ~rl' k =-4., i.. 0 . , ". 1\ . ~.~ =--,' . ~ ,<>", II ~~ '[i:i;;;..DC"'.. ~ I . ~ !... ',,<I,,~t~\,'1..~" ~-j!~' of"" HJ ',"~ ;; I - : I I !1~ ~ *-: ~ ,'" T I ' , "-'. =: .J. '-f"f,~, 't ' t\f ~ t;> to. ll- ~ ' ~~ I . ........... 11' ~.\.t ". ~ , .... ,""'. '-c U U ~ I II ." . . Il,j,"1 ~ - i.,'~ ~...,.... <>, L ~: '~.:1 ott~' \ <t' ~ ....<-l.>>A~... .....v-ct:) ..., , . f l ) ,I"" ;,$,' ,:...~~ - ~ ~, I ". ,..~ '~!'!IC\ ~ \M.--; \ l~'" _...Q ,f!:"'... oir~ " ;;- "1 " 1 I H!'. ...' '~ \ ~ -, " ~ ~..<tol'~.." ' ~', ~' .. ..-- ~ :;-/' .",-1 ~"",i'.." \. ~_ ~ 1i~ #= ufu ~ "',' \ -'\-- :~. ~ I l~~t~ .. ~., J~." ~ ''''... ~~ q~J~'>>~ -' ~~.-; So$.-, . !> 4>-;". f-> ~. . .t.il.-.il. _ftf~,-1__ > ' ~~\d~~~a \/(~'f.. _~ _ I ';':.~', .'",,", ~, ~ h. ,.. __ ~fr ~~~15~,~I};'c'~~5';.l V"'L~""",,"___':!\.7_. . ,~-,",,'-rl---Fi'-:~_~______~_c -~'._---'--If-- -~~~'- ". ~'-~~1~"':~~~ 1 _ ,.- _ r '~'... __ __+- ~ _" _. .. '" ~.:<' '-~" .. _ \ .- -- u. .--.:. - _..., .., _~.~.. +""':>..~ .'1'1 oJ ~...., "'.t r..... _ . "I ~~ ~,~:~~.4i ~;:.?~'''''~.' ,/' ,,,., '.'~ "^ ~f ,~ '.., ,-c:...~.fr;, ,,,"''' "m ~k=' -.,' . ~;. ...-'--- &!:. ~ '-'''.. ;f,"'" p ..... "'- - - - Ii --:::--;;--- I!:. '"'" -a ~O ~ -..J __&ll~ .f, ~~/ El--CAMINO,{E)....n · = ,I' -..... ~~ -~j,~;--z,~. -"\J C"', _ . . .-~,- . .., ~;~ ,. ~... -:i ."'. J ... .~\ tf1€-f" ,".U~ ~....' ,~~ .""~ . .a1~ - ........' . IT' :!'~ .. ~_ . 'O(><()Il ~ :;E:3:;; _... ...~f. ~~ ~ _.'"i' ,- ::;_..~'- .~~:;;:-.t.., ~ I ~ T '--.. ' ~ - ....1 * - _."_1Ill__ _~CM'Il,u..... -_\~... . .. LEGEND --- -'SPtUO.T_ ~-- __ eAS1_1'PE -~ -==-==-===-=~/IItT_.AU. -~- _COf(Jl(1((:UIllIlIlllUTTtI! ~ca.rotJIl.N __~__ DIlI\'l'JIAT _lllGI:()I'~",\O€H1' -,-- El.!elIICl.N - ~- __ f&IlOPllC5l.oE ___ F'II[liVMa:..v....'<I( -._ GAS lH-v....;(. Wl:mI -Cl/AlIDIItAL __ _I'IlESS.IIEGASlH __ _1IIlDSIJJI[Cl.1.N -..-- _fICIO.A'IJI1.N -~-- ~r1llVOC>l ---- lOTI.N --__ _r,l\oa<ullDlTLN -.-- 011...... __ ~.oc_1.N ---- I'llCf'[IlTYLtOE ___ ~...'ItllI.N.Y"'OIE __ --0-.. SAHlT....T 5E'11ER....-.t It WNoICUT =SIOfWAUl ...... SPOTo..tVATlCJl _-0-0 51tIRlollllltAlO-..........:u.tATC><8A91< -,-- 'Itl.D'>OIE1.N -.__ .A'ItIlI.Na-V....-.E _ _Pll('<EJOTIClHD['<O(:( 0- 0 Wl:TROl.EJII .. f'Il( OO'",1\€JjTClONNl:ClO< . f1IIl(H'ItIRANT ..- POSltOCATllIlVALW . POOUPlU/.ooorPO...E .... TlI.omc_ o ~ 0" U'IIJT'\'llOll ~ -- - ~- 0/lV ....llQV.S[v...'oI[ A$oI _$'I'PMONV"""" A..", I#IVAl.'oI[1'O$T Il.AS .~ _....1 S'OIAU . 8JO<OFO$I't<ALT_ kG 1Il(~ ...0 8AOCp\.owf'llO(lOll(JollO'l(:( k __ 8'" lIOT1OIII _ ~v...'o( "' 80\0<0'......x 8(11 8OT1OIIIO'.olU- eM eA&.l:TEl.E\05ICOOIOX ell (:.0,1'00_ , ~ Q. tvlTDtlH: ~ ~~ eon: Q..tANOl/llO"'-"DE: el8 CAl.__ k __ . -~ 0..... DiIlI'oUMv 1YfI.1 llAVUClH'Il.Nl: tAlI WXO'ACa:'5SllO.OC u.s DC/A$I'IOAL1$W>.U: (II lUCTM:_ K mcl[O'COICIIf:1[ (eo mcl[O'CONCJl(1tOOClC (GIt mcl[Of'QRll'o(l,1lCWl EP tIlClI;O'~A~ (\IlL ~IIOeClL.0.eet'5S(A$OI(H1 f'e rJoeE:O'Q.oI!I roe I'Il(Cl[PAlIl1WCNTc:caoEe1lOH 'tl_ raHlllOUolDfr " -~ .... nll(lf"ftIltANl Fl P1.OIIUNt ~ ~ 11( l'Il(Wll'<<(t.o.5DOO<'! ~ -- (UI c,ulH:..- "" lOo\5l11AA10111,I'IUtR - - r;N c,uv..."" IOCIIl 11.o.>ocN'_ ~ ~- .. ___T ... --- 0: ~,ullDS[.+.:;Ol(>jT II: ......uTD.!'tA_ ~ ...:.fT.0.eet'5St.o.5DOO<'! L.I: lNCISCoOI"l:O-5lloIDIT . ~- 1.1' 1.1'01 M1DI lII_" -...:HTlO-...o<T ~ "A~ ~ """'ATtOllClllDSAllIltliStI&W!JOl '<V l"OST....:A'IlIIlv..."" . ~- P'5DII: I'!ll\IATtSTl;JllOCJIII_tA5D<<N1 P!l( "'-'ko::~tA$OI(h'T PSst ........ATtSNol'TAlIlTst'IltIlu.sDolDo. I'UI: l'I.e.Ie\l1l.l1'rtASOlOOl ~ ,..nr.rA1IOH lllMO $Tl)liIOl _ ..-.cu k ~_ U S11laTUClH'I_ ssc:o s,u,o.AlIlTSOOIOoLMOJl S$Y< s,u,o.AlIlTSOOIW-.cu: ~ ~~ $lII( su-......:tA$OI(h'l TAlI TllPOI...-T_ ~ ~- Te TOf'OICUl11 ~ ~ "'511 'T1lAf'1l(:5ICIO..._ T5Il TIlNTIe5lClO...0(1tl;T(lR 1'!i( TIlNTIe5lClO...t.t$OIOIT TSP TIlNTIe-....PQ..E r-. TDl'Of'-...J, 106 _TDt_ .. ...TtJI~ ..c: .AlUI"-EA5OVoT(-...e) 'IN .AIt:/l:V...wt NOTES t. 'MSI'UIT....sPllD'JoII(D"-_A1IOH~..A~AlIlT...1U ll(P(JtT.I'ItD'AlIlfD8VnI;ST_'Il'1Ut&IIlNoa;~""T.IlA1m...s0f' "AlIlO+2lI.:IClO8.DllDDI~00l;$-0_...\.OI(lUAllU1YI$A$!UIflIfOII ....~Of'll(eoRONClT$1'.1tll..$AO~...1UIIO'OllT.....&T..AT .vm;T'IIOl:"'1ULI'OES..OllEX<V''I\Cl<5.OI'IlASOV01SOf''IIOl:''''OO'D'I1Y. t.olU-llI$1'~_+€JIIGIOool,R[..F'tt'IJ<MODtar.o"-!MJIEllI'. 3.1HI!1'T'P[S,l.OeA1IDNS.Sl2D..mfOl'llltl"1'l1$O'D:l$1WC~U'I\J~ >.s_OI1_Tllf'OGll~SUIIVET'WlVltOllTMOG"'CIlOSCIIJRCOO' V_ItEUABUTY_TI1l:C(IOlltOCTgftISc:AUlOItllDtATOOl.T'OC.......DlCAVA_ -.LRt:>Ol..TI1l:T"I'PU,vnuo'.5un,l.OeAflOI<SAIClDD'TI1SOT!iUCI1 ~U'I\J1ES.(A~EFr<It1l1ASlllDOlIIAlXlOl.OeATtAlCl ~~~~~~~1'Se.w DEl.OHtA\lOI1OT5UO<~U'l\JTUlII1ICI1.....IItUOCCUlOTDlm.lIU1 lII1ICI1Altl:H01_CIOTI1l'StDItAWOGS. ~ !lOOO4o"""'OTY 0' sarno $NO flI.....::.soo \IOICMI....... "-"'Il(II lll(l!l o.olG n-1",~(;:(WQI(Tt-....on"'AC1<AT'IIOl:..1tJl5(C1lOI1OT"'T'MXlCA>L -~~ lUVA'fIOIOoo&Ui ,.....~or1'>€SIJ8.(erPOlOPDlTY.....s~Tl\,O,TTKM:_ TUD'ttCM:..~CIOCJIIII<<""_$l.&Eerl'llOPDtT'l,All(IL61-.sou.Dt: Of' _ 1tl.O't\O'tE: CO'''''''f'CJIII N'ORIIIJl\lOl1Rt:..- Dtl:l.OeATlOI1 or_ ffoCllm($CIOII1IS5ITI:....sor-.2OOB,TtCt...-o..o'lllESf'OlClal......_ _A'I'OllI1-l.OIT\.III[IltC01ll:_N'(JIYAIlOI1UClAltl:.olIlLlOD(lJO(ATI: TI\($( 'AQUTU.....~AlIlT'€S 5I-lOl.UI COI151C1!:ll MS ~AS~ARV.TH IItGNlOSlODtl:ux:.o._or'llOl:Ttl.D'IOONt:r.o.euTO.UI'CIOIIt(UO.O'_ _AIlOI1 KVl a -. -.L"."...TI: _ -"J<M000$lSIA: IT. .._.otlLOL......,.,.,..c;.....sl'llP'oUI!1IV5II1O:COllP../t[lIIA.S5lSlm.~1O[fIOI(; """":OSIV.....Gl:OSPATIAl..II1C;....OAl<I.MC>~.._A5orDO<'Sl!: ""anA'I'OllI1- .o.eQMAe'I'orl:O<\'tll.lRS..AVDt\Uo1'tflOl AeCP'TtD IJJQJtUC'f $1'NOI)AllllS.TI1[GllIllISI.A.'Il'COOI'l.OCAl.JoS5I.OO[DCOCJIIIPI1ATt~mo. eoooTltCl. 5l..IfV(T' PDIf'llIII>IlXI 'v ~IPI ., _'. .....1:&......-. C"-. ,; ~ u z ~ z ~ z .. o S; OAT'I """'-l008 - - .u.u '._10' - - $Ull\lf'YOll: Joe" o....nu C.. 10'...0_ A08H9 ~" (1 Of St<!lTl. ! I s ~ UJ LJ <! '" U <! "- Z a z f= 0 >- 0 i= UJ a ..: > <! '" C>: LJ 0 ::J Z "- V'l :> 0::: _ 0 uwtj U -J:W UJ Il-oc(5...J C,.,LL I ~ <( <(01- V"I ~ U UJ ~ UJ ...J LJ 0' 0 o '" I a. "- ~ o a 0 I- U U 1;; f- a Vl U 0 U a Z ::;: <! U ...J UJ I<JI<J u ~ ~ ~ o , ~ ' > . . . o 1-:; ~:s r5~;i 02 tti~I 3:: ;!; ~'" 0" oCl i5 ~~ C:::...JH w 5~' :;;;:: iJ~i ~ ; ; ~ I I ~ I , ! i C ~ ~ ~ , <i ~JY n f... . ~, (0 , " '" ~ ~ _,-_JOlt ! l , ---- ,~wIl\A...~;.].j ,A~"O'}. .~~.~ "40".0' 16"" 509.CJ' T. , 't :::__- --=:IL... ' EL CAMINO REAL .. . - --0- o ~ u z ~ z ~ DAn ...... ~OO& - - lU.U '".jQ" - - OBIC~(' !>'ole JOt"" -.lIU9 SHtH C2 ~ ~~ 'J/~i"-" . <'.. ,; M' I , I ~ ~__.J r-J I ---I - , I I , , , I Jj , , ~-OOO-l ~ , ' , I , I , ~o_oo=-J / ( : z a >= 15 z a a <l: _ LJ f- z ;2 Z 5> a <l" Uj 0. ..J u c: Co. w 0 'f u Z f- UJ o~~~~ r-"'-Q''''-tn -00::: ....J -' 0. 0 o a I ::;;: U :;; L.LJ t;; 0 o a u U f- a Vl Z 0 ~ U <l: U -' w i <l<l<ll<l . I ; ~ I ! II! 'H , 0 - . , , Ii . . i<l<l<l 0::: z- o' ~. ~" 0' !;;' > ~ 51 j: "":; ~ffii~ ~~tj ...,-~ ""ash a:: ...J.5 ~ !::! 5=; ~Ci~l ~ < z ~ e ~ u r- ~-;::I ! , I I I I I X I I , I I I ~' YO = 0 i. DEMOLITION LEGEND c::::::::J-"""'~Ill.- c:::=:::J-~ WI._ ~_CXIO:ln:lll._ --~ X __10__ XXX ..aJolfWClla/lDllI__ /// ~~lD.__ [ OWO_tfI'lXI i? =:=.:- J ____0-. . ~CXIO:ln:"'" , _CllGl""l"_ o _OCJClI(1[QNtCllTD <2> 1UDCo01l__Q>>.IIt'D: ---. .------- --'- -~. _.~- ..- -- _0 -- " ~ ~ '" S<<M,".JOfI " ! . "" ------~ -~ ...------ / : L.. ------\ .-~ , ( I I I I I I I II (j)-j-I II . , \( . , , " , r I I I I I I I I I l . . . . . . ~ . ~ -...- . [===:J C=:::::J 1lI.lCX PA>OViT ~C(IOOIl(1(lIll.O<PA_~r c:::::::::J~SIDEW.wc KEY NOTES . \ - .. u .... ..- u..- -..---..- \ \ " LEGEND -~- $lDItOO_CA~B.o9< STIlIaI_..l!IOCIU<1O> --~ ~- -- '"~ _lUVA1lDN SPOTEl.,[VA1lDN --- ~~~ AlITtI ~"\OV<l .a ... ~ s......'._XJfl EL CAMINO REAL o ill ill .o.o..usT.....TOfIN$€tl(JWl( _Sf'tfl>j(ltTO~ ~CI.R8KnlO"Do_ ~ , ! l ~<J<J<J , ~ . ~ i II! 'H H n . . ,<J<J<J u::: z- ~; .- 0' ~~ > . ~ f-~ I" ~: !:2:g " "'~ ~~ :;:< " "' o/l~ 5i "'~ ~~ ~5 ~1 $- Z :5 z C- O UJ >= lJ 0 z ~ Ct 0 Z <l: i= l.) ~ z <l: a: cr: :> 0 0 [;:i C>. U a: 0 '" 0 Z '" U I ~wf- UJ :rU ",-, lJ'"'" 0<( ~O ~1Il ~Oer::: UJ o c.. -' 0 ~ 0 :r: cr: U :;; lJ l;; >- 8 0 u cr: 0 f- III ~ Z 0 Z - u _ :;0 :2 <l: U :J ..J UJ '" cr: C- o ~ U z ~ z ~ ~" ....r.lOO' ~ l".jq l)(l,.J(;~E_ ,~ """ ...oant ~~ (3 ~ ~.m ~ , ---, --"",",--- -1 ~ ~ I~ '::>0J I r ~ 1 ~~ It ~" I I f I - '0 I .,_.. I. , . ~. ;, o . Ii: "I::] Il ::F~IDID- i./ __... \ MI;IDIa......f Co&ID!_ \ __I \ tr=mTIi ] > . ] . .- ~~ ~ :::=m DO.s I-- I r--- '- ]~ - , . . . . __----_0 - . , .I ( : ~/~#.... .---- ---- DATE: June 18,2009 TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: EIR COMMENTS & STUDY SESSION: Use Permit and Design Review allowing the conversion of a single-tenant industrial building containing 571,748 square feet into a multi-tenant facility, the addition of 5 new one-story buildings containing a combined total of 52,300 square feet, 24-hour daily operation, overnight outside storage of trucks and trailers, uses generating 100 average daily vehicle trips and minor exterior upgrades to the existing building, new landscaping, new loading and dock areas and a parking lot containing up to 670 parking spaces; Tentative Parcel Map merging two abutting parcels at 1070 San Mateo Avenue (APN 015-163-230) with an area of 19.79 acres and 1080 San Mateo Avenue (APNs 015-163-120) with an area of5.23 acres with a combined site area of25.02+ acres; Transportation Demand Management Plan to reduce traffic impacts associated with the 623,549 square foot industrial facility; Environmental Impact Report assessing impacts associated with the 623,549 square foot multi-tenant industrial facility, situated at 1070 and 1080 San Mateo Avenue in the Industrial (M-l) Zoning District, in accordance with SSFMC Title 19, Sections 20.30.040(a), 20.30.040(b), 20.30.040(h), 20.30.040(i), Chapters 20.81, 20.85 and 20.120. Owner & Applicant: Centrum Properties, Inc. Case Nos.: P08-0041 [UP08-0004, PM09-0001, V AR08-0003, TDM08-0002, DR08-0019 & EIR08-0003] RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission take public comments on the EIR and conduct a study session of the proposed development and offer comments. BACKGROUND: Project Description The development proposal consists of the conversion of an existing 571,748 square foot building (constructed in the late 1950's and later purchased by the US government in the early 1960' s and recently sold to Centrum) and the construction of 5 single-story buildings containing a total of 52,300 square feet into a multi-tenant industrial complex. The new one- story 9,100 square foot building at the street frontage will be utilized for commercial retail, restaurant and business services. The existing building is a former US General Services To: Planning Commission Date: June 18, 2009 Re: P08-0041 Centrum - 1070 & 1080 San Mateo Avenue Page 2 of 7 Administration warehouse with approximately 77,474 square feet still occupied by the US Postal Service and US Drug Enforcement Administration. On-site parking is proposed for up to 670 passenger vehicles and trucks in an open at-grade landscaped parking lot. Loading docks and wells will also be constructed accommodating up to 30+ tractor trailers. The project will include the merger with the abutting lot (1080 San Mateo Avenue) containing a commercial airport parking lot and will necessitate the demolition of the existing entry canopy and small one-story office building. The construction of the new buildings and linking the parking areas will necessitate grading of a portion of the 25.02 acre site (19.79 acres - 1070 San Mateo Drive and 5.23 acres - 1080 San Mateo Drive). The jurisdictional boundary line between South San Francisco and the City of San Bruno is at the project's street and southerly property boundaries. Modification ofthe driveways and utility connections that are needed along San Mateo Avenue and the City of San Bruno sewer line serving the site at the rear of the property are subject to review and approval by the City of San Bruno and will require Encroachment Permits. The condition of the sanitary sewer lines serving the site are still being studied by the owner and the information should be available soon. Two new driveways would be constructed on San Mateo Avenue to provide better site accessibility replacing the two driveways for 1070 and 1080 San Mateo Avenue. The new main driveway would be constructed in the same location as the existing driveway leading to 1080 San Mateo Avenue and the other new driveway would be constructed on the southerly edge of the site. The site will be extensively landscaped helping to provide a more inviting appearance and soften views of the existing building. The development is anticipated to be phased with the completion of the improvements to the existing building by as early as fall of 2009. The new one-story buildings will be constructed as the market demands. Staff suggests that the Planning Commission require that Building #6, fronting on San Mateo Avenue and available for commercial uses (retail, restaurants and business services) be constructed in the first phase to improve the appearance ofthe site (viewed from the street, integrate with the existing buildings, provide visible pedestrian amenities, and provide uses that will assist in vehicle trip reduction and benefit other employees and travelers to the area. . Proposed Uses This is a speculative development targeted at a range of uses including the following: To: Planning Commission Date: June 18, 2009 Re: P08-0041 Centrum - 1070 & 1080 San Mateo Avenue Page 3 of 7 . Wholesaling, Storage and Distribution . Custom Manufacturing . General Industrial . Light Manufacturing . Food Preparation . Laundry Services . Personal Storage . Business and Professional Services . Easting and Drinking Establishments: Convenience and Limited Service . Retail convenience Sales Although the project may accommodate up to as many as 8 different land uses, the actual tenant mix is unknown. For purposes of the EIR the following assumptions were utilized: . General Industrial . Wholesaling, Storage and Distribution . Eating and Drinking Establishments . Convenience Sales . Business and Professional Services 368,969 SF 245,979 SF 1,500 SF 1,000 SF 6,600 SF The center will likely operate between the hours of 6 AM to 10 PM with the option remaining for 24 hours per day. Truck activities would occur throughout the day. Overnight truck, tractor and trailer storage will also occur. The site will employ up to an estimated 750 employees primarily derived from local communities. Entitlements The applicants are requesting the following entitlements: . Use Permit and Design Review allowing the conversion of the site into a multi-tenant facility, 24-hour daily operation, overnight outside storage of trucks and trailers, and uses generating 100 average daily vehicle trips. . Tentative Parcel Map merging two abutting parcels at 1070 and 1080 San Mateo Avenue with a combined area of25.02 acres. . Variance to reduce parking requirements in association with the Transportation Demand Management Plan. To: Planning Commission Date: June 18, 2009 Re: P08-004l Centrum - 1070 & 1080 San Mateo Avenue Page 4 of 7 . Transportation Demand Management Plan to reduce traffic impacts associated with the project. . Environmental Impact Report assessing impacts associated with the project. No signs are proposed, but a condition of approval will be added requiring the owner have an approved Type C Sign Program establishing a high quality sign program that reflects the building architecture. DISCUSSION: The General Plan Land Use designation ofthe project site is Mixed Industrial and the site is situated in the Industrial (M-l) Zoning District. The proposed development is consistent with both the General Plan and the Zoning. The General Plan principles, policies and goals Land Use Policy strongly encourage the property improvement and productive uses. The M -1 Zoning (SSFMC Chapter 20.30) allows a wide range of industrial use types including those proposed by the owner. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The existing and proposed buildings comply with current City development standards as displayed in Exhibit A. The SSFMC Chapter 20.74 requires parking to be provided at the following rates: . Office: 1 parking space per each 300 SF. . Limited & Convenience Eating and Drinking Establishments: 1 parking space per each 50 SF . Industrial: 1 parking space for the first 10,000 SF + 1 parking space for the remainder area for each 5,000 SF The applicant has indicated on the Planning application that only 10% of the building area would be utilized for office. Applying these parking rates and limited area devoted to office space to the development would result in a parking requirement of381. As part ofa TDM Plan the applicant proposes to reduce the office parking rate of3.3/1,000 SF to 2.8 spaces/l,OOO SF resulting in a total of348 parking spaces. The proposed 670 parking spaces will result in an excess of 322 parking spaces. The Planning Commission may wish to consider requiring more area devoted to landscaping and pedestrian amenities, and substantially reduce the proposed excess parking. In the future, should conditions warrant due to increased site intensification, a portion of the landscape area could be converted back to parking without reducing the landscaping below the city's minimum requirements. The floor area ration (FAR) of 0.57 is within the range of 0.4 to 0.6 allowed by the General Plan To: Planning Commission Date: June 18, 2009 Re: P08-0041 Centrum - 1070 & 1080 San Mateo Avenue Page 5 of 7 Land Use Element for Mixed Industrial. The lot coverage of 57% is less than the maximum of 60% allowed by the M-l Zoning District (SSFMC Table 20.72.030). The development complies with the minimum. setbacks required for industrial developments (SSFMC Table 20.71.030). The proposed landscaping of 92,000 square feet does not comply with the City's minimum requirement of 10% ofthe total site area (SSFMC Section 20.73.040) and included pedestrian amenities. The landscape area will need to be increased by 16,987 SF to meet the minimum requirement (108,987 SF - 92,000 SF = 16,987 SF). This can easily be accomplished by reducing parking. The landscape area along San Mateo Avenue can be made more effective in screening parking areas by the construction of a landscaped berm. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD The proposed development was reviewed by the Design Review Board (DRB) at their meeting of June 17,2008 and July 15, 2008. At the first meeting the Board offered the following comments: 1. Traffic circulation is an issue given the single site street frontage. 2. Soften the street entry by placing the retail building adjacent to the landscaped seating area. 3. The retail building is too close to the street and should be setback further. 4. Add street trees, (e.g. London Plane trees) and create a pedestrian path. 5. Provide a hardier substitute tree for the proposed trees at the site corners - the proposed trees will not thrive in the local wind conditions. 6. Revise the plans to reduce the excess paving, for example, where the drive aisles are wider than the 25' requirement and the 2' overhang can be planted, add more landscaped areas, consider providing planter boxes, and provide taller tree specifies, (e.g. or Pine trees). 7. The future roof mounted HV AC units need to be screened. 8. Revise the plans to include trash enclosures. 9. Revise the plans to relable Building #2. 10. Consider a new color scheme for the buildings, as the grey tones are too industrial looking. 11. Revise the building elevations to show a consistent fa9ade articulation and finish. Increase the amount of glazing on the buildings The architect revised the plans and re-submitted for the Board review. At the second meeting the Board determined that most of the previous comments had been addressed but offered comments: 1. Carry the barrel vaults back an additional 4 feet. 2. Revise the plans to include trash enclosures with proper screening. To: Planning Commission Date: June 18, 2009 Re: P08-0041 Centrum - 1070 & 1080 San Mateo Avenue Page 6 of 7 3. Design the frontage of the building with a more urban approach: the sidewalk should be straight, not meandering. Confirm sidewalk width requirements with the City. Place street trees at a regular on-center spacing (25' +/- or per City requirements). Locate street trees in curb-side tree wells with cast iron grates that meet City standards, or alternatively, create a planted or turfed rectilinear parkway strip with trees planted within it. Street trees should be large, deciduous canopy trees, for example, London Plane tree or similar. 4. Add pedestrain walkways to connect the seating areas to adjacent walkways and the parking areas as discussed in the meeting. 5. Better articulate the rear elevation (parking lot side). The Board was otherwise pleased with the design changes and recommended approval of the design.The Board's comments will be made into conditions of approval. 1)esign ()jDjDortunities The prominent location, . size and visibility of the site represent a rare opportunity to significantly improve the appearance of the built environment and establish a standard for other retrofits and new industrial developments in the project vicinity and the Lindenville area. The building exterior could be further improved by introduction of more surface finish materials to provide greater visual contrast and interest. The surface treatment should incorporate more layering of complementary materials and design elements similar to though not as elaborate as the buildings in the area east of highway 101. Given the large site area, long entry drive and the high number of excess parking spaces, the site plan could be further improved by creating a hierarchy of linked amenity spaces connected by landscaped access paths and the inclusion of major and minor focal points. Outdoor amenity areas should be revised to provide more sheltered seating areas and inclusion of water features. Surface treatment should be created to provide both visual and tactile cues and integrated with driveways, pedestrian access paths and amenities. The main drive aisles should be broken down to a more human scale with colored bands of different material (e.g. pavers, cobbles). The plans should identify proposed street furniture that is integrated with the site architecture (e.g. benches, light sconces, light poles decorative bollards). The loading areas between the new one story buildings should be eliminated and replaced with landscaping. The tenant entries should be accessed from these spaces rather than treated as mere visual landscape areas or drainage areas. Bicycle storage and lockers providing protection from inclement weather as well as secure storage and conveniently located adjacent to the tenant entries should be shown on the plans. To: Planning Commission Date: June 18, 2009 Re: P08-0041 Centrum - 1070 & 1080 San Mateo Avenue Page 7 of 7 Internal pedestrian and bicycle access needs to be improved to provide safe access to the buildings from the street. Given the massive roof area, the owner should be encouraged to explore the feasibility of solar roof panels to reduce energy consumption. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT City staffhas employed the services of Lamphier and Gregory to prepare and circulate an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for public comment. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the ErR is required to be available for a minimum of forty- five (45) days. The document was released for public review on June 4, 2009 and the comment period ends on July 17,2009. Notices were sent to property owners and other interested agencies and parties. The ErR is available for review at City Hall, City Permit Center, and the City libraries and at the city's website at www.ssf.net. The key environmental issues identified by City staff are traffic, circulation and utilities. Mitigation measures are proposed to reduce the all identified impacts to less than a significant level and/or a statement of over riding considerations will be prepared. The DEIR was previously distributed to the Planning Commission. The EIR consultant will review the environmental document at the Commission meeting. CONCLUSION: The Planning Commission should take public comments on the EIR and conduct a study session of the proposed development and offer comments. Attachments: Exhibit #A Design Review Board Minutes June17, 2008 July 15, 2008 Environmental Impact Report (Previously distributed to the Planning Commissioners. Copies are available to the public on request. A limited number of copies will be available at the Commission meeting) Photos Plans EXHIBIT A - PROJECT DATA Page 1 ADDRESS: 1080 SAN MATEO AVENUE APN: 015-163-120 & 015-163-230 SITE AREA: 5.23 Acres BUILDING FLOOR AREA: Existing: Offi~: ~5~ FLOOR AREA RATIO: Maximum: Existing: 1080 San Mateo .04 to .06 0.01 BUILDING HEIGHT Maximum: Existing: NA 15 FT LOT COVERAGE Maximum: Existing: 60% 0.01 % LANDSCAPING Minimum: 10% Existing: 15% AUTOMOBILE PARKING Minimum: 4 Existing: 640 SETBACKS Front West Side East Side Rear Minimum 10FT 6FT 6FT 6FT Existing 15 FT 6FT 6FT 6FT EXHIBIT A - PROJECT DATA Page 2 ADDRESS: 1070 SAN MATEO AVENUE APN: 015-163-120 & 015-163-230 SITE AREA: 1070 San Mateo Avenue: 19.79 Acres BUILDING FLOOR AREA: Industrial FLOOR AREA RATIO: Maximum: .04 to .06 BUILDING HEIGHT Maximum: NA LOT COVERAGE Maximum: 60% LANDSCAPING Minimum: 10% AUTOMOBILE P ARKlNG Minimum: 250 SETBACKS Front North Side South Side Rear Minimum 10 FT OFT 6FT OFT Existing: 571,748 SF Existing: 0.66 Existing: 30FT Existing: 66% Existing: Minimal Existing: 150 Existing 0-290 FT 65FT 6-40 FT 15 FT EXHIBIT A - PROJECT DATA Page 3 ADDRESS: 1070 & 1080 SAN MATEO AVENUE APN: 015-163-120 & 015-163-230 SITE AREA: 25.02 Acres BUILDING FLOOR AREA: Office: Industrial: Retail: Restaurant Business Services: TOTAL: FLOOR AREA RATIO: Maximum: .04 to .06 BUILDING HEIGHT Maximum: NA LOT COVERAGE Maximum: 60% LANDSCAPING Minimum: 10% AUTOMOBILE PARKING Minimum: 348 SETBACKS Front North Side South Side Rear Minimum 10 FT OFT 6FT OFT Proposed: 61,495 SF 553,453 SF 1,000 SF 1,500 SF 6,600 SF 624,048 SF Proposed: 0.57 Proposed: 30FT Proposed: 57% Proposed: % Proposed: 670 Proposed 24FT 65FT 6-40 FT 15 FT MINUTES SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Meeting of June 17, 2008 TIME: MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: 4:00 P.M. Harris, Nelson, Nilmeyer, Ruiz and Williams none Steve Carlson, Senior Planner Gerry Beaudin, Senior Planner Maureen Morton, Contract Planner Patricia Cotla, Planning Technician 1. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS . 245 S. Airport - Per the ORB Members, a cross section was required for the monument signs. . 444 Allerton - Genentech is considering removing the Pine trees and the ORB members recommended replacing the Pine trees with London Plane Trees with a 1 t01 ratio. . 806 Baden - Proposed plans were submitted and the ORB members felt the dwellings were still too massive for the site and the site is still lacking open space. Recommend re-design: suggest considering an off-set between the two buildings. 2. OWNER APPLICANT ADDRESS PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NAME US General Svc Admin. Centrum Properties, Inc 1070 San Mateo Avenue P08-0041, UP08-0004 & DR08-0019 Use Permit (Case Planner: Steve Carlson) DESCRIPTION Use Permit and Design Review allowing the conversion of a single-tenant industrial building containing 571,748 square feet into a multi-tenant facility, the addition of 5 new one-story buildings with exterior changes to the building, new parking lots containing a total of 670 parking space and new landscaping containing a combined total of 52,200 square feet and a 24-hour daily operation, overnight outside storage of trucks and trailers, and uses generating 100 average daily vehicle trips. SSFMC Title 19, Sections 20.30.040(a), 20.30.040(b), 20.30.040(h), 20.30.040(i), Chapters 20.81,20.85 and 20.120. The Board had the following comments: 1. Traffic circulation is an issue given the single site street frontage. 2. Soften the street entry by placing the retail building adjacent to the landscaped setaing area. 3. The retail building is too close to the street and should be setback further. 4. Add street trees, (e.g. London Plane trees) and create a pedestrian path. 5. Provide a hardier substitute tree for the proposed trees at the site corners- the proposed trees will not thrive in the local wind conditions. 6. Revise the plans to reduce the excess paving, add more landscaped areas, consider providing planter boxes, and provide taller tree specfies, (e.g. Redwood or Pine trees). 7. The future roof mounted HVAC units need to be screened. 8. Revise the plans to include trash enclosures. 9. Revise the plans to relable Building #2. 10. Consider a new color scheme for the buildings, as the grey tones are too industrial looking. 11. Revise the buidling elevations to show a consistent fayade articulation and finish. Increase the amount of glazing on the buildings Re-submittal Required. 3. Ella H. Yamas Spark of Creation Studio 1 S Linden Avenue P08-0045 & UP08-0006 Use Permit - Dance Studio OWNER APPLICANT ADDRESS PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NAME (Case Planner: Steve Carlson) DESCRIPTION Use Permit allowing an indoor sports and recreation dance studio generating 100 average daily vehicle trips, situated at 1 South Linden A venue Unit # 1 in the (P- I) Planned Industrial Zoning District, in accordance with SSFMC 20.32.030(c), 20.32.060, & 20.81. The Board had the following comment: Check with the Building Department with ADA requirements for the site. Recommend Approval with Conditions. 4. OWNER APPLICANT ADDRESS PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NAME Arshad, Mohammad Richard Camponuevo 753 Third Lane P08-0036 & DR08-0017 Arshad Residence - New SFD (Case Planner: Steve Carlson) DESCRIPTION Design Review of a new single family dwelling behind 750 Baden Avenue in the Medium Density Residential Zone (R-2-H) District in accordance with SSFMC Chapters 20.18 & 20.85 MINUTES SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Meeting of July 15, 2008 TIME: MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: 4:00 P.M. Harris, Nilmeyer, Ruiz and Williams Nelson Steve Carlson, Senior Planner Gerry Beaudin, Senior Planner Sean Flanagan, Associate Planner Mike Lappen, ECD Coordinator Maureen Morton, Contract Planner Patricia Cotla, Planning Technician 1. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS · New Associate Planner Sean Flanagan was introduced. 2. OWNER US General Svc Admin. APPLICANT Centrum Properties, Inc ADDRESS 1070 San Mateo Avenue PROJECT NUMBER P08-0041, UP08-0004 & DR08-00 19 PROJECT NAME Use Penn it (Case Planner: Steve Carlson) DESCRIPTION "Re-Submittal" - Use Pennit & Design Review allowing the conversion of a single-tenant industrial building containing 571,748 square feet into a multi-tenant facility, the addition of 5 new one-story buildings containing a combined total of 52,200 square feet, 24-hour daily operation, overnight outside storage of trucks and trailers, and uses generating 100 average daily vehicle trips. SSFMC Title 19, Sections 20.30.040(a), 20.30.040(b), 20.30.040(h), 20.30.040(i), Chapters 20.81, 20.85 and20.120. The Board had the following comments: 1. Carry the barrel vaults back an additional 4 feet. 2. Revise the plans to include trash enclosures with proper screening. 3. Design the frontage of the building with a more urban approach: the sidewalk should be straight, not meandering. Confinn sidewalk width requirements with the City. Place street trees at a regular on-center spacing (25' +/- or per City requirements). Locate street trees in curb-side tree wells with cast iron grates that meet City standards, or alternatively, create a planted or turfed rectilinear parkway strip with trees planted within it. Street trees should be large, deciduous canopy trees, for example, London Plane tree or similar. 4. Add pedestrain walkways to connect the seating areas to adjacent walkways and the parking areas as dsicussed in the meeting. 5. Better articulate the rear elevation (parking lot side). Recommend Approval with Conditions. South San Francisco Logistics Center 1070 San Mateo Ave. South San Francisco, CA Site Photos Archi tect: Ware Malcomb 5000 Executive Pkwy. Suite 298 San Ramon, CA 94583 Developer: Centrum Properties, Inc. 225 West Hubbard St. 4th Floor Chicago, IL 60610 ., lie} , ~: ;!t\;}' ~; ': <,""lY" . "_.~..." .~~ .:8: ,< r -_'" ~ "4 , ,rot ....~l.,-v,~~t~\";..." ~~~(. ;.: .~ -:' !1f" :{~:~:'y~ A \,:( ~ ~ '; ~ .. > ."", .. ~i';-,:' F . Ji; ~ .' '1c,"' ~. . '~'. .d1<l<;~ ':~~.~.':~"':'i( <:--~1t;...rA: --~~, ,;"'(jV, , ~' ~ '<"~i >'. ' ~4.",":>i' -!ib ',- '. r '. -' " I . ...." I .~ 1':'.' ~ ..... .J \. \ ~ -~ .. I 1 ----- ~ -"< .... r;.~ " ~-- bi~;- ,_-<t ~~~itf., ~ ~- :-<1 ~ ----------... . ---- ~ ~- ... ~ . ~ 1-- .: . .' }-: -~ =- .. _. . -- . II \ " i ~~ . - --- - - ~ t;.~ FEDERAL SUPPLY WAREHOUSE } ....:..~....:'.",::""~"""'"' . ~. -- ._~ -- .~------== ~ ~_.- ._-- --- ... ; ...-..-" ._- . ,; " '. . ') I-a _ .. -- --- ~ I II / rtI~ , .' .. '; I D.' ~) /~'11r," . .1-;~;Y'~' . ....""'1R'~ ~ ft.. / ;j ~~. '''.ltt.~ ~),tNA~ It I 1)... r4I ~t~ .".." , / I'" .~ ,';&'1' F/ ~ '.i;J:" rJIA i/~d; ^.~ll '>.'Wi .,' j '.,~>J " l~ " '.~ ~~!. ,i' , '1.;;.,.01,1/ n' , I / 'J I n III Ell I III .i DJ III IP l!' II IJ >-l a " lib g i I' ---- ----- ------------ /"'" ~ . . ..., , -- ,-- - . - ~i: .. r , - j ,- i.. " j c / I I ~ . I r;.... ,.. - :t:.w " ~ , . j I r ~;"'f\;.r;: ~ ;t-'::_{~~, / :~t ~..,..:'~~:..:a o ~~.,' ._ :\~,;1;::,:. 'iW'~;J;' l~4.~~it.;';~~ .' :~~-:\" ~:,::. ;l;i~ "," 5'~\,~' 'l~'-,,: ~~~:,~:;~\f'-',- ~ '~'k~.t:~:.: '. ..%:<'\'~t~.:;U:,: . '. .'Jii"::-'...... '. . ,It\~~''I;..,;;,;...:. .:;~i'~~,;:. :. ; ; '.i~~~~ ::~-..,~:.}:' ,:. . . ~<.~-,..i'~'_..;-; i~.."" ''is\:,,: "~~ h1'~.'~-"';' ; i'.,~ . Ii, .~.;.~'>"~ "~.'. '-"~"i''I.'''r.-~.' ',.., 'i'-~~:>~ ,.~..)d.~:~~'-' ~~" - ~k,lI~,*\,N'-.. '.. ";:.1 :;-2~.J~*I~t.;i;j;:'}~~. ,~ .~~~~~ '~d#"':".:~J~ ':-:."""'""""~":;"~j;,,..'_,.,,..,...t;;'To.;:. ~::~>1~t:\ ~ ".~,;f;;.";'/',i"J~1 :,t"r),;"':i ;~\,~,~';\1. .{~~~ :.'.c:~~1i!i;i:':';~~: ..!..:., -;, '0' ".'1 :{,\' .it.'~ .~.... ,!~;~. .~;,., . ~~/f<~;, ,:';..Ji,':.", :r~'-'~'f ~'l!'.;..; __c'lllr,",.j','" ,..,..........,- ,-;, ,',-.: , ,':~~:;~ . .. ~ >tf::'.!" ,:~:',. ' .,., ',,-, , ..; I;" .. '.:1 \I I .J- r ~~ Ii f) ::= (1 ) J ml lUll r:J~d f If... H f..f Ii i~ ~~ ~~ ,a. t7:1 :::l :~ ~t-r ~() fa -~ '0:; ;;0 m $ C/) a ~ -.--~r_"""~l-.vlt\.~ ---.........--l~lt\.~ ~ ~ i g 00 00 'T'I r- -;0 mG) Zoo ~::1 -in -00 ~n m ~z ;urrt 0;u m;:;o r-m ~z ,,0 ~ -; o Z ~ ~ s l!1~O"'''(!!'''-''RI<:'''' z~:Bi~€l:i;,s ~~ ~~:~f~~~~i9 ~l i:S&;. "'t;;:~til~ii~ !~i~ll ~slUi - >::Jg U"":;'~~ m ~~~ mmQi:' S~h8 ~~I$'" o!2~iif~ ~~lilU iii~~l~;;~lil;,,;~~~ ~fI!M"'>~o~B"'=<8c: ~zt;_Ol :5"J;Jmrci1l~ !\l~iii~ 1IJ~;;:~";~!il 1/1& ~~"::J&~j!/~ "'> ~iiI .ii"g!f ~~~ " ~3!11i4~ "'Iii:!l ."~'" ~~~ ~m~ ~IQ "giii ".. ~ ~ m . ~i'i.'" ~~ zj iZ.21 ~'" ,,~ ...~ ~~s: iR-< ~~"'!!j:;" ",g~ ~"~"'''R l!l"'~ .-;3~~f~ ~f~ i!:Si gg. !;!-<l!1 ~ffi!\l~~~ "'~z g:~~2~~ H~ ~~e;~I;;~ i'jj~ C:!i"=<f!lQ ","'... ifiOilllil-.... '!lfflc lil~~ g~,,~ ~ f iii f!I l~-<.~ l ~Urili " ","';;(!!JI;I g ~i9g~ iii -~Jiiifi~~ cto~!!1~ ~>h'" iI~J ffi-.;;( ~Iii~ -fi< -'!j",~ !\l[S1ii ~:;if I~:!I:~: ~!nl:IB nf;~ ijfl!~" '" C8 ~ ~"'-<~'" "'. >~ ~z~f ~. ~~~ ~ "'NI~I~ M~:~ ~!lilz Ol~~m ~ '" ~ ~~zm ~"'z" ~~"'''' en "'om' ,",Oo!>! . !g;!liJ " ~ i!"< ~jl M?~m ~8~~yy ;~~ &:~ ~~~j ~gilillillil ~~~ ~~i E~~~ f"'~~~~ j~j %~en -~mo '" ~=<%~ -;n "'~~ ~~~m ~ -<~fI!~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~Q Q &zzz ;lil@ ~i~ ~~f! ~ ~ijj ~l~ ;~~ ~~~~ QQQ lO ~Mii i2~~ BB8 ~~ ~lil~ ~S~g ~~ ~~ ~~~N m~ ~-< ~59~ ~'" ~ ~~ m ~r ~ R~ 1 ~o 8~~ ~~~~ ~3 ~ ~" os €I::€ . -< ei~ ~.,."...~. ..r-'~" .,.. '"\// \. /1 \ .,' \ ,."...........,. \ ,~\ \ ~:;; \ \ ""'\. \ \ \\ \ \ \\. ,..j"""#"..,...~~..- ",."..#....,."'... fE~l!lim i!m ~, !I~ ~~~Q Iii~ ",0 ~I~ ~. ~I~ ~g j", ~ 1I (tJ~ OIQ r; ~ E g' g~!!! ;e !f ~ ~,'" g} iIl:z: ~ i5 !!1!)l i: _ ~ m ~i9 i ~ ~ ~ j $ ~ ~ fA E :j ~ (9 ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ g ~ fA " ... ., jf d1 rn I ! cJ~~5 $ "'~ .. ~~ "-'" .. " Co> ~.q;~ eQj!:l 2 m ~~~; ~~~Eill~~illlii~~~$ ill~p "'~ ~ ~m~f ~~&~6&~M~~~M~ M~f ~~ ~ rill i,iil;llill/il 111 #1 1 5",~ ~ z~~~~~~~"'~~ _~~ ~~ 0 ~B~ ~ &mZ~3~Q~"'~~ ft~j o~ ~ "€I'" g'fAZP.o~ ~~ ~l!1~ "ifi ~ ~lil~ ~~g~f~~", f!I~ ~~~ ~I ~ ill. u;~gJ-;g Zl;l <::"" '. ~ lil ~"""~~ffl~ '" ~ ~;;(g ~I!;! ~~i~ffi~c~ ~Slil ~g~ m ~~j iIBI~iJ;g f~g :~i I ~~~ f~o~!Mi~j ~e;~ ~~~ 0 Iii ~igl:'::N:~lf ~~a ~ ~i~ ~~"'~0~g~m~~8 $'~ ~ ~"'~: ~&m~l~j ~z~ J ;n~", "'. m~~Q~~)g .ll!~~ i t~~ ~~: ~~M8~E~ !il~~ ~ ffllil~ ~~~ ~~~~~~ln ~~~ 0 Q....ili I',,!ii B~' "'>~ ""'I" iiI ~IF ~rnl~ m ~~~~~ ~ffl ~ O~g ~~ Q ~m m~ ~!i " ~~~ ~~ !~"z ~!Q ~&~ ~ z~~ ;n8cJ ~~~& ~~m & Q~~ ~ ~ -~ ~~~ -@~ ~... '-iil~ ~~f!I !E~ ~~~! ~~ i ~~~ z~o "'ion >~ " ~~g J~~ z~m~ ~'" ~ ~~ &i~ ,,~~ ~~f~ ~~ ~ ~Q ~~~~~ ~~@ ~ i f/? gt;lF ;z ~ l~ ~se~~~3 ~~~~~Sf~~~~ ~ ~~ ja~SSgg :I'g:,~~ai~: g.. ~l f~J~!~~ ~~~~" jfl!~~~ &~~~~~q "'~0m~ cJ~~~f 1i~f~~~ ~~ff~~~lll~ 1ii~8!~8~ ~~J~~~~ln~;;(~ d~~~gm* ~~ii~m&lilmm~~ iii~$~&am ~J~~~g8~~~~ ~~cJ~o~o ~~~~i!:~!;!~>~> -'!j!2>~>~> z~"'d3of",8~~ ~m -< ~~ ~ ~":;'~..,o~:;!-; ~i j~ ~~l~~i~~~i; ~~ ~~ ~~~mi~~~~~m ~o f~ '" ~~~~~i~~ijS ~ iilill I"~j~ghlill~~;!- 8 o~ >~"'~fg8~~~~ & ~i ~~~~~~M~i:~ ."';;( d!;!:r; ilill1"'z:;J~ ~ ~~ m~ J~g~~~~~ ~ li f iilaNJ~jff; ~ o~ ~ 2~f ~!il ,,~ ~ ~~ !\l- ~ il ~~~~f ~I iIi ~~ ~~~~ ~& g ~~ ~~g~ ~~ ;;j W" -..!!J:;!/;S "'" ~:;! ~cJ",~o z:;! ~ ~ > g . ~Jii", rn x ~tJ> ri~ ~ ;I~ dj ggg H8I -~i'i ~~~ ~il ~~ Ufii ~~ H~ ~9' '"'1-.01;. .......... mm U ~~ ~~ EE ~ig8 ~UB nso 2d~ . &~m S:~il!1 fi~~ o ill 0 . ie,'" Cb ~ !;im iil)l -iT! 8fA K fA ~l~~i i~~I~ ~ [;;~" iI?~iIi~ ~ ~~! i:",~~ ~S:Q~~ '~~8~ ~~i1l~fo 5?t;;m_ ii[gl":s :f;: ~ ~ ~.i5 e~ ~ ~ ;;j~~ "Iff ~':tl :< m Q '" C i9 ~ ~ 00 ~ Iii ~;1n ~!~lfi ~m~IM I~~~ ~g u;!lJ !il~ !litH h i%!Z ~2 F~ ~o Wz ~ ~ lil ['I c: :;! ~ j o .8 f ~ ~ ~ p CD m Z G) )> r- Q ~ iTI a~ 2: '= 0 :<Q :::' ~3:" ~ ;Zm~ " -; 3:w;:o 0000 )>~(j ~c:"- rri."'J fIJ -I ;Z gj < 0~""'e6=<C: m 0"G)OZ"T10~ m " m 0 " ..,., ~.....~"')>~~ ~ -I~;zgc:;Z;Z ~ -<; Qo 0 0:, 0 is: " ;0 ;:0 ..... ;:o)>~ ~~! ~-I;Z () 00)0> )>m" ;:0 0 'i" .0 en rn 0"..... " 00 ~ ~ .0 r- "0)> oo;Z . 0 ~ ;:0 (j m r- OO '" Qo w o " < () Z ~ t " l ! o ~ C" ~ -0 I ~ I ~ f ....- /' /' ....- ....- ~/'....- ....-""- ....- ....- ....- /' ....-""- ....-....-~~'i>. ~....-""- ~~\" ....- ~~~ '"' ~___--.oa..~"'"""" -V~T_~W'lCI>>UO:tol""lO:>>'IIS#3 I I I I I...."..! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 'T'H I tl .;.. :<' r~j 'I I ;:!~ .\. j> J I.;>>....:-,,,,,,,w ... ... .; :~ ; ~. . \,.. N~-----\ ......~................. <. ~,................,................\......r ... . . .' . . . ..... .:.: ~:i: :n -:': , f:. o 0 :~ ;:.. .:~:, ;-'~. :''::::: q':'" < . .: ,: ::. :. :;, :1 ~"'q ~PI~ ~~~ 001 [ ~ UI [ . ~ 0 (/) it :I: 0 ~ ~ Z ~~?" t [ ::u ~l:lg~ ~ 0 ~'" OJ ~.I ~ I ~~ 0 0; 0 0 0 0 OJ I 0 0 }~ c:;xl III .g'~ (/) ~~ :c fT1 ~> fT1 -i ~r N ~lQ 0 -. m'O ~ N '" -~ ~ itp > ......-...../\\ ,.,.,."".." ""...,,,/ <\'.,~. ~ . \\ i1 ./"\ m ~.\~!<^\'e~ zoo '....,' ~ -I ~"I. /A......./ )> ('") ./ !i ~ ~ " ,.....\~..:::./ !Il~: '1J m ,,/ /'~ 0 )> ~ ""'/\.. ~ : f5 ~ \ gi'i p:! ;u \. . ~~.t.11 s:: ~ "\ v' 1Il ~o \ ). :;S " .".",,,,,,,,, ==i \ .",,,,/ ~ ~,,~,,// ~- .,.Iii! a <;) ~ . > '1:l ::r: ~ C1 CI.l C"J 8 ~ ;: \ \ \ \\%~~ ' "'<;,? , \ \:> \ i\\,......................... \ " \~~(~\ ~~ " i . \\ ~} I, II '/1 I~ 11 I , 1.",.....1\.,,'% , ,i: ~~ ; ... ~1l ! I. ,." i I' !...\ L. ~ J , I ' ~ I 11.." I' 111' 1\11 \il.1 I:il , , \ y:.-:-:':-:-r ~~ !Z!~ ...:!!o " o . 0 0 ....- /' CJ1 m :J::.. ~ 02>< :-0 ~ ;<:; ~ ....- Dl ~ccn ~(i)-1 I 00 - Q) cn~Z Ul ~ " (i) o 0 0 0 o 0 ~ 1\ i\ ! \ I', I' IiI ....1 " \ \ \ \ \ H2o> I ilil~i : H I litl .'. h i:l! ......: \ l \ \ \ t....... m : .'..... l~iIla: ",s'i-:I 1"';Jl 'Ii I 12;;0 !!l' m,,>, !P~~j '~r: , ~~, i." . @ ~ @) [OJ ~ Ii ... ... '" '" 5 ""' 1Il 1Il ;0 ;0 z > 0 Sl Sl !il !;J 0 lii '" c:: OJ ~ '" ~ '" '" '" ~ 8 0 '" !ij 0 c c " !i 0 ~ > ~ ill " Sl g '" z Z Z '" Z '" ... a '" .., l; 'Ii 1'\ '" Z <I! :J: 1'\ oj Z ~ ill '" ~ '" ~ ~ C! t.4: \JobSOB\Colifomio Comm~rciol Reel Estote Service:;;\SNROB-COOB-OO_GSA--Renovotioll\Cod\SO\OOOB-fi01.dwg \\ 00 \ .3\ If 031. V~ NitS ~ s~'~RO'\ J "' ,. Z ~ Z o ~ ~ ~@~ ~~ ~ I ~ ~ i~ ~ i~ ~ [f ~ ~~ g ~ ~ 8 :;:0 ~~ I::r:l ~! ~ ~! ~ ~~ (") ~ 0 ~ ~ t:J:l () <: r= m z ~ z m m ::0 ~;!~~ g?:C~~ h~; i!;~ ~~!j~ i "0 (") }> r r }> s;: j;: Z :z 0 o en ~ ~ () ,,}> )> ~;:g -0 ~}> m ~::u )> ~(")::o ::!:: () ri :J: :J =i y? m z ~ (") Ul-U -;:0 ria "- fT1 (") -l ~JI~ ~~~ ~~ NN' cr<r~ fH ~~~ ~ 8 :;:0 dt:r1 ~~ ~ 1'~ :> ~~ ~ ~!: (") ~~ 0 ~ ~ t:J:l )> ::0 () :J: =i m () -i ~ ~ r. '"~!i1 ij}~~ t""'~ ~~~~ ~I"'~ ~\)l~e ~\)l~~ , ~ (") fT1 :z ~ ;d I'~ ~ 0 ~; m llli;g ri'i E~ 0 r a~ ~ 0 iliJ'1 ~ -0 o~ fT1 m ~.Ul ::0 ~ _ en :z o < () Z ~ s: )> "'0 "'0 ;0 o c.... m (") -I -I m )> s: en I m m -I Z o m X "'0 r )> Z Z Z G) en c OJ s: -I -I )> r (J) o C~ --f0 I~ (J)(J) )>)> Zz "s: ~:t> z--f Om -0 (J))> 0< Om "" en o C ----i :c en )> z " ;0 )> z () - en () o r o G) - en ----i - () en () m z -I m ;0 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I'~ I 'N.,~-'~N-'~N-~O-- e~i~ig!e~ie!e~~~~ ~~Sl~~~~~~""~~~~~i~ ~~~ni~~iHHd ~ ~~U~~~H~~B ~ ~; B ~~ i ce~N-C "I ;;;;; i ; ~~!~i ~ ~~o~o ~ ~ ~ \JB i ~5~~~ ~ n ~ ~ . o )> (") }> C -l o Z ,., -l ::!:: (fJ (fJ :c fT1 fT1 -l Vi :z o -j 0J q x -Po N, -j Vi w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;. III . , ~ ~ ~ ~ <0 ~ ~ 8 rnESE DRAYI1NGS AND SPECIFICATIONS AAE THE PROPtRTY AND COPYRIGHT Of WARE t.4AlCOt.1B AND SHAll NOT BE USED ON ANY OTHER 'NaRK EXCEPT 8Y AGREEMENT WIlli WARE IoI"LCOMB. 'lfRITlIN DIMENSIONS SHAlL TAKE PR[CEDENC( OVER SC"LED DIIdENSlONS AND SHALL BE ~tFIED ON ~E JOB SITE. ANY DISCREP"NCY SHAI..L. BE BROUGHT TO lIiE NOlla: OF WAA[ ~ALCO/.lB PRIOR TO THE COMI.lENCf),lENT OF ANy WORK. )> :;0 fT1 o C (") fT1 o U :;2 :z -j DATE 04-10-08 USE PERMIT 06 Ja-G8 OESlGN RE\1EW TITLE SHEET . SU6101\TTA RESUSMITT CATE REMARKS SSF LOGISTICS CENTER 1070 SAN MATEO AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA """''"'''''''' ploNUng lnteriom gmphial 1Iik>~l'elopD.ent WARE MALCOMB 5OOOel<eCUtivepkwy.!~.29S ..mraIlW2\.CIIli.fumia!U5a3 p925.244.9620 f92S.244.%21 leading Design for Commercial Real Estare '. M: \JobS08\Colifotnio Commercial Reell Estate Services\SNROB-0008-00_GSA--RenoVCItion\Cod\SD\OOOILA11.dwg (/) ~=i m '1J &): !,z 01 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ~\ ~. \ ~. \ \ \ \ \---------- \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \---- \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ $.\ !.\ '\ \ I \ I \ ~~~ .. '" 'f0)C") ~~~ ~~t\) ~~ ~~ ~.... .------------------------------ ~~ 'ill \'f!j " ~lil ~t .d~ ~.. , ~ ~ l:l ~~ f~ ~" .------------------------------ (J) ):> Z s: ):> -i fTl o ):> < fTl ~t !~ ~~ '1 " ~~ 'f;l ~t"O ~CZl ., , - -- i:::'- __.lk."'-_____ --:;:-.:::,:,::,:,,~:,,::,,::,,::,,:,,::,,::,:,"~~"'~""~"'~;::,~~~ .II-,~g ---------------------------------------- B f .- .- . 0 (/) ~ i'i ~~~! '" (/) BEl B88BGB (/) 10 o{J .6- ;;j 3 =i " 8 ~~;l; =i =i 9 o~ z i i ~ m ~ ~~3:; ;l;;l;~ m ~~ ';' ~ ~ g ~ m ;!'j;u I j I ~ I 6 ~ ",,- ~ 0 " ! ~ gj ~ "l ~ r- ~8"" w-s ~ d ~ a ~ '1J ~ ~~~ ~ " m 500 ~t ~~ ~ ~ ): ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ li G> s:~ ~ z ~ ~ ~ p ! ~ ~ 0 ... Il ~ ~ " ;>t:~~ " i'l ~ ;l; z" ; i~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z Q ~ d ~ R z ~ " ~ ~ R ~ I~ ~ a Z ~ ;ji~~ ! ~ Cl i z ~ ;Ii tl c :~ 1 ~ ~ 0 0 ~~o ~ d d ~ .. ~ ~ -I , 2 ~8~ III ~ ~ " " >' I ~ ~ ~ R ::lIS'" ~~~ Q .. f\ m ~ ~~ ~ ~ - ~ i8~ "';ae f!1 10 ~ :I " (/) ~> 0 ~ ~ :~ 6 ~ ~; ~ 0 ~~~ ~~~ i i ~ 0 ~~i I~ ~ c ~~ 6 i ~ ~ p ~ i I" ;;8 ~ "'~g !Sj ~. < , ~~i p ~ ~ ~ e ~ ~ I ~ g ~ I" ~ (") J> C :::j o z 'Ti -i ;:I; (JJ (JJ I IT1 IT1 -i Ul Z o -i GJ 0, X *' N, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 5OOO<!lteCUdvepl<wy..~.298 .-nnlnOn. califomta!U.583 p925.244.9620 '92S.244.%21 Leading Design for Commercial Real Estate -i Vi J> ::0 IT1 o C (") IT1 o -0 ;<) Z -i THESE DRA'MNGS AND SPECIFlCAl10NS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COP'1'RIGHT Of WARE MALCOMB AND SHAll NOT BE uSED em ANY OTHER WORK EXCEPT BY AGRfft;I[NT *I1H WAR( MALCOMB. 'IIIRlTTEN DIt.lENSlONS SHAI.l TAKE PRECEDENa: OVER SCAlED OII.lENSlONS AND s-lAll BE: VERlFlEO ON THE JOB SIlt. ANY DjscqEPANCY SHALl BE BROOGH TO THE NOl1CE Of WARE t.lALCOl.49 PRIOR TO THE COIAYENCEMENT ~ .4NY ~K. I ~ ;1 I'i :3 li ~ ~ e ~ j SITE PLAN DATE RE>MAAS DATE RE>MAAS 04-10-08 uSE PERMlT DES. REV, SUBMIn 06-30 08 DESIGN RE'v1EW BOAR!> RfSUBI.lITI SSF LOGISTICS CENTER 1070 SAN MATEO AVENUE -"""'" - - ",p"",, ailPdeveIopD\el;\t WARE MALCOMB Ill; \JobsOl3\CQlifomio Commercial Reo! Eslote SlIrviclls\SNRGB-OOOB-OO_GSA.-RllrlOvo!ion\Cad\SD\XOOaBJl.dwg =;; ---1 ::r: Ui U1 ::r: rr1 rr1 ---1 U1 Z o ---1 G-J 0, X -l>- "', =i Ui lliESr IJAA'MNGS AND SPECIFlCA.TIONS ARE lliE PROPER1Y ANa COP'r'RIGHT Of WAAE t.l.A.LCOMB ANa SHAU. NOT BE: USED ON -'Ny alliER WORt: EXCEPT BY AGREEIolENT WITH WAA( t.lALCOMB. 'nRImN O1MENSlONS SHAll. TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCAlED OIt.4ENSlONS -'NO s-tALl BE 'vrnlflED ON 'THE JOB Silt. ANY DISCREPANCY SHALl. BE BROOGHT TO THE NOTICE or WARE I.IALCOI.\B PRIOR TO THE COMW[N~ENT Of ANY WORK. )> m X Ci5 ~ Z G) lD C r= o Z G) 'TI r o l'lO ~;o -0 ~~ ~Z 501'-'. ;: " c. ~ ;;; ~ ~~ ~~ Jill ~ ~ I ~ ~ " .. 659'-". (") J> C :=J o Z ..... I ~ ;1 ~ I : z j 0 ~ ~ ;; ;; ~ 11; ~ ~ 8 EXISTING BUILDING FLOOR PLAN om REMARl<S om ......-. 04-10 OB IJ~PERlolIT DES. REV. SUBMI1l 06 30 08 DESlQl RE~EW BOARD RESlJBMITT SSF LOGISTICS CENTER 1070 SAN MATEO AVENUE --- - """'= 8"'P"'" ......development WARE MALCOMB Leading Design for Commercial Real Estate ;;0 rr1 o C (") rr1 o "lJ ;;0 Z ---1 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 5OOO~tl.vepkwy.Bte.2518 un nman. Cllllfornla 94M3 p925..244.9620 f92.S.U49621 M: \Jobs08\Californio Cammercicl Reol Eslate Ser\licBs\SNR08-000B-OO_GSA.-Reno\llllion\Cod\SD\OOOB_A20.dwg i I I I I I I I I I I Iii i i i i i I i I i I I ~TnlTilTnTrl-hr I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I h-!i!till1ij-hjtig, ! I I I I I . ! i i ii i i i ii i LUrftl ~i ITlrTlTlrTlllW -Hl-H4H+H itHE II1I11111111I1 iIT' I 1 I I 1 I Iii i i"1 I ' -H-' : t+-i-H-t-ri-~ N_Ui1J_' , ljj~' 'iiiii~'ii~, , ~'I I i II~I I i I I i I' I I , I I , I I I , I I : , I", , i ~l--- - ~-+- ~ -~~ - ~--~ ~-~--j - H-- t +~ - ~-+-~ I' i i i i i i i i i i l' i i i itt' Ii 11 i rrrlTlIl T j Tim I I i I I : I I : I I I I I o m :5: o I =i ~6 ~z "U ~~ ~z rn ~ ~ ~ p ~ ~ ~ ~ g ~ O~ ~ ~ f Q) ~ 8 DEMOLITION PLAN OA" REMARKS OA" REMARKS 04100e USE PERMIT DES. REV. su~mA 06 30-08 OESlGN REVIEW SOARD RESU8t.l1TI -....., P........ """"~ SSF LOGISTICS CENTER "",p,,,," slll'dewlop=t 1070 SAN MATEO AVENUE 5000 ~tivepkwy. sre. 298 81111 ramon. califomla 94583 p925.244.9620 1925.244.9621 Leading Design for Commercial Real Estate SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA () )> C :::J o z EJBEJElGBB 8 ; I ; ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ : ~ . ~ ~ ~ = ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ 11 I o o ;::0 "U I )> Z Z o --I m CJl =r; -i I Ui 1Il I [Tl [Tl -i 1Il Z o -i G< 0, x ..p. N, ::::; !!S ~g ~~ [i~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~~ I~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~~ . ~ ~~~ a a ~a a ;lIS!~ :>;I <:I) -oal I'~~ ~ ~ li!::: !' ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ . ~ p~ ~ a~ l 8~ ~ alii Q \l~ i!l Ili~ . "'Q . ~~ F ~ ti ~~ ~ a <> il~ @ R ~ .~ o ~ g ~~ ~ I i I~ ~ ffl ! ~ . ~ ~ S! ~ ~ ~ WARE MALCOMB 1.4: \Jobs08\Cclifornio Commercicl RIlQI Estole Services\SNR08-0008-00_GSA...Renovation\Cod\SD\0008J\21.dwo; ~ OJ " c r= ~ \"' '=' ., -; Z G> " r- 0 b ~o ~::o ,- 0, -0 ~s;: b.Z 1 501'-,. ~ " ~ . " " 208'-3. 101'-,. 23'-6" 2.'39'-9. ~ " ~ ~ ~~~U= ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ 221'-r l 12'-0. ffilill e e @ '" ~ " ~ o ~ ~ ~ 1/ /0 /.......... ~ J ~ O!::J ~ ~ '=' Go /' 0 ~ ::0 ~ ~ 11 "tJ ~ m ~ C/) ~ El EJ G B B B g~~~~~ ~ ~ ill If; ~ ~ ~~~~~~ " " ~ ~ I! i ~~~;~ ~ ~ "ll ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ! ~ ~ ~ o l> C :::J o z @ ~ F'" ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ 8 ~>" ~ r 88 - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ !~~~ : ~~:. ~ ~~b ~ ~r 11 ?l;~ i i ~ ~ " r- 8 ::0 "tJ s;: Z Z o -i m C/) =;; -< :r: Vi [/) :r: fT1 fT1 -< [/) z o -< G.J 0, x -+> N, ~~~= 8r~x ~~~o. ~~iii~ . ~~~ ...,c= ~~~ ~ ~~~ >~~ n~x lll~". ~:::j;r ~~~ ~~~ 20 .~ ~ ~ . ~ -< [/) THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFlCATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COP'l'RIGHT or WARE t.lALCOMB AND SHA.U.. NOT BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK EXCEPT BY AGREEMENT WITH WARE hlALCOIrdB. VIRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALl TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCillD DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED ON THE JOB SITE. ANY OISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGH TO THE NOllCE OF WARE 1llALCa.18 PRIOR TO THE COMIlIENCEIolENT OF ANY WORK. )> ~~~~ ;:l] )> - ~ j 8 ~; ;:~ ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ SSF LOGISTICS CENTER =hi""""'" p"""",, """"= "",phlco ld.lE!development WARE MALCOMB BUILDING 1 FLOOR PLAN OAT< REMARKS OAT< """""'" 04-10 DB USE PERIolIT DES. REV. SUat.lITTA 06-30 oe DESIGN RE\IIEW BOARD RESUBf.lITT 1070 SAN MATEO AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 5OOOe><ec11tivepkwy. IW. 298 san rlmen. callfomfa 94.583 p925.244.9620 f92.5.244.9621 Leading Design for Commercial Real Estate t.4:\JobsO!l\Colifornio Commerciol Reo! Estotll Services\SNRO!l-OOOB-OO_GSA...Renovalioll\Cod\SD\Q008-^ZZ.dwg 1 f____:.~o~____j~ o 8 ,- I I I I I 20'-0. 20'-0- rc---~O:~----J I I 0 ------------------ ------------------ I 0 I e I -.- - -.- - -.-.- -'-'- -.-.-.-.-.- t.- -.-.-.- -.-.- -.-.- -'-'-'-'-'--' Ie I OJ C r S2 Z G) en f\) ~ (]I "T1 r o ~O ~;;o iJ ~ Z Ie 8 8 20'-0' (") UfillI r~ 2d-o' 20'-0. 1/ /0 ~ .. o. P.J. ~o. --- I'\,) 0, ~ .. " ~';'- P.J.' ~ '" ';' .. ';' " ~ " ~N " '-1- q"". ';' .. '-' ---~ P., ~ ~. . " t EJ 88888B ~ ~e ~ ~ e~ . ~ e~ ~ .... !'i8 Z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ q ~ q" ~ h ~ II ~ J (") J> C --< 6 z III "T1 r o o ;;0 iJ ~ Z Z ~ m en '1 -- "; :::; 3'-4. 8 ~~~: eI\1X ~~I''' ~~~~ ~~~ ...,c;!; ~:::jS! ~ 8 @ /.......... "J~ ~ '" ~ '" o 00 I' 0 if ;;0 ~ ~ !1 iJ o m ~ cn ~ i i~~~ '" ~~~ l", ~~ . ~~ ~~ i~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ! ~ oo~~~ ~N; ;:~ ~ ~ U1 THESE DRA'MNGS AND SPECIfiCAtiONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT Of WARE MAlCOMB AND SHA1.L NOT BE USED ON ANY OThER WORI< D:CEPT BY AGREEMENT 'MTI-t WARE MA.1.C~B. \'lRITtEN DIMENSIONS SHA.L.L. TAKE PREcmDlCE O\om SCillD DIMENSIONS AND SHAlL BE IJERIFlED ON lJiE JOB Silt: ANY DISCREPANCY SHA.l.i BE BROUQ-lT TO THE NOllCE Of WARE t.lA.1.COIdB PRiOR TO THE CQMl.lENCEll.ENT Of ANY WORK. )> ;:0 rl o C (") rl o "1J ;:0 Z --< BUILDINGS 2 & 5 FLOOR PLAN "'''' REMARKS 0'''' REMARKS 04 10 08 USE f>(RhllT DES. REV, SUBlrdITlA " JOO OESlGN REVIEW BOARD RESUBMITT '" ~ :j l1 I' o :< ~ ~ @ ~~~ ;;511: ~I'x ~c:;. ~:::j:I: n~ i~~ ~o .~ ~ r~~ .~: ~ ~~( ~ e 1'>:" ~e ~ ~ ~ ~ ill ~ SSF LOGISTICS CENTER 1070 SAN MATEO AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA mdU"","", p- """"~ ...phi>> airedevdopl::N<nt SOOO~livepkWY.lre.298 san ramon. ailifc.lmia 94S83 p925.244.96:lD f925.244.962.1 WARE MALCOMB Leading Design far Commercial Real Estate 1.4: \Jobts08\Colifornio Commerciol Reol Eslole 5ervic8a\SNROB-OOOB-OO_GSA-Renol/otion \Cod\SD\OOOLA23.dwg , , t>: " ~ " -, ~ ';' .. P." , 0 , L_ ~ ,- " ~ 'l , OlP.J. 'l ';' \: " i' =, tl\ ~ ;; q ~ ~ tl! P../. ,. " 'l =, ';' " ~ ~ ~ " ';' " ~P.J. ~ , 'l ~ " OJ c r Q z G') en w ll<> .j::>. ." r o ~O ~;;o _"0 "r Jl..]> ~Z ,- , ~ , , P., , : ';' :i': , .. i- L_ ~ " ~ " , r.o.c. ';'. ", r- :\.,8 : , , I r- , i(18 I c -I 20'-0. I~ 20'-0. 20'-0. r~____2::'____~ f ( ~ ~ 8b ~-----t-9'-4~~J 'I K.O. 20'-0. /........ "J~ ~ ~ '" ~ 8 .J: : , -, , I _.J -, - ~'( q,"":, ':- 0, --- 1--- .-- I-- _.J P.' ~~ )> ~ l~i~ ~ s~: ~ 'lj!3'; i~ . i~ 21 ~~ i ,. .. ----8 8 B88BGB Ui i P n pnnn ~ ~ ~ ~ J : ~ M ~ ~ ~ i ~ ! ~ ~ ~ ~ : ~ ~ i! ~ () )> C --< o z " r o o ;;0 "0 r )> Z Z o -I m en =r; --=" Ii ~E1 ~ ~ ~ E ~ ~ 8\ --' ':- 0, -, 7: - ---~ " 'l -, ---Le ~i _.J 8D -----8 ~. o. ~ '!' 0, ~ '" Ui lHES[ DRAWINGS AND SPECIFlCAllQNS ARE ThE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT Of WARE t.lAlCOMB AND ~Al.l NOT BE USED ON ANY OlliER WORt< fJ(CEPT BY AGREEMENT Willi WARE I.lAlCOMB. I'tRITI[N OIt.lENSlONS SHAll. TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALID DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED ON "!HE JOB Silt. ANY DISCREPANCY SHAll. BE BROUQ-lT TO tHE NOllCE Of WARE t.lAlca.tB PRIOR TO THE COMt.lEN~ENT Of ANY WORK. )> ;:0 JT1 o C () JT1 o I ~ II ~ I , > p j ~ r; " ~ ~ 8 BUILDINGS 3 & 4 FLOOR PLANS 0'" REMARKS om REMARKS 04--10 08 us[ PERMll DES. REV. su~m ""''' DESIGN RE\'lEW BOARD RESl.JBMITIA 4'-2" .4,'-2" J'-4" J'-4" 8Q'rO. ~ e 21<l~. ~g~ ~~~ oiijx ~~g ~~Q "'It:;!; i'l.:l2 <1 ~ e @ 1/ /0 SSF LOGISTICS CENTER '" Pl :l ~ o :< ~ ;D @ ~ra~ ;;::~ n~x !lie:. ~~;r ~.~~ ~~~ !lO 'g 1070 SAN MATEO AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA "D ;:0 z --< CJ 80 I' 0 ~ ;;0 ~ ~ '" "0 Cl m ~ en ~ _.awe plo=lng """'= ...phla aI...deve1optnent 5000 executive pkwy. JI1!.298 lWlreman. c:aliforru. 94S83 p92S.244.9620 f92S.244.962.1 WARE MALCOMB Leading Design for Commercial Real Estate l.1: \JcbsOB\CclifOl"nic Commerciol Reol Estoh, ServicBs\SNROa-OOOB-OO_GSAYenovotlon \Cad\SD\OOOB....A24.dwg o:J c: j= Q z G) (]) ." r o ~O ~;:o "lJ r )> Z 22'-8. 18'-8 16-6 4'-0- 14'-8" 4'-0. 4'-0"' 10'-8" 4'-0" ~t----~~---il _} '.0. + r- ------ I ~t- ." i- --- -- r t- .- -p-- " I I I I I I . I r ~~ I I r r ~ ,- j~ ~ " I I I r I i- I I " 8 '\i ~~ ,- If 0.) ." " r J :' L_ -------t- 'l ~ r- ], I I 1 p ~ ~ I ~ " I 58; III ,. '" I " ~( 8 I " ,- 8 I ~r. " I :' L_ -------+-- _J o. ,- r- 'l r ~ I I I r ~~ ,- I ~ ,- " I l~ " ~ Ii:: ~ 0, ';' if \>) t:< ." " !;;. ,. - ... L_ , 'l ~--- ~ r- I -l I ' \ ~r ~ ~ I " I ~' ~ '" , :( 8 r r " ~ 8 r ~~ ,. '--------t----- 'l L_ _.1" :' r- 'l I ~ I I , I s~ ~ I ~ I I ,. I ,- " '" k rr I o. 8 ~~. ';' !L: I ., " ,. L_ ... " ,..----------<r----- :' r- i1 ~ '3 0, I I P ~ r ~ ~ I \ r ,. '" --:r~ 0, I ' ~. v 8 8 ~~. I \ \ ." ~ L_ f;1\r- _J --- - w I I L -~----- ~ ~ H "'-4" 4'-0- 4'-2" 3'-2" . p ~O. 10'_8- 21,L4" 3'-4. 19'-4- 19'-4" 30'-0. 30'-0" 80'1-0" C') e ~ UHl] e ~~: U~ ~~~ ~~~ ""Ie;!; l;:~~ ~ e @ ~ 1/ /0 /'-. "J~ ~ " ~ '" ~ ~ ~ o '" ~ ~ @ ~ ~~';' ~ i@~ ~ ~~( ~ ~ ~S;" . :r ~e ~ ~ ~ . ill ~ ~~~ ~~~ o~x ~'i'; ~~. ~~~ g~~ ~<:;>j!! ~o .~ I ~ !I 1'1 8 ~ ~ p ~ j BUILDING 6 FLOOR PLANS SSF LOGISTICS CENTER R",,",", DATE: REMARKS "'I 10 06 USE PrRMlT ots. REV. SUBMITT A 06-30-08 OESlGN REVIEW BOARD RESUBMITT 1070 SAN MATEO AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA r- ". N tt ~, N ~ ( " '" ':' ~, .Ilo } " '" ~- J, m o 80 ~ 0 ~ ;:0 ~ :<! ~ "lJ ~ m ~ CIJ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~~: ~ 5~b: 8~ ~~ ;~ I~ =hi"""",, p....... .....~ pphlcs lIi~develop=mt 5OOOexecutivepkWY.ltc.298 aanrllmcm. ailifomla!l4583 p925..244.9620 f925.2443621 EJ BEJElBEJB ~ ~~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~h~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ : ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ II ::1 ~ ~ ;. ~ ~ ! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (") J> C :::! o Z ." r o o ;:0 "lJ S; Z Z ~ m CIJ =;; --< -l'> N, :::; WARE MALCOMB Leading Design for Commercial Real Estate s 8~~~: .. 00 ~ ~~~~~ ~~ ~ ~~?i ~&Il~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~;:o lio ~o ,," I I I I I I I I I 7- C/) I I 0, () ~ ;:0 m m ~ z C/) ~ m () ~ -I ii 0 ~~ OJ ~~~ 0 z ~ll i I ~~~ !il ~~ ~ " a~~ II 8 f ~ d~ I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 ~ ~ 2~;$i -1-~t~-~t~-~t~-H- i ~ ~~~ ;< ~g j e I j I I 1 \ I I 1 I I I I j I f j j M:\Jobs08\ColifOfnlo Commercicl Real Estate ServiclIs\SNROB-OOOB-OD_GSA-Renovation\Cod\SD\OOOBJ31.dwg OJ c r= Q z G> " r o ~O ~;:O -0 ~); ~Z 0;:;1/ ~~i ~'!~ ~7 K> BEl 88 EJ 1/ ~~ ~ 2~ ~ .~~ .~ i'!~ . ~~ ~ ~~~ .. ~~ ~ 5~ ~ ~u . 2~ ~ 8~ ~ a.'~ ~ ;<~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ li ; n~ : &~ ~ a ~ ~~ ~ ~~ i ~ ~ ~i l is a ; i~ I; i ~ ;<: a~ ~ 0 .~ ~ ~ ~a " . 8~ ~ g ~~ ~ ~ i~ .. ; ~; s ~~ Q ;:0 o o " -0 ); Z Z ~ m C/) o J> C ::! o :z =r; :i! Vi Ul I r'l r'l .., Vi z o .., 0-J 0, x -l> N, .., Vi 7HESE DRA\\INGS AN!) SPECJF!CAJJONS ARE mE PROPERTY AND COP'fflIGHT Of WARE .uA.lCDMB AND SHAll NOT BE USED ON ANY OIHER \!lOOK EXCEPT BY AGJ:lEEMENT \Ill.m WAA[ MAlCOMB. YlRIiJEN OJIolENSICWS SHAll TAKE PREctDDlcr O~ SCAl.fD DIMENSIONS AND SHAll BE VERlFJED ON mE JOB sm: ANy DISCREPANCY Sl-Mll BE BROlJGJT TO mE NonCE OF WARE "'Menta PRIOR TO THE CCMIoIENCOIENT OF ANY WOR.IC. ::t> ;:t) r'l o C o r'l o w g I ~ ~ j ~ ~ S ~ ~ '&; r ~ 8 BUILDING 1 ROOF PLAN OATE R_ OATE -.. 04-10 Oil USE PERloIlT DES. REV. SUBMITTA 06 JO oa VESlGN REVIEW ElOARD RESUBMlTT. SSF LOGISTICS CENTER -...... p""""," -- "",phi<> lI1b>de<reWpment WARE MALCOMB 1070 SAN MATEO AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA sooo ex.ecutl.ve pkwy. ste. 298 sanrBl:J\UI'L aillf'omf, 9.c.583 p!nS..144.9620 f925.24:43621 Leading Design for Comm.rcial Real Estato u ;:t) Z .., l.1: \Jobs08\Colifornio Commercicl RI!<lI Eslote Servlclls\SNROe-OD08-DO_GSA..-Rel"lovotion \Cod\SD\ODOB....A32.dwg OJ c r= o Z G> (f) I\) ~ (J'I :::u o ~O ~11 _"0 ..., 0> b.Z , , -.l~.d / / -0-</- - - - -----8 ----8 ----8 -----8 ----8 I I ~ El B EJBBBBElEJ ~ .~~ ~:- ~ ~ ~ S ~ S ~ ~~~ ~" ~ ~ c 0 ~ % ~ a~i ~~ ~ ~ ; i ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ i i ~ . ~<. 2~ ~ 0 . I a~~ ~8 8 ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ l'l ~~ ~5 S l .d ~~ ~ ~ !~~ I~ ; ~~~ 2~ I ~.~ ~~ i;~ ~ ~~i " ~~.. ~ ~~ ~ a d :::u o o 11 "0 ~ Z S m (f) (") > c -< o ~ / / / -/- / / -~----------------------- "- "- "- "- "- "- r----l .~ _ b-.-L "- "- "- -."'-- "- "- -----------------------~ =r; -< :c Ui Ul :c fTl fTl -< Ui z o -< GJ 0, x -I>- N, :::; ~~ ~ ~ ; ~ ~ I\) i ~ 8 Ui ESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS AR( '!HE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT Of WARE MALCOMB AND SHAlL NOT BE USED ON ANY OlHER WORK EXCEPT BY AGRfDIENT 'MTH WARE ),IALCOMB. I'tRJTIEN DIMENSIONS SHAll TAKE PRECEDENCE O~ SCAlED DIt.4ENSlONS AND 9'lALL BE vtRIF1ED ON THE JOB SITE. ANY DISCREPANCY SHAll. BE 8ROOQiT TO lHE NOllCE OF WARE t.4AlcotdB PRIOR TO THE COMIolENCEMENT Of ANY WORK. )::0- ::<J fTl o C (") fTl o -0 ::<J Z -< ~ ~ ~ i ~ OATE 04 10 08 USE PERI.IlT 06 30 08 DESIGN RE'v1EW BUILDINGS 2 & 5 ROOF PLAN DATE . SU~ITTA RESUBt.lITT REMARKS "'- "'- "- ~~)~ "'- / ~~~/Ci~~ / -'.;r- - - - - --- - / / - - - - - - -.-/.- / / / / -~~~ - = = -- / / / / SL"" 1/4" PER FOOT WIN. "- -."-- - - - - -.- - "'- "- " "'- .", - - - "'- " ,----, "LJ - - - - - - -', "'- "'- "'- SLOPE 1/4. PER FOOT MIN. -,----------------------- i~,,,- - - - - "'- = = = =N,,-~_ _ 1'<.---- - '''- : "- I , ck I , ~ SSF LOGISTICS CENTER 1070 SAN MATEO AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA =hi""""" p"""",,, lnmri= graphics 1Iill.'develcp<nent 5OOOe>ffiCUtivepkwy. 1m. 298 sant.man.oillfomia~ p925.244.9620 f92.5.244.9621 WARE MALCOMB Leading Design for Commercial Real Estate M~ \JobsOa\CfJliforrlk1 Cammercicl Real Eslcte Services\SNROa_0008_00_GSA-flenavolian\Cod\SD\0008J3J,dwg / " - - - - ~:/~ -- ~"'" / '-" / " / " / " -7 - -. - - - - - - - - - .", / " / / L--L ------------------------- ----------------- ------- -.-.- -.--'---.- - -.---.-.--'-'- " _.,----- ---------~-------------- " - - - - - - - -'. - - "- "- ~ "- ,----',. i h - - - - - - - - - -'=--'--'\- "- " Vi CSE DRAWINGS ~D SPECIFICATIONS ARE mE PROPERTY AND COP'l'RIGHT IX WARE MAlCOMB AND SHill NOT BE USED ON ANY OlliER WORK EXCEPT BY AGREEMENT 'Mlli WARE MALCOMB. \\RITTEN DIt.lENSlQNS SHALl TAKE PRECEDENCE ovm sCAlIa OlME.NSlONS AND s-lAU. BE VEmFlED QtI 1'rlE JOB 511[. -'Ny OI5CRrP~CY SHill BE BROUGH TO tHE N01lC€: Of WAAE MI<.l..C0M8 PRIOR TO THE C{)MWENcncENT OF ANY WORK. )> ID~~j ~ ~ ~ ;:2 M W i ~ ~ 8 3 , ) ~--J ~'= "'- ~~ ~ " " "- - - - - -~ - - - " -----------------~------ "- -------,,-- "- "- ====[K[ I I ,t.... I I I - - - - - ;- - --------------,r--------- I - -I- I I I F I I -I- I I SLCPt: 1/4- PER FOOT IolIN. _[K[ - -.-.-.-.-'---.- ------------------------- " " " -,>--. " " " __ _ _ J~l' :,-~ I I I OJ C , o Z G> (fl c..> Qo .J>. ;;0 o ~O ~" _1J 'at' ~)> ~Z I I ck BUILDINGS 3 & 4 ROOF PLANS -~- - - - -~ -;/::./ [;-/-1 _ _ _ _ _/k.---L / / / - - - -/ - - - - - / ------~----------------- / - -/- - - - - - - :/ ~- - "- >> -->',,-~ - - ,.----, 1 1 L--L SlOPE 1/4" PER FOOT t.lIN. ---.-.-.-.----.- ------------------------- / / / -1 ~- .-L- ~ m / - - ~7':",/- - - /' :----1 / [ I - ""-=--7"'" - - - l:=-..,-:!..-- - I I I OAT< 04-1{) ce 06-30-08 DAT< - SSF LOGISTICS CENTER I/.$lJ6tJ.lTT RESUBt.lITT 1070 SAN MATEO AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA -----8 ------8 ------8 ----0 ----8 ----8 I I ~ --- p"""",,, """"- ...phla lI!.led~ment sooo e:>te=.tlve pkwy. ste. 296 lW\tIlatOr\. callroml.90t.583 p92.5.244.9620 f92.5.244.9621 8 8 8888888 ~ ii~ a:' ~ ;" n n : liiz~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ae~ .~ ~ . ~ . Ii m lO\~i ~~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ . ~h ~~ l ~ · ~ ~~2 ~a a ~ ~ ;~~ ii ~ i .~~.~ ~ . !~~ u 1 ~~a ~~ ! ~.~ ~~ ~~~ ; Fg . !i~i . '~;;l i ~ia ~ elO\ ~ WARE MALCOMB Leading Design for Commercial Real Estate ;;0 o o " 1J > Z Z o -I m (fl (") )> C -4 o ?'C '1 -4 ~ If) If) I fT1 fT1 -4 If) z o -4 U 0, x .j>. N, =i : \Jotls08\Colifornio Commerciol Real Estole Services\SNROB-0008-00_GSA.-Renovation\Cod\SD\OD08-^34.dwg co c: r= o z G) 0> ;:0 o gO ~" -0 r )> Z I -;--1- / I -1- , , , , , , , , -----0 -----8 -----8 -----8 -----8 ------8 ----8 I I ~ 8 EJ 888GB EJ B ~ .g~ !,\ ~i~ ~ i39~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~i ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~ic :l2~ ~~~ ~.~ giil~ ~~~ ~1lI. ~~j;j I'i~a am !nn~~ i3~2.~~ ~~~~a , ~ ~ ~ ~ p' ~ ~; ~ ~ i ~ ~ , ! o )> c: ::j o :z: ;:0 o o " -0 > Z Z ~ m (j) "Tl -; :::!; V! V! :c f'1 (T1 -; V! Z o -; <..N 0, x .j>o '" - - - - -I- I I -I / / _I- I I j I I I I -1- -+= ..l... I _ - - _...4- I ..l... -4= -I- I U] =i Vi o ~ ! i \'MNCS .'.N\'l Sf'[C\f1C~'t\ONS AAE ffi€. PROPERlY AN!) OOf'~IQ\tT or 'fi',l,R[ MAlCOMB ,6.Hl) SH,IU NOT BE USED ON AN'!' QTI-\ER \lKlRt( EXCEPT BY ~GREDdENl 'Mnt WAAt ~ALCOMB, VlR:ITlEN DI"'ENSlClolS SHill TAKE PREcrnENCE O\'ER SC,41[Q DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE \/UmEO ON ruE JOIl SITE. ANY OlSCREPANCY SHALl BE BROUGH TO DiE NOTICE Of WARE 14A.LCOW.8 PRIOR TO THE COMVENCOIDH rx ANY WORK. )> AJ f'1 o c: o f'1 o ~J !'l BUILDING 6 ROOF PLANS DATE 04- 06- Ust ?ERMl"f DESIGN REVIEW REMARKS ~ , --"- , , , -,- - -1- ", I ~~I~ - -/1- / I [] ~ ~/: /~ /~ ~.c ~ _ - - - - / t ~ ____-=-I=__ \ I J;;--1 L _ _ _ _l_ _< ~/...~~JMIN: \ I ~\ ~i-7__ . - \-- - rr-;=-=--=-=--=- L~ ~ I J:c_, L I I l.J I I ~ I I e SSF LOGISTICS CENTER 1070 SAN MATEO AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA """''''''''''' .- """= ...phl~ a1l1>deve1opU1.lmt sooo e><ealtive pkwy. ste. 298 !llOl'Iramo:n.Clllliorrlia94583 p925.2.44.9620 1925.2....9621 u ~ :z: -; WARE MALCOMB Leading Design for Commercial Real Estate EJ@1@]B~ BEJEl BEl 88 8 B~ z 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g~1!1 % ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~i ~ ;:0 m ~ ~ ~ -i (f) ;;! - ~ c i!':;::IQ < 8 >i ~ n ;;! :c -i " ~ I' ~~~ ~ ~n II 2 n ~ ~ ~ ~ I !il8 ~ P ~i ~i ~ ; 1)M n '(! m m = ~ ~ ~ n&ili ~ ~~ i ~ 1<l ~ ~1<l- ~ X ~~~ 0 ~~ a; ~ 0 <) ~g t1 % ~ -i ~ i 1l . ~\! , < c' ~ m m g i~ ~ &~ ~ 8P ;:0 ;:0 ill ~ ~ ~ll\ ~ ~ g Ui.... Z ~ . ~ <) ~~ @ ~ ~~ ~ !il ~:; 0 0 0 p~ ~o ~ \1. i ~; l'l~ -i ;:0 ;:0 ~ ~~ ~~ !il p ~i i ae <)% m !il O2 a ~~ ~ ~r(f) m m a ii~ ~ II ~ r r 8 . ~ ~m llm ~ & ~~ ~ ~ <~ < ~~ I ~F Ii~ ~~ . ~ '(! ~ ~~ I I I I I 8 ~ ~~ ~ pg -;-i -;-i ~% & ~O oj i ~O i j 5 'ijll F ~ ~8 I I I ! I I I I I ~ s; ~ ~!ij ~Z ~Z : ~ , , ~ ~ , ~ II .:;> ga ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ q~ (p ~ ,p ~~ I"P ~~ ~~ . n ,,~ oi:: ~ q;:E o~ OJ :> M:\Jobs08\Calirornla Commllfcicl Real Estoht Ssrviclls\SNRO!l-0008-00_GSA....Renovotion\Cod\SD\0OO8-A41.dwg ~ tJ r e m ..... G> ill '(l . m ~ ~ Z ~ ~ 0 8 f'l ~ ~ ~ ~ (") )> c: --; o z 'il --; I Ui Ul I fT1 fT1 -l Ui Z o -l 0J 0, x -I' N, :::; ~! ~ ~ : ~ " o ~ ~ i 8 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS "'tt REMARKS DAtt REMARKS 04-10 08 USE PERMlT DES. REV. SU~ITT 063006 OESlGN RE'.1EW BOARD RESUBI.lITT Ui DRA'AtNGS AND SPE:CIF'fCAllONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COP'tRIGHT ~ WARE I.lAlCQt.48 ANO SHALL NOT BE uSED ON ANY OTHER WORt< EXCEPT BY AGREEMENT WIlli WARE t.lALC0lr.!8. v.RITTEN Olt.lENSltJ./S SHALl TAKE PRECEDENCE O'v(R SCAlED DIMENSIONS AND SiALL BE VERIFIED ON TliE JOB snr, ANY DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGn TO TI-lE NOllCE OF WARE ~AlCOl.48 PRIOR TO THE COMWENCOdENT OF ANY WORK. )> ::>:J rn o c: o fT1 o -0 ::>:J Z -l I ~ , SSF LOGISTICS CENTER """''''''''''' p"""",,, """"~ ...phl~ !lite development 1070 SAN MATEO AVENUE SOOOI!lCflCUtl.vepkwy.ste.298 !WInman. cs.lJ.fomill94S83 p925..244.9620 f923.244.9621 Leading Design for Commercial Rea' Estate SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA WARE MALCOMB 1.I:\Jebs03\Cclifornic Cemmercicl Reo) Estele Ser.,.;ces\SNR03-000B-OO_GSA.-RenoYOlion\Cml\SO\OOmLMlc.llwg ~ II -1\ . \ ts:2:l11 . . ~1 ~~------- r1 C/) o C -l I m X -l m ;;0 o ;;0 m r wm ~~ --l }5 ~Z Sl~ .11 -------11 I I I I I I I I I ~ I I ~ ~ ~ ~ . -- () r 7il 8 ~G m ..... G) u --11 m ~ '6 ~ Z ~ 8 ~ e 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ EJ @] @] EJ ~ EJ BEl BEl EJ EJ EJ EJ p:! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g~~ ~ ~ ~~ i ~ ~ ~~ ~~ m ~ ~ : " ~ I'~\:; < . ~~ 'i' . ~ ~~ \1i < " 7- ,. ~ " ~i5 ::: ~ ~" ~ ~ C) >~ ~C") )> ~ :; :; ; ~ ~~~ ~ '6 ~~ g a Ii ~~ ~Ii :::! i .... Ci. !! "11 OdPl ~ 8 ~Ig < ~ ~ a!!3 0 r ~ b 0 Q ~~~ ~ ~ ~g ~ ~ r;l ~~~;ii ~ i ~ . ~ ~~ 2 ~ ~a;;l ~ ~ ~~ ffl~ Z g ~ ~ - ~m ~ 2 Oill l!i 1> gii! *a Z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~i 8 ~ ;~ ~ ~ ~~ i~ 9 ~ 2 m 0>0 Q " 2' :il ~. ,,~ -. ~ \'6 ~ ~ j;ia ~ p g~ ~ ~g g;Z m o . >: ~o ~ .< ~ C/) ~ Q o~ $" a ~~ ?1 g ~~ .... o~:r ~ p8 .z j!.... i ~i ~ ! ~ I: ~ :~ ~ ~ ~ ~8 ~p:::: ~ ~ !i~ ~ ~2 ~ ~ ~~ ~> ~ ~o ~ If .------- ./[1 .\ . I !IS ~ I i ~i~ !i~ ~ ~ -i\ i\\ I 1\ I: 1\ I: I I I I I Ii i I I , I I ~ II ~ . .:\ \ . '?J ~ 'U -;1 ~ I 11 I ~ I I I I III m I I , "'" I I ~ I "-...~ '~ I I ) I ~ ~ I I I I Z I P I I , III I iii I il m ~ I I --- , .i\ · --- i8 2:1 . till ~ I Z I C/) 0 II ~ 0 [ill I ;;0 C -l I -l I I I m I m ~ I ~ I m I m ;;0 I ;;0 0 '1lI\ 0 I ;;0 : ;;0 m I m r r :qm I ~~ ~~ , --l I I I I --l I I }6 I I I I I i }5 ! I I ~Z b:Z , , ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,0 q~ ,0 ~~ '0 o~ elitE c. o. OJ )> o )> c -< <5 z =r; -< :c Vi Ul :c C'l C'l -< Vi z o -< 01 0, X ~ N, :::; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ j ~ ffi ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ Q) ~ 8 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS OAtt REMARKS em REMARKS 04-10-08 USE PERMIT DES. REV. SUBMITTA 06-31:1 OS DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESUBMlTI Vi DRA'NlNGS AND SP(C)F]CAnONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT Of WARE MAlCOMB ANO SHALL NOT 8E USED ON ANY OTHER WORK EXCEPT BY AGREEMENT "WITH wARE MALCOMB. I'IRITTEN DIMENSiONS SHALl TAKE PRECEDENCE OYER SCALED DIM[NSlONS AND s-tALL BE VERIFIED ON THE Joe SITE. ANY DISCREPANCY $HAl..!.. BE SRctlQ-IT TO mE NOllCE OF WARE t.lAlCOLlB PRIOR TO THE COMI.IEN~ENr OF ANY WORK. ):> ;0 C'l o c: o C'l o -0 ;0 Z -< SSF LOGISTICS CENTER """""'"'" p"""",, """'= ""p""," lIiledevelcpment WARE MALCOMB 1070 SAN MATEO AVENUE Leading Design for Commercial Reai Estate SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CAliFORNIA 5OOO~tivepkwy.s\1!.298 lllll\nmon. callfomlil94S63 p925..244.9620 f925.2M.9621 1.4: \Jolls08\Colifornio Commercial Reol E!rlele SerYicps\SNR08-000B-003SA-RenoYDlion\Ced\SD\0008.....A41b.<fwg E]@]@]EJ0 ~ Z % :::ll I'!'l ~ 3: q c:> ~ I" ~ " ~::;~ i~~~~ ~ b 9. !=' l<; ~ Ii ~ ~ ~ ;l; "" -I ! ~ ~ a : n ~ ~ . ~ a " ~~ ~ : d ~ 8 ~i'; ~ I s~ 0 ~ ffl'a 0 0 "O~ : !E: ~~ ~ ~ ~i ~ lS ~~ ~ i ~~ ~ : rt s I!:~ r ;a!; ~ ~~ ~ ~; c ~l'! ~ ~; ~ BBB BBGB ~ ~I< '" ~'" ~ ~i1 ~ ~~ !l !il8 i'; I ~ ~~ ~ ~~ j;l s~ !!\ rr g >?; . m z o ~ ~ ~ B EJ ~ ~~ ~g m ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ --I ~" ~Ii! - ~~ ~: ~ 8~ :: Z ~ ii:;: 0 ~~ !!!~ --I ~e aiZ m "" g"O en : i~ ~ .~ ~ 8F ~ ~~ P8 d~ ~ !; :> -- L , -T1 ---.. I I I " I I I I I I I I m )> en --I m X --I m ~ o ;0 m r ~~ ---I ?o ~z )> I I I I I : . I - I I I I I I : I I , !Ie ~ 1/ 1\ "'~ I) I I I I ~ ~ . ~, ./ \ I - I I I I I I I . I r I I I I I I I I . I I I I I I I ri I I . ~ ! I ble ~ I2J / \1 i I ~ ~ " :\ l 1 I I I i I \1 ~II il I i I I '/ I I I I I I I I - I I I I I I I I I I i \1 I .i\ ~'~ I iz I P ~ ~ ~" / .\ I I I I bl ! I ble ~ i i ~_ " ~_'~s \ P \ Q;E ,.., (") }> C -l <5 :z: "T] -l :r: Vi U1 :r: fT\ fT\ -l Vi Z o -l 0J 0, " -I'- N, ::; ~i ~~ . 6 ~ ii: " ~ ~ ~ 0" ~ 8 Vi ORAlMNGS AND SP[C\flC~TlONS ARE 1l1E PROPERT'( AND COP~IGH1 Of WARE I.t.-LCOMB AND SHAlL NaT BE USED ON ~NY o~ WORK o:.CEf'T 8Y AGREEMEN1 'MUi WAA( IiM.COMB. ~TTEN. DIMENSlONS 5HAL.l1AKE: PRECEDENCE Ol,otR SCAlEO DIMENSIONS ANO SHAlL BE VERIFlEO ON mE JOB SITE. ANY QlSCR!YANCY SHAll BE 8R~GiT 10 lliE NonCE Of WARE MM.COUB PRIOR 10 THE OOMWENCEIlEN.T a' ANY WORK.. )::>- ;0 fT\ o C (") fT\ o -0 ;0 Z -l ~ ~ DA'" 04-10 013 "30" ~ ~ Ei ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ 9 ~ q ~ Ii! ~ ;;) " ~ ~ " EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - SSF LOGISTICS CENTER 1070 SAN MATEO AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA --=- p""""," """"~ S"phla silPdeve10pment 5000 executive pkwy. 5re. 298 un l1Imon. callfomia 94.583 p925.2.44.9620 1925.2".9621 WARE MALCOMB Leading Design for Commercial Real Estate t.1: \Jotls06\CoUfornio Commercicl Reo] Eslole Services\SNR08-0008-00_GSA...Rerlovalion \Cod\SD\OOOB-.A41c-Al T.d\\'g I l\~_. --..~ ! I t,.._u '1 , , , , , - -) B B8 (') r 0 e ~G m r ..... G) ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ . m ;tI ~ ~ Z ~ 2 0 ~ ~ r 8 g e ~ l" m ~ ~ ~ ~ G G) ~ 5 ~ m ~ ~ > G Z m . ! 0 '!: m ~ ":I I \I \I ~ ~ g ~ i < ~ < ~ ~ a ~ " I a i I EJ@]ElEJ~ BBEl BBGB B EI PJ ~ g g~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ m o ~ .~~ ~ ;; ~~ !i' 8 ~ ~8 2~ < Z " f;:iQ -l J: 8" ~ z "> !;;e: g" )> : ~ ~~~ ~ ~ \I~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ :::! ~ ~ gQ~ ~ ~~ < >! ~ ~~ 0 ~ ~ 2~~ ~ 0 ~g ~ i i=il z~ ~r;\ .~!!! I ~ ~-i ~ ;-< IlI1 ~F ';ti1ll1 Z g i~ ~ ~a I!\ ~ 81 ~~ z a !:em z ~~ n ~ '"' ~o 0 ~~ il ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~_ill ~~ -' M~ P j1 ~ >: z'= "> -, ~ ~ii \I p ~~ i ~e ~z m " 00 ~ a ~~ ~ ~ r;~ C/) ~ 8; m F58 . :z i~ ~~; p i i' ~~ ~ ~~ g g ~ M~ ~ ~~ ; ~ ~~ ~ ~~ F ~ ~8 ~ ~; . ~~ p ~ a ~o ~ ~ ~ iii:IE'IE ~p ~ : :: ~ !" ~ ~ i ~ 9 ~ ;0; ~ ~ ~ ~q ~ a ~ m z );: ;tI G) m o iJ )> ~ ~ :E m C/) --I m r ~m ~~ --i }O ~Z )> ~ !ii IV I I !ii !ii ) I I I I ::; !ii / !ii I I I /' !ii !ii I I ----------- !ii ~ ~ ~ I / / \ \ I I: ;""- // --------- I '" I ~ ~ ~ I ^ v I I ~Is ~ I ~-:~ '0 0" I ~'8 ~ I /""- J I / , :/ I I I (") )> C --1 o Z =;; --1 :J: Ui U1 :J: (Tl (Tl --1 Ui Z o --1 IN o. ",- -I' N, :::; I I i i , I I ~ i ~ ! b.~ ,p q,p q,. ~ ~ I ~ j ~~ ~ . 8 ~ ; ; ~ ~ ~ (") ~ 8 Ui DRA'MNGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE ll-IE PROPERTY AND COP'1'RlGHT Of WARE MALCOMB AND SHALl NOT BE uSED ON ANY Oll-lER 'iIORK EXCEPT BY AGREEJ,iENT WITH WARE MALCOMB. YtRITTEN OIt.lENSlONS SHAll. TAKE PREcmENCE O\rn SCAlED DIt.lENSIONS AND SHALL Bt: 'omREO ON ll-IE JOB SITE. AHV DISCREP-'NCY SHAll. Sf BROUGHT TO ll-IE NOllCE OF WARE t.lALCClld8 PRIOR TO THE C'OMI.IENCi),lENT OF ANY WORK. }> :;D (Tl CJ C (") rl CJ -0 :;D Z --1 DAlE 04-10-08 06 30-08 ENLARGED PARTIAL ELEVATION REMARKS SSF LOGISTICS CENTER 1070 SAN MATEO AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA ouclU""""" p- """"= S"'phloo II!lI!dev1:1opment WARE MALCOMB 5OOO<<>CeCUlivepkwy.ste.296 lIlUI ramon,. ca1tfumta 94M3 p92S..244.9620 f925.244.9621 Leading Design for Commercial Real Estate 1.1: \Jobs08\Colifornio Commerciol Rool Eslole Services\SNR08-0D08-003SA-RenoYOtion \Cod\SD\OOOB-.,A42.dlol'g ,/ ~2 _~i~ :;E I m en -I m ~ m ;:0 o ;:0 I m r ~m F.~ ;ji::! iO ~Z o I i !12 ~ O~ () 888 no ~~ r ;. ~ III ~~ 0 ~ 1i ~ ~~;:o 8 ~ g.. ~~ r ~ ~ ~ ~~ m ~Q' ~" ~(j) .. ~ !ilm ~ ~ ~ ~z ~ ~~ bCJ g 't ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ : ;a ~ ~ g ~ ~ ~ ~ - 8 !~ I I I I t: l7'''J I l~ i"T"" ~ ~- I l~ILJ i'---. en o c: -I ::r: m ~ m ;:0 6 ;:0 m r ~~ -'-I }5 ~z v~ I I Inmimrn RL -, ! P -l \P ,II I'I If! I I"" ,/..~ I I........ '...,...... ~; k-m:;; : 'b< i'::.' m_::' I I kn_ u___n 1......~... .....",,/.." ~(~' m I ;p- en -I ---_ / m ~< ~ /' --, m ;:0 o ;:0 I m r ~~ ;ji::! ,'0 b:Z W -~r II' - II ii ,I : ~ r---+ ~ ~ .....-/' ---- : : , ~ ! I i ~~" ..!.p q~ ~ =t=m ~~~ ,i '1 (") )> c --< o z =r; --< I U1 Ul I fTl fTl --< U1 z o --< 0J 0, x ~ "', :::; ~ !I ; I\.) i I: U1 DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE llIE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT Of WARE MAlCOMB AND SHAlL NOT BE usED ON ANY OlllER WORK EXCEPT BY AGREEMENT WITH WARE ~ALCOMB. IIIRITTrN DIMENSiONS SHAll. TAKE PRECEDENCE O~ SCAlED DIt.lENSlCNS AND SI-IALl BE VERIFIED ON lHE JOB 511[. ANY DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGlT TO niE NOTICE or WARE I.lAlCOt.lB PRIOR TO THE COMWENCEMENT Of ANY WORK, )> ;:0 fTl c::J C (") fTl c::J -0 ;:0 Z --< ~ ~ ~ l ~ .. ~ ~ w ~ o .J- ~ " I I ~i~ o (3) 18 m m z o 2 ~ e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 11 ~ ~ I~ () I ! !12 ~ CA1< 04 1Q M USE PERWT 06-30 08 DESIGN RE\r1EW BUILDINGS 2 & 5 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS REMARKS OA1< b -I! i1 iJ I I i~ i zj~ ~i~ ~~ 0) , i , !!2 ~ SSF LOGISTICS CENTER 1070 SAN MATEO AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA I I I ~; ~ I " , , - f ,s;. : \:n , ----- , ~ , ""t-h : , , w , , , J,lj : , b ~ f- , : --:: t 1o,~/:: ;;-.....1. ~]l;Y1 li !'-- '------ z o ~ :::c m ~ m ;:0 6 ;:0 m r ~m F.~ --I ~- ~O ~z 1h~" I i ~12 ~ I, I i: I ~i~ ~i~ ~$ ;p- ~~~ (j) ~~~ m !Ie," Z ~~~ ~~ m ~; ~ ~' 211 Z ~~ 0 !I~ -I .N m> m ~i!i ~... en ;j;; n ~~ ~~ :;~ ~~ ~~El@J@]0 @lB BEJBBElBBEJ m r ~ ~ ! ~ ~ ~~11 c ~ j ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ , ~ ~~~ E in 9 " IF ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ a ~ ! ~ ~ E !i ~ :;; ~ ~ i~i ~ ' , ~ I . ~n b, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~m ~ I" "Pi ~ . 0 ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ;; ~ ~ ~ ~ z ~ 2 ~ " ~~" <'. c ~ ~ . 1l Z c ~ '<~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ M~ . l!' ~ . 8 6 ~ '" m ~!I ~ l5 ~ -, en '" ~'" !il ~ ~~ ~ ~ d 2 "'~ ~ ~% > ~~ 8 e ~ ~ """''''''''''' p- ""'"'= graph10 &It..deV1lloplIUll'lt WARE MALCOMB 5000 ..xec:utivepkwy. Sm. 298 un ramon. callfornla 94583 p925.244.9620 1925.244.9621 Leading Oesign for Commercial Real Estate t,1: \Jobs08\COlifornio Commercicl Real Estate Services\SNR08-0008-00_GSA....Renovotion \Cod\SD\0008J\44.dwg en o C -I :c m X rri ;:0 <5 ;:0 m r 11m ~~ --I ~5 ~z ! I ~S ~ o 888 ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ Q ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ > ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ I i ~ ~ ~ ~ i~(") ~~o l~ r- ~qO n~;:o ~~ r- ~~ m nG) ~m ~z ~o ~ ~ 8 e ~ ~ ~ ~ p ~ G ffimll,JF;; lliillJlJG) m z o 2 F ~ o ~ ~ Ii I , I ~'~ ,-0 ",;jI; ~ ~ 2 ~ :E m en -I m ~ m ;:0 <5 ;:0 m r Ilm ~;; --I ,,- ~O ~z 1i;'Q] ~ l{;SZ] '~Y'1 '-- ~ ~Y::J 1 1 1 ~ en: ?'ii ~i G)! ml ----- eni ?'ii ~11 G)i rTj ~ tJ ,~ ~ cni ?'ii _ ?i G): m: ~ h JjJ en: 5! ~i d rT1 :1 r \\ m ::t> en -I m ~ m a;! o ;:0 m r- Ilm ~~ --I ,,- 10 ~z ril ~ 1 ~ E Q ". / / x' / / ......... " 1 G:o. 1 ~ 1 IJY" ~I \ I 1 I'.... / 1 "'x"'" 1 " I, / " t: " /J lV W r::. - ~ t '\. 1 I........ / / r-- ;.< 1 , 1,,/ ........ <1 ~ 1 1 1 ~ iJY ~II ""-i ~ lr-;' 1 --- ----- I',. ---- 1 ' ,/ 1 , "x..... " 1/ " /J; ~ 1 ~ 1 lV 1 II:Y ~II ~ I : "" / .. ,,/ I x 1",,/ "- "- 1 1 I 'JY ~II ", / .. /' X / / " .............. ~ / " lli (") )0- c ::::! o z =i1 -i I Ui Ul I "., "., -i Ui Z o -i G-i 0, x .j>. N, =< : !I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ il ~ rr ~ ~ /: Ui DRA\\tNGS AND SPfClfTCATlONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT Of WARE l.lAlCOMB AND SHAll NOT BE USED ON ANY OTHER \1/ORK EXCEPT BY AGREEMENT WITH WARE !.lALCOMB. 'ftRITTEN DIMENSlONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE O~ SCALED OIt.lENSlQNS ANO s-lAU.. BE VERIFIED ON THE JOB SITE. ANY DISCREPANCY SHAll BE BROUGH TO THE NOTICE Of WARE MAlCOMB PRIOR TO THE COMt.lENCOdENT OF ANY WORK. >- ;0 "., o c (") "., o -u ;0 Z -i o 11\ ,~ ~ 00:---.] ?'ii 1 ?i ~ G): m\ h JjJ lV z o ~ :c m ~ m ;:0 <5 ;:0 m r- -m n< ~::t> --I ,,- ~O ~z I i ~,-~ o~ .~ en: ?'ii ~: G): I~Y::J m i , _ .jjt__'- i ~ () I , I ~,-~ o~ .~ !>ATE 04-10 08 US[ PERMIT 06-30 oB DESIGN RE\IlEW BUILDING 6 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS R_ I I i ~'~ ~~'~ I PIP .,:'lIE "", '" to I \ / " \ I \\, / I , I ~~'~ 1.0 91E 1070 SAN MATEO AVENUE SSF LOGISTICS CENTER SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA ::t> I i ~Is ~ I I i i ~.,~ ~~'~ I P ~ P ... ~ O:E ~EJ@1ElEl ~B BGElBBBElB m r- t:! ~ ~ ~ ~ o~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -l:: ~ ~ m ~ ~ l!~2 ~ i ~ u ~ .. 8 ~ ~ ~ gi ~ ~ a ~2~ ~ 8 ~ i ~ I ~~~ .. ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~n -I 1< ~ i ofJ: -< ~ ~ ~ <5 ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ b ~ i<l ~ 0 III ~ z ~ Z ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ 2 ~ iii ~ ~ ~ . ~R\? i Z ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ q ~ M~ 8 ~ m ~8 \; ~ -. ~2 ~ ~ ~ ~ en ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ . ~~ ~ ~z > ~l! 8 ~; ~ i1 ~ -"""'" p- - ","p",," siledeveloprnent WARE MALCOMB 5OOOexerotivepkwy.sw.2!l8 sanram.on. aUlfomfa 94.583 pm.24l.%20: f9'1.5.244.%21 Leading Design for Commercia' Rea' Estate IIIUlilllill~lll~ I i rss . Ii il: ~~ !ii~" ~ i ~~!ilii h;i~ u i ~ dl!1 ~~ ~i ~ 8 I~ ~ : !~!llIlml!il~mU I I~ll~~! i~~~!~I'i~ I () ! r~ ! j~ ! 0 r' ~ z () ! rn \J ----~------------- Ul -; ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ PI C )> r 08 ill~II!I!~i~~ I ~ \J , Ul ~ ' ::; " ~ c~r><'!!>~o~~ dl:t ~ ~ -; i ll!!~~!i~il!! I ~ hi (j) z _ ~z ~I ~~ rn ~ ~t>;:'" ~jq Z ~ - zE: 0 ~ ,," ~ ~ !!!l!~~I&~m U i o~"grn~~ O~"'IJ'~ i~;~~~i!i~Si; i ~ ~~>~~ ~id~ e ~ "~ i U1---Ul----U'!-UlUlUl Ul ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ PI ~~i! ~ ~~ Iwumil U) ~~! i ~~ Idlliliil J> .h! U z ~ I~~ QZ lilnUl11i i. ~ ~~ J> ~Iliaa; ~~ ---1 aj b ~ fTl iU ! i~U I 8~ 0 J> U~ ~ ~SU I < ." (J fTl !!~ ! a;2 " o 0 --0-. 0 0 \ \ \ \ \ \ ~ - H ~ ~ ~ I '" Ul ~ ~ 10 :1 ~ I... Q !... ~ I~ ~ 1-.. r I... ~ I... ~ ... ... ... ... ... ... ... o --Qm~flI"'<::! )>)>flIC'1i10-l ~~lJl~;ll'll!il~;li e6~~:=iili <: ~~i5~lPel!!c- c::eiilm::l~- <;. ii1;t~c~~io1Si!J~ ~1:1!i~~~ ~ Q~ ,.S!mi"')> 0:;' 0 ...)> rn ~fiiai~~~i5 :~~~~~g /0 :e!:lI::lI;!!<m."z O;!!n"'C'l~Z ~lilri~~1ll~6~ ;:i~i)Io1il () -I-IC;!~)>~:I!!l m"'l-lS;: ZflI 0 ~!ll~~:r:gfllg!m i!lUI'< ~~ z rniHi~l!l!il~=!l/) O"'ll=~"~.,, (J) ::e~!ii1Ji12zmi ~~!ll!l~::li rn )i:-l~pt~~iilJ/J1= icp~;o!E;! 7C! ~U!J~~ll ~;i-ihi ~ ~6~~zlll!!!l . :Rilil!!~~i 0 ~iill~~;ii~ ~~!ll~::l= z cpCP~~~~~~ ~~-1!llm !I~~~~I~ !~jjl~ ~ III llllaaz~ ag~~J;;~ () ~ ~i ~a!il~ 'il Z 5 ai 1=-; -I !i '< 01 .......aJm .:-"r-~ ....... en ~. .,- --- - - coQ- CI>"""",Z "T1 C) 1 800o0e ~ : I::~c::",-.~Gl~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~Q :" lO\!!Su,~~ ~o i~~~i~~ z o ~ ;:! " () (!: ~ Iii ~ lit Q ~ I ~ ~"Q"'i- ~ ~ I I ~ r ail: ~ z-t \-t!- i--t1f- t ~. I~ ~!~I 6i I ~ III <>> ~ :-' I", ~ G) ~I l:l I ~ ~I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I '" ~ CJ !ill ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ I ~ G> ~ ~ I gig Ii i; Cj <E I ~ ~ ~ ~ i I~ II ". i1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " " " __9_.0___ o 0 0 0 o 0 " -" -.. -.. -., -., _.. _.. -.. -.. -" -" -" -" -..- .. -.' -. '- ,. --.. -,. -"-" -'. -" -.. -" -" G ::l ~ 0- o (tl ~~~ ~~g :< 0- CIl ~ ,,~ o re..... ~ ~ ~ b ~ ~ ~. 8 gO ~ ~ " Iii > ..... (tl '"1 ..... ~ o )> C ::::J o f'; i i I I I 1 i . =;; -l I U1 Ul I rrl rrl -l U1 Z o -l U< q x ~ ~ ~ Vi ]"~l!I".'=~;;~~~:~i~~~;N-';~~-~~;;~~~~~;~;~-'===:-~-='.._' ___o.,__~_ i s ~;:..:: :1; 1070 SAN MATEO AVENUE ~ WARE MALe 0 MB 8 , ~:: :::..,. ==-~"" ;g 8 :; SOUTH $AN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA --- p............. ,............ ~ I"", ;. ~ 7: ~ o~ e: ~ rn ,.. ~~ .&i 8~ '" ~ .. ~ i" r:t ~ ! ~I ~~~ i! gg~ ~ .~~~ U ~a,"~ ~.~'" f~" " ~~~18 ~ ;~ II~ p~< !b::i) tQ;li " ~~ <::i) ~- .Z i'~Q hi & ~!' ~_ ._ SHl\~_ - -.-- - -- - ~- - ---- - --" -- --- ~ ----- - I r ~-~-'-'--- I~~~~ k- - - - - - - - - -- - - - -- - - -- -- -- -- I s~>>~ I~~ I~'~' I i~ I ~~ ! ~~ """ t' I I : ~I I ~: I I I I Ii I I L-. _ _ _ _ _._ _ _ _ _ _ ~'0 >% I~ --- I' I I ~~::{>.\: ~~,~ ''$::'~ '"'''''' -~ ~~ ""tI it t-:>- ~O\~ e~P ~~N > ~~ O() $~ ." I 0' :///-~z I ,--------- I I I i 1 ,,,',/-1 I~ -I =+= =t= ~ =t= I--+-..rn' -- 1 L_____________ I I X It/. 7, I I I I 1 1- - I I I I ~;;: ~'" ~~ ~ .'" ::::: C; ~ $ I I I I I~ '~ I ~ I ,Ii -1- r = = = -=-=- -=-=- -=-=- = =-- I ~l ~~ ~ .', ~, "~'" ;'~~ ~ >~" ", ~ 'I , " I ~~ 1 ~g j el'"'- I ~ttJ ~ ~ ~>'/~ 0./'~ ;~ _~::>: '~0 ' ~.~ ~ ~,', .~ \ if- . h' , %> 0 ~ 0 I I Ji ~ l /0. /~/ h ~ ~( y~::t/:,( ~% I <==c.. :::=:r=: 'r- ~ * .=.::{-...-.'...-...=-....... "=+= ~..... ~ :$ ~ ;i% 0.' M o ~~ k~ ~'" ,,;1,'/. '~ 0 :~ .'" r8 e ~1O ~- ::-"\:':' /.~;i W,;;0. ~~0. = H~-Hi1+H+l11+H I I: I", I I'" I 1= fnt'Tmi\htttlt01 1+~I-HtI-mHt~H-H =! :. " /. z~ /'0:%;;0~0// 0. ~2 ~~ a >! {~,..,rdC r I I ,,~~~::-"":>>.'~~~'~ ~".~ ~ I i! . i:l 'I " .'i~~l1lSij~:=!m..u ~ rill: III jitl ~~ i!!."! ~ J" . "- i I.., og i'~~':hffiH~~~i Co ~~~d~ ~~~~~.~g I ~ "~~ ~ ~ -. s ~ ~ ~ Si i - ~ ~"~!~@F.n"0. !:l ~gm ~~u~n~ ~ I ~ ~hS!~~~~H'~~ I ~ ~-<~*~ ~i I :5 :: ~ ~.. . ~@ I ? (!l" I I ~ I ;.<: "i~i~i~~H~~~~H'~ 'I' ~..o "0 ~... :; . ~. ~.. ~~. .:, ~ _" ~" H ~ e' , ~ ..~. c" ~ ~ ~ ~ p ~ . '~!' !. ~ ~ ~ '1 'i"~ .~ ~, :::.:::::-,~:::-:::: " {s.m'OO".. ~' (S1fJ"(}(}'U'" A.P.N.IS-f6,J-IQu.Sr.111 Ml.1!J') 1- ,~ /./;'(/; 0 /'y;:::(W 0;'l I~ ,j.', jll ! " . """ ~:::-; x' %%h/%'J A.P.N. 15-'6:J-O~ ," ~ ,~~~:;:;:: ~~~, ~i:: .. ~~ i1i I ~i l~ $~ I~ ~~ 9 ~ ;~ ~ '$1( ~ ~ I ~ " i~ ~ ~ . .~ ~ ~ ~~ . ~ :.. 11 ~I ~' ~ ~. " ~ll ~ ~ I I' ~ -~ ; ~ ~ ~~ ~ '0 ~ ~I frlj ~ ~~ ~~ ~i <. ~ ~ \ \ \ \ \ \ +\/' \\:'-.,. " ,0\ \'\. \ , +'!,~ \ , \ "\ \'0\,'\: - - - - - - - -,- - -- ~ \ ~ \ \ if \ ~ -~~" >~-~- ,," \ . \ " ,\. \ ~" f [f> 1:: en ili tl '" \ \ I 8 r - 3~ - - S:~'\j I p,,~ I '"~iiJ ~<=~ ?~Q -pCli ~ 'ii MA TCH LINE en R en '" q '" I I I I I I ! I I I I I I I I I ! ~ ~ l!i : % i I W","'0" WNo~ ~i I o J::I1 I .. 1 a II j! \\'i" --;:=:-~ L _ _ ~ _ ~ '0.' ~%::0 Y, :%:" 0/0 t1 :0 / ~ ~ z -/ 100000of!) o "' ... o "' '" ~ o "'0 ~~O ~<::lO Ct:l~ ;:0 o ~~ >- ::;~ " ~~X """'1_ Q8 () 1.C:h. U\ ~" VJ ~~c:: C)) c:: ;:0 1"11<; trj --< \ \ \ \ \ L__ , ~ , i~~~~!li!ii!~~~I~~I~~iii~~~i~~~i~i~~ 'I~~.:~..~:..~~I~..R i~i~il~q..~~ ~~~~ .- ~ '~~~"~r~h'~~~~" B .~~~~~'~~~' ;!~:;~~i!~II~~~~I;!ii~.;I~;:~I!I~$i ~ ~-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.Ili~.~'~ ~~~.~~~~" , ~~i*~~~~oh;d~~.ia. ~~h~~~.~R~~~d~ ~ -,~'. .~, ~~~i.~.'.- ~ ~~ .~.' "I~.~' '.'. i!l ~ ~~ ~i' ~ ~~~~:&d.~' ;;;\~~~~ ~@ ,,~~~:~~ ~21 " ,.s~".i~ 'SR"~ li.~.~~~.. ~ .~ll'~~ 0 "~'~~i~"~&~~li 'il~~~8B.~.~~~g'.R~h ~ m'~." ~*.i!'~~~~ ~!..~~~~. .~r~8~." ;s .~~~~,~.~~~~~~~ ~~.~~~..~~~~.~~~I~~ ~ ~~b~d~I~!.._~.~~~~.~i~~~~~~~I~.~~ '" ~~~~~,~~~i~~~!.k.~~~~~~~~a~.~~n;G ~ ~!~~~~~..~~,,~~~.'~~~.~.~.~~~~~ ~.s~ ~~i~~~~~~~~ll~i~~~~~j~~.~~l~~~~~~~~~ ~.&~ .!. .I.II:~.I~@ iq~~I'~ ~.~. ~~ ' . ~SI~ii' ~~~ ~~.~ ~~&i_ ~ ~ ~ !~ "" . ~ ;. ~ := "l.':Ij "'("':l ~.., 00 ? ~8 ~"' 'f! _'lL___ ~o ;;~ ~~ ~~ ~ I ~ i ~ I I I _~---. I '5"--1- -- -------- ---- 011 ~__ r\~ . 1~lr------- - -1 LL~ ,,-- . : I ; I : I : I ; I I i I : I : I : I : I : I : I I .. ~ 'II ,~~ 'fl \It '" t~.;i~ ~ ~--fl ~ I .1 al ~ 1--. .1 51 ~ ==+- =-tc~ =....- i~", S , ;:::1-< f 1'1' " I~g '" 'il ~~~~ H.; ~ ~ ~~.~ 8 ~ ~s ~ . " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ il' I ~ II~ ;1/1< .j::D p~ " ~<::D ~- -z J' ~- ~z ~(\ 8f " a ~ ~i ~ ~ :f ~; ";,,- ~. ~J NCXlI=- ... it~ gg~ ~ ~o ;;!:I ~~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ;/ i 7- ~. . I~ ! 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I '~'~~ '''~ '~ ' :-.; "~.s.~~' ~~"<lN~41, 4$9{C ~..-.-:- ) i':ll~ "i .. "'1C1 iJi :I: "i c- ., ':t "'I"i S.P.R.R. I I I I I I I I L ~ ...... C; rt ~~~~'2") . ~.:::-;-~___ - - I 1-- I I I I I I I I - ., ~ ~~ ~~:-;-'~:--:~'~' "'~~' ',,, " ;::,(_~" ,,;.;:.:.,' .' ,": ,~n": ~ . ~ "" ~~:--~ " ---- r--- I , 1 I I I I , I I I I ----- ---- . ;;l~~18~W2"lg!:J I I r- ..... rJ ~ ~:., i'tI nnB~~HU~h 1 . ~~~. ;~~.~~H ~ ~ P"~ ,. < ii ! ~ <l Il1"F""'O ~Ui~~.HF... . ~" B. " ~. S . '. · ~.t~~ ~.~~~~~~ ~"'~~ir-~i _= ::: ~ i ;I ;\ ~ ~'" 17 (!l" I ~~~p'~~";\~~~' ~ ~~~. ~~ ~".. ~ ~ ~ i ";" i ~:~i~idU~'i. <i~ "~' .~ ~ 0 2 ~ ~ · ~? " ~. ,~ I , I " I [ I I I I I ] I , I I I I I " I I I I~ I I I I I I I I I I 8~ " I $ f'.,l ~ Vl J~ 11 ~ ~. ~R ""OJ r- "' 8! g8 ~ [ A I ~ ( , \ I I' · \\~ I \ \ .., I Jl ~~ ~ to ~ ::0 ::tJ~> ~ ~ ~~:r: ::-i_ Q8 (') <.c l:>. [j) ~~I""'" Q\~ Y Q\ c::: ::0 r>'J<: tr1 -< :~ $ ~f~ '" ~ ~~~~ H~i ~ ~ u~~ ~ ~ w ~ / / --------I' U;} rs .~~o'" i! . i:l 'I iI:;~t;ls~~!m!;fb1lil'/ll:. ~ ~.e~n~mii~~~ 1- ~~~.~~ .~~iiJ .", ~ .~~. e."'I"~~ g ~ i - ~ ~". ~ !~@F<>''l0 gBWg~iP'lq ~h~i~a~~;~~~ ~-<~&~ ~~ ::: :: ~ g ilo' ~!ll 7@>"1 ~~~~ ~~ ~~.. ~Ie; ~!'~ ~;~a:~~i:~~~"l i~i ~;~~ ~~ H ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ill "p~1 tl W ~ ~ ~ " -i~ilI "ill ~. i ~ ~ i ~ ~ s II~ F~< !J:>> :a 'F:ii " ~~<:D ~i ii'~Q s~. ~~ - h~ i , " i 1 ::s:: "" ~~~, "::S:: ;S::~',,," :::\-", -~~ i i' r- ~.. - . j ----~ .!f f'''~ '-----------~ ~ ".." -,.~- -*~' ~I~__"~=~-~=~~~:-~~~ - -'-"~~-~~~ --- ...- ...- ...-"'- ---~ I I I I I I I I I I I~" ~ ." $ g; p. n .... '" :~ \ \ \-.------------- M: \JooS08\Cal\fo/n;O Commerc:lOl Real EstQte Sllrvices\SNR08-0008-0f.LCSA-ReflO\>llt\or.\Cod\Si\e Oe-velopmO!l\\SNflOa-COQ8-00 GSA Prelim Crolling.dwg ~tJ1tdt8l1NG f1!..'Il.DING / lAiN \ \ \ \ ~\ /" ~~ \ ~z ~~ a \ \ \ 15-163-111537.117 544.25') trJ~ ~ ';! " '" ~ 13 12 ~~ ~m i~ 2~ ~~ U \ \ \ ...--- \ \ ~'" \ '" '" '~'3:.<J> ';11 \ \ ...--- ...--- ....---- ...--- ....---- - ...--- ...--- ~ ...--- ...--- ...------- ...--- ...---,...--- .. > ...--- ------ e @ ~'I> ...--- _ _ _____ ...--- . v, "",- < / ---- \\: ....----.;. : . -J....----...--- (t,"~ V) ~~-~ ...--- ~ ~ e t: -=....--- ~ ~ l~ t- C) 'i -t.. >. :0 "" \ \ \ ------ '\ --- c:;; I 0; ... I C> " MA TCH LINE - SEE SHEET J 11 P:!db~!O ~~~~~i om(J)"'" ~6:t~ ~g~ ~:t~~ ~~~ ~i Z:-"G) ~6:tm~ ~~~i cmi ~~~~ 'loofSl! Cz c ~U U~ CC~ _:r", () ~"TTm~C) >~z~~~ nffiwl'"" "0'" Q?i!e 3fflc 5~ !i/h~ i~~~~ :;~~~~~ :<;O~e! ~;;:~~ ~6~~ ~~~ ~o r!1h a ~I . n!~Z rn ~"oOooflll ~~~~ 8!(~ ~'" 00til ~~~~~~ ~kJ ~"~~ ffi~~ ~ "":i~9C/) ~I'm" . ~~ z~>95 ~~ a(jf1 ~ 8~gj:r ~~~~~~ ~o~ ~~:;;~ c~a '" :,,~ :rz m;;fi1;: g~ i\l~ I I ~m~~ :r~~>z!l O;U~Z ~~~i ~~ :Jl~~~ ~"", co !Ii ~i!<:;l :z:F~ !!:" ",z x @[g] oo~-I{I) ~~~5 ~~ ~~~ ca..-m z~ ~~ :ti ..., ~ csg ... ",!:om (i~~~~~ ~gt;Q n ~~~ >-< 212 ~z"'" ~o g 6~~ >~AJd-;~ nllllill:< 0002.; ~~~ m!!li! i:i 2;; ~~['j~!jll' ~"'o ~5 "I' - ~ ~- -lliigffi ;g~~!il oofm> "i!\!g ~~ ~~ g: \; i ~ " ~ g ~ ~ ~ . "'~ ~h~ =1:t'" .~ ~~fgg ;02 ~tIl "'In Oz'" " ~i ' " ~ 0 I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~o~~~ o"'illrs lil'" i!"'to m,,~ ~'" :) ill~ . ~ Z ~~~~ ili""~ snts~~ z~ ~~ ~~ '" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ >l 0 "''''!!l ...,~ ~m 1jg ::tJ " ~ >l ~ !g!!: m ~~oom ~g:i~ !ii:;;> ;rO ~~~ ~riim ::::! ' ~ ~I i4 ~ S ~ ~ ~ QO~~ ~z ~~ ISm g~ ~ ~ ClC')mCA o~~~ m"Z ~ li ~ 2 ~ U~B ~j~~~ "to :<~..~ ~a ~~~ ~~~ :;l zlE J ~~ II; 5 ~ ~~~ f.~ C'l~ ~ z ~ lilo ~~ m co rn~~i -~ ""''' ~~ ~ In i\\ ~ orom ~~ ~~~ <: ~ !il >mz m Op~ ......;)O!!! o 8 ~m~ ffl(j) -So! ;;!~ ~ C " :I ." fI' ~~'b ~ i " . ~ ~ -~ EXISTINQ SHAW ROAD stORM OIWN EASEMENT iliA TCH LINE SEt SHEET 2 MA TCH Lt!.I? TCH LINE SEE SHEET J l> :0 "" '" I 0; c.. I t:: ~ ~ '" " b ~ , ~.., .Jf'.lYS 15;,1.",\ 15.0_ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ t- O 'i 0') \ I I \ I I kJ~- I S:~\j I R ~ Oi I w;tJ?,1 ~~):,: _;;:::r- aQ). ~tJjQ -B(}i ~ t- 'ii !..:M I I I I ~ I ~ " I I J' ~ ~~ :lJ 88;:0 ~~;:O 0';$ ~C;; "'''' t- C) 'i "l (") l> C :::! o :z -r, -l I Vi UJ I ,..,., ,..,., -l UJ Z o -l U 0, X -'" "', :::; Vi l> ;0 ,..,., o C (") ,..,., o -0 ;0 Z -l DRAWINGS ANI> SPECIFlCATIONS ARE THE PR~ERTY AND COP'YRlGHl or WARE MALCOMB AND SHAll. NOT B( USED OH ANY 01i-iER WORK EXCEPT 8'1' AGREEI.IENT 'MlH WARE I.lAlCOMB. ImITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE O'YtR SCALED OlWENSlQNS AND SI-lALL BE VERIFIED ON THE JOB SHE. ANY DISCREPANCY SHAU. BE BROUGHT TOTl-fE NOTICE OF WAR( MAL~e PRIOR TO THE COMMrHCEJ.lENT Of' ANY WORK. ~ ~ I ~ J.) II ~ , ~ ~ ~ ;~ ~ :::> ' 8 CONCEPTUAL GRADING D'1< REMARKS 0'1< 04-10-08 USE PE'.RMIT OES. REV. SU8l,!lTIA -"""'" ........ in"""" gmphia si\ltdt:,.,.~t SSF LOGISTICS CENTER 1070 SAN MATEO AVENUE WARE MALCOMB Leading Design for Commercial Real Estate SOOOe><ec:utivepkwy.5te..298 unnlll'Lan. Ql)itQmiIl94.'>83 p925.2.44.~ f925.2.....9621 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA M: \Jobs08\C(lllfornic Commercial Hea) [slote Serviaes\SNROa-COOa-OO_G~A-RllnoYolion\Cod\Sitll Dllvelopmel'll\SNRCa-OOOa-oo "SA Prelim Grod)(lg.dll'q MA TCH LINE - SEE SHEET 3.10 I~ ,\ '\ I, , \ , \ I \ I \ I \ I \ \ \ I ~ li) ~ li) ::r: 1-'1 C'I -., ~ ~~ ~~ ff'-' a:' Ii 0: <Ii ~ 1,41)1'" EXISTING SHAW ROAD STORM DRAIN EASEMENT I I I I II I t:J.tr.fS~ ~ ~ l .ld' l >? = """. ' _ _., , .....,fa:; ..... ...,~ W.of...' ~-9:5 ""'"_.......,----~ - ~~- ~- t '" "i~~~ ""SO EXS[1/<.$fK'$ !In.,,,,,,,,'UU ~1T1.I/E (5 89'56',9" [ [5 89'S7'43" ~ ~~ ro2lrUi) "f:,,'fx ~ r020.oo'] , ;$ "1801S 7---"- i:?~/5.g!l" ~lh'. /5-763-05 1- - - -ll~ - - - - - - - - -.,;ji"s2R" - - - - - .Z,PID.- - - - - - - - -~~~:~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ __ ------------ J. <l1",,,. ) \'j,,p" ON ~" m;l1 5~ ~ct ~~ -<'" 0'" "z ~" ~~ "~ t, "'m ~~ ~z ~p ~ Z;""'G) 3g~ :!'i"'o;: ~~~ ~ti:i~ dO~ ",:0 ~8 "'''' mo em 132 ~/" 0" ~~ c'" !lID ~~ "'< ~~ ~l); en ~~~ i8~ "';:0 ~;2~ 8-<0 . ~~ x", :;'31 ~~ ><: iSl< ~6 "'In 0'" ~l< :;10 ~~ ~!!1 0'" ~~ ~m ~:t;R:l"- ~;~~ Q~~1!l ::i!oo~ ~~S!!6 ~~~~ ~~~~ "'m-< >;c, 0 "x'" 5~~ :01'''' -<m> 0",,, @'l8 ~ffirrt ~~2 ilc~ ~~~ " "'ill ~~1l /""'01 "W" ~d~ ::pu G) ~~C! ",~6 ~~~ ~?gC: -I~~ x~"O ~~~ ~co ~~~ ~mo m~; ","0 ~~ ~~1T1 me'" ;;o~~ :;Ie m'!j m Ii: O~~r:lCllf>> ~e~ril;h >~z~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~gb~ ~~~~;g;g \1~:O"~~ go~~~~ 1Jl~Q~giil >-1$-I~Ch ~~~~~~ . ;1~~~; 90~~~ ~i~~~ m~:B~~ ;g:;:~%!:( ~~~ iil~ om(J)~ :!'i~h g~~!= ~~~~ ChOr-j!1 ~~~'" m~m~ c600;t! O;D~% ;;c-f'=-1 }~:<ffi ~gO)n n1illill::l ,,~D~ ~~~~ rn:Bofi ~~~:t: . g~~ ~~~ ~ Q o ~ gg~~ ~~~~ ;Y~~z (j$c.o~G'1 ~~~~ rg~~~ ~om:j eg~~~ ~~~~ "'Qe~ c:,,-< ~~~ Clizm~ g~~0 Qg~iS :<~=iii x"'~m OX a~m ~m~ m ~~dQ!O ~o:;,ffi~ -f~m~G'1 ~~~ffi~ . ~~~m ~~irlrh C)G)o:Z:o ;;;~;'S: <ioOZ ~;a~ 00 > \)"'/\ !~~~ ~~g~ :!l~aiO ~.eG)~ g~U c;')C)rn~ ~~~$ m~~~ zorn O~Ch . ! ~~ #' ~ -i ~ ::0 CJ a ~ :;j c:: CJ :::j ~ " :0 > " :I: , 1'1 CIl " , F: t"l [- .. a ;!; V) ~ :::] "'i (") )> C :::! o Z ~~ 'Ti ~ (J) (J) :r: I'l I'l -j (J) Z o -j GJ 0, x -I'> N, :::; (f) >- ;D I'l o C (") I'l o U ;D Z -j ~~I ~~~ I -<21 I giS ~~ ' I; I I <l~ t II -<4 8 ~ i"" ~: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ II ~ I~ ~ ~ >i 0 ~ ~ @lQ] ~ ~ [; Q "C :a; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '1 co ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 "" ~ a ~ < !il Cl i ~ ~ ~ " f:l ""',, - - - _',"<>U-- mmJ x., -....------/ "'-",- "r F'S"",OY :E ORAl'llNGS AND SPECiFlCAnONS ARE 11-IE PROPERTY AND COP'l'RIGHT or WARE WAlCOl.lB AND SHAll NOT BE IJSED ON ANY OlHER WORK EXCEPT BY AGREEMENT 'MTH WARE MALCOMR WRlnEN DIt.lENSIONS SHAll.. TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DlMENSlONS ANO SI-lALL BE ',[RIFlED ON 1HE JOB SllE. 00 rnSCREPANCY SHAll. BE. BROUGtlll0 THE NOlle( OF WARE MALCOMB PRIOR TO THE CCJW.lENCEt.lENl OF ANY wORI<. CONCEPTUAL GRADING OAT"' '"""^""S DATI; REMARKS 04-10-08 USE PERMIT DES. REV. SlJ6MITT ~ f!, ~ " ~~ ~ ~ ~ 8 -...,.,., - ,- ""- aile deve10pnumt SSF LOGISTICS CENTER 1070 SAN MATEO AVENUE WARE MALCOMB Leading DeSign for Comm.n:Jal Real Estate 5OOOe><ecu.ti.vepkwy.fbo,:2..96 BDntalnan.dilifotnla94S33 p925.244.9620 f925.244.9621 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA [I CE~TlWM r'M')~I.I<III" I'" Iz ,0 I~ m I~ m ,;0 (5 ';0 m r l'l:m "',< -> ,,::J 1 ,0 I ~'Z 1 :j, (Ill) -l' -:'] I I I I I I I I , I , I I, , -21 I , , , [, , I I L - ! a ! J ) I I I:E 1m I~ m X -i m ;0 (5 ;0 m r ,m ~I~ I (~~ ~- .0 "j: I I I ;1 I I. ~I, tji ~H -l' -l' ~ I I I ~Ii ~Ii ,E t'i ~Ii -l' -l' -l' -l' -l' SSF Logistics Center South San Francisco. California ,.,- )0 \'oS,' ~.. ~ I 1 i]llJ mm II, 1 I I :t -l' ~: ~'i -l' ~ Building 1 Conceptual Elevations . ," . ...... j. ~ .~..., .:;.: " I. I .' WARE J\1r\LCOJ\1B LNdH19~yntorC~'<IlllNthl..", .- . ~ .. ,~.,.,! ~ . . Ii, I , ! - Or'! , I ' , , , , I I [I CE1\TRUt\1 1'11"1'1 Mill ~l"~ lUl j j j "'J u m 'z s: ';U Gl m o I~ ,;U ,..... ,:;; r I:;; m (f) I..... m r ~'!:2 ~I':P ...... ~,a X ~ .' '" -t-.. '!JI, l'."" I ,I, ~ ~i ./' SSF Logistics Center South San Francisco. California . .'~' .,':,j' . _,., ;, 11 .1::.. ~, ~J~ ;1: It"; :l, ./' ./' ./' ./' Scheme Two Conceptual Elevations WARE IIlr\LCOI\IB lNd."9 On,gn l<>r ComnIltWlI HNI bU\e ...- ..~ . ;_..1- I.',. ,J - , ..,..-... 'iJ.'r . ~ .. ,c 'I"~ ~ ~ I I',: I 0 (f) Z ~ 0 ;~ 0 m c ;0 '(f) -< (f) -< i-< :r: 1-< :r: ~l; -.' m m .~ m I~ x X "I. .' -< .-< -< ,m m ,m m i~ ;0 ';0 ;0 , ';"1 '0 6 6 6 1;0 ;0 i;o ;0 , m m m m 'r r r r ~im ,m ,m l'l;m ~I;; ,< .,< ~I< 'J> i I I I~ I iJ> .,-< .-< .i-l ""0 '~O O(!- '~:O i: ~iO I: ':IZ c..Z i i 'Iz I ~!Z "I "jl ~" ~!; 'j 0.. '>.,~ i>. ~ ~., ""i. 1, ,(j. :j; ;J; oj ..,. ..,. if'" ..,. ..,. ..,. (';;) ..,. ..,. )>l ..,. ..,. ..,. / , I"" ~ o r;:':' ~f.\~>. ,~'.~,-;; I~""I :i!'!:4.~" \." ..If',. . [I SSF Logistics Center South San Francisco, California Buildings 2 ' 5 Conceptual Elevations WARE I-.IM.C01o.1B ~Nd"""o.s.""fu,ComrntO'O.IIlNIEl.I.i1ll .- CEt\TRlJM 1'1<"1'1.1<111."1'" ".1,._'", '.f~ '", ,_I -.,,".l'.., ' . -,- . , " 4"~ .:' .~ " ./>' Iw '0 'e lei! m I~ m 1;0 !6 1;0 m r llm .< :> -1-< ~,(5 '--tz 'I ~) 7j. . I !if , " - .. , " - , . ~ I I. I~n :A , lV ~ , I~ 1:'- IL , i- I-- I . . I~ T w Q Z :> Gl m w Q Z :> Gl m w Q Z :> Gl m i- t ~" -;. 'Z ~ '0 I'" m m ;0 , + :> w -< w -< en ;:I: -< m Q m .+- m >< Z ,x I X -< :> ,-< ,~ -< m Gl m , I m y' ;0 m ';0 '. ;0 " (5 ~ Ir (5 (5 ;0 ::::0 ~" ;0 ~ m m m r r r ~m ,m ,m ;i ,< ';i I I:> I I I .-< 1 b -:l:j ~:6 I I ~iO I ':':0 ,Z t ,.:!z 1 'j- ;b ~: it 11. 1 0): ~; ~; ".- 1.0' -I' -I' -I' ew) -I' -I' ~)> ) -I' -1'-1' [I WARE t\lr\LC07\lB SSF Logistics Center South San Francisco, California Building 6 Conceptual Elevations lfad'''9OftignIQrConvTlen;IaIRII.,F_ua\i> -- .- CE~TRUt\l 1'1\1>1'1 ~lll.\l" .::' -tj. .'- .,~..;.- .. .....J';"-.. ...:,,-( )..'