ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH #

Transcription

1 El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH # City of South San Francisco April 2011

2

3 El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH # Prepared for the CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO by 755 Sansome Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, California APRIL 2011

4

5 Table of Contents 1 Introduction Purpose Organization Process Comments on the Draft EIR Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Agencies Organizations/Individuals Oral Comments Revisions to the Draft EIR Appendix A: Revisions to the Draft Area Plan and Associated General Plan and Zoning Amendments... A-1

6

7 1 Introduction This Final Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared by the City of South San Francisco (City) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City is the lead agency responsible for ensuring that the proposed El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan and associated General Plan and Zoning Ordinance amendments (Plan) comply with CEQA. PURPOSE The Final EIR incorporates the Draft EIR (for which a NOP was published July 5, 2010 and a public scoping meeting was held July 16, 2010) and includes Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR, and minor corrections and clarifications to the Draft EIR. In accordance with the requirements of CEQA, the Final EIR only contains responses to significant environmental issues raised in the comments received on the Draft EIR. It is intended to disclose to City decision makers, responsible agencies, organizations, and the general public, the potential impacts of implementing the proposed Plan. This program level analysis addresses potential impacts of activities associated with approval and implementation of the Plan, which is described in Chapter 2: Project Description, of the Draft EIR. The primary purpose of the Final EIR is to respond to comments received on the Draft EIR during the 45-day public review period. The review period for the Draft EIR (State Clearinghouse No ) was from February 25, 2011 to April 11, This document, combined with the Draft EIR, constitutes the Final EIR on the project. This Final EIR amends and incorporates by reference the Draft EIR, which is available as a separately bound document from the City of South San Francisco Planning Division, 315 Maple Ave., in South San Francisco and online on the City of South San Francisco website at ORGANIZATION This document contains the following components: Chapter 2 lists all of the agencies and individuals that submitted either written or oral comments on the Draft EIR; reproduces all comments and provides a unique number for each EIR comment in the page margin. Chapter 3 provides responses to comments, numbered, and in order according to the comments in Chapter 2. Chapter 4 lists revisions to the Draft EIR by chapter and page, in the same order as the revisions would appear in the Draft EIR. Actual revised pages of the Draft EIR appear at the end of the section, also in the same order that they would appear in the Draft EIR. Appendix A lists revisions to the Plan and associated General Plan and Zoning Ordinance amendments. 1-1

8 El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report PROCESS Upon publication of the Final EIR, the Planning Commission and City Council will hold public hearings to certify the EIR and to consider adoption of the proposed Plan. The Commission and Council will determine the adequacy of the Final EIR, and, if determined adequate, will make findings and certify the document as compliant with CEQA. Copies of the Final EIR have been provided to agencies and other parties that commented on the Draft EIR or have requested the Final EIR. The Final EIR is also available at the City of South San Francisco, Planning Division, 315 Maple Ave., in South San Francisco. 1-2

9 2 Comments on the Draft EIR This chapter contains copies of the comment letters and oral comments received on the Draft EIR of the proposed Plan. A total of five comment letters were received during the 45-day comment period. One additional letter was received after the close of comment period. CEQA does not require that lead agencies respond to late comments. (Pub. Resources Code, 21091(d).) While no response to this late comment is required, one is included in Chapter 3. Additionally, oral comments were received at a Planning Commission public hearing on the Draft EIR. Each comment letter is numbered, and each individual comment is assigned a number in the page margin. Responses to each comment are provided in Chapter 3 of this document. Please note that only comments on the Draft EIR are addressed in this Final EIR. Where appropriate, the information and/or revisions suggested in these comment letters have been incorporated into the Final EIR. These revisions are included in Chapter 4 of this document. Where comments address the merits of the proposed Plan rather than on the Draft EIR, this is noted in the response. Comments Received on the proposed Plan Comment # Date Agency/Organization Commenter Agencies (Federal, State Regional, Local) (A) A1 March 15, 2011 San Francisco International Airport John Bergener A2 March 28, 2011 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo David Carbone A3 April 11, 2011 Department of Transportation Becky Frank A4 April 12, 2011 (received after close of comment period) Town of Colma Colette Meunier Organizations/Individuals (B) B1 April 5, 2011 South San Francisco Rotary Club Dennis Rosaia B2 April 11, 2011 Kaiser Permanente Linda Jensen Oral Testimony (C) C1 April 7, 2011 Planning Commission Hearing on Draft EIR Oral Comments 2-1

10 COMMENT LETTER A1 March 15, 2011 Mr. Gerry Beaudin, AICP Senior Planner City of South San Francisco Economic and Community Development Department Planning Division P. O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA Subject: El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, Draft Environmental Impact Report City of South San Francisco A1-1 Dear Mr. Beaudin: Thank you for notifying San Francisco International Airport (SFO or the Airport) of the availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan (the Plan). We appreciate this opportunity to coordinate with the City of South San Francisco (the City) in considering and evaluating potential land use compatibility issues that this and similar projects may pose for the Airport. Airport staff has reviewed the Plan s DEIR that was made available for public review on February 25, This letter presents the Airport s comments on the proposed project. As described in the DEIR, the Planning Area encompasses approximately 98 acres in the geographic center of the City along El Camino Real, and includes lands formerly owned by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, the Kaiser Hospital site, and the City s Municipal Services Building. The Planning Area envisions a new mixed-use district oriented toward pedestrian and transit access, with medium to high density development. At project buildout, the Planning Area could contain up to a total of 1,500 residential units and 2,500 jobs. Located approximately three miles northwest of the Airport, the Planning Area is subject to the policies of the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan (CLUP) for SFO. The SFO CLUP addresses issues related to compatibility between airport operations and surrounding land use development, considering noise impacts, safety of persons on the ground and in flight, height restrictions/airspace protection, and overflight notification. Land use development within the Airport Influence Area is currently governed by the CLUP adopted by the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG) in 1996, amended The SFO CLUP is in the process of being updated and is anticipated to be completed by mid Since

11 Mr. Gerry Beaudin, AICP March 15, 2011 Page 2 of 3 the CLUP update is likely to be completed and adopted before the Final EIR, it is advisable to consider the policies of the draft updated CLUP in preparing the environmental documentation. Future development within the Planning Area should be consistent with CLUP policies with regard to height, noise, and safety compatibility. This is supported by South San Francisco General Plan Policy 2-I-22, which states: Require that all future development conforms with the relevant height, aircraft noise, and safety policies and compatibility criteria contained in the most recently adopted version of the San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan for the environs of San Francisco International Airport. A1-2 A1-3 A1-4 A1-5 In order to protect airspace used for aircraft departure and arrival procedures, the height of new development surrounding the Airport must be maintained below defined critical airspace protection surfaces. Figure 3.9-1, provided by SFO in August 2010, illustrates that the ground elevation of the Planning Area is estimated to be at least 160 feet below SFO s composite critical airspace protection surface. According to a preliminary airspace analysis, the maximum permissible building height at the former San Francisco Public Utilities Commission site, where the greatest discretionary building heights would be allowed, is approximately 240 feet above mean seal level (AMSL). At the Safeway/Chestnut Center site, the maximum permissible building height is approximately 220 feet AMSL. The finished height of any proposed development should be maintained below critical airspace protection surface limits. With regard to noise impacts, the Planning Area is situated outside of the Airport s 65 db CNEL noise contour. However, the Planning Area is still subject to intermittent noise from aircraft departing SFO, in addition to other sources of ambient noise. Proposed land uses should meet the interior noise requirements of the 2007 California Building Code and the South San Francisco General Plan. The Planning Area is not situated within a runway end safety zone for SFO, and therefore the proposed project does not pose an airport land use compatibility issue with regard to safety. A minor correction may be needed to a statement on page The end of the second paragraph reads: CLUP guidelines regarding noise are presented in Section 3.2. This should more appropriately refer to Section 3.5. The Airport appreciates your consideration of these comments. If I can be of assistance as the City considers airport land use compatibility as they relate to this project or future projects, please do not hesitate to contact me at (650) or at john.bergener@flysfo.com. Sincerely, John Bergener Airport Planning Manager San Francisco International Airport Bureau of Planning and Environmental Affairs

12 Mr. Gerry Beaudin, AICP March 15, 2011 Page 3 of 3 cc: Nixon Lam, SFO, Manager of Environmental Affairs Dave Carbone, Airport Land Use Commission

13 COMMENT LETTER A2 A2-1

14 A2-2 A2-3

15 A2-4 A2-5 A2-6 A2-7 A2-8 A2-9

16

17 COMMENT LETTER A3 A3-1

18 COMMENT LETTER A4 A4-1 A4-2

19

20 COMMENT LETTER B1 B1-1

21

22

23 COMMENT LETTER B2 B2-1

24 B2-2 B2-3 B2-4

25

26 ORAL COMMENTS C1 C1-1 C1-2 C1-3 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS MADE AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING ON THE DRAFT EIR Planning Commission Hearing April 7, 2011 Hollis Harris My name is Hollis Harris, Vice President of Capital Projects for Kaiser Permanente and I am here tonight speaking for Kaiser Permanente. We have been in South San Francisco for over 60 years as Kaiser Permanente. We opened our first hospital at Grand and Spruce and moved to our current site in 1975 and have been growing that site since then. We actually had an earlier involvement in South San Francisco that Doctor Garfield, one of our founders, had an original practice here in South San Francisco servicing the long shoremen who worked out at Oyster Point. So we feel very committed and very much a part of the community. In fact 33 percent of your residents are Kaiser Permanente members and we are proud of that fact, quite proud of that fact. We fell asleep at the wheel a little bit and missed the fact that the Draft EIR was out. We caught wind of it and found it earlier this week. So we don t have specific comments to make but I just wanted to say we will be submitting a letter by Monday the deadline with our comments as we are scrambling to figure them out. We look forward to working with staff and the Commission on the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance changes to the Plan. That s all I have to say. I did it under three minutes. Thank you. Patrick Brosnan My name is Patrick Brosnan and I am looking at it from the point of view of, my family, we own some apartments at the corner of Grand and Mission. And just from my looking, I just started looking at it a few days ago, and my concern is with traffic, especially between Oak and Grand Avenue. It seems that the very high density residential, I think about 500 units are going in there, it seems that the only place to really approach, for cars to approach those buildings is on Mission Road. So that is concerning to us that there are so many residents right there and I don t see any other area that they can approach other than Mission Road, right off of Grand. That seems like a lot of traffic for such a small road. As far as the Environmental Report, that is what really jumps out at me. Charles Bona My name is Charles Bona and I am with the Mission Road Dental Center located on Mission Road. We have been located there for about 30, 40 years. This is very important to us and I don t know why we didn t get more notice about this Environmental Impact Report. I really feel like we are being pushed on the 11 th to come up with things that seem to give a little concern for those tenants, those people who are currently owners of property within the confines of the 98 acres. And so I just wanted to say that I am not familiar with this process to a great degree but I wish we had more notice on this because I don t know what the impacts going to be because I don t know enough details. Perhaps we are going to have a lot more of an opportunity to work with the staff as it finalizes and gets down to the nitty gritty, but I just wanted to make this comment at this time.

27 C1-4 C1-5 C1-6 Anna Macedi My name is Anna Macedi and my comment is as a resident of South San Francisco, I did not receive a notice of this meeting. I would think that this project affects every resident of South San Francisco and not those within that specific area being planned. So I would ve hoped that you would have taken that into consideration because the area you are discussing is already a traffic area so I don t see how this would benefit or improve the area at all. So I would hope that you take that into consideration. George Flynn By the information just given, it sounded like the traffic concerns were involved directly in the Environmental Impact Report. It sounds like the Environmental Impact Report grievances, arguments, whatever, it sounds like the end of that is going to be on May 11 th? And it sounds that looking from the presentation that that includes the traffic impact and all of that. Is that correct? Richard Hedges If I may, not trying to usurp the chair or the Commissioners. Just to make a comment about EIRs in general. But first Mr. Lohring wanted me to comment and I do too about how well you have handled this, how well your explanation was in particular about what the EIR is doing tonight. And I want to thank you for that. I think that EIRs in a lamen s opinion are much like constitutions. They are the rule of law or the rule of development for the City. They lay out the future plans and what can be developed in an area. For example, if you would look at another city who went through a similar process that you are going through right now, San Mateo, with the corridor plan over a long period of time that laid out the rules about what would be developed there and later was incorporated into the City plan, overall General Plan by vote of the population, overwhelmingly 85 percent I might add. What I heard the most concern about tonight was traffic and that s always a concern for folks who live near any development. And what I would say tonight would have been the time for you to look at the modeling used for the documents, traffic in the EIR, for instance the model, you might find fault with it if a supercenter was going in and the modeling used was for a grocery store. Those would be the things you would bring up tonight to try to overturn. So it is simply not the night if you have some long term concerns about the development as you said. I think you explained it very well.

28

29 3 Response to Comments on the Draft EIR This chapter includes responses to each comment, and in the same order, as presented in Chapter 2. The responses are marked with the same number-letter combination as the comment to which they respond, as shown in the margin of the comment letters. AGENCIES A1: San Francisco International Airport A1-1: The current and most recently adopted Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan (CLUP) for San Francisco International Airport (SFO) was adopted by the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG) in 1996, amended 1998; therefore it was considered when preparing the Draft EIR. According to Dave Carbone from C/CAG, via phone correspondence on March 16, 2011, the public review draft of the SFO CLUP update is not yet ready for release, and adoption of the SFO CLUP update is not anticipated until the end of Adoption of the proposed Plan is anticipated to precede adoption and possibly publication of any update to the CLUP. Accordingly, the Plan is evaluated in light of the existing, and only available CLUP. As further described in Response A1-3, development within the Plan area will comply with the City s General Plan, including Policy 2-I-22. A1-2: Comment noted. As the comment states, Figure illustrates that the ground level elevation of the Planning Area is estimated to be at least 160 feet below SFO s composite critical airspace protection surface. Since nowhere in the Planning Area are heights greater than 160 feet permitted, SFO s composite critical airspace protection surface limit will not be exceeded. The former San Francisco Public Utilities Commission site is approximately 50 feet above mean sea level. The maximum permitted height on that site is 160 feet with discretionary review; therefore the maximum permitted height of structures on that site would be approximately 210 feet above mean sea level, which is below the critical airspace protection surface limit of 240 feet for the site. The Safeway/Chestnut Center site is approximately 40 feet above mean sea level. The maximum permitted height on that site is approximately 120 feet with discretionary review; therefore the maximum permitted height of structures on that site would be approximately 160 feet above mean sea level, which is below the critical airspace surface limit of 220 feet above mean seal level for the site. Therefore, as the Draft EIR states, the proposed Plan does not conflict with heights established for SFO s airspace. A1-3: This information is provided in Section 3.5 of the Draft EIR. As stated on page of the Draft EIR, new development under the proposed Plan would have to adhere to noise standards in Section of the Zoning Ordinance. In addition, future development would also have to adhere to Title 24 and noise policies set forth in the South San Francisco General Plan, which would effectively mitigate noise impacts. A1-4: Comment noted. This information is provided on page of the Draft EIR. 3-1

30 El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report A1-5: In response to the comment, the section reference on page has been updated. A2: City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo A2-1: This is a comment regarding the process established by Public Utilities Code Section 21676, rather than the Draft EIR. In order to comply with the process, a request was sent on March 30, 2011 to Dave Carbone of the C/CAG Airport Land Use Committee (ALUC) to review the Plan at the next ALUC and C/CAG meeting. The Plan is on the ALUC agenda for May 19, 2011 and on the C/CAG agenda for June 9, A2-2: See response to Comment A1-2. A2-3: In response to the comment, the regulatory setting under San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan on page has been updated. A2-4: In response to the comment, reference has been added to the Summary of Impacts on page to indicate that detailed noise analysis is located in Section 3.5 of the Draft EIR. A2-5: In response to the comment, the Summary of Impacts on page has been updated to include reference to runway end safety zones. A2-6: In response to the comment, the description of the Airport/Community Roundtable on page has been updated to include reference to the City of South San Francisco. A2-7: In response to the comment, the regulatory setting under San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan on page has been updated. A2-8: In response to the comment, the Summary of Impacts on page has been updated. A2-9: In response to the comment, the regulatory setting under San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan on page has been updated. A3: Department of Transportation (Caltrans) A3-1: Comment noted. A4: Town of Colma A4-1: Comment noted. The comment restates portions of the analysis, but does not raise a significant environmental issue with the analysis. No further response to this comment is required. A4-2: The comment restates certain information provided in the Draft EIR s traffic chapter, expresses a general concern regarding the increase in traffic, and requests analysis of additional intersections. The scope of the Draft EIR s traffic analysis, including the specific intersections to be evaluated, was developed in consultation with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and nearby agencies and jurisdictions, including the commenter, were invited to participate in that scoping process. Per 3-2

31 Chapter 3: Response to Comments on the Draft EIR CEQA Guidelines 15082(a), upon deciding that an environmental impact report was required for the Plan, the City of South San Francisco prepared a Notice of Preparation which was mailed to responsible agencies, including the Town of Colma, on July 5, Under CEQA, when a responsible agency fails by the end of the prescribed 30- day period to provide the lead agency with either a response to the notice or a welljustified request for additional time, the lead agency may presume that none of those entities have a response to make. (CEQA Guidelines 15082(b)(2) and ) The City of South San Francisco did not receive a response to the Notice of Preparation from the Town of Colma. In addition to the Notice of Preparation, the City of South San Francisco also conducted a scoping meeting to determine the scope and content of the environmental information that responsible agencies may require. The notice of the scoping meeting, held on July 16, 2010, was provided in the Notice of Preparation. The Town of Colma did not attend the scoping meeting. The City did, however, work with Caltrans to establish the scope of the traffic study. Caltrans responses to the Notice of Preparation were included in Appendix A of the Draft EIR. These responses and correspondence from the lead agency s consultant is provided in Chapter 4 for reference. Pursuant to Caltrans request, the lead agency expanded the scope of the traffic study to evaluate additional intersections that Caltrans believed could have potentially significant impacts resulting from adoption of the Plan. Upon completion of the Draft EIR, the City of South San Francisco prepared a Notice of Availability which was mailed to the Town of Colma on February 25, The Notice of Availability specified the 45-day public review period, beginning on February 25, 2011 and ending at 5:00 pm on April 11, During the public review period, a Planning Commission Public Hearing was conducted on April 7, 2011 to receive oral public comments on the Draft EIR. The Town of Colma did not provide any oral comments at the Public Hearing. At the end of the public review period specified in the Notice of Availability, comments had not been submitted by the Town of Colma. A comment letter from the Town of Colma was received on April 11, 2011 via at 5:32 pm, after the end of the public review period. Per CEQA Guidelines 15207, if any public agency fails to comment within a reasonable time as specified by the lead agency, it shall be assumed, absent a request for a specific extension of time, that such agency or person has no comment to make. Although the lead agency need not respond to late comments, the lead agency may choose to respond to them. As the comment letter from the Town of Colma was received after the end of the public review period, the City of South San Francisco is not required to respond to the late comment letter. Therefore, the response to comments being provided is for information purposes, as CEQA does not require a response. The City worked with the respondents to the NOP, including Caltrans, to develop the study area for the transportation and circulation analysis for the Plan. The study area intersections were chosen based on their location relative to the Planning Area and the potential for impacts on the transportation network. The City of South San Francisco and Caltrans developed and approved the list of study area intersections, with five intersections along El Camino Real, including the intersections at Hickey Boulevard 3-3

32 El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report and McClellan Drive. There were no public comments received requesting any additional intersections be evaluated. While the intersection of El Camino Real/Arlington Drive was considered for inclusion in the traffic analysis study area, it was determined that Arlington Drive only provides access to a self-contained residential neighborhood. Therefore, Arlington Drive is a low volume local street. The intersection provides a traffic signal that controls traffic and allows protected turning movements into and out of the neighborhood. Given the low volume of traffic on Arlington Drive, and the existing signalization, the El Camino Real/Arlington Drive intersection would not be expected to be significantly impacted by the Plan. In addition, it is not expected that turning volumes at the El Camino Real/Arlington Drive intersection will significantly increase with the development of the Area Plan. Notably, Caltrans, which has jurisdiction over El Camino Real (State Route 82), did not request evaluation of this intersection. The Hickey Boulevard intersection to the south provides regional access to the freeway network with its interchange at I-280. Travel patterns and traffic volumes along El Camino Real north of Hickey Boulevard are significantly lower than south of Hickey Boulevard, as indicated in existing and proposed future northbound left turn and eastbound right turn peak hour volumes at the El Camino Real/Hickey Boulevard intersection. Furthermore, intersections north of Hickey Boulevard are farther removed from Planning Area, and accordingly would be expected to have lower impacts than those intersections evaluated in the Draft EIR. For the reasons stated in the Draft EIR and this response, the scope of the traffic analysis is adequate, and analysis of the additional intersections as requested in the comment is not necessary. ORGANIZATIONS/INDIVIDUALS B1: Dennis Rosaia (South San Francisco Rotary Club) B1-1: The comment letter does not raise a significant environmental issue or address the adequacy of the EIR. As the commenter notes, the comments are on the proposed Plan and associated General Plan and Zoning Ordinance amendments, rather than the Draft EIR. The comment letter will be made a part of the record and provided to and considered by decision-makers as part of their deliberation as whether to approve the Plan. No further response is required as part of the Final EIR. B2: Linda Jensen (Kaiser Permanente) B2-1: As stated in the introductory paragraph in Chapter 2 Project Description of the Draft EIR on page 2-1, the project description provides background information regarding the regional location and boundaries of the Planning Area, as well as objectives, and key themes and components of the proposed Plan. Additional details are provided in the Plan itself. The proposed Plan and associated General Plan and Zoning Ordinance amendments were made available for review in conjunction with the Draft EIR. Figure in the Project Description of the Draft EIR shows the precise location and boundaries of the Planning Area (CEQA Guidelines 15124). Figure clearly shows the Kaiser Permanente site within the Planning Area. Kaiser, therefore is 3-4

33 Chapter 3: Response to Comments on the Draft EIR included in the evaluation and review of environmental impacts in the Draft EIR. Figures through show existing and proposed land uses, heights, and zoning for the Kaiser Permanente site; these maps along with supporting text provide a clear description of the proposed Plan as it applies to the Kaiser Permanente site. The existing land use, height and zoning maps, and supporting text in the Project Description show that the existing General Plan land use designation for the Kaiser Permanente site is office which has a base maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.0, up to 2.5 with discretionary approval and incentive based bonuses. The existing maximum height limit is 80 feet for the site and the site s existing zoning designation of Public/Quasi Public permits hospital uses after review and approval of a conditional use permit by the Planning Commission. The Plan proposes to change the General Plan land use designation of the Kaiser Permanente site to North El Camino Real Mixed Use, Medium Intensity and North El Camino Real Mixed Use, High Intensity. The proposed change in land use designation increases the base maximum FAR to 1.5 (Medium Intensity) and 2.0 (High Intensity). It also increases the maximum FAR with discretionary approval and incentive based bonuses to 3.0 for part of the site (High Intensity). Overall, the Plan would result in an increase of maximum FAR, which increases Kaiser s allowable building square footage on the site, compared to Kaiser s existing land use designation. In addition, the Plan proposes to increase the maximum height for the Kaiser Permanente Medical Center site to up to 120 feet with discretionary approval, while the existing height limit is 80 feet. The Plan would allow for taller buildings on the Kaiser Permanente site. The Plan is in effect making the expansion of Kaiser more feasible through increasing the maximum FAR and height, compared to what is currently allowed. In terms of permitted uses, currently hospital is a conditionally permitted use at the Kaiser Permanente site. As proposed by the Plan, the existing Kaiser Permanente site would have two land use/zoning designations in the El Camino Real/Chestnut Mixed Use, Medium Intensity sub-district, the Public Review Draft of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment continues to allow medical uses as conditionally permitted use. In response to the comment, the Zoning Ordinance has now been revised to allow hospital as a conditionally permitted use in the El Camino Real/Chestnut Mixed Use, High Intensity sub-district on the undeveloped narrow portion of the Kaiser Permanente site extending along El Camino Real as well. Thus, the proposed Zoning Ordinance would continue to allow hospital as a conditionally permitted use on all sites where these uses are currently conditionally permitted. Additionally, the Zoning Ordinance Amendment has been revised to clarify that the required minimum 0.3 FAR of active uses will not apply to the Kaiser Permanente Medical Center site designated as El Camino Real/Chestnut Mixed use, Medium Intensity. The Plan does not include any specific projects or development applications. Any specific proposal by Kaiser to expand, would be considered by the City pursuant to the development approval process, and subject to further CEQA review to evaluate projectlevel impacts. 3-5

34 El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report B2-2: This is a comment on the merits of the Plan, rather than the Draft EIR. The environmental analysis in the Draft EIR does not preclude any discussions between Kaiser and the City regarding potential future modifications to the Area Plan, General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, or development on the Kaiser site. The proposed Area Plan and Zoning regulations will require the review and approval of the Planning Commission and City Council; accordingly, they do not usurp the role of those bodies in determining the master planned future of the area. As Figure in the Draft EIR shows, the three parcels north of the existing Kaiser Permanente site are currently designated Community Commercial/High Density Residential. Figure shows that the existing height limit is 80 feet for those three parcels. The parcel adjacent to the existing Kaiser site is currently zoned Transit Village Commercial (TV-C) while the other two parcels are zoned Transit Village High Density Residential (TV-RH). The maximum non-residential FAR for TV-C is 2.0, while the maximum non-residential FAR for TV-RH is 1.0. Hospital use is currently not permitted on those three parcels. The 2009 City of South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element identified those three sites as housing opportunity sites. The Plan designates those three parcels as North El Camino Real Mixed Use, High Intensity. The Plan increases the base maximum FAR of TV-RH to 2.0 and allows a maximum FAR with discretionary approval and incentive base bonuses of 3.0 for all three sites. The Plan increases the height limit up to 120 feet with discretionary review. The Plan is not restricting redevelopment opportunities since it is not proposing any new restrictions on uses, compared to what is currently allowed. Instead, the Plan is expanding redevelopment opportunity by increasing the base maximum FAR on the site currently zoned TV-RH from 1.0 to 2.0 and the Plan is allowing for a maximum FAR with discretionary approval and incentive base bonuses of 3.0 where none currently exist, enabling more building square footage compared to what is currently allowed. In addition, the Plan increases maximum height to 120 with discretionary approval, which allows for taller buildings compared to what is currently allowed. The Plan is in effect making the expansion of Kaiser more feasible. See Response to Comment B2-1 for detailed discussion regarding hospital uses and revisions to the Zoning Ordinance amendments. B2-3: This is a comment on the Plan, rather than the Draft EIR. For information purposes, in response to the comment, Policy UD-12, as revised, in the proposed Plan states Ensure that any Kaiser Hospital redevelopment is in accordance with the Area Plan, including the standards and guidelines spelled out in Chapter 5. While it is neither expected nor required that the hospital maintain an active frontage with ground floor commercial uses along El Camino Real (except as required in Figure 3-3), the building itself should be designed to be visually cohesive in appearance, with articulated building form and massing, rather than a monolithic mass. The Area Plan would enable a taller hospital building to provide this flexibility in massing. Further, the hospital campus should be designed to take advantage of and be integrated with the surroundings, including the linear park and new commercial uses, to enable workers and visitors to enjoy the amenities and have easy access to eating establishments and 3-6

35 Chapter 3: Response to Comments on the Draft EIR shops. Any potential policies or edits, as the comment requests, would not alter the conclusions presented in the Draft EIR regarding impacts as long as they are complementary to the policies included in the Draft Plan. B2-4: This is a comment on the Plan, rather than the Draft EIR. See response to comments B2-1 through B2-3. C1: Planning Commission Hearing on Draft EIR (Oral Comments) C1-1: See responses to B2 comments. C1-2: This is a comment on the Plan, rather than the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR does show that overall traffic impacts will be significant and unavoidable. Table and show traffic impacts at individual intersection. On Mission Road/Grand Avenue, traffic impacts will be less than significant with improvements proposed by the Plan. On Mission Road/Oak Avenue, mitigation measures are infeasible and traffic impacts will be significant and unavoidable. The Plan does not include any specific projects or development applications. The traffic analysis is based on Plan buildout, or full development under the proposed Plan. The Plan does not specify or anticipate the exact time when development will occur, the exact locations where development will occur, or that exact size and intensity of the actual development. Therefore it is not known what development at Mission Road/Grand Avenue or Mission Road/Oak Avenue will look like until there is a specific development proposal. When there is a specific development proposal, the proposed development would be subject to further CEQA review to evaluate project-level impacts C1-3: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15105, the public review period for the Draft EIR was 45 days, beginning on February 25, 2011 and ending on April 11, Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15807, the City of South San Francisco gave public notice of the availability of the Draft EIR through direct mailing to the owners and occupants of property contiguous to and within the Planning Area, and through posting of notice at the West Orange Library, Grand Avenue Library, City Clerk s office and Planning Division Counter, as well as the City s website. For informational purposes, in response to the comment, additional comments regarding the Plan may still be submitted to the City. C1-4: See Response to Comments C1-2 and C1-3. C1-5: See Response to Comments C1-2 and C1-3. At the time the comment was received, subsequent Planning Commission and City Council meetings required for the review and approval of the Plan had not yet been scheduled. A Planning Commission meeting has since been scheduled for May 5, 2011 for the Planning Commission to review and provide a recommendation to the City Council on the Plan. Public comments on the Plan are welcome by the City before adoption of the Plan. It is not anticipated that the Plan will be adopted by May 11, C1-6: Comment noted. 3-7

36

37 4 Revisions to the Draft EIR This chapter includes the revisions to the Draft EIR. These revisions have been made in response to comments or based on review by the EIR preparers. The revisions appear here in the order they appear in the Draft EIR. Text additions are noted in underline and text deletions appear in strikeout. Revisions to the Draft EIR are described in Table 4-1 and organized by chapter, page and table or figure, where applicable. Certain pages have been appended to the end of this chapter, for clarity purposes; these pages are referenced in the table. Table 4.1: Revisions to the Draft EIR Chapter/ Section Page Table/ Figure Correction the Federal Aviation Administration, SFIA management and local government. The City of South San Francisco is a founding member of the Roundtable CLUP guidelines regarding noise are presented in Section Height Restrictions Exhibit 4D in the CLUP shows the F.A.R PART 77 airspace plan in the immediate San Francisco International Airport vicinity. The Planning Area is subject to height restrictions. The ALUC is currently preparing an update of the 1996 CLUP. As part of the update, the San Francisco International Airport has prepared a set of maps to illustrate the critical aeronautical surfaces that protect the airspace for specific types of flight procedures. The aeronautical surfaces include those established in accordance with FAA Order B, U.S. Standards for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS) and a surface required for One-Engine Inoperative (OEI) procedures for aircraft departures on Runway 28 Left (to the west.) These surfaces indicate the maximum feasible building height at which structures in the Planning Area can be considered compatible with airport/aircraft operations. Consistency with the SFO CLUP is determined when height of structures are maintained below critical airspace protection surface limits or below the height determined to be a hazard to air navigation by the FAA in an aeronautical study of the a proposed development project prepared pursuant to the filing of FAA Form , Notice of Proposed Construction or Alternation, by the project sponsor. The federal notice requirement and height determination also applies to development projects based on certain maximum height parameters specified in the relevant FAA regulations (14 CFR Part 77, Section 77.9(a) and (b)(1)). The updated plan will include the 2008 FAAaccepted Noise Exposure Maps (NEMs). It will also include an updated diagram that illustrates the configuration of the preliminary Airport Influence Area (AIA) boundary area for SFIA as well as an updated diagram of the Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77 airspace protection surfaces. 4-1

38 El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report Table 4.1: Revisions to the Draft EIR Chapter/ Section Page Table/ Figure Correction The updated plan will include the /2006 FAA-accepted Noise Exposure Maps (NEMs) ensure consistency between the three planning documents. The proposed Plan would adhere to policies set forth in the 1996 CLUP (Amended 1998) The Planning Area is not located within any runway end safety zones for San Francisco International Airport. Therefore, runway safety is not an airport land use compatibility issue for future development in the Planning Area The Planning Area is outside all safety zone and outside of the 65 CNEL noise contour. The Planning Area is not located within the 65 db CNEL aircraft noise contour or higher contour level, as shown on the most recent FAA-accepted Noise Exposure Map (NEM)(2001) for SFO nor within the 65 db CNEL aircraft noise contour as shown on the SFO 2006 NEM map (fiveyear protection.) Detailed noise analysis is contained in Section The updated plan will include the /2006 FAA-accepted Noise Exposure Maps (NEMs). Appendix A Consultant correspondence with Caltrans regarding scope of Traffic study. Caltrans letters are included for reference. A-2

39 Draft Environmental Impact Report for El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures E. Noise 3. Noise Attenuation Measures. Noise attenuation measures identified in an acoustic study shall be incorporated into the project to reduce noise impacts to satisfactory levels. 4. Maximum Acceptable Interior Noise Levels. New noise-sensitive uses (e.g. schools, hospitals, churches, and residences) shall incorporate noise attenuation measures to achieve and maintain and interior noise level of CNEL 45 db. 5. Residential Interior Noise Level Reduction. New dwellings exposed to CNEL above 65 db shall incorporate the following noise reduction design measures unless alternative designs that achieve and maintain an interior noise level of CNEL 45 db are incorporated and verified by a Board Certified Acoustical Engineer. a. All façades must be constructed with substantial weight and insulation; b. Sound-rated windows providing noise reduction performance similar to that of the façade must be included for habitable rooms; c. Sound-rated doors or storm doors providing noise reduction performance similar to that of the façade must be included for all exterior entries; d. Acoustic baffling of vents is required for chimneys, fans, and gable ends; e. Installation of a mechanical ventilation system affording comfort under closed-window conditions; and f. Double-stud construction, double doors, and heavy roofs with ceilings of two layers of gypsum board on resilient channels. F. Vibration. No vibration shall be produced that is transmitted through the ground and is discernible without the aid of instruments by a reasonable person at the lot lines of the site. Vibrations from temporary construction, demolition, and vehicles that enter and leave the subject parcel (e.g., construction equipment, trains, trucks, etc.) are exempt from this standard. The Airport/Community Roundtable The Airport/ Community Roundtable is a voluntary committee of elected representatives from 45 municipalities near SFIA, established in 1981 to address community noise impacts from aircraft operations at SFIA. The Roundtable monitors a performance-based noise mitigation program implemented by airport staff, interprets community concerns and attempts to achieve noise mitigation through a cooperative sharing of authority among the aviation industry, the Federal Aviation Administration, SFIA management and local government. The City of South San Francisco is a founding member of the Roundtable. Residential Sound Insulation Program The home insulation program at SFIA began in 1983, treating homes, churches, and schools in the County of San Mateo, Daly City, Millbrae, Pacifica, San Bruno and South San Francisco

40 Draft Environmental Impact Report for El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures The ALUC is currently preparing an update of the 1996 CLUP, expected to be complete in The updated plan will include the /2006 FAA-accepted Noise Exposure Maps (NEMs). It will also include an updated diagram that illustrates the configuration of the preliminary Airport Influence Area (AIA) boundary area for SFIA as well as an updated diagram of the Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77 airspace protection surfaces. The Planning Area is not located within any runway end safety zones for the San Francisco International Airport. CLUP guidelines regarding noise are presented in Section Height Restrictions Exhibit 4D in the CLUP shows the F.A.R PART 77 airspace plan in the immediate San Francisco International Airport vicinity. The Planning Area is subject to height restrictions. The ALUC is currently preparing an update of the 1996 CLUP. As part of the update, the San Francisco International Airport has prepared a set of maps to illustrate the critical aeronautical surfaces that protect the airspace for specific types of flight procedures. The aeronautical surfaces include those established in accordance with FAA Order B, U.S. Standards for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS) and a surface required for One-Engine Inoperative (OEI) procedures for aircraft departures on Runway 28 Left (to the west.) These surfaces indicate the maximum feasible building height at which structures in the Planning Area can be considered compatible with airport/aircraft operations. Consistency with the SFO CLUP is determined when height of structures are maintained below critical airspace protection surface limits or below the height determined to be a hazard to air navigation by the FAA in an aeronautical study of the a proposed development project prepared pursuant to the filing of FAA Form , Notice of Proposed Construction or Alternation, by the project sponsor. The federal notice requirement and height determination also applies to development projects based on certain maximum height parameters specified in the relevant FAA regulations (14 CFR Part 77, Section 77.9(a) and (b)(1)).the updated plan will include the 2008 FAA-accepted Noise Exposure Maps (NEMs). It will also include an updated diagram that illustrates the configuration of the preliminary Airport Influence Area (AIA) boundary area for SFIA as well as an updated diagram of the Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77 airspace protection surfaces. IMPACT ANALYSIS SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA Implementation of the proposed Plan would have a potentially significant adverse impact on land use and housing if the proposed Plan would: Physically divide an established community; Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, population, or jobs, necessitating the construction of replacement housing or relocation of services elsewhere; Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect

41 Draft Environmental Impact Report for El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures METHODOLOGY & ASSUMPTIONS This analysis considers current policies and goals in the City s General Plan, existing and proposed land use conditions within the Planning Area, and applicable regulations and guidelines. Because the ALUC is still currently preparing an update of the 1996 CLUP, impacts are evaluated based on the most current adopted version of the plan, which is the 1996 CLUP, with 1998 Amendments, and in consultation with the San Francisco International Airport (SFO). SUMMARY OF IMPACTS The proposed Plan does not physically divide any established community. Rather, by increasing compatibility along El Camino Real, increasing opportunities for housing, and improving linkages, the proposed Plan provides improves connections to and continuity with surrounding communities. The Planning Area primarily consists of commercial uses. The proposed will significantly increase the square footage of retail, services, and office space within the Planning Area. In addition, the proposed Plan will also significantly increase the number of housing units and removal of existing housing units as a result of the proposed Plan is not anticipated. Any housing removed as a result of the proposed Plan would be replaced through additional housing in the Planning Area. Overall, housing in the Planning Area is expected to increase from 132 units to 1,587 units. As part of adopting the proposed Plan, the General Plan will be amended and the Zoning Ordinance will be updated to ensure consistency between the three planning documents. The proposed Plan would adhere to policies set forth in the 1996 CLUP (Amended 1998). The Planning Area is not located within any runway end safety zones for San Francisco International Airport. Therefore, runway safety is not an airport land use compatibility issue for future development in the Planning Area. outside all safety zones and outside of the 65 CNEL noise contour. The Planning Area is not located within the 65 db CNEL aircraft noise contour or higher contour level, as shown on the most recent FAA-accepted Noise Exposure Map (NEM)(2001) for SFO nor within the 65 db CNEL aircraft noise contour as shown on the SFO 2006 NEM map (five-year protection.) Detailed noise analysis is contained in Section 3.5. The Planning Area is subject to height restrictions as identified in the CLUP. The ground elevation of all the parcels within the Planning Area are estimated to be at least 160 feet or more below SFO s critical airspace height limits. In addition, building heights will be required to adhere to the limits indicated in the most recently adopted CLUP. This requirement is reinforced by General Plan Policy 2-I-22, which requires that all development conforms to the most recently adopted version of the San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan. The Planning Area is not in an area subject to any habitat conservation or natural community conservation plans; thus, there will be no impact with regard to habitat conservation plans

42 Draft Environmental Impact Report for El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures General Plan Consistency with Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans Public Utilities Code requires each airport land use commission to formulate an airport land use compatibility plan. California Government Code further requires that general plans be consistent with airport land use compatibility plans. In addition, general plans and applicable specific plans must be amended to reflect amendments to the airport land use compatibility plan. The San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan is discussed below. Local Regulations California Regional Water Quality Control Board In coordination with the SWRCB, the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) adopts and implements water quality control plans that recognize the unique characteristics of each region with regard to natural water quality, actual and potential beneficial uses, and water quality problems. San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan (1996, amended 1998) The San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) develops and implements the San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan (CLUP). The current CLUP was adopted in December 1996, amended in In San Mateo County, the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG) is the designated ALUC. The CLUP establishes the procedures that C/CAG uses in reviewing proposed local agency actions that affect land use decisions in the vicinity of San Mateo County s airports. Airport planning boundaries define where height, noise, and safety standards, policies, and criteria are applied to certain proposed land use policy actions. The ALUC is currently preparing an update of the 1996 CLUP. That plan is expected to be completed in final draft form in The updated plan will include the /2006 FAAaccepted Noise Exposure Maps (NEMs). It will also include an updated diagram that illustrates the configuration of the preliminary Airport Influence Area (AIA) boundary area for SFIA as well as an updated diagram of the Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77 airspace protection surfaces. South San Francisco General Plan (1999) The South San Francisco General Plan includes a Health and Safety chapter which addresses hazards in a comprehensive manner through hazard abatement policies and measures to reduce risks to life and property in existing and new development. IMPACT ANALYSIS IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Future land uses proposed by the proposed Plan may involve the use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials. (No Impact)

43

44

45 Melinda Hue From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Melinda Hue Tuesday, October 05, :38 AM El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan EIR - Traffic Analysis DOT com-ecr NOP.pdf; el cam_chestnut overview.pdf Hi Sandra, I am writing to you in regards to the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan in the City of South San Francisco. We received DOT s response to our Notice of Preparation for the EIR and I wanted to get in touch and run a list of potential traffic study intersections and freeways by you for comments. (I have attached a copy of the DOT comment letter and a map for your reference.) Potential Study Intersections 1. El Camino Real/Hickey Boulevard 2. El Camino Real/Arroyo Drive/Oak Extension 3. El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue 4. Mission Road/Oak Avenue 5. Mission Road/Chestnut Avenue 6. Westborough Boulevard/I 280 NB On Ramp/Junipero Serra Boulevard 7. Westborough Boulevard/I 280 SB Off Ramp The following are a list of potential study intersections that are further away from the study area and I would like your opinion on whether they should be studied: El Camino Real/Sneath Lane El Camino Real/I 380 WB Off Ramp El Camino Real/I 380 EB Off Ramp Are there any other intersections that you think should be studied? Potential Study Freeway Segments 8. I 280 mainline between Hickey to Westborough 9. I 280 mainline between Westborough and Avalon 10. I 280 mainline between Avalon and I 380 (Or is this too far south of the Planning Area?) 11. I 380 mainline between US 101 and El Camino Real 12. I 380 mainline between El Camino Real and I 280 Our traffic consultant did not recommend the study of El Camino roadway segments or US 101 freeway segments. Can you please provide direction on whether those segments should be studied? Please let me know if you have any further questions or if you need more information. Thanks! Best, Melinda Melinda Hue, LEED AP Planner DYETT & BHATIA Urban and Regional Planners 1

46 755 Sansome Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA Tel: x27 Fax:

47

48

49 Appendix A: Revisions to the Draft Area Plan and Associated General Plan and Zoning Amendments This Final EIR document responded to comments on the Draft EIR and, subsequently, identified relevant changes to the Plan and Draft EIR. The table below describes changes made to the Area Plan and associated Zoning amendments. These changes were also discussed in Chapter 3: Response to Comments on the EIR. It is organized by document and only reflects substantive changes. (Typos, formatting, clarifications, and updated cross-references are not recognized in the table.) Statements in bold, are followed by actual text and/or edits. Page, table, figure, goal, and policy numbers refer to the numbers in the February 2011 Public Review (PR) Drafts. Certain pages have been appended to the end of this appendix, for clarity purposes; these pages are referenced in the table. A-1

50 El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report Draft Plan and associated Zoning Ordinance Amendment Revisions Page Table/ Figure Correction El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan 59 Revise Policy UD-12 to clarify the location of required active frontages. UD-12 Ensure that any Kaiser Hospital redevelopment is in accordance with the Area Plan, including the standards and guidelines spelled out in Chapter 5. While it is neither expected nor required that the hospital maintain an active frontage with ground floor commercial uses along El Camino Real (except as required in Figure 3-3), the building itself should be designed to be visually cohesive in appearance, with articulated building form and massing, rather than a monolithic mass. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 3 Revise Table : Land Use Regulations for El Camino Real/Chestnut Sub-Districts to clarify where Hospital uses are permitted after review and approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission. Insert map for further clarification. 7 Revised Table I: Lot, Density, and FAR Standards for El Camino Real/Chestnut Sub-Districts to clarify that the requirement for a minimum 0.3 FAR of Active Uses does not apply in the ECR/C- MXM sub-district along El Camino Real. 11 Revise Figure : Building height to revise error in legend. 30 Revise Figure 1: Existing Zoning to provide clarification regarding parcels. 31 Revise Figure 2: Proposed Zoning to provide clarification regarding changes and parcels. A-2

51 Guiding Principle 5: Develop the area with an overall character and urban design scheme that promotes livability and sustainability. ments. Place-making will be achieved through high quality building and site design UD-6 UD-7 Ensure that development incorporates green building and site design and stormwater management. UD-8 UD-9 Ensure that mid- and high-rise development is slender, and that towers are staggered to allow for sunlight and views into open spaces and from adjacent development. UD-10 Emphasize the corner of Westborough Boulevard/Chestnut Avenue and El Camino Real through building massing and design. UD-11 step-backs to ensure sunlight into open spaces and streets. UD-12 Ensure that any Kaiser Hospital redevelopment is in accordance with the Area Plan, including the standards and guidelines spelled out in Chapter 5. While it is neither expected nor required that the hospital maintain an (except as required in Figure 3-3), the building itself should be designed massing, rather than a monolithic mass. The Area Plan would enable the hospital campus should be designed to take advantage of and be integrated with the surroundings, including the linear park and new 59

52 El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan Zoning Ordinance Amendment Draft for Review and Discussion TABLE : LAND USE REGULATIONS FOR EL CAMINO REAL/CHESTNUT SUB-DISTRICTS Uses Permitted ECR/C- MXH Residential Use Classifications Single-Unit Dwelling ECR/C- MXM See sub-classification below ECR/C- RH Single-Unit Attached P(1) P P Multi-Unit Residential See sub-classifications below Multi-Unit P(1) P P Senior Citizen Residential P(1) P P Additional Regulations Elderly and Long-term Care C(1) C C See Section Group Residential Facilities Family Day Care Home See sub-classification below Small P(1) P P Residential Care Facilities See sub-classifications below Limited P(1) P P General - C C See Section Group Residential Facilities Senior - C C See Section Group Residential Facilities Public and Semi-Public Use Classifications Colleges and Trade Schools, Public or Private MUP MUP MUP Community Assembly, 2000 square feet or less Community Assembly, More Than 2000 square feet Community Garden P(2) P(2) P(2) Cultural Institutions P P - Day Care Centers P P - Government Offices P P - Hospitals and Clinics See sub-classification below P P C See Section Community Assembly Facilities MUP MUP C See Section Community Assembly Facilities Hospitals -C(3) C - See Figure Park and Recreation Facilities, Public P P P Public Safety Facilities P P - Schools, Public or Private C C - Social Service Facilities MUP MUP - See Section Social Service Facilities 3

53 El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan Zoning Ordinance Amendment Draft for Review and Discussion TABLE : LAND USE REGULATIONS FOR EL CAMINO REAL/CHESTNUT SUB-DISTRICTS Uses Permitted ECR/C- MXH Commercial Use Classifications Animal Care, Sales and Services ECR/C- MXM See sub-classifications below ECR/C- RH Additional Regulations Pet Stores P P - See Section Animal Care, Sales, and Services Veterinary Services P P - See Section Animal Care, Sales, and Services Artists Studios P P - Banks and Financial See sub-classification below Institutions Banks and Credit Unions P(34) P - Business Services P(34) P - Commercial Entertainment and Recreation Eating and Drinking Establishments MUP C(45) - See sub-classifications below Bars/Night Clubs/Lounges C - - Coffee Shops/Cafes P P C See Section Outdoor Seating Restaurants, Full Service P - - See Section Outdoor Seating Restaurants, Limited Service Food and Beverage Retail Sales P C(45) - See Section Outdoor Seating P P - Convenience Market P P - See Section Convenience Market Live-Work Units P(1) P - See Section Live- Work Units Lodging See sub-classification below Hotels and Motels C C C Maintenance and Repair Services Offices P MUP - See sub-classifications below Business and Professional P(34) P - Medical and Dental P(34) P - Walk-In Clientele P P - 4

54 El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan Zoning Ordinance Amendment Draft for Review and Discussion TABLE : LAND USE REGULATIONS FOR EL CAMINO REAL/CHESTNUT SUB-DISTRICTS Uses Permitted ECR/C- MXH ECR/C- MXM ECR/C- RH Parking, Public or Private P(56) P(56) - Personal Services See sub-classifications below Additional Regulations General Personal Services P P - See Section Personal Services Retail Sales See sub-classifications below General Sales P P - Employment Uses Recycling Facilities See sub-classification below Collection Facility C(67) C(67) - See Section Recycling Facilities Research and Development P P - Transportation, Communication, and Utilities Use Classifications Communication Facilities See sub-classifications below Antennae and Transmission Towers MUP(78) MUP(78) MUP(78) See Chapter Antennas and Wireless Communications Facilities Facilities within Buildings MUP MUP MUP Utilities, Major C C - Utilities, Minor P P P Other Applicable Use Regulations Accessory Uses See Section Accessory Buildings and Structures Home Occupations P P P See Section Home Occupations Nonconforming Use Temporary Use See Chapter Nonconforming Uses, Structures, and Lots See Chapter Temporary Uses Limitations: 1. Not permitted on the ground floor along El Camino Real, Chestnut Avenue, Oak Avenue, or BART Right-of- Way south of Oak Avenue. 2. Subject to site evaluation based on prior use. 3. Allowed only on the northeast corner of El Camino Real and Arroyo Drive/Oak Avenue Extension. See Figure Customer service offices are permitted on the ground level, and other offices are permitted on the second floor or when conducted as an accessory use with a permitted use on the site, occupying no more than 25 percent of the floor area. Additional office space may be allowed with a Use Permit, upon finding that such use will not conflict with adjacent street level retail uses. 45. Not permitted along Mission Road. 56. Must be structured. 67. Large Collection Facilities are not permitted. 78. Only building mounted or completely enclosed within a building. Not permitted on the ground floor. 5

55 El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan Zoning Ordinance Amendment Draft for Review and Discussion FIGURE HOSPITAL USES Development Standards Tables to prescribe the development standards for the El Camino Real/Chestnut sub-districts. Additional regulations are denoted in the right hand column. Section numbers in this column refer to other sections of this Ordinance, while individual letters refer to subsections that follow the tables, under Additional Development Standards. The numbers in Figure below refer to corresponding regulations in the # column in the associated table. 6

56 El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan Zoning Ordinance Amendment Draft for Review and Discussion TABLE : LOT, DENSITY, AND FAR STANDARDS FOR EL CAMINO REAL/CHESTNUT SUB-DISTRICTS Standard ECR/C- MXH ECR/C- MXM ECR/C- RH Minimum Lot Size (sq ft) 20,000 20,000 20,000 Minimum Lot Width (ft) Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Minimum Floor Area Ratio 0.6 exclusive of areas devoted to parking, of which a minimum 0.3 FAR shall be Active uses n/a Additional Regulations # The requirement for a minimum 0.3 FAR of Active uses does not apply to projects where 30% of the units are restricted and affordable to low-or lowmoderate income households or in the ECR/C-MXM sub-district along El Camino Real. Maximum Floor Area n/a Exclusive of structured parking. Ratio Maximum Floor Area 3.0(A) 2.5(A) n/a Exclusive of structured parking. Ratio with Incentive Program Residential Density (units per acre; included within the FAR above) Minimum Density n/a n/a 80 Maximum Density See Chapter , Bonus Residential Density Maximum Density with Incentive Program See (A) and See Chapter , Bonus Residential Density 7

57 El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan Zoning Ordinance Amendment Draft for Review and Discussion FIGURE : BUILDING HEIGHT 11